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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 1/13/26 is acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in JP 2021-00241 on 1/8/21. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP 2021-00241 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim3, 4 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 3 and 4 both recite “primary particles”. It is not clear if the nickel-containing hydroxide of claim 1 having the claimed peak intensity is the “primary particles” or the nickel-containing hydroxide having the claimed peak intensity comprises the primary particles, given that claim 1, which claims 3 and 4 depend on, do not recite any “primary particles”. Therefore, it is not clear what “primary particles” in claims 3 and 4 refers to. The examiner interprets the primary particles referring to <your interpretation>. Clarification is requested.
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(s) 1, 2, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al. “Nickel Hydroxides and related materials. . .” and in view of Narayan et al. “Effect of Crystallinity of β- and βbc-Nickel Hydroxide Samples on Chemical Cycling” and in view of Trafela, Spela et al. “Controllable voltametric formation of a structurally disordered NiOOH/Ni(OH)2 redox pair. . . “.
As to Claims 1 and 2, Hall describes a nickel hydroxide composition (title). Nickel hydroxide is known to be present in two forms: β and α (section 2, lines 1-2). The 2Ɵ° of the β-form and the α-form of nickel hydroxide shows in Figure 3 the X-Ray diffraction patterns (see Fig. 3). In the β-form, Hall shows the presence of a (001) peak and a (101) peak (see Fig. 3). The Here, peaks (001) and (101) are distinct and clear. Meanwhile, in the α-form, the peaks at (001) is much wider and the area under the peak is also much larger, while in (101) is not found, but there is a peak in that same area, which Table 3 marks as (200) and is at a 2Ɵ° of 39 ° (Table 3). Meanwhile, the β-form peaks at found at (001) and is denoted in Table 2 as 19.3° and the peak at (101) is at 38.6 ° (see Table 2). The α-form has a peak at (100) at 19.2° and at (200) at 39° (see Table 3).
Table 2 states that peaks (001) and (101) are broadened by stacking faults (table 2), which Hall explains that stacking faults cause selective line broadening in the XRD pattern (see page 7, last para).
Narayan describes the crystallinity of β- and βbc—Nickel Hydroxide (title). The reference analyzes different samples of nickel hydroxide, which includes 1H, 2H1, 2H2, 2H3, 3R1, 3R2 (see page 4, left col., para. 3). These are variations in the stacking sequence of each nickel hydroxide sheets (page 4, left col, para. 3). 1H polytype of β-nickel hydroxide has a stacking sequence of AC AC AC---, while the 2H3 polytype of β-nickel oxyhydroxide has a AC BA AC—stacking sequence (page 4, left col, para. 3). In analysis, the (110) peak is broadened upon oxidation (page 4, para. 2). When the compounds are reduced, the peak widths can vary (see page 3, right col, para. 1).
In X-ray diffraction analysis, Narayan shows that the peak at about 19.2° in a 2Ɵ graph gradually reduces from the 3R2 polytype towards the 1H polytype (see Figure 3). The analysis shows that the peak at about 38.5° varies in Fig. 3 based on the polytype (see Figures 3). Also, in Fig. 4, the peak at about 19.2° is significantly increased in the 2H2 polytype, but that peak is significantly reduced in the observed β-nickel hydroxide peak (Fig. 4).
Trafela explains that the crystal structure of Ni(OH)2/NiOOH layers can exist in a variety of polymorphs (Introduction, para. 2 on page 2). Structurally disordered β-Ni(OH)2 electrocatalyst has a fast catalytic rate and requires low input energy needed for the electron transfer during charging and discharging (Introduction, para. 2, page 2). Therefore, structurally disordered β-Ni(OH)2-containing electrocatalysts have enhanced electrocatalytic activity (Introduction, para. 2, page 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a disordered form of β-Ni(OH)2-containing composition, as taught by Trafela, such as one of the polytypes described by Narayan, to include the 1H polytype, the 2H2 polytype, 3R2 polytype or one of those described by Narayan for use with the nickel hydroxide of Hall because Trafela explains that disordered β-Ni(OH)2 as a result of polymorph configuration are known to produce fast catalysis, require low input energy and enhance electrocatalytic activity.
As to the ratio of the integrated peaks at 19.2° ± 1 and 38.5° ± 1, since in some embodiments, Narayan shows that the integrated peaks at 19.2° ± 1 and 38.5° ± 1 can vary so that the peak at 19.2° ± 1 can be equal to, greater or lower than the peak at 38.5° ± 1 (see Fig. 4). Furthermore, Narayan further explains that in disordered polytypes 3R2 to 1H, the peaks all show either near equal ratio between the two peaks or a greater peak at 19.2° ± 1 (see Fig. 3). Therefore, given known variability of the peaks, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a nickel hydroxide where the peak intensities at 19.2° ± 1 and 38.5° ± 1 have an approximate ratio of 0.80 to 1.38 is known in the field based on the disorders found in the composition.
As to the features of the preamble, a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). In this case, the preamble describes intended use features, which do not limit the composition of the claim.
As to Claim 9, Hall, Narayan and Trafela teach the composition of Claim 1. The other features of Claim 9 are intended use.
Claim(s) 3, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall, Narayan and Trafela as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of (JP 4147761).
The references do not describe the average long diameter.
JP ‘761 describes a nickel hydroxide-containing composition (para. 39) for use with batteries (title). The composition is mixed with compounds (para. 39), shaped (para. 7) with a particle size of 400nm or less (para. 7). This size is effective to ensure the number of contact points are sufficient to achieve the desired contact resistance and to avoid agglomeration (para. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the diameter of 400nm or less, as taught by JP ‘761 for use with the nickel hydroxide of Hall, Narayan and Trafela because this size is known to ensure a sufficient number of contact points in order to achieve the desired contact resistance and to avoid agglomeration of the product.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall, Narayan and Trafela as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishida (JP H11246226).
The references do not disclose the aspect ratio of the particles.
Ishida describes a nickel hydroxide material that is a precursor material (title) The nickel hydroxide can include other metals, such as cobalt (para. 1) or manganese in order to prevent reduction in the utilization factor and potential under high load (para. 2, para. 4 in this para). Ishida then explains that the nickel hydroxide layers are stacked in the c-axis direction (para. 13) Protons move in a direction perpendicular to the c-axis plane (para. 13). Therefore, the direction of the nickel hydroxide as a raw material can facilitate the oxidation and control of the battery performance (para. 13). As a result of this, Ishida teaches having an aspect ratio of 3-6 in the plane direction with respect to the thickness direction (para. 13, para. 2). The reference explains that if the aspect ratio becomes large, the performance of the battery decreases and if it is too small, then it becomes difficult to manufacture (para. 13, para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the aspect ratio of the nickel oxide-containing particle to 3-6, as taught by Ishida for use with the nickel oxide-containing of Hall, Narayan and Trafela because this aspect ratio is within a range that maintains the performance of the battery and manufacturable.
Claim(s) 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall, Narayan and Trafela as applied to claim 1above, and further in view of Ness (US Pat.: 3951686).
The references do not describe that the nickel in the composition is 80mol% or more relative to the total contained metals.
Ness describes an electrode containing nickel hydroxide for use in batteries (title and abstract). Ness teaches that use of cobalt hydroxide (col. 1, lines 13-14) produces noticeable improvement of storage capacity (col. 1, lines 29-33). The improvement aligns with the amounts used, particularly use of 30-90% Ni(OH)2 to 10mols% Co(OH)2 (col. 1, lines 35-36).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ nickel hydroxide in the range of 30-90 mol% in the electrode composition, as taught by Ness for use with the nickel hydroxide of Hall, Narayan and Trafela because this amount when combined with cobalt hydroxide produces noticeable improvement storage capacity.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall, Narayan and Trafela as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kodama (US Pub.: 2006/0097701).
The references do not disclose the tap density of the composition.
Kodama describes a battery structure (title) that includes nickel hydroxide modified with other compounds (para. 148, 153). The compounds can include Co (para. 153). The product made can be a positive electrode active material with a high density and a tap density of 2 or higher (para. 151).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a tap density of 2 or higher, as disclosed by Kodama for use with the nickel hydroxide electrode composition of Hall, Narayan and Trafela because adjusting the tap density to this range is known to lead to predictable results for use in an electrode.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall, Narayan and Trafela as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Malcus (CA 2518850).
Hall, Narayan and Trafela do not describe the BET surface area.
Malcus describes a mixed metal hydroxide that can include nickel and cobalt hydroxide (page 2, lines 22-24) used for electrodes in batteries (abstract). The nickel is in the form of Ni(OH)2 (page 6, line 16). The mixed metal hydroxide has a BET surface area of 3-30 m2/g and a range of 5-20 m2/g that is particularly preferable (page 7, lines 6-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a BET surface area of 3-30 m2/g, as taught by Malcus for use with the nickel hydroxide electrodes of Hall, Narayan and Trafela because this range is described as preferable by Malcus for use in electrodes in batteries.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30. 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, Fung Coris can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 March 6, 2026