TERNARY PRECURSOR MATERIAL, AND PREPARATION METHOD AND APPLICATION THEREOF
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
In response to communication filed on 1/23/2026:
Claims 1, 6, and 12 have been amended; no new matter has been entered.
Previous claim objection has been withdrawn due to amendment.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 112(a) have been withdrawn due to amendment.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been partially withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant discloses: “Furthermore, regarding the rejection under 35.U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, Applicant respectfully submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would know the definition of "deformation stacking fault probability," which is a quantitative measure of the likelihood of finding a stacking fault between any two atomic layers in a crystal lattice due to plastic deformation, and it can be measured by analyzing broadening in x-ray diffraction patterns such as using the formula fD=8.89645×B(101)×π/180−1.85325×B(102)×π/180−43.9925/D(001) which is amended into amended claim 1.”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. The specification does not disclose this information Applicant uses to define deformation stacking fault probably. There is no mention of “plastic deformation” in the specifications. One of ordinary skill in the art of battery science would not know the definition of “deformation stacking fault probably” as this is not an electrochemical term.
Further, the Applicant has now amended claim 1 with formula for deformation stacking fault probability fD. As disclosed in the previous rejection, there is no disclosure for how this equation is derived. The specification does not disclose “peak broadening” but is this perhaps disclosed in the terms B101 and B102? Further, there is no x-ray diffraction spectrum shown which displays what the Applicant defines as “peak broadening”.
In addition, this does not describe what the actual phenomenon of “deformation stacking fault” and how minimizing it yields improved battery performance. Further, how is the expression derived? Additionally, the term “a grain size of the (001) diffraction” is unclear to an extent that it cannot be verified by a person skill in the art. The definition also does not provide units or any indication of the used wavelength of the X-rays.
The Applicant discloses: “Applicant respectfully submits that Xu does not necessarily or inherently disclose, teach, or suggest that a deformation stacking fault probability fD of the ternary precursor material is ≤4%, as recited in amended claim 1 of the present application. Specifically, as shown in Comparative Examples 1-8 in Table 1 of the present application, the deformation stacking fault probability fD may be affected by the parameters in S2 process such as concentration of ammonium hydroxide (Comparative Examples 1 and 2), pH value (Comparative Examples 3 and 4), Reaction temperature (Comparative Examples 5 and 6), and Stirring speed (Comparative Examples 7 and 8). Thus, Xu does not necessarily or inherently satisfy all the parameters in S2 process as discussed above. For example, in paragraph [0010] of Xu, the concentration of ammonium hydroxide is 9.5-11g/L, but the pH is 11 to 12, which is outside the pH range of 9.5 to 10.5 of the present application (claim 13).”
The Examiner respectfully traverses. Xu et al. was relied on by the Examiner to address the concentration of ammonium hydroxide when synthesizing nickel cobalt manganese ternary precursor materials. As disclosed in the rejection of claim 13, Ou already teaches a pH range of 10.5-11.2 which overlaps with Xu’s pH of 11-12. MPEP 2144.05 discloses a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “(101) diffraction peak, “(102) diffraction peak”, and “(001) diffraction peak” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 12 disclose a “deformation stacking fault probability fD” of the ternary precursor material.
However, the specification does not disclose a definition for what this term is or how it occurs. Is this a crystal lattice distortion? Paragraphs 0043 and 0159 disclose fD is determined from X-ray diffraction patterns (which are not shown) and relevant parameters of (001), (101), and (102) diffraction peaks, obtained by fitting the X-ray diffraction pattern, were taken into the following expression:
fD=8.89645×B(101)×π/180−1.85325×B(102)×π/180−43.9925/D(001)
where B(101) was a peak width at half height of the (101) diffraction peak of a precursor, B(102) was a peak width at half height of the (102) diffraction peak of the precursor, and D(001) was a grain size of the (001) diffraction peak of the precursor. Then, corresponding values could be obtained through calculation.
However, this does not describe what the actual phenomenon of “deformation stacking fault” and how minimizing it yields improved battery performance. Further, how is the expression derived? Additionally, the term “a grain size of the (001) diffraction” is unclear to an extent that it cannot be verified by a person skill in the art. The definition also does not provide units or any indication of the used wavelength of the X-rays.
Claims 2-11 and 13-20 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for their dependence on claims 1 and 12.
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ou et al. (CN 112 670 473 A) and further in view of Xu et al. (CN 112 607 788 A).
Regarding claims 1-5, Ou et al. teach ternary precursor material (Abstract), comprising a core and a shell (Abstract discloses the ternary precursor comprises an inner core and a shell layer coating the inner core.), wherein: (1) the core has a molecular formula of NixCoyMn1-x-y(OH)2+a, wherein 0.8 ≤x<1.0, 0<y<0.2, and a=0 (Abstract; Example 1, paragraph 0085 discloses the shell formula is Ni0.92Co0.06Mn0.02O2.), and the shell comprises a doping element (Paragraphs 0086 and 0089 disclose 4000 ppm tungsten, W, doping.).
However, while Ou et al teach a thickness of the shell is 3-15 µm (Paragraph 0013), they do not teach wherein the thickness of the shell is 0.5-2.5 µm.
However, at a difference of 0.5 µm, this is merely an example wherein a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP2144.05 I).
Additionally, Ou et al. do not teach (2) a deformation stacking fault probability fD of the ternary precursor material is ≤4%,
fD=8.89645×B(101)×π/180−1.85325×B(102)×π/180−43.9925/D(001)
where B(101) was a peak width at half height of the (101) diffraction peak of a precursor, B(102) was a peak width at half height of the (102) diffraction peak of the precursor, and D(001) was a grain size of the (001) diffraction peak of the precursor. Further Ou et al. do not teach wherein a breakage rate of particles of the ternary precursor material under a pressure 1 ton is ≤50% or 25%.
According to paragraphs 0023 and 0068 of the as-filed specification, the working concentration of the ammonium hydroxide is controlled so as to effectively reduce the deformation stacking fault probability and breakage degree of the ternary precursor material. Further, paragraph 0068 discloses the working concentration of ammonium hydroxide is 0.6-1.0 mol/L. Xu et al. disclose preparing a nickel-cobalt-manganese ternary precursor with narrow particle size distribution (Abstract). Further, the ammonia water (a term to describe ammonium hydroxide) used in the synthesis of the nickel-cobalt-manganese ternary precursor has a concentration of 9.5-11 g/L which yields 0.56-0.65 mol/L (9.5-11 g NH4OH/L * 1mol NH4OH/17.031 g=0.56-0.65 mol/L) (Paragraphs 0006; 0010). These concentrations are within the ranges shown in Table 1 which all yield fD and breakage rate values within the claimed ranges.
Therefore, Xu et al. controls the working concentration of ammonium hydroxide during synthesis of a nickel-cobalt-manganese ternary precursor within the same range as disclosed in the present specification. As such, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ammonium hydroxide concentration of Ou with that of Xu in order to achieve a narrow particle size distribution. In addition, the deformation stacking fault probability and breakage rate will be within an acceptable range according to the present specification (Additionally, see MPEP 2144.05 II Routine Optimization: In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Ou and Xu et al. teach the ternary precursor material according to claim 1. Further, Ou et al. teach wherein a diameter of the core is 2 µm to 9 µm (Paragraphs 0011-0012 disclose the diameter of the core is 2-13 µm; preferably 3-10 µm.);
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ou and Xu et al. teach the ternary precursor material according to claim 1. Further, Ou et al. teach wherein a particle size Dv50 of the ternary precursor material is 3-17 µm; and/or a granularity SPAN value of the ternary precursor material is ≤0.65 (Paragraph 0015 discloses the particle size D50 of the ternary precursor is 10-20 µm.).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Ou and Xu et al. teach the ternary precursor material according to claim 1. Further, Ou et al. teach a particle size Dv50 of the ternary precursor material is 6-10 µm; and/or a granularity SPAN value of the ternary precursor material is ≤0.45 (Paragraph 0015 discloses the particle size D50 of the ternary precursor is 10-20 µm.).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Ou and Xu et al. teach the ternary precursor material according to claim 1. Further, Ou et al. teach wherein a BET of the ternary precursor material is 4 m2/g to 16 m2/g (Paragraph 0017 discloses a surface area of 15-25 m2/g.).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Ou and Xu et al. teach the ternary precursor material according to claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein an intensity ratio of a diffraction peak of 001 crystal plane of the ternary precursor material to a diffraction peak of 101 crystal plane thereof is 0.6 to 1.2.
MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims
II. COMPOSITION CLAIMS — IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES
"Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Ou and Xu et al. teach the ternary precursor material according to claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein a length-width ratio of primary particles of the ternary precursor material is 2 to 8.
The length-width ratio is essentially an aspect ratio. If the particle is a perfect sphere, then the aspect ratio is 1. If it is oblate, then the aspect ratio can be greater than 1. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this limitation is merely an example of changes in shape. (MPEP 2144.04 IV B. Changes in Shape: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).)
Regarding claims 12-14, Ou et al. teach a preparation method of ternary precursor material (Abstract; Example 1), wherein the method comprises the following steps:
providing a mixed salt solution (Paragraph 0083 discloses a mixed salt solution.), an alkali liquor (Paragraph 0085 discloses NaOH.), ammonium hydroxide (Paragraph 0086 discloses ammonia water or NH4OH.), and a doping element salt solution (Paragraph 0086 discloses sodium metatungstate mixed solution for a doping element.), wherein the mixed salt solution comprises soluble nickel salt, cobalt salt, and manganese salt (Paragraph 0083 discloses nickel, cobalt, and manganese sulfate comprises the mixed salt solution.);
controlling reaction temperature, performing stirring, and pumping the mixed salt solution, the alkali liquor, and the ammonium hydroxide concurrently into the reactor, to obtain a core slurry of the ternary precursor, wherein pH and a working concentration of the ammonium hydroxide remain unchanged (Paragraph 0055; Example 1, paragraph 0085 discloses mixing NaOH and NH4OH to obtain a base solution. adding the base solution to a reaction kettle, and then slowly adding the mixed salt solution, a sodium hydroxide solution and ammonia water at a stirring rate of 300 r/min, wherein the particle size is allowed to increase under the conditions that the reaction temperature is 50-70°C and the pH is 10.9-11.8.); and
pumping the doping element salt solution, the alkali liquor, and the ammonium hydroxide concurrently into the reactor to synthesize a slurry of the ternary precursor, and performing drying and sintering to obtain the ternary precursor material, wherein pH and a working concentration of the ammonium hydroxide remain unchanged (Paragraph 0056; Example 1, paragraph 0086 discloses adding the resulting reaction product, as a seed crystal material, to a reaction kettle, then adding the mixed salt solution, a sodium hydroxide solution and ammonia water, and simultaneously adding a mixed solution of doping elements to the reaction kettle; controlling the pH to be 10.5-11.2.);
wherein the ternary precursor material comprises a core and a shell (Abstract discloses the ternary precursor comprises an inner core and a shell layer coating the inner core.),, and the core has a molecular formula of NixCoyMn1-x-y(OH)2+a, wherein 0.8 ≤x<1.0, 0<y<0.2, and a=0 (Abstract; Example 1, paragraph 0085 discloses the shell formula is Ni0.92Co0.06Mn0.02O2.); and the shell comprises a doping element (Paragraph 0087 discloses the doping element is tungsten.). However, while Ou et al teach a thickness of the shell is 3-15 µm (Paragraph 0013), they do not teach wherein the thickness of the shell is 0.5-2.5 µm.
However, at a difference of 0.5 µm, this is merely an example wherein a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP2144.05 I).
Additional, Ou et al. do not teach a deformation stacking fault probability fD of the ternary precursor material is <4%, fD=8.89645×B(101)×π/180−1.85325×B(102)×π/180−43.9925/D(001)
where B(101) was a peak width at half height of the (101) diffraction peak of a precursor, B(102) was a peak width at half height of the (102) diffraction peak of the precursor, and D(001) was a grain size of the (001) diffraction peak of the precursor, adding pure water into a reactor as a base solution, or wherein the working concentration of the ammonium hydroxide is 0.65-0.75 mol/L.
According to paragraphs 0023 and 0068 of the as-filed specification, the working concentration of the ammonium hydroxide is controlled so as to effectively reduce the deformation stacking fault probability of the ternary precursor material. Further, paragraph 0068 discloses the working concentration of ammonium hydroxide is 0.6-1.0 mol/L. Xu et al. disclose preparing a nickel-cobalt-manganese ternary precursor with narrow particle size distribution (Abstract). Further, the ammonia water (a term to describe ammonium hydroxide) used in the synthesis of the nickel-cobalt-manganese ternary precursor has a concentration of 9.5-11 g/L which yields 0.56-0.65 mol/L (9.5-11 g NH4OH/L * 1mol NH4OH/17.031 g=0.56-0.65 mol/L) and therefore within the claimed range of claim 14 (Paragraphs 0006; 0010). These concentrations are within the ranges shown in Table 1 which all yield fD values within the claimed ranges. Further, the reaction base solution is prepared by pure water (Paragraph 0010).
Therefore, Xu et al. controls the working concentration of ammonium hydroxide during synthesis of a nickel-cobalt-manganese ternary precursor within the same range as disclosed in the present specification. As such, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ammonium hydroxide concentration of Ou with that of Xu in order to achieve a narrow particle size distribution. In addition, the deformation stacking fault probability will be within an acceptable range according to the present specification (Additionally, see MPEP 2144.05 II Routine Optimization: In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)).
Regarding claims 15 and 17-20, the combination of Ou and Xu et al. teach a positive electrode active substance for a secondary battery comprising the ternary precursor according to claim 1 (Ou: claim 10).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Ou and Xu et al. teach the positive electrode substance according to claim 15. Further, Ou et al. teach wherein a molar ratio of Li/Me is 0.9 to 1.1, and Me is nickel, cobalt, manganese (Paragraph 0090 discloses the molar ratio can be 1:1.).
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 DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 March 9th, 2026