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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/10/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 & 18 are amended. Claims 2, 4-6 & 19 are canceled. Claims 1, 3, 7-18 & 20 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7-18 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2023/0198040 A1) in view of Hayashi (US 2022/0384804 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 7-11 & 18, Wang teaches a method of producing a doped cathode material precursor from a recycled lithium-ion battery stream comprising: leaching a black mass from the recycled lithium-ion battery stream to obtain a leach solution including a ratio of metallic elements consisting of Ni, Co and Mn; adjusting the ratio of the metallic elements to a selected ratio with additional metal salts; adding one or more dopants salts such as a salt of aluminum or magnesium to the leach solution and co-precipitating the metallic elements and dopant salts from the leach solution to form the doped cathode material precursor having the selected ratio of metallic elements, wherein the doped cathode material precursor can comprise greater than 60% nickel, less than 60% nickel or from 10% nickel to 50% nickel ([0034]-[0042], [0079] & [0091]-[0092]). Wang is silent as to the dopant salt being a salt comprising a dopant metal selected from the group consisting of Ca, Fe, Cu, Cr and Zn. Hayashi teaches a NCM type doped cathode material precursor comprising a dopant metal including one or more of Al, Ca, and Cr, wherein the content of the dopant metal is preferably 0.001 moles to 0.03 moles based on 1 mole of total transition metals (i.e Ni + Co + Mn + dopant metal) ([0041]-[0048] & [0103]) or equivalently corresponding to a dopant metal content of 1,000 ppm to 30,000 ppm which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5 ppm to 5,000 ppm. For the hydroxides of NCM811, NCM532 and NCM111 (as described in [0079] of Wang), the corresponding content of Ca is calculated to be about 440 ppm to 12,800 ppm (i.e for a Ca molar content of 0.001 moles to 0.03 moles with respect to the total molar content of transition metals) with the corresponding content of Cr calculated to be about 560 ppm to 16,500 ppm (i.e for a Cr molar content of 0.001 moles to 0.03 moles with respect to the total molar content of transition metals). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to dope at least one of Ca and Cr in the above-described amounts in Wang’s cathode material precursor in view of preventing a decrease in capacity as taught by Hayashi ([0048]).
Regarding claims 12-15, Wang as modified by Hayashi teaches the method of claim 1 but is silent as to the doped cathode material having fewer cracks than a comparative cathode material precursor prepared without the addition of the dopant salt to the leach solution prior to co-precipitation (claim 12) and wherein less than 10%, or less than 5% or less than 1% of the doped cathode material precursor has cracks (respective claims 13, 14 and 15). However, Wang teaches substantially the same method and the same doped cathode material precursor composition. Accordingly, the presently claimed limitations in claims 12-15 would be expected to be present in Wang’s invention. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claims 16-17, Wang as modified by Hayashi teaches the method of claim 1 but is silent as to the doped cathode material having a BET value that is lower than a BET value of a comparative cathode material precursor without addition of the dopant salt to the leach solution prior to co-precipitation (claim 16) and wherein the BET value of the doped cathode material precursor is 2-3 times lower than the BET value of the comparative cathode material precursor (claim 17). However, Wang teaches substantially the same method and the same doped cathode material precursor composition. Accordingly, the presently claimed limitations in claims 16-17 would be expected to be present in Wang’s invention. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 7-18 & 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. As instantly claimed, the subject matter of claims 1, 3, 7-18 & 20 is found to be obvious over the combined teachings of Wang and Hayashi as noted in the above updated rejection of claim 1 above. Thus, in view of foregoing, claims 1, 3, 7-18 & 20 stand rejected.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL T ZEMUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, BARBARA GILLIAM can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/NATHANAEL T ZEMUI/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights