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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2 December 2022 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Office.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10 January 2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Office.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 16 July 2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Office.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 18 April 2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Office.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gowda et al. (US 2020/0136142, hereinafter referred to as “Gowda”).
As to Claim 1: Gowda teaches an active material for an electrode and its method of manufacture (Abstract). Gowda further teaches that he active material includes a lithium nickel copper complex oxide represented by the molecular formula Li2NixCu1-xO2 (Abstract).
Gowda does not expressly teach the XRD pattern having a diffraction peak ratio of I1/I2<0.1%. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by Gowda. However, Gowda teaches a product prepared with all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. According to the original specification, the diffraction peak ratio is dependent upon the composition as well as the method of making the composition as shown in the examples/comparative examples. Gowda teaches a method which meets the same reaction conditions used in the examples and further recited in claim 10. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the XRD pattern having a diffraction peak ratio of I1/I2<0.1%, would naturally flow from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts prepared by a similar process. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process.
As to Claim 2: Gowda teaches the composition of claim 1 (supra).
Gowda does not expressly teach the percentage of free lithium is ≤ 5wt%. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by Gowda. However, Gowda teaches a product prepared with all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. According to the original specification, the properties are dependent upon the composition as well as the method of making the composition as shown in the examples/comparative examples. Gowda teaches a method which meets the same reaction conditions used in the examples and further recited in claim 10. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the percentage of free lithium is ≤ 5wt%, would naturally flow from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts prepared by a similar process. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process.
As to Claim 3: Gowda teaches the composition of claim 2 (supra).
Gowda does not expressly teach the free lithium comprises Li2CO3 and LiOH. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by Gowda. However, Gowda teaches a product prepared with all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. According to the original specification, the properties are dependent upon the composition as well as the method of making the composition as shown in the examples/comparative examples. Gowda teaches a method which meets the same reaction conditions used in the examples and further recited in claim 10. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the free lithium comprises Li2CO3 and LiOH, would naturally flow from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts prepared by a similar process. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process.
As to Claim 4: Gowda teaches the composition of claim 1 (supra).
Gowda does not expressly teach the pH of the lithium supplement is 11 ≤ pHL ≤13. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by Gowda. However, Gowda teaches a product prepared with all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. According to the original specification, the properties are dependent upon the composition as well as the method of making the composition as shown in the examples/comparative examples. Gowda teaches a method which meets the same reaction conditions used in the examples and further recited in claim 10. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the pH of the lithium supplement is 11 ≤ pHL ≤13, would naturally flow from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts prepared by a similar process. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process.
As to Claim 5: Gowda teaches the composition of claim 1 (supra).
Gowda does not expressly teach the water concentration of the lithium supplement is less than 800 ppm. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by Gowda. However, Gowda teaches a product prepared with all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. According to the original specification, the properties are dependent upon the composition as well as the method of making the composition as shown in the examples/comparative examples. Gowda teaches a method which meets the same reaction conditions used in the examples and further recited in claim 10. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the water concentration of the lithium supplement is less than 800 ppm, would naturally flow from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts prepared by a similar process. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process.
As to Claim 7: Gowda teaches the composition of claim 1 (supra). Gowda further teaches an example with the composition Li2Ni0.3Cu0.7O2 [0051] which has an a value of 0.3.
As to Claim 8: Gowda teaches the composition of claim 1 (supra). Gowda further teaches an example with the composition Li2Ni0.3Cu0.7O2 [0051].
As to Claim 9: Gowda teaches the composition of claim 1 (supra). Gowda further teaches that the composition can be coated with alumina with the structure Al2O3 [0053].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gowda et al. (US 2020/0136142, hereinafter referred to as “Gowda”).
As to Claim 10: Gowda teaches an active material for an electrode and its method of manufacture (Abstract). Gowda further teaches that he active material includes a lithium nickel copper complex oxide represented by the molecular formula Li2NixCu1-xO2 (Abstract). Gowda teaches that the active material is formed by weighing the precursor materials, mixing them, and milling them [0041] once the composition has been milled it can be sintered [0047].
Gowda does not expressly teach the XRD pattern having a diffraction peak ratio of I1/I2<0.1%. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by Gowda. However, Gowda teaches a product prepared with all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. According to the original specification, the diffraction peak ratio is dependent upon the composition as well as the method of making the composition as shown in the examples/comparative examples. Gowda teaches a method which meets the same reaction conditions used in the examples and further recited in claim 10. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the XRD pattern having a diffraction peak ratio of I1/I2<0.1%, would naturally flow from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts prepared by a similar process. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gowda et al. (US 2020/0136142, hereinafter referred to as “Gowda”).
As to Claim 11, 14, and 15: Gowda teaches an active material for an electrode and its method of manufacture (Abstract). Gowda further teaches that he active material includes a lithium nickel copper complex oxide represented by the molecular formula Li2NixCu1-xO2 (Abstract). Gowda further teaches the lithium nickel copper oxide can be included in a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery [0058-0060] in an amount of 2% by mass (Table 1) which can also be a battery module and a battery pack.
Gowda does not expressly teach the XRD pattern having a diffraction peak ratio of I1/I2<0.1%. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by Gowda. However, Gowda teaches a product prepared with all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. According to the original specification, the diffraction peak ratio is dependent upon the composition as well as the method of making the composition as shown in the examples/comparative examples. Gowda teaches a method which meets the same reaction conditions used in the examples and further recited in claim 10. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the XRD pattern having a diffraction peak ratio of I1/I2<0.1%, would naturally flow from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts prepared by a similar process. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process.
As to Claim 12: Gowda teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 11 (supra). Gowda further teaches that the positive electrode active substance is a lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (i.e., LiNiaCobAl1-a-bO2) wherein a and b are defined as 0 < a < 1 and 0 < b < 1 [0058].
As to Claim 13: Gowda teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 12 (supra).
Gowda does not expressly teach the pH of the lithium supplement (pHL) and the electrode active substance (pHc) have a ratio of pHc ≤ pHL. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by Gowda. However, Gowda teaches a product prepared with all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. According to the original specification, the properties are dependent upon the composition as well as the method of making the composition as shown in the examples/comparative examples. Gowda teaches a method which meets the same reaction conditions used in the examples and further recited in claim 10. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the pH of the lithium supplement (pHL) and the electrode active substance (pHc) have a ratio of pHc ≤ pHL, would naturally flow from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts prepared by a similar process. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gowda et al. (US 2020/0136142, hereinafter referred to as “Gowda”).
As to Claim 6: Gowda teaches the composition of claim 1 (see above).
Gowda does not teach an example wherein the median particle size is 2-10 microns.
However, Gowda teaches that the milling is performed to reduce the particle size and it can be preformed to any desired particle size [0049] in order to optimize the density of the cathode [0065]. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use routine experimentation in order to optimize the density of the cathode and use particle sizes such as from 2-9 microns from the teachings of Gowda [0049. 0065].
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J OYER whose telephone number is (571)270-0347. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at (571)272-1197. 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.
/Andrew J. Oyer/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767