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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masatoshi et al. (JP2004087487A, as read via machine translation).
As to claim 1, Masatoshi et al. discloses a lithium nickel manganese composite oxide which includes secondary particles in which a plurality of primary particles are aggregated with each other (see e.g. lithium-containing composite oxide, comprising secondary particles made of primary particles, [0011] and [0014]), and is represented by General Formula (1): LixNiyMnzO2 (in Formula (1), x is 0.95≤ x<1.1, y is 0.45≤y≤0.5, z is 0.45≤z≤0.5, and y=z is satisfied) (see e.g. [0014], the composite oxide has the formula Li1+y[Mx(NidMng)1-x]O2 where -0.05<y<0.05, -0.1 ≤x ≤0.3, d=0.5±0.1, g=0.5±0.1. When y=0, x=0, d=0.5, and g=0.5, Masatoshi et al.’s formula can be expressed as LiNi0.5Mn0.5O2, which reads on the instantly-claimed material when, in the instantly-claimed formula, x=1, y=0.5, and z=0.5),
wherein Li contained in a transition metal layer does not form LiMn6 (see e.g. [0028] and Fig. 13b, showing the X-ray diffraction (XRD) pattern of Masatoshi et al.’s material, showing that the material does not have an XRD peak at 20.8° which is indicative of an LiMN6 structure, as per pg. 2166, lines 7-15 of Huang, Weiyuan, et al. Chem 8.8 (2022): 2163-2178, cited in IDS dated 27 Oct, 2025. It is therefore reasonably concluded that Li contained in a transition metal layer does not form LiMn6 in Masatoshi et al.’s material),
wherein the lithium nickel manganese composite oxide has a space group R-3m, an a-axis lattice constant of 2.87 Å to 2.90 Å, and a c-axis lattice constant of 14.28 Å to 14.32 Å (see e.g. [0013] and Fig. 13, stating that Masatoshi et al.’s material has an R3m space group and an a-axis lattice constant of 2.892 Å and a c-axis constant of 14.301 Å, which lie within and thereby anticipate the claimed ranges of 2.87 Å to 2.90 Å and 14.28 Å to 14.32 Å).
Further regarding claim 1, Masatoshi et al. is silent as to whether Masatoshi et al.’s lithium nickel manganese composite oxide has a manganese-rich layer from a surface of the secondary particles toward an inside of the secondary particles.
However, paragraph [0011] of the Instant Specification states that
“In a spectrum measured by solid-state lithium nuclear magnetic resonance
analysis (6Li-MAS-NMR) using a magic-angle sample rotation method, there is no peak
at 1,495 to 1,505 ppm caused by LiMn6 formed by Li contained in the transition metal
layer, and thus the surface of the lithium nickel manganese composite oxide of the
present invention is a manganese-rich layer”
As set forth above, the XRD pattern of Masatoshi et al.’s composite oxide shows that the material does not have an XRD peak at 20.8° which is indicative of an LiMn6 structure, as per pg. 2166, lines 7-15 of Huang, Weiyuan, et al. Chem 8.8 (2022): 2163-2178, cited in IDS dated 27 Oct, 2025. Because Masatoshi et al.’s composite oxide does not contain LiMn6 formed by Li contained in the transition metal layer, it is concluded that the surface of Masatoshi et al.’s composite oxide is also a manganese-rich layer such that the composite oxide has a manganese-rich layer from a surface of the secondary particles toward an inside of the secondary particles.
Further regarding claim 1, Masatoshi et al. does not explicitly disclose that a ratio of a number of Mn atoms to a number of Ni atoms (Mn/Ni ratio) in the manganese-rich layer is 1.0 or more and 1.5 or less.
However, a prima facie case for obviousness can be made when a claimed product and a prior art product are substantially identical in structure or composition, even if the prior art is silent as to the properties of the product (see MPEP § 2112.01). In the instant case, the scope of the lithium nickel manganese composite oxide reads on the chemical formula, Li contained in a transition metal layer of Masatoshi et al.’s composite oxide does not form LiMn6, and the lithium nickel manganese composite oxide of Masatoshi et al. has a space group R-3m, an a-axis lattice constant of 2.87 Å to 2.90 Å, and a c-axis lattice constant of 14.28 Å to 14.32 Å, as set forth above. Because Masatoshi et al.’s lithium nickel manganese composite oxide is substantially similar in structure and composition to the instantly-claimed lithium nickel manganese composite oxide, it is prima facie obvious that Masatoshi et al.’s lithium nickel manganese composite oxide also has the claimed feature that a ratio of a number of Mn atoms to a number of Ni atoms (Mn/Ni ratio) in the manganese-rich layer is 1.0 or more and 1.5 or less.
As to claim 2, Masatoshi et al. teaches the lithium nickel manganese composite oxide according to claim 1. Masatoshi et al. is silent as to the solid-state lithium nuclear magnetic resonance spectrum of this composite oxide, and does not disclose that is has the property wherein, in a spectrum measured by solid-state lithium nuclear magnetic resonance analysis (6Li-MAS-NMR) using a magic-angle sample rotation method, there is no peak at 1,495 to 1,505 ppm caused by LiMn6 formed by Li contained in the transition metal layer.
However, a prima facie case for obviousness can be made when a claimed product and a prior art product are substantially identical in structure or composition, even if the prior art is silent as to the properties of the product (see MPEP § 2112.01). In the instant case, the scope of the lithium nickel manganese composite oxide reads on the chemical formula, Li contained in a transition metal layer of Masatoshi et al.’s composite oxide does not form LiMn6, and the lithium nickel manganese composite oxide of Masatoshi et al. has a space group R-3m, an a-axis lattice constant of 2.87 Å to 2.90 Å, and a c-axis lattice constant of 14.28 Å to 14.32 Å, as set forth above. Because Masatoshi et al.’s lithium nickel manganese composite oxide is substantially similar in structure and composition to the instantly-claimed lithium nickel manganese composite oxide, it is prima facie obvious that Masatoshi et al.’s lithium nickel manganese composite oxide also has the claimed feature that, in a spectrum measured by solid-state lithium nuclear magnetic resonance analysis (6Li-MAS-NMR) using a magic-angle sample rotation method, there is no peak at 1,495 to 1,505 ppm caused by LiMn6 formed by Li contained in the transition metal layer.
As to claim 3, Masatoshi et al. teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery comprising the lithium nickel manganese composite oxide according to claim 1 as a main component (see the rejection of claim 1 above, Masatoshi et al. teaches a lithium nickel manganese composite oxide that renders obvious the limitations of claim 1 as set forth above, and Masatoshi et al.’s lithium nickel manganese composite oxide reads on a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery).
As to claim 4, Masatoshi et al. teaches a lithium secondary battery (see e.g. non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, [0015]) comprising a positive electrode (see e.g. positive electrode, [0015]), a negative electrode (see e.g. negative electrode, [0015]), and an electrolyte (see e.g. nonaqueous electrolyte, [0015]), wherein the positive electrode contains a positive electrode active material whose main component is the lithium nickel manganese composite oxide according to claim 1 (see e.g. [0012], the positive electrode active material comprises a lithium-containing composite oxide which reads on the lithium nickel manganese composite oxide according to claim 1 as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masatoshi et al. (JP2004087487A, as read via machine translation) in view of Hamano et al. (US 2020/0083523) and Mitsumoto et al. (US 2021/0159496).
As to claim 5, Masatoshi et al. discloses a method of producing the lithium nickel manganese composite oxide (see e.g. lithium-containing composite oxide, Masatoshi et al.: [0012]) that renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Masatoshi et al.’s method comprises:
a first process in which at least one of lithium and a lithium compound (see e.g. lithium compound, Masatoshi et al.: [0036]) is reacted with a hydroxide precursor at a temperature of 900°C to 1200°C, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 800°C or higher and 950°C or lower for a duration of 1-10 hours, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 1 minute or longer and 5 hours or shorter (see e.g. calcination step (c), Masatoshi et al.: [0036], [0038]).
Masatoshi et al. is silent as to the composition of the precursor, and does not state that the precursor comprises NiaMnbZa (where Z is O or OH, a is 0<a<1, b is 0<b<1, a+b=1, and a is a value that keeps NiaMnbZa electrically neutral).
Hamano et al., also working on the problem of synthesizing lithium nickel manganese composite oxides, teaches an analogous synthesis method of producing a similar lithium transition metal oxide complex (see e.g. LiaNibMcNdLeOx, Hamano et al.: Abstract and [0057]-[0058]) in which a lithium material is mixed with a precursor material that is an oxide or hydroxide of the form Ni-Mn-(OH)2, which reads on the form of the claimed NiaMnbZa precursor where Z is OH (Hamano et al.: [0108]). One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would further have understood that the stoichiometry of Ni and Mn present in the NiaMnbZa precursor would necessarily need to match the stoichiometry of Ni and Mn present in the LixNiyMnzO2 material of Masatoshi et al.’s end product (see e.g. Masatoshi et al.: [0014]). The values of x and y in this end material both range from 0.45 to 0.5 (see e.g. Masatoshi et al.: [0014]), and as such said artisan would have found it obvious to set the values of a and b in the precursor to the range of 0.45<a<0.5 and 0.45<b<0.5, which lie within and thereby anticipate the claimed ranges of 0<a<1 and 0<b<1. Said artisan would have also found it obvious to set the value of a in the formula NiaMnbZa to keep the compound electrically neutral, because one of ordinary skill in the art of chemistry would have understood that the compound be unstable if it were not electrically neutral.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Masatoshi et al. by using the NiaMnbZa precursor (where Z is O or OH, a is 0<a<1, b is 0<b<1, a+b=1, and a is a value that keeps NiaMnbZa electrically neutral) taught by Hamano et al. as the source of Ni and Mn. Said artisan would have found the use of this precursor material to be obvious because Hamano et al. teaches that it is a viable source of Ni and Mn for the production of a lithium nickel manganese composite oxide.
Further regarding claim 5, the method of Masatoshi et al. in view of Hamano et al. as applied above does not explicitly teach a second process of cooling the powder to room temperature.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to allow the product of Masatoshi et al. in view of Hamano et al.’s calcination process to cool to room temperature, because the material would be difficult to handle if it were allowed to remain at an elevated calcination temperature. Further, allowing the product of Masatoshi et al. in view of Hamano et al.’s calcination process to cool to room temperature would fail to introduce any new benefit that would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Further regarding claim 5, the method of Masatoshi et al. in view of Hamano et al. as applied above does not teach a third process in which the powder is immersed in ion-exchanged water at a temperature of 50°C or higher and 100°C or lower for 5 minutes or longer and 3 hours or shorter or a fourth process of drying the powder after being immersed in ion-exchanged water.
Mitsumoto et al., also working on the problem of synthesizing lithium nickel manganese composite oxides, teaches an analogous synthesis method of producing a similar lithium transition metal oxide complex (see e.g. lithium metal composite oxide, Mitsumoto et al.: [0018]), in which, after a calcination step, the composite oxide is immersed in ion-exchanged water at a temperature of 5°C to 70°C, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 50°C to 100°C (see e.g. “Washing and Drying Steps,” Mitsumoto et al.: [0185]-[0192]]). Mitsumoto et al.’s washing process is stirred for 20 minutes and left to stand for 10 minutes, for a total of 30 minutes, which lies within and thereby anticipates the claimed duration of 5 minutes or longer and 3 hours or shorter (Mitsumoto et al.: [0195]). Mitsumoto et al.’s complex oxide is then dried (see e.g. Mitsumoto et al.: [0185] references “Washing and Drying Steps” and para [0193] states that the lithium composite oxide is removed from the supernatant, which reads on a drying step). Mitsumoto et al. teaches that this washing and drying process separates impurities from the material (see e.g. Mitsumoto et al.: [0186]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the instantly-claimed inventio to modify the process of Masatoshi et al. in view of Hamano et al. by adding a third process in which the powder is immersed in ion-exchanged water at a temperature of 50°C or higher and 100°C or lower for 5 minutes or longer and 3 hours or shorter and a fourth process of drying the powder after being immersed in ion-exchanged water. Said artisan would have been motivated to add Mitsumoto et al.’s washing and drying process to the process of Masatoshi et al. in view of Hamano et al. in order to remove impurities from the oxide material, as taught by Mitsumoto et al..
Further regarding claim 5, the method of Masatoshi et al. in view of Hamano et al. and Mitsumoto et al. as applied above does not teach a fifth process in which the powder after drying is heated at 800°C or higher and 950°C or lower for 1 hour or longer and 24 hours or shorter.
However, Mitsumoto et al., also working on the problem of synthesizing lithium nickel manganese composite oxides, teaches an analogous synthesis method of producing a similar lithium transition metal oxide complex (see e.g. lithium metal composite oxide, Mitsumoto et al.: [0018]), in which, after a calcination step, the composite oxide is subject to a subsequent heat treatment step for 0.5 to 300 hours, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 1 hour or longer and 24 hours or shorter (see e.g. Mitsumoto et al.: [0095], [0176]-[0177]). Mitsumoto et al. further teaches that the temperature for this drying process should be less than the calcination temperature of the material (Mitsumoto et al.: [0177]), implying in the instant case a temperature range of 0°C to 1200°C, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 800°C or higher and 950°C or lower. Mitsumoto et al. teaches that this process adjusts the strain of the material (see e.g. Mitsumoto et al.: [0119]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Masatoshi et al. in view of Hamano et al. and Mitsumoto et al. by adding a teach a fifth process in which the powder after drying is heated at 800°C or higher and 950°C or lower for 1 hour or longer and 24 hours or shorter as taught by Mitsumoto et al.. Said artisan would have been motivated to modify the process in this manner in order to adjust the strain of the material, as taught by Mitsumoto et al..
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT HILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)-272-3066. 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.
/A.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 08/05/2026
Prosecution Insights