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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are currently pending;
Claim 1 is amended.
Status of Rejections and Objections Pending Since the Office Action of 06/01/2026
The objection to the IDS is withdrawn in view of the newly filed IDS dated 09/01/2026;
The 103 rejection of claims 1-10 are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regards to applicant’s arguments concerning the criticality of the claimed range of “an amount of moisture in the gas mixture is 36 vol% or more and 85 vol% or less” in claim 1, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that examples 3-6 of Table 1 in the instant specification shows the criticality of the claimed range to provide a high cycle retention rate as compared to comparative examples 1-3 of Table 1 (Remarks pgs. 7-8). Table 1 is not sufficient to prove criticality of the claimed range. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). Table 1 fails to show a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range, as Table 1 fails to show any tests or examples above the claimed range.
Further, paragraph [0017] of the instant specification teaches that a cycle rate of 90% or more is evaluated as “high cycle retention rate.” The now claimed range of 36 vol% to 85 vol% is not inclusive of examples 1 and 2 of Table 1 that show the high cycle retention rate of greater than 90% despite having a moisture concentration below the claimed range at 8 vol% and 11 vol%. Therefore, the results of the now claimed range of 36 vol% to 85 vol% are not unexpected and significant.
Further still, in Table 1, example 5 shows a cycle retention rate of 90.9% while example 4 shows a cycle retention rate of 94.4%, yielding a difference of 3.5%. In contrast, both comparative example 1 and comparative example 2, utilizing moisture concentrations outside the claimed range, both show a cycle retention rate of 88.1%, which is only a difference of 2.8% in comparison with example 5. Given such a small difference, it is unclear whether "the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aonuma et al. (JP-2016050120-A), as cited and translated in the IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Aonuma teaches a method for producing a lithium metal composite oxide, comprising a calcining step of introducing a gas mixture inside a calcining furnace and calcining a substance to be calcined in the calcining furnace at a temperature of higher than 600 °C ([0052] firing at 650 °C to 850 °C; [0066]-[0071]) wherein the substance to be calcined is a raw material mixture containing a mixture of a metal composite compound and a lithium compound or a reaction product of the metal composite compound and the lithium compound ([0057] firing raw materials of nickel hydroxide, lithium hydroxide, and metal hydroxide; [0066] calcination material of lithium hydroxide, nickel cobalt composite hydroxide, and aluminum hydroxide)), the gas mixture before introduction contains oxygen ([0052] oxygen-containing gas such as oxygen gas and air; [0066]-[0071]), and an amount of carbon dioxide in the gas mixture is less than 4 vol% ([0052] oxygen gas and air inherently have less than 4 vol% of carbon dioxide; [0068]-[0071]).
Aonuma teaches that the gas mixture before introduction contains moisture such that the dew point is between 0 °C to 70 °C ([0052]), and that moisture in the gas mixture can reduce the amount of strongly alkaline substances contained in the nickel-lithium composite oxide after firing ([0057]). Aonuma fails to explicitly teach that an amount of moisture in the gas mixture is 36 vol% or more and 85 vol% or less. However, this value is optimizable given the teachings regarding a humid atmosphere, varying dew point, and beneficial effect of reducing the amount of strongly alkaline substances (Aonuma [0052]; [0057]). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 2, Aonuma teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Aonuma also teaches wherein an amount of oxygen in the gas mixture before introduction is 10 vol% or more and 92 vol% or less ([0052] air inherently has 10 vol% or more and 92 vol% or less of oxygen at around 21 vol%).
Regarding claim 3, Aonuma teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Aonuma also teaches that the gas mixture before introduction contains moisture such that the dew point is between 0 °C to 70 °C ([0052]; [0056]), and that moisture in the gas mixture can reduce the amount of strongly alkaline substances contained in the nickel-lithium composite oxide after firing ([0057]; [0058]). Aonuma does not explicitly teach wherein a total amount of moisture (m3) introduced into the calcining furnace with respect to a charged powder mass (kg) of the substance to be calcined is 0.1 m3/kg or more and 20 m3/kg or less. However, this value is optimizable given the teachings regarding a humid atmosphere, varying dew point, and beneficial effect of reducing the amount of strongly alkaline substances (Aonuma [0052]; [0057]). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 4, Aonuma teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Aonuma also teaches wherein a calcining time in the calcining step is 1 hour or longer and 24 hours or shorter ([0052 2 to 30 hours; [0071] 780 °C for 4 hours). In the case where the claimed ranges "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).
Regarding claim 5, Aonuma teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Aonuma also teaches comprising a cooling step of cooling a calcined product inside the calcining furnace after the calcining step, wherein a gas with a dew point of -15°C or lower is supplied inside the calcining furnace in the cooling step ([0055] switch to dry atmosphere before the cooling process after the firing process).
Regarding claim 6, Aonuma teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Aonuma also teaches wherein the lithium metal composite oxide satisfies General Formula (I) below,
Li[Lix(Ni(1-y-z)CoyXz)1-x]O2 (I)
(in Formula (I), X represents one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Mn, Fe, Cu, Ti, Mg, Al, W, Mo, Nb, Zn, Sn, Zr, Ga, B, Si, S, and P, and -0.1 ≤ x ≤ 0.2, 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.4, and 0 ≤ z ≤ 0.5 are satisfied.) ([0036]-[0040]; [0013]-[0014] general formula 1 of LixNi1-y-z MyNzO1.7-2.2 wherein x is 0.90 to 1.10, y is 0.01 to 0.15, and z is 0.005 to 0.10, and wherein M is one or more of Co, Mn, Fe, and Cu and N is one or more of Al, W, Ta, and B). In the case where the claimed ranges "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).
Regarding claim 7, Aonuma teaches all of the limitations of claim 2. Aonuma also teaches that the gas mixture before introduction contains moisture such that the dew point is between 0 °C to 70 °C ([0052]; [0056]), and that moisture in the gas mixture can reduce the amount of strongly alkaline substances contained in the nickel-lithium composite oxide after firing ([0057]; [0058]). Aonuma does not explicitly teach wherein a total amount of moisture (m3) introduced into the calcining furnace with respect to a charged powder mass (kg) of the substance to be calcined is 0.1 m3/kg or more and 20 m3/kg or less. However, this value is optimizable given the teachings regarding a humid atmosphere, varying dew point, and beneficial effect of reducing the amount of strongly alkaline substances (Aonuma [0052]; [0057]). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 8, Aonuma teaches all of the limitations of claim 2. Aonuma also teaches wherein a calcining time in the calcining step is 1 hour or longer and 24 hours or shorter ([0052 2 to 30 hours; [0071] 780 °C for 4 hours). In the case where the claimed ranges "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).
Regarding claim 9, Aonuma teaches all of the limitations of claim 2. Aonuma also teaches comprising a cooling step of cooling a calcined product inside the calcining furnace after the calcining step, wherein a gas with a dew point of -15°C or lower is supplied inside the calcining furnace in the cooling step ([0055] switch to dry atmosphere before the cooling process after the firing process).
Regarding claim 10, Aonuma teaches all of the limitations of claim 2. Aonuma also teaches wherein the lithium metal composite oxide satisfies General Formula (I) below,
Li[Lix(Ni(1-y-z)CoyXz)1-x]O2 (I)
(in Formula (I), X represents one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Mn, Fe, Cu, Ti, Mg, Al, W, Mo, Nb, Zn, Sn, Zr, Ga, B, Si, S, and P, and -0.1 ≤ x ≤ 0.2, 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.4, and 0 ≤ z ≤ 0.5 are satisfied.) ([0036]-[0040]; [0013]-[0014] general formula 1 of LixNi1-y-z MyNzO1.7-2.2 wherein x is 0.90 to 1.10, y is 0.01 to 0.15, and z is 0.005 to 0.10, and wherein M is one or more of Co, Mn, Fe, and Cu and N is one or more of Al, W, Ta, and B). In the case where the claimed ranges "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).
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 MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM ET.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/M.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights