DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 were subject to restriction requirement mailed on 07/20/2026.
Applicant filed a response, and elected Group I, species (a), claims 1-4, 6-8 and 14-16, and withdrew claims 5 and 9-13, without traverse on 08/07/2026.
Claims 1-16 are pending, and claims 5 and 9-13 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-3, 6-8 and 14-16 are rejected.
Claim 4 is objected to.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, species (a), claims 1-4, 6-8 and 14-16 in the reply filed on 08/07/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5 and 9-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/07/2026.
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 3 is 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 3, line 4, recites a phrase “the mixing tank”, which lacks antecedent basis. Applicant is advised to amend the phrase to “a mixing tank”.
Claim 3, line 8, recites a phrase “the initial mixing rate is u2(0)”. However, it is unclear what the phrase refers to, i.e., initial mixing rate of aqueous metal ion solution A and aqueous metal ion solution B, initial mixing rate of the aqueous metal ion solution B for surface is mixed into the mixing tank, etc.. The examiner interprets that the phrase refers to “u2(0) is an initial mixing rate of the aqueous metal ion solution B for surface is mixed into the mixing tank”.
Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is requested.
Furthermore, claim 3, line 8, recites a phrase “the time constant is τ”. However, it is unclear what the phrase refers to, i.e., what value the time constant is. The examiner interprets that the phrase refers to “τ is a time constant, and can be any numeric value”.
Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu et al., Progressive concentration gradient nickel-rich oxide cathode material for high-energy and long-life lithium-ion batteries, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2019 (Xu).
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 14, Xu discloses a progressive concentration gradient cathode material (LiNi0.7Co0.13Mn0.17O2) that exhibits a progressively increasing transition metal evolution rate from core to surface (Xu, Abstract);
the precursor was prepared using a modified co-precipitation method, a Ni-poor aqueous solution (V1=240 ml) (reading upon an aqueous metal ion solution B for surface) was continuously fed into a Ni-rich aqueous solution (V2=480 ml) (Xu, page 7729, right column, 2nd paragraph) (reading upon an aqueous metal ion solution A for center; two solutions having different volumes; a mixed metal ion solution formation step for gradually mixing the aqueous metal ion solution B for surface to the aqueous metal ion solution A for center);
the Ni-poor aqueous solution and the Ni-rich aqueous solution would have different concentrations of Ni (reading upon having different compositions and concentrations);
the Ni-poor aqueous solution (reading upon an aqueous metal ion solution B for surface) was continuously fed into a Ni-rich aqueous solution at a flow rate of Q1, the solution was homogeneously mixed and fed into a 2 L continuously stirred tank reactor a flow rate of Q2; simutaneouly, NaOH and NH4OH were fed into the reactor, the coprecipitation reaction was conducted; to obtain the unique progressive concentration gradient, the flow rate was precisely controlled as Q1<Q2 (Xu, page 7729, right column, 2nd-3rd paragraphs) (reading upon a control step for setting a composition and a concentration gradient of the mixed metal ion solution and controlling the same in real time, before moving the mixed metal ion solution to a co- precipitation reactor; and a co-precipitation reaction step for performing a co-precipitation reaction according to conditions set in the control step).
Further regarding claim 14, as applied to claim 1, Xu discloses the cathode material was prepared by thoroughly blending the precursor with LiOH·H2O (reading upon lithium hydroxide) followed by annealing at 500˚C (reading upon heating) and 780 ˚C (reading upon sintering) (Xu, paragraph spanning between pages 7729-7730).
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1, Xu discloses the Ni-rich aqueous solution with a Ni/Co/Mn molar ratio of 8:1:1, Ni from NiSO4·6H2O (reading upon aqueous solution of nickel sulfate);
The Ni-poor aqueous solution with a Ni/Co/Mn molar ratio of 5:2:3, Co from CoSO4·7H2O, and Ni from MnSO4·5H2O (reading upon aqueous solutions of cobalt sulfate and manganese sulfate).
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) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu.
Regarding claim 16, as applied to claim 14, Xu further teaches the cathode material was prepared by thoroughly blending the precursor with LiOH·H2O followed by annealing at 780 ˚C for 16 h (reading upon sintering) (Xu, paragraph spanning between pages 7729-7730).
The only deficiency of Xu is that Xu disclose the use of 16 h, while the present claims require 10 to 15 hours.
It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed amount of 10 to 16 hours and that taught by Xu are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a “slight” difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”.
In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a “slight” difference between the amount of 16 h disclosed by Xu and the amount disclosed in the present claims and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed in the present invention with respect to the amount of sintering time, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the amount of sintering for 10 to 15 hours disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the amounts disclosed in Xu, and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shen et al., Insight into the coprecipitation-controlled crystallization reaction for preparing lithium-layered oxide cathodes, ACS Appl., Mater. Interfaces, 2021 (Shen).
Regarding claims 7-8, Xu does not explicitly disclose wherein the ammonia solution and the sodium hydroxide solution are added such that the ammonia concentration and the pH in the reactor are maintained at pre-designed constant values in ranges of 0.5 to 1.2 M and 10.0 to 11.5, respectively; or wherein the mixed metal ion solution is added to the co-precipitation reactor under condition that a sum of all metal ion concentrations is maintained constantly.
With respect to the difference, Shen teaches coprecipitation-controlled crystallization reaction for preparing lithium oxide cathodes (Shen, Title, Abstract). Shen specifically teaches ratio of [Me2+Ln] to [OH] of 3.4 corresponds to pH 3.4 (Shen, page 720, Fig. 2b); NH3 concentration is 0.5M (Shen, page 718, left column, 3rd paragraph; right column, bottom paragraph).
As Shen expressly teaches, in the growth stage, the pH value corresponding to the ratio of [Me2+Ln] to [OH] of 3.4 at any total ammonia concentration is the best control condition for material synthesis, to obtain the desired lithium transition metal oxide cathode materials (Shen, page 724, paragraph spanning left and right columns).
Shen is analogous art as Shen is drawn to coprecipitation-controlled crystallization reaction for preparing lithium oxide cathodes.
In light of the motivation of the pH value corresponding to the ratio of [Me2+Ln]T to [OH] of 3.4 for co-precipitation of lithium oxide cathode material as taught by Shen, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the ratio of [Me2+Ln]T to [OH] of 3.4, which corresponds to pH of 11.4 with NH3 concentration of 0.5M, for the coprecipitation reaction of Xu in order to prepare the precursor, in order achieve the best control condition for material synthesis, to obtain the desired lithium transition metal oxide cathode materials.
Further regarding claim 8, given a fixed ratio of [Me2+Ln]T to [OH] of 3.4, which corresponds to pH of 11.4 with NH3 concentration of 0.5M, [Me2+Ln]T refers to total concentration of Me(NH3)n2+ in the solution, therefore, a fixed ratio of [Me2+Ln]T to [OH] also corresponds to a fixed/constant concentration of Me(NH3)n2+ in the solution.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al., CN 103606667A (Chen).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of Chen et al., CN 103606667A (Chen). The citation of the prior art set forth below refers to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 15, as applied to claim 1, Xu does not explicitly disclose wherein in the active material preparation step, the heating is performed at a temperature increase rate of 5°C/min or less.
With respect to the difference, Chen teaches a preparation method of lithium positive electrode material (Chen, Abstract). Chen specifically teaches for the precursor, lithium source are mixed fully, then divided into two-step sintering, with the second step raising temperature in a speed of 0.1-10˚C per minute (Chen, [0017]).
Chen is analogous art as Chen is drawn to a preparation method of lithium positive electrode material.
In light of the disclosure of Chen, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a similar heating rate, such as a speed of 0.1-10˚C per minute, in Xu, when the temperature is raised from 500˚C to 780˚C, and yield expected results, and thereby arrive at a range that overlaps that of the present claim.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 3-4, none of Xu, Shen or Chen discloses or suggests wherein in the mixed metal ion solution formation step, a rate at which the aqueous metal ion solution B for surface is mixed into the mixing tank is represented by [Mathematical Formula 1]; or wherein in the control step above, concentration and composition changes of the mixed metal ion solution put into the co-precipitation reactor are represented and controlled by a differential equation of [Mathematical Formula 5].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELING ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am-5:00pm 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, Ching-Yiu Fung 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.
/KELING ZHANG/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1732
