DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 2026-07-30, the following has occurred: Claims 1 and 6 have been amended; Claim 3 has been canceled.
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are pending and are examined herein. This is a Final Rejection.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen (Nguyen et al. “Effect of Calcination Temperature on a P-type Na0.6Mn0.65Ni0.25Co0.10O2 Cathode Material for Sodium-Ion Batteries.” Journal of the Electrochemical Society, 164 (1) A6308-A6314 (2017)) in view of Zuo (CN 114784269 to Zuo et al., the Office cites to provided machine English translation) and Paulsen (Paulsen et al. “O2-Type Li2/3[Ni1/3Mn2/3]O2: A New Layered Cathode Material for Rechargeable Lithium Batteries.” Journal of the Electrochemical Society, 147 (7) 2478-2485 (2000)).
Regarding Claim 1, Nguyen teaches:
a positive electrode for a sodium ion battery comprising a compound represented by Na0.6Mn0.65Ni0.25Co0.10O2 (abstract)
Nguyen does not explicitly teach:
a lithium-ion cathode material
the claimed X-ray diffraction measurement results with the cathode belong to the Cmca space group
Zuo, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a sodium-ion transition metal oxide, teaches:
a positive electrode active material for a lithium ion battery comprising three or more peaks in a 2θ range of from 64° to 70° and one peak in a 2θ range of from 15° to 20° (p.1, Fig. 3)
PNG
media_image1.png
544
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the active material belonging to the Cmca space group (abstract, p. 3)
wherein the material is formed via lithium ion-exchange from a sodium ion-containing starting material (pp. 1-2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the lithium-ion exchange of Zuo to form a lithium-ion active material from the material sin Zuo, with the motivation to synthesize a lithium-ion NMC material more cheaply (see e.g. the opening paragraph of Nguyen) by forming the starting material and then using anion-exchange, as taught in Zuo. The resulting lithium-ion NMC material would be expected to have a Cmca space group with the claimed X-ray peaks, because it was formed from a substantially similar method as the instant invention, with a chemical composition well within the instantly disclosed ranges, and Zuo teaches such a structure in cobalt-only oxides. See also Paulsen, which teaches anion exchange of manganese-majority NMC layered oxides from P2-sodium material to T2-lithium materials with space group Cmca (see Table 2). Paulsen further indicates that lithium-exchanged nickel/manganese layered oxides have the claimed three peaks between 64-70° and a peak between 15-20°.
Regarding Claim 2, Nguyen teaches:
layered NMC oxides with nickel, manganese, and cobalt contents within the claimed range
Zuo teaches:
an example with a formula of Li0.7Na0.02CoO2 such that x and y are zero and x+y+z = 1 (Fig. 3, pp. 3-4)
See also Paulsen which teaches similarly overlapping ranges. 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 MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a lithium ion-exchanged NMC layered oxide where the NMC content totals to 1.
Regarding Claims 4-5, the prior art teaches and renders obvious:
the use of the lithium ion-exchanged materials as a cathode in conventional lithium ion batteries, including solid state ones
Use of lithium transition metal oxides in solid state batteries was conventional in the art. A structure or method step that is obvious to try— such as one that is chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 6, Nguyen teaches:
a positive electrode for a sodium ion battery comprising a compound represented by Na0.6Mn0.65Ni0.25Co0.10O2 (abstract)
Nguyen does not teach explicitly teach:
ion-exchange of the sodium with lithium to form a lithium-ion cathode material
As Zuo teaches, however, this was a well-known technique for forming lithium ion cathode materials. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to exchange lithium for the sodium in Nguyen, as suggested by at least Zuo, with the motivation of forming a lithium-ion active material.
Response to Arguments
The arguments submitted 2026-07-30 have been considered but do not place the application in condition for allowance. The prior art teaches substantially similar sodium anion transition metal layered oxides and it teaches substantially similar anionic-exchange processes to replace the sodium with lithium to form a lithium ion cathode material. The evidence suggests that such a process would be expected to produce a Cmca material with the claimed peaks, absent evidence that Applicant is performing some critical step that would result in a materially different outcome.
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 Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights