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 .
Status of Claims
The Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 07/06/2026, has been entered. Claim 9 is amended; claims 12-16 and 19 stand as originally or previously presented; and claims 10-11 and 17-18 are canceled. Support for the amendments is found in the original filing, and there is no new matter.
Upon considered said amendments and arguments, the previous 35 U.S.C.103 rejection set forth in Office Action mailed 04/06/2026 has been maintained (and altered as required by amendment), as set forth below.
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.
Claim(s) 9, 12-16, and 19 is/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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a part of the M may be substituted with Al and/or Mg” in lines 7-8. It is unclear whether M is Al and/or Mg or can be any transition metal. For purposes of this Office Action, it will be assumed that M is any transition metal.
Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 12-16 and 19 are hereby rejected due to dependency from rejected Claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 9, 12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20190386293 A1, hereinafter Chen), as evidenced by Hiratsuka et al. (US 20100068624 A1, hereinafter Hiratsuka).
Regarding Claim 9, Chen discloses the limitations regarding a method for producing a layered composite metal oxide crystal material (Chen, preparation method of a layered lithium intercalated ternary material having a crystal structure, represented by a general formula LiNi1-x-yCoxMyO2, wherein the M is Mn or Al, 0<x<1, 0<y<1, x+y<1, [0007-0008]), wherein
the layered composite metal oxide crystal material comprises
a composite metal oxide represented by the following formula:
LiXMOy wherein M is 1 or 2 or more of transition metals, and a part of the M may be substituted with Al and/or Mg, x is the number of 1 or more and 2 or less, y is the number of 2 or more and 3 or less (Chen, LiNi1-x-yCoxMyO2, wherein the M is Mn or Al, 0<x<1, 0<y<1, x+y<1, [0007]),
Li = Li, and x = 1, meeting the claimed range of x is the number 1 or more and 2 or less;
M = Ni, wherein M is 2 or more of transition metals;
M = Co, wherein M is 2 or more of transition metals;
M = Al, wherein M is 2 or more of transition metals, and a part of the M may be substituted with Al;
O = O, and y = 2, meeting the claimed range of y is the number 2 or more and 3 or less
a value of x + n is 2 * y, wherein n is an average valence of the transition metal M (Chen, the “combined valence of Ni, Co, and M is +3”, [0043]; the Examiner notes that the average valence of the transition metal M is 3, so x + n = 1 + 3 = 4 and 2 * y = 2 * 2 = 4).
In regards to the claimed, “the step of burning a mixture comprising lithium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide and/or potassium hydroxide, and a monovalent anion salt of the 1 or 2 or more of transition metal at 150°C or higher and 400°C or lower in the presence of oxygen, wherein a hydrate is used as 1 or more of the salts selected from the group consisting of lithium hydroxide, and the monovalent anion salt of the transition metal” Chen discloses “NiSO4 • 6H2O, CoSO4 • 7H2O, Al3(SO4)2, 24 mol of LiOH • H2O, and 6 mol of NaOH were dissolved in 15 L of deionized water, stirred, and pumped into a reactor. Then, pure oxygen gas was charged in to the reactor for a 24 hours oxidation reaction at a temperature of 180 °C” (Chen, [0087]; the disclosed temperature of 180 °C falls within the claimed temperature range of 150 °C or higher and 400 °C or lower). The Examiner notes that while Al3(SO4)2 is not a monovalent anion salt of the 1 or 2 or more of transition metal, Chen discloses that the manganese source is at least one selected from manganese sulfate, manganese nitrate, manganese chloride (Chen, [0055]) and an aluminum salt may be used as a substitute for a manganese salt (Chen, [0007-0008]).
It is further evidenced by Hiratsuka that salts suitable for a positive electrode active material includes water-soluble manganese salts, which includes manganese nitrate, manganese chloride, and manganese sulfate and water-soluble aluminum salts, which includes aluminum nitrate, aluminum sulfate, and aluminum chloride (Hiratsuka, [0035]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the aluminum sulfate with aluminum nitrate or aluminum chloride, which are monovalent anion salts, as claimed, because they are all obvious variants of an aluminum salt.
Chen further discloses 0.2 times or more by mole of the sodium hydroxide and/or the potassium hydroxide is used to the lithium hydroxide (Chen, 24 mol of LiOH • H2O, and 6 mol of NaOH, [0087]; the mole ratio of sodium hydroxide to lithium hydroxide is 6:24, or 0.25, which falls within the claimed range of 0.2 times or more), and
the transition metal comprises cobalt (Chen, LiNi1-x-yCoxMyO2, wherein the M is Mn or Al, 0<x<1, 0<y<1, x+y<1, [0007]; M = Co, wherein M is 2 or more of transition metals;).
Regarding Claim 12, Chen discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Chen discloses the limitations regarding a method (Chen, preparation method of a layered lithium intercalated ternary material having a crystal structure, represented by a general formula LiNi1-x-yCoxMyO2, wherein the M is Mn or Al, 0<x<1, 0<y<1, x+y<1, [0007-0008]), wherein a molar ratio of sodium hydroxide to lithium hydroxide is 5 or less (Chen, 24 mol of LiOH • H2O, and 6 mol of NaOH, [0087]; the mole ratio of sodium hydroxide to lithium hydroxide is 6:24, or 0.25, which falls within the claimed range of 5 or less).
Regarding Claim 14, Chen discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Chen discloses the limitations regarding a method (Chen, preparation method of a layered lithium intercalated ternary material having a crystal structure, represented by a general formula LiNi1-x-yCoxMyO2, wherein the M is Mn or Al, 0<x<1, 0<y<1, x+y<1, [0007-0008]), wherein the mixture further comprises a monovalent anion salt of aluminum in the case where a part of the M is substituted with Al (Chen, NiSO4 • 6H2O, CoSO4 • 7H2O, Al3(SO4)2, 24 mol of LiOH • H2O, and 6 mol of NaOH were dissolved in 15 L of deionized water, stirred, and pumped into a reactor. Then, pure oxygen gas was charged in to the reactor for a 24 hours oxidation reaction at a temperature of 180 °C, [0087]; the Examiner notes that Al3(SO4)2 may be substituted with aluminum chloride or aluminum nitrate, as noted above).
Regarding Claim 15, Chen discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Chen discloses the limitations regarding a method for producing a positive electrode, comprising the steps of:
producing a layered composite metal oxide crystal material (Chen, preparation method of a layered lithium intercalated ternary material having a crystal structure, represented by a general formula LiNi1-x-yCoxMyO2, wherein the M is Mn or Al, 0<x<1, 0<y<1, x+y<1, [0007-0008]),
mixing the layered composite metal oxide crystal material with at least a solvent and a binder to produce a positive electrode slurry (Chen, the battery slurry further includes a binder and a conductive agent, [0058]),
coating a positive electrode current collector with the positive electrode slurry (Chen, the anode includes a current collector and an anode material layer disposed on the current collector. The anode material layer includes the ternary material, [0059]), and
drying the positive electrode slurry on the positive electrode current collector (Chen, the battery slurry is dried on a smooth aluminum foil, [0062]).
The Examiner notes that while Chen discloses an “anode,” one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the ternary material of Chen would only be functional in a positive electrode, and the title of Chen is directed towards a “positive electrode.” Further, Chen discloses that the negative electrode material is natural graphite (Chen, [0104]). Therefore, Chen’s disclosure of an “anode” is a typographical error and is actually directed towards a “positive electrode.”
Claim(s) 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20190386293 A1, hereinafter Chen), as evidenced by Hiratsuka et al. (US 20100068624 A1, hereinafter Hiratsuka), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Oyama et al. (US 20160093888 A1, hereinafter Oyama)
Regarding Claim 13, Chen discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Chen discloses the limitations regarding a method (Chen, preparation method of a layered lithium intercalated ternary material having a crystal structure, represented by a general formula LiNi1-x-yCoxMyO2, wherein the M is Mn or Al, 0<x<1, 0<y<1, x+y<1, [0007-0008]). Chen is silent regarding the mixture is burnt at an atmospheric pressure.
Oyama discloses that a method (Oyama, a method for producing a cathode materials, Abstract), wherein the mixture is burnt at an atmospheric pressure (Oyama, in a case in which the solvent is water, the heating temperature is more preferably in a range of 100° C. to 350° C., and the reaction time is more preferably in a range of 0.5 hours to 5 hours, and the pressure at this time falls in a range of 0.1 MPa to 17 MPa, [0081]; the Examiner notes that atmospheric pressure is 0.101325 MPa, so the disclosed range of 0.1 MPa to 17 MPa overlaps the claimed atmospheric pressure of 0.101325 MPa).
Oyama teaches that water has permittivity significantly changing near the critical point, it is possible to easily control solvent properties such as solubility in individual substances through the operation of temperature and pressure, and the control of the reaction conditions is easy (Oyama, [0079]).
Chen and Oyama are analogous to the current invention as they are all directed towards a method of manufacturing a cathode material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the reaction step of Chen to be performed at a pressure range of 0.1 MPa to 17 MPa, in order to control solvent properties.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to select the overlapping portions of the disclosed because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claims 19, modified Chen discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Chen discloses the limitations regarding a method (Chen, preparation method of a layered lithium intercalated ternary material having a crystal structure, represented by a general formula LiNi1-x-yCoxMyO2, wherein the M is Mn or Al, 0<x<1, 0<y<1, x+y<1, [0007-0008]), wherein the mixture is burnt at an atmospheric pressure (Oyama, in a case in which the solvent is water, the heating temperature is more preferably in a range of 100° C. to 350° C., and the reaction time is more preferably in a range of 0.5 hours to 5 hours, and the pressure at this time falls in a range of 0.1 MPa to 17 MPa, [0081]; the Examiner notes that atmospheric pressure is 0.101325 MPa, so the disclosed range of 0.1 MPa to 17 MPa overlaps the claimed atmospheric pressure of 0.101325 MPa).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to select the overlapping portions of the disclosed because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20190386293 A1, hereinafter Chen), as evidenced by Hiratsuka et al. (US 20100068624 A1, hereinafter Hiratsuka), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Yuasa et al. (US 20090104517 A1, hereinafter Yuasa).
Regarding Claim 16, Chen discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Chen discloses the limitations regarding a method (Chen, preparation method of a layered lithium intercalated ternary material having a crystal structure, represented by a general formula LiNi1-x-yCoxMyO2, wherein the M is Mn or Al, 0<x<1, 0<y<1, x+y<1, [0007-0008]), Chen is silent regarding a method for producing a lithium ion secondary battery, comprising the steps of:
producing a positive electrode on the positive electrode current collector producing a positive electrode on the positive electrode current collector according to producing a negative electrode on a negative electrode current collector, producing a wound body by winding the positive electrode current collector having the positive electrode, the negative electrode current collector having the negative electrode, and a separator between the positive electrode current collector and the negative electrode current collector, and placing the wound body in a battery container and injecting an electrolyte liquid into the battery container.
Yuasa discloses a method for producing a lithium ion secondary battery (Yuasa, method to obtain a cylindrical lithium ion secondary battery, [0097, 0100]), comprising the steps of:
producing a positive electrode on the positive electrode current collector (Yuasa, for the cathode plate, a slurry is coated on both surfaces of the electrode and then dried, [0100]), producing a negative electrode on a negative electrode current collector (Yuasa, for the anode plate, a slurry is coated on both surfaces of the electrode and then dried, [0100]),
producing a wound body by winding the positive electrode current collector having the positive electrode, the negative electrode current collector having the negative electrode, and a separator between the positive electrode current collector and the negative electrode current collector, and placing the wound body in a battery container (Yuasa, a separator made of a porous insulation material is put between the cathode and the anode and, after winding them, they are inserted into a battery casing molded from stainless steel or aluminum, [0100]) and injecting an electrolyte liquid into the battery container (Yuasa, a non-aqueous liquid electrolyte is injected and, finally, the battery casing is sealed, [0100]).
Yuasa teaches that a lithium ion secondary battery may be in any of cylindrical, lamination, coin, or card type (Yuasa, [0097]).
Chen and Yuasa are analogous to the current invention as they are all directed towards a lithium battery comprising an electrode material slurry.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to put the battery components of Chen in a battery casing, following the method of obtaining a lithium ion secondary battery of Yuasa, in order to have a cylindrical battery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (filed 07/06/2026) and Declaration (filed 07/06/2026) with respect to Claim(s) 9 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that in the hydrothermal synthesis disclosed in Chen, all starting materials are dissolved in an aqueous solution, and the claimed method (Hydroflux method) developed by the inventors does not only employ an atmospheric pressure, but also involves only a very small amount of water in a raw material. Thus, the Hydroflux method is a reaction similar to a solid-state reaction, which is distinct from the hydrothermal reaction disclosed in Chen.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that a method that involves a very small amount of water in a raw material is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. In addition, Claim 9 discloses “or the mixture is a slurry comprising water,” so a slurry is not necessarily required by the claim.
The Examiner recommends the Applicant to amend Claim 9 to reflect these arguments.
Applicant argues that Chen as evidenced by Hiratsuka uses sulfate salts of transition metals, whereas the claimed method uses a monovalent salt.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Chen as evidenced by Hiratsuka discloses nitrate and chloride salts as alternatives to sulfate salts (Chen, [0055]) (Hiratsuka, [0035]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the disclosed nitrate and chloride salts as alternatives to the sulfate salt, since they are obvious variants.
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 KEVIN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:50 - 7:50 ET.
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, NICHOLAS A SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/K.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights