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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6 and 9-23 are currently pending
Claims 1 and 10 are amended
Claims 7-8 have been cancelled
Claims 16-23 have been previously withdrawn
Status of Amendments
The amendment filed 2 March 2026 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
This action has been made final.
Status of Objections and Rejections of the Office Action from 1 December 2025
The 103 rejections over Mitate in view of Lho and over Mitate in view of Lho further in view of Huang are maintained in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitate et al. (US 5985488 A), hereinafter Mitate, in view of Lho et al. (US 20200176754 A1), hereinafter Lho.
Regarding claim 1, Mitate teaches a method for producing a positive electrode active material for non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries, as required by claim 1 (col. 1, lines 7-9), containing at least lithium and nickel(col. 1, lines 10-11), the method comprising at least, in this order:
a step (1) of mixing a precursor compound containing at least nickel with a lithium compound in a non-solvent system to prepare a mixture (col. 3, lines 42-53);
a step (2) of subjecting the mixture to preliminary calcination at 300°C to 700°C, which overlaps with the claimed 450°C to 700°C (col. 12, lines 10-19). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Mitate further teaches a step (3) of subjecting the mixture after the preliminary calcination to main calcination under an oxygen atmosphere (col. 12, lines 46-51).
Mitate is silent as to the preliminary calcination taking place under a non-oxygen atmosphere. However, Lho teaches a method for preparing a positive electrode lithium nickel oxide comprising a mixture of lithium raw material and nickel raw material undergoing two heat treatment phases [0020-0021] wherein the first heat treating may be performed at 300°C to 500°C [0025] under an atmosphere of an inert gas such as nitrogen [0031]. Further, although Lho does not specify the oxygen concentration of the atmosphere, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that oxygen is very reactive. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the oxygen concentration of an inert nitrogen atmosphere to be 1 vol% or less.
Mitate and Lho are both considered to be equivalent to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lithium nickel oxide positive electrode material preparation methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitate to include the inert nitrogen atmosphere of Lho during the preliminary calcination. Doing so would have suppressed side reactions [Lho 0031] and reduced the amount of Li-based by-products, thereby drastically reducing the amount of gas generated when an electrode is operated [Lho 0007].
Regarding claims 2-4, modified Mitate teaches the method according to claim 1. Mitate further teaches the positive electrode active material having a composition, as required by claim 2, represented by LiaNibM1-bO2, in this case LiNi1-xMxO2, (col. 7, lines 13-16), in which M contains at least one of Co and Al, as also required by claim 4 (col. 7, lines 17-20), a is 0.95≤a≤1.15, in this case a=1, and b is 0.82≤b≤0.98, as also required by claim 3, in this case x is 0≤x≤0.5 which is equivalent to 0.5≤b≤1 (col. 7, line 15). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 5, modified Mitate teaches the method according to claim 1. Mitate further teaches lithium hydroxide being used as the lithium compound (col. 6, lines 19-21)
Regarding claim 6, modified Mitate teaches the method according to claim 1. Mitate further teaches at least one of a compound of an element other than lithium, nickel, and oxygen and an additive compound containing an element which is not substituted in the precursor compound being further mixed to the precursor compound and the lithium compound, in this case an organic acid (col. 3, lines 64-67) or a third component compound (col. 7, lines 9-13).
Regarding claims 9, modified Mitate teaches the method according to claim 1. Mitate further teaches the oxygen atmosphere being an atmosphere with an oxygen concentration of 50 vol% to 100 vol% (col. 12, lines 46-53). This overlaps with the claimed 80 vol% or more. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 10, modified Mitate teaches the method according to claim 1. Mitate further teaches a temperature of the main calcination being 700°C to 950°C (col. 12, lines 46-49). This overlaps with the claimed 700°C to 880°C. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitate in view of Lho, as applied above, further in view of Huang et al. (US 20200099047 A1), hereinafter Huang.
Modified Mitate teaches the method according to claim 1. Modified Mitate is silent as to a temperature at a time of the main calcination being lowered to cool the positive electrode active material to a desired temperature after performing the main calcination. However, Huang teaches a method for preparing a lithium nickel oxide composite material comprising a mixture of a lithium source and a nickel source undergoing three calcination steps where the third calcination is carried out at 150-350°C [0013] under a nitrogen atmosphere [0015]. The temperature is lower than that of the main calcination, as required by claim 11, and although Huang does not specify an oxygen concentration for the nitrogen atmosphere, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the same nitrogen atmosphere used in the preliminary calcination, as taught by Lho, could be reused for the third calcination taught by Huang. Therefore, the nitrogen atmosphere, as required by claim 15, would be expected to have an oxygen concentration that is lower than an air atmosphere, as required by claim 12, 5 vol% or less, as required by claim 13, and 1 vol% or less, as required by claims 14 and 15.
Mitate and Huang are both considered to be equivalent to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lithium nickel oxide positive electrode active material preparation methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitate with the third calcination of Huang. Doing so would have helped prevent the absorption of water and improved the suitability of the material for large scale applications [0005].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the benefits of improved reaction efficiency and side reaction suppression are tied to the first heat treating step including a temperature rising step and a maintaining step. Applicant further argues that combining Mitate and Lho because they are in the same field of invention is not sufficient to establish motivation. Examiner agrees that the improved reaction efficiency is likely tied to the first heat treating step including a temperature rising step and a maintaining step and that analogousness is not sufficient to establish motivation. However, Examiner respectfully points out that Lho teaches that “the first heat treating… may be performed under an atmosphere of an inert gas such as nitrogen, helium, or argon to suppress side reaction” [0031] which clearly indicates the atmosphere is causing the side reaction suppression. Therefore, there is motivation to combine Mitate and Lho, in addition to them being analogous, because Mitate uses the same components as Lho and would produce the same undesirable by-products that the inert atmosphere is expected to correct.
Applicant argues that Lho produces positive electrode additives, whereas Mitate produces positive electrode active materials, with no taught equivalence. Applicant concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have sought inspiration for an active material in a document teaching a method for preparation of an additive. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Mitate and Lho both teach a method for producing an electrode material comprising a Li raw material, a Ni raw material, and a third raw material of M, such as Co or Al, that are mixed and preliminarily calcined at a temperature that overlaps with the claimed 450°C to 700°C followed by a main calcination at a temperature that overlaps with the claimed 700°C to 880°C. Although Lho teaches this method as being used to produce an electrode additive, one of ordinary skill in the art using the same materials and calcining temperatures to produce an active material would recognize the value that the teachings of Lho could provide. Further Lho calling the final product an additive is a form of intended use that does not result in a structural difference between the product of Lho and the product of Mitate that was made with the same materials and the same method.
Applicant argues that Mitate wants to inhibit the generation of nitrogen oxides and an oxygen-poor atmosphere would thwart that aim. Examiner respectfully points out that the generation of nitrogen oxides in Mitate is only a concern when using nitrate raw materials, which the present rejection is not reliant on, and the suppression of the generation of nitrogen oxides is accomplished through the inclusion of an organic acid, with no other relationship taught between the atmosphere and the nitrogen oxide generation (Mitate col. 10, lines 27-31).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN KENWOOD VAN KIRK whose telephone number is (703)756-4717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/DUSTIN VAN KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722