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 with traverse of Invention II in the reply filed on 7/17/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examining both inventions would not create a significant search burden. This is not found persuasive because the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses, or employing different search queries), see classification in the requirement for restriction.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/17/26.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 13-14, Mn appears twice in the list of transition metal elements. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 5-6, 8-12, 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN-108091871-A (TY) in view of US-20220158194-A1 (K).
Regarding claim 5, TY teaches
A method for preparing an electrode active material precursor, the method comprising: dispersing a carbon source ([0041], carbon microspheres) in an aqueous solution containing M ions ([0041], Ni, Co, Mn) to obtain a mixed solution; adjusting a pH value of the mixed solution to be alkaline ([0041], pH 12 using ammonium) to obtain an alkaline mixture ([0041], pH 12); obtaining a precipitate through a precipitation reaction of the alkaline mixture ([0041], “precipitate out”); separating and washing the precipitate to obtain a precursor [0022]; and dehydrating and drying the precursor ([0041], “pre-sintered”) to obtain the electrode active material precursor, the electrode active material precursor comprising carbon-composite oxide particles [0026], wherein the oxide satisfies a formula MaOb, wherein: M is selected from Ni, Co, Mn, and a, b>0 ([0041] “according to their chemical dosage ratio”). Ni, Co, and Mn have a reduced atomic mass smaller than 65.
TY does not teach the measurement of the powder resistivity of the carbon-composite oxide.
K teaches an electrode active material layer with slurry powder resistance of less than 100 ohm*cm (page 15, Table 1). K teaches the benefit to the active material layer with a lower slurry powder resistance is an improved life characteristic (page 16, Table 1, also [0135-136]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to optimize the powder resistivity of the carbon-composite oxide of TY to be lower because doing so would improve life characteristics according to K. In the process of doing so, the carbon-composite oxide of TY would end up being below 100 ohm*cm because K teaches two examples which have powder resistivities that are lower than 100 ohm*cm and have high life characteristics, so aiming for this mark would be obvious to do.
Therefore, the method of TY optimized according to the teachings of K render claim 5 unpatentable.
Regarding claim 6, TY teaches the alkaline mixture has a pH value of 12 [0041].
Regarding claim 8, TY teaches a reaction temperature of the precipitation reaction is 55°C [0041].
Regarding claim 9, TY teaches a weak base solution ([0041], ammonia) is added to the mixed solution prior to said adjusting the pH value of the mixed solution to be alkaline (the ammonia is added alongside sodium hydroxide, and the two are technically added before the bulk solution pH would be homogenized and adjusted).
Regarding claim 10, TY teaches the weak base solution is selected from one or more of aqueous ammonia [0041].
Regarding claim 11, TY teaches the carbon source is carbon microspheres [0041].
Regarding claim 12, TY teaches the aqueous solution containing M ions is prepared by dissolving sulfate containing the element M in water [0041].
Regarding claim 14, TY teaches an electrode active material prepared using the electrode active material precursor [0042].
Regarding claim 15, TY teaches a battery comprising the electrode active material [0042].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN-108091871-A (TY), US-20220158194-A1 (K), and in further view of CN-112624212-A (H).
Regarding claim 7, the teachings of TY are explained in the rejection of claim 5.
TY teaches is silent to the reaction time of the precipitation reaction.
H teaches a precipitation reaction for a carbon composite slurry containing nickel, cobalt and manganese sulfates where the slurry is reacted for 12 to 15 hours [n0011].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to use the reaction time of H in the method of TY because TY is silent to the reaction time and because H teaches a method which involves the same components as TY. Doing so would then amount to no more than electing a reaction time taken from one known process of forming a carbon composite slurry in another known process for forming a carbon composite slurry where no reaction time is specified to achieve predictable results.
The time range of H is entirely encompassed by the claimed time range of the instant claim 7, so claim 7 is unpatentable over TY, K, and H.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN-108091871-A (TY), US-20220158194-A1 (K), and in further view of US 20200335784 A1 (TH).
Regarding claim 13, the teachings of TY are explained in the rejection of claim 5, with the exception that the pre-sintering step is not taken to be the drying step.
TY does not teach the precursor is dried at 100°C to 200°C for 6 hours to 20 hours to obtain the electrode active material precursor.
TH teaches a method of forming a Ni, Co, Mn positive electrode material involving a coprecipitation reaction, aging, filtering, washing, and drying [0013-16]. TH teaches the drying step is between 50 and 100°C and the time is 5-15 hours in order to remove solvent and avoid side reactions [0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to perform the drying step of TH in the method of TY in order to achieve the benefit of removing the solvent from the precursor while avoiding side reactions. It would have been obvious to do because TY and TH both teach the formation of a Ni, Co, Mn electrode active material slurry and because TH teaches clear benefits to this step.
The claimed temperature range of claim 13 overlaps with the upper end of the range of TH, and the claimed time range of claim 13 overlaps with the time range taught by TH, so claim 13 is unpatentable over TY, K, and TH.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI whose telephone number is (571)272-6917. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M..
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights