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 .
Priority
This application is a CON of PCT/CN2021/123411 (filed 10/13/21), which application claims priority to CN 202011156854.0 (filed 10/26/20).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Amendment(s)
The Preliminary Amendment filed 11/07/25 is entered.
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Drawings
The Drawings filed 04/26/23 are approved by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-5) in the Reply filed 11/07/25 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS statement filed 04/28/23 has been considered. An initialed copy accompanies this action.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892 or by applicant on form PTO-1449, they have not been considered.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Construction
As no special definition occurs in the instant specification, the examiner construes the claim terminology “aerogel” to require it’s normal meaning in the art (i.e. a low density, porous, solid framework material). Likewise, the examiner construes the claim terminology “nickel rich” to require a stoichiometry wherein Ni is present in a greater amount than Co, Mn, or the dopant element.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 108899539A in view of Du et al (Solid State Ionics 2015), in further view of Park et al (Adv Mater 2005).
CN ‘539 discloses a high-nickel ternary lithium-ion positive electrode material and a preparation method therefor, and discloses a chemical formula of the material being Li(Ni0.8Co0.1Mn0.1)1-xNbxO2, wherein 0 < x s 2% (Summary page 2 of English language translation); and the preparation method therefor comprising: weighing a nickel source, a cobalt source, a manganese source and a niobium source at a ratio, mixing same with an urea, then adding deionized water, and performing a hydrothermal reaction; and grinding same into a powder, blending an equal molar amount of a lithium source thereinto, mixing and grinding same until uniform, sintering the mixed powder in oxygen, naturally cooling same to room temperature, and grinding the powder to obtain the positive electrode material, wherein during the sintering, the temperature is raised to 500-550°C and maintained for 5.5-6.5 h, and then raised to 750-850°C and maintained for 14-16 h (pages 3-5 of English language translation), and the lithium source may be one of LiOH•H20 or LiCO3 (dependent claim 10). These materials are assembled into a button cell. At 0.2 C and 2.8-4.6 V, the first-cycle discharge capacities of a pure-phase ternary positive electrode material in embodiment 1 and a doped material in embodiment 2 are 191.8 and 201.5 mAh.
CN ‘539 above differs from the instant claims in failing to specify the addition of oxidant (sodium persulfate/peroxide or ammonium persulfate) during claimed step (1), nor does the reference teach aerogel formation (via acrylic acid and nitric acid) as required instant step (2).
However, Du et al (Solid State Ionics 2015) discloses the preparation of an LiNi05Co02Mn03-xZrxO2 powder by using a thermal polymerization method, comprising: dissolving nitrates of Li, Ni, Co and Zr and manganese acetate in deionized water,
wherein Zr(NO3)4•5H2O is prone to hydrolysis in an aqueous solution, so before same is dissolved in the solution, a proper amount of nitric acid is added to prevent the hydrolysis thereof; adding acrylic acid (CH2=CHCOOH), in the form of a monomer, to the mixture solution as a complexing agent; heating the solution at 180°C for 12 h to form xerogels; and calcining same in air at 500°C for 6 h, and calcining same in oxygen at 900°C for 12 h (sections 2.1 and 2.2).
The examiner submits that the skilled artisan would have found obvious the use of acrylic acid/nitric acid as required in instant step (2) as Du teaches that such can increase the valence of metal ions and inhibit hydrolysis. Additionally, the examiner respectfully submits that the addition of oxidants in order to control reaction condition is well know in the art. Park et al (Adv Mater 2005) is cited as evidence that the use of (NH4)2S2O8 is a known oxidant additive for reaction involving LiMnNiO precursors (see Experimental page 2836). With respect to instant dependent claim 3, the examiner submits that the selection of particular known species of dopant precursor (e.g. nitrate, etc) would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan.
In view of the foregoing, the above claims have failed to patentably distinguish over the applied art.
The remaining references listed on forms 892 and 1449 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK T KOPEC whose telephone number is (571)272-1319. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00a-5:00p 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, Robert Jones can be reached at 5712707733. 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.
/MARK KOPEC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
MK
November 23, 2025