DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on February 3rd 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-14 remain pending in the application. The amendment to Claim 11 overcomes the previous 112(b) rejection, therefore that rejection is withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments to the previous rejections of the claims were fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejections of the claims are withdrawn due to the Applicant’s arguments. However, upon further consideration, a new rejection is made in view of Kalo US 2019/0062224 A1. New rejections follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, & 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Suzuki US 2022/0109139 A1 in further view of Kalo US 2019/0062224 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Suzuki discloses a lithium metal oxide composition containing lithium, nickel, and at least one additional element [0028], and additionally that the lithium metal oxide composite is layered [0041]. Suzuki discloses that the at least one additional element is cobalt as well as aluminum [0047]. Suzuki discloses that the molar ratio of nickel to the sum of nickel, cobalt, and aluminum is 88:(9+3+88 = 100) = 0.88 (Examples 9-24) [Table 1], which falls within the claimed range. In regards to the molar ratio, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2131.03 I. In the case where the prior art “discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim”. UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Accordingly, the ratio disclosed in Suzuki anticipates the claimed range set forth in Claim 1. See MPEP 2131.03 I. reads on the claim.
Suzuki is silent as to the lithium metal composite oxide having a diffraction peak within the range of a diffraction angle 2Θ=18.7±1°, and a relative standard deviation of crystallite size distribution of 0.20-0.55.
Suzuki discloses in the examples that the lithium metal composite oxide mixture was first heated in a rotary kiln, then heated at a temperature of 745°C for 2 hours (described method of making Example 1 and all subsequent examples [0197-0199]). In Examples 9-24, as shown in Table 1, Suzuki discloses that the molar ratio of Ni:Co:Al was 88:9:3 [Table 1]. Suzuki discloses that the calcination/firing step of the material (heating at 745°C for 2 hours) takes place in a furnace however is open as to the specific type of furnace used [0113].
Kalo discloses a construction for a rotary kiln (rotary tube furnace) for the thermal treatment of materials [Abstract], more specifically for the thermal treatment of lithium transition metal oxide materials used in electrodes for lithium batteries [0015], like lithium transition metal oxides containing Ni-Co-Al [0088], similar to that of Suzuki’s material mentioned above. Kalo discloses that rotary kilns produce materials that have a high purity and a high homogeneity [0021] as required by these lithium transition metal oxide materials [0015], and more specifically discloses that a rotary kiln is particularly capable of producing material with a limited fluctuation in crystallite size (<20%) [0021].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to use a rotary kiln as the furnace type as suggested by Kalo in the method of Suzuki in making a lithium transition metal oxide, for the benefit of producing a material high in purity and high in homogeneity with a limited fluctuation in crystallite size of <20%.
Thus, modified Suzuki discloses a method that the lithium metal composite oxide mixture was first heated in a rotary kiln, then heated at a temperature of 745°C for 2 hours in a rotary kiln, as modified by Kalo, and further that the molar ratio of Ni:Co:Al was 88:9:3 [Table 1].
In the instant specification, the lithium metal composite oxide mixture is described as being first heated in a rotary kiln, then heated at temperatures of 720°C, 760°C, and 790°C for 2 hours (Table 1 shows different temperature conditions of the different samples). Also shown in Table 1 of the instant specification, Examples 2 & 3 have a molar ratio of Ni:Co:Al of 88:9:3. The instant specification also states, in Table 1, that Examples 2 & 3 have a relative standard deviation of crystallite size distribution of 0.31 and 0.44, respectively. Additionally, the instant specification states that the Examples 2 & 3 had a diffraction peak within the range of a diffraction angle 2Θ=18.7±1° [0252].
Modified Suzuki discloses the same composition for a lithium metal composite oxide, processed in the same way, as the instant specification. Suzuki discloses that the temperature is 745°C, which falls between the temperatures used for Examples 2 & 3 of the instant specification. It would be reasonable to expect that the reported value for the relative standard deviation of crystallite size distribution would thus be similar to those reported for Examples 2 & 3 of the instant specification, as well as have a diffraction peak within the range of a diffraction angle 2Θ=18.7±1°.
Therefore, modified Suzuki teaches a lithium metal composite oxide with the same composition and formation as recited in the instant specification, and therefore the properties of the material produced by the method of modified Suzuki would naturally follow the properties of the claimed material, namely allowing for “a diffraction peak within the range of a diffraction angle 2Θ=18.7±1°, and a relative standard deviation of crystallite size distribution of 0.2-0.5”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding Claim 2, similar to Claim 1, modified Suzuki discloses a lithium metal composite oxide with the same composition and formation as recited in the instant specification, and therefore it will display the recited properties of Claim 2. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding Claims 3 & 9, Suzuki discloses for Examples 9-24 that the molar ratio of Ni:Co:Al is 88:9:3, and the molar ratio of Li to the sum of Ni, Co, & Al (“Me”) is 1.02 [Table 1]. This meets the limitations of Claim 3 as follows:
Ni = 0.88, Co = 0.09, Al = 0.03
“Me” = 1.0
Li = 1.02
Formula from Claim 3: Li[Lix(Ni(1-y-z)CoyMz)1-x]O2
Li = 1.02 = 1 + x --- x = 0.2
Co = 0.09 = y*(1-x) --- y = 0.092
M (which in this case in Al) = 0.03 = z*(1-x) --- z = 0.031
Ni = 0.88 = (1-y-z)*(1-x) --- (1-y-z) = 0.89
Thus, Suzuki discloses a formula for the lithium metal composite oxide that meets the limitations set forth in Claim 3.
Regarding Claims 6 & 12, Suzuki discloses that the lithium metal composite oxide is pressed into a molded body [0093] and the density of the molded body is 1.3 g/cm3 to 2.0 g/cm3 [0099], which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding Claims 7, 8, 13, & 14, Suzuki discloses that the lithium metal composite oxide is used for a positive electrode in a lithium secondary battery [0155].
Claims 4-5 & 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki and Kalo as applied to claims 1 & 2 above, and further in view of Kurita et al. US 2017/0187031 A1.
Regarding Claims 4 & 10, moified Suzuki is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claims 1 & 2. Suzuki discloses broadly that the particle size of the lithium metal composite oxide is 1-50 µm [0064], which encompasses the claimed range, however fails to more specifically disclose the 50% cumulative volume particle size D50, obtained from a volume-based cumulative particle size distribution curve measured by a laser diffraction scattering method.
Kurita discloses a layered lithium metal composite oxide for a positive electrode wherein the 50% cumulative particle size is 1-10 µm [0007]. Kurita discloses that the “50% cumulative particle size” is volume based and obtained from a laser diffraction scattering method [0042].
Kurita discloses that a particle size in this range provides improved electrode density [0041].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to use the suggested particle size of Kurita in the lithium metal composite oxide of Suzuki to provide a positive electrode with improved electrode density.
Regarding Claims 5 & 11, similar to Claims 4 & 10 above, modified Suzuki is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claims 1 & 2 however is silent as to the ratio of D90 to D10 as defined in the claims.
Kurita discloses a lithium metal composite oxide for a positive electrode wherein the ratio of the volume based 90% cumulative particle size D90 to the volume based 10% cumulative particle size D10 ranges from 2 to 6 [0007], and more specifically from 2.4 to 5.5 [0046]. Kurita discloses that D90 and D10 are obtained from a volume-based particle size distribution curve [0044-0045].
Kurita discloses that having a ratio in this range provides a positive electrode with improved electrode density and improved discharge capacity at a higher discharge rate [0046].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to use the suggested ratio of D90 to D10 of Kurita in the lithium metal composite oxide of Suzuki to provide a positive electrode with improved electrode density and improved discharge capacity at a higher discharge rate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA E GOULD whose telephone number is (571)270-1088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 22 May 2026
Prosecution Insights