DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the June 11th, 2026 arguments and remarks ("Remarks"). The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 the amendments received on June 11th, 2026:
Claims 6, 8, and 10-15 are pending in the current application. Claims 1-5, 7, and 9 are cancelled. Claims 6, 8, and 10 are amended. Claims 11-15 are newly added.
The amendment has changed the scope of the invention; therefore, the new grounds of rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 11th, 2026 have been fully considered as further described below:
Regarding Claim 6, applicant argues that the cited references do not disclose “tungsten disulfide” as amended (see pgs. 7-8 of the “Remarks”); applicant’s arguments 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.
Further, applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach steps d) and e) of the claimed method as amended due to fundamental differences in processing stages and technical purposes between prior art Ali and the claimed invention (see pgs. 8-10 of the “Remarks”).
“Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006)” (see MPEP 2143.01).
“In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 , the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention)” (see MPEP 2141.01(a)).
In this case, reference Ali is in the same field of endeavor of the claimed invention: directly related to a method for preparing a cathode active material for a lithium battery. Further, Ali et al. provides reasonable motivation in performing the described modification: to provide a supercritical CO2-assisted material in which has higher discharge capacities and capacity retention at high C-rates indicating an improvement in the rate performance (Ali et al., §3.2).
Applicant argues that Ali does not disclose any nitrogen-containing substances and teaches away from surface modifying utilizing a nitrogen containing compound due to adverse effects in high pressure carbon dioxide environments (see pg. 9 of the “Remarks”). As applicant notes, Ali does not discuss surface modifying with a nitrogen compound and does not describe said adverse reactions to deter a person having ordinary skill in the art from arriving at the claimed invention. Therefore, applicant’s suggestion of a teaching away is based on arguments rather than support or evidence within Ali or any additional reference.
"The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art, and all teachings in the prior art must be considered to the extent that they are in analogous arts. Where the teachings of two or more prior art references conflict, the examiner must weigh the power of each reference to suggest solutions to one of ordinary skill in the art, considering the degree to which one reference might accurately discredit another. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 18 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1991)" (see MPEP 2143.01.II).
"A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ" Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. (see MPEP 2141.03.I).
Chen is provided to teach mixing a nickel-manganese binary cathode material and nitrogen-carbon containing compound (ZiF8) (para. 112), and the nickel manganese precursor of Chen et al. is further modified by Wang et al. to comprise the nickel manganese oxide precursor having the claimed formula. Ali is solely relied upon for method steps d) and e) and is not required to teach all of the previously addressed limitations such as the nitrogen modified compound. In this case, all of the claim limitations are disclosed wherein a reasonable motivation is provided for performing the modification; therefore, applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive.
Examiner recommends further amending Claim 6 to specify the compound representing the nitrogen containing compound.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 6, 10, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 111916726 A) in view of Wang et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 106025199 A), Tong et al. (CN Pat. No. 113451582 A), Ali et al. (Supercritical CO2-assisted synthesis of Lithium-rich layered metal oxide material for Lithium-ion batteries, 2022, ScienceDirect, Vol. 383, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssi.2022.115991), and Niwata et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180331362 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Chen et al. teaches a method for preparing a positive electrode material for a lithium battery, comprising (para. 3):
as related to step a), preparing a nickel-manganese precursor by mixing a coprecipitating agent with a nickel source (nickel salt) and manganese source (manganese salt) by a coprecipitation method (para. 87),
as related to part of step b), adding lithium hydroxide to the nickel manganese precursor, obtaining a mixture (para. 106),
as related to part of step d), mixing a nickel-manganese binary cathode material and nitrogen-carbon containing compound (ZiF8) (para. 112),
as related to step f), calcining at a temperature of 600-700°C, lying inside the claimed range of 400-800°C, for 4-8 hours, lying inside the claimed range of 3-10 hours, in an inert gas atmosphere (para. 36, 112) to obtain the high-nickel cobalt free cathode material coated with nitrogen-doped graphite carbon (para. 3).
As related to step “a)”, Chen et al. does not teach the nickel-manganese precursor having a formula of Ni0.5Mn1.5O4.
In the same field of endeavor, Wang et al. teaches analogous art of a method for preparing a positive electrode material for a lithium battery (para. 3). The method comprises preparing a nickel manganese oxide precursor having a formula Ni0.5Mn1.5O4 (para. 76-80 teaches preparing a nickel-manganese precursor Ni0.5Mn1.5(OH)4 from a nickel source and manganese source in which is dried, sintered, and heated to form a nickel manganese oxide precursor Ni0.5Mn1.5O4 in which is mixed with lithium hydroxide and subjected to further processing to obtain the cathode material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the nickel manganese precursor of Chen et al. to have a formula Ni0.5Mn1.5O4 as taught by Wang et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide a suitable precursor to use in a method for preparing a lithium nickel manganese oxide positive electrode material with excellent performance by controlling the preparation process parameters; and allows for further coating of the cathode with a suitable material (para. 31). "Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.)."
As related to step “b)”, Chen et al. does not teach adding lithium hydroxide and tungsten disulfide to the nickel manganese oxide precursor (as modified by Wang et al. above) to obtain a mixture and mechanically mixing the mixture to prepare a tungsten lithium nickel manganese oxide precursor; as related to step “c)”, Chen et al. does not teach preparing the tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide by sintering the tungsten lithium nickel manganese oxide precursor at high temperature.
In the same field of endeavor, Tong et al. teaches analogous art of a method for preparing a positive electrode material comprising adding lithium hydroxide and tungsten disulfide to a nickel manganese oxide precursor to obtain a mixture and mechanically mixing the mixture to prepare a tungsten lithium nickel manganese oxide precursor (para. 2 of Example 3; para. 1 of Example 1 teaches utilizing a reaction kettle in which can be set to stir at specific speeds); Tong et al. further teaches that the tungsten lithium nickel manganese oxide precursor is heat-treated at high temperature forming a tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide, analogous to a sintering step (para. 3 of Example 1) (analogous to step (c)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method for preparing a positive electrode material of Chen et al. to include a step of adding lithium hydroxide and tungsten disulfide to the nickel manganese oxide precursor to obtain a mixture and mechanically mixing the mixture to prepare a tungsten lithium nickel manganese oxide precursor; and step c) preparing the tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide by sintering the tungsten lithium nickel manganese oxide precursor at high temperature as taught by Tong et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide a positive electrode active material with improved circulating stability and coulombic efficiency; and a simplified preparation process (Tong et al., Abstract).
As related to steps d)-e), Chen et al. does not teach dispersing the nickel-manganese binary cathode material (tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide as modified by Tong et al.) and the nitrogen-carbon containing compound in a solvent to prepare a reaction solution; and preparing an intermediate product by subjecting the reaction solution to a temperature of 40 to 80 °C and a pressure of 1000 to 1500 psi under an atmosphere of carbon dioxide.
Ali et al. teaches a supercritical CO2 process for synthesis of lithium manganese nickel oxide cathode materials in which involve adding a precursor to a solvent and transferring to a reactor (forming a reaction solution) and subjecting the mixture (reaction solution) to a temperature of 80°C and a pressure of 77 bar (~1117 psi) under an atmosphere of carbon dioxide prior to calcining (Ali et al., §2.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode material of Chen et al. to further include dispersing the precursor (as formed in step (1) of Chen et al.) in a solvent forming a reaction solution and subjecting the mixture (reaction solution) to a temperature of 80°C (meeting the limitations of the claimed range of 40 to 80 °C) and a pressure of 77 bar (~1117 psi) (within the claimed range of 1000 to 1500 psi) under an atmosphere of carbon dioxide prior to calcining as taught by Ali et al. When performing the described modification, it would have been obvious to performing the described step as a second step using the precursor formed in step (1) of Chen et al. as modified above as Ali et al. teaches performing the steps prior to calcining (step (3)). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide a supercritical CO2-assisted material in which has higher discharge capacities and capacity retention at high C-rates indicating an improvement in the rate performance (Ali et al., §3.2).
Chen et al. does not teach the nickel-manganese binary positive electrode material as a tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide. Further, Chen et al. does not teach a ratio of a sum of molar numbers of nickel and manganese to a molar number of tungsten as 1:0.5 in the tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide modified by the nitrogen-doped carbonaceous material.
Niwata et al. teaches a lithium composite oxide for a positive electrode active material comprising LiaMn(1-b-c)NibM1cO2-dFe wherein M1 can include tungsten and 0.8≤a≤1.2, 0<b<0.5, 0≤c≤0.5, (b+c)<1, −0.1≤d≤0.2, and 0≤e≤0.1 (Formula (11), [0076]-[0077]). Therefore, said formula and subscript limits (molar number) encompass a case in which a molar ratio of Mn:Ni:M1(tungsten) represented by (1-b-c):b:c is (1/3):(1/3):(1/3) in which is equal to a 1:1:1 ratio, where a molar ratio of a sum of nickel and manganese to tungsten is (2/3):(1/3) in which is equivalent to 1:0.5 (para. 77). Niwata et al. teaches that a high energy density can be obtained by utilizing said lithium composite oxide (para. 72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nickel-manganese binary positive electrode material of Chen et al. to include a tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide represented by LiaMn(1-b-c)NibM1cO2-dFe wherein M1 can include tungsten and 0.8≤a≤1.2, 0<b<0.5, 0≤c≤0.5, (b+c)<1, −0.1≤d≤0.2, and 0≤e≤0.1 encompassing a case in which a molar ratio of Mn+Ni:M1(tungsten) is 1:0.5 (2/3:1/3) as taught by Niwata et al. (see MPEP 2145.05(I)). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide an alternative positive electrode material in which provides high energy density as described above.
Regarding Claim 10, Chen et al. further teaches a lithium battery comprising the positive electrode material (para. 37) prepared by the method of Claim 6 as modified above.
Regarding Claim 13, Chen et al. teaches the ratio of the nitrogen-doped carbonaceous material to the nickel-manganese binary positive electrode material (modified by Niwata et al. to include tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide) of 1-10%:80-98%, within and overlapping the claimed range of 1:9 to 1:2. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See 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) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). As Chen et al. is modified by Niwata et al. to include a tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide as the nickel-manganese binary positive electrode material, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the weight ratio of the nitrogen-doped carbonaceous material to the nickel-manganese binary positive electrode material as described by Chen et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the ratio of Chen et al. to provide an electrode active material in which effectively solves a problem of poor rate performance of cobalt-free cathode materials (Chen et al., para. 19).
Regarding Claim 15, Chen et al. teaches a positive electrode material for a lithium battery (para. 37) prepared by the method of Claim 6 as modified above.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 111916726 A) in view of Wang et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 106025199 A), Tong et al. (CN Pat. No. 113451582 A), Ali et al. (Supercritical CO2-assisted synthesis of Lithium-rich layered metal oxide material for Lithium-ion batteries, 2022, ScienceDirect, Vol. 383, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssi.2022.115991), and Niwata et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180331362 A1) as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of Seymour et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140113200 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Chen et al. does not teach the nitrogen-containing compound comprising one or more of pyrrole, phenylpyrrole, pyridine, graphite carbon nitride, ethylenediamine, propylenediamine, benzenediamine, melamine and aniline.
Seymour teaches melamine (nitrogen containing compound) as a source of carbon in which can provide dopant nitrogen for a carbon electrode material (para. 93).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode material of Chen et al. to further include melamine as the nitrogen-containing compound as taught by Seymour. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide dopant nitrogen to increase electron conduction and induce pseudocapacitive functionality of an electrode material (Seymour, para. 94).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 111916726 A) in view of Wang et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 106025199 A), Tong et al. (CN Pat. No. 113451582 A), Ali et al. (Supercritical CO2-assisted synthesis of Lithium-rich layered metal oxide material for Lithium-ion batteries, 2022, ScienceDirect, Vol. 383, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssi.2022.115991), and Niwata et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180331362 A1) as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (CN Pat. No. 105226269 A).
Regarding Claim 11, Chen et al. does not teach that the coprecipitating agent is polyacrylamide or polyethylene glycol.
In the same field of endeavor, Huang et al. teaches analogous art of a method for preparing a positive electrode material, wherein the precursor is mixed with a coprecipitation agent selected from polyacrylamide and polyethylene glycol (para. 21 teaches a lithium nickel manganese oxide precursor formed by mixing a nickel source, manganese source, and an agent).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for preparing a positive electrode material of Chen et al. wherein the coprecipitating agent is polyacrylamide or polyethylene glycol as taught by Huang et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to improve the coprecipitation reaction and provide a suitable agent. "The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)" (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 111916726 A) in view of Wang et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 106025199 A), Tong et al. (CN Pat. No. 113451582 A), Ali et al. (Supercritical CO2-assisted synthesis of Lithium-rich layered metal oxide material for Lithium-ion batteries, 2022, ScienceDirect, Vol. 383, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssi.2022.115991), and Niwata et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180331362 A1) as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view Takei et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 11228034 B2).
Regarding Claim 12, Chen et al. does not teach an average particle size of 15 μm of the tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide modified by the nitrogen-doped carbonaceous material.
In the same field of endeavor, Takei et al. teaches analogous art of a method of preparing a positive electrode active material (para. 54 of “Description”) wherein the average particle diameter D50 is 8 to 25 µm, encompassing the claimed diameter of 15 µm, to provide improved battery characteristics (para. 53 of “Description”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of preparing a positive electrode active material of Chen et al. wherein the positive electrode active material (tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide modified by the nitrogen-doped carbonaceous material as modified by Niwata et al. above) has a D50 average particle size of 8 to 25 µm, encompassing the claimed diameter of 15 µm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide improved battery characteristics (para. 53 of “Description”).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 111916726 A) in view of Wang et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 106025199 A), Tong et al. (CN Pat. No. 113451582 A), Ali et al. (Supercritical CO2-assisted synthesis of Lithium-rich layered metal oxide material for Lithium-ion batteries, 2022, ScienceDirect, Vol. 383, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssi.2022.115991), and Niwata et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180331362 A1) as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view Park et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 3312914 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Chen et al. does not teach a ratio of a sum of molar numbers of nickel and manganese to a molar number of lithium is 1:1 to 1:4 in the tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide modified by the nitrogen-doped carbonaceous material.
Park et al teaches a lithium transition metal oxide such as LiNi1-YMnYO2 (here, 0<Y<1) in which can be doped with tungsten (para. 83-84) forming a tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide in which the molar ratio of a sum of molar numbers of nickel and manganese to a molar number of lithium is 1:1 (when Y is any number from 0 to 1, the ratio remains true), within the claimed range of 1:1 to 1:4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode material of Chen et al. (as modified by Niwata et al. above to include a tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide modified by the nitrogen-doped carbonaceous material) to further include a molar ratio of a sum of molar numbers of nickel and manganese to a molar number of lithium as 1:1 as taught by Park et al., meeting the claim limitations of 1:1 to 1:4. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide an alternate positive electrode active material layer in which is capable of reversible intercalation and deintercalation of lithium (Park et al., para. 83).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 RUDDOCK 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.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights