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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 23, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Based on applicant’s amendments the rejection below has been updated to address the amendments.
Applicant argues that Han does not teach or suggest the claimed manganese content because Han states that at least 50 mole-% of the transition metal Tm is Ni. Applicant further argues that Han is directed to high-nickel active materials and that the disclosed Mn content of 0-20 mol% is below the claimed amount. However, this argument does not address the rejection presented.
The rejection does not rely on an assertion that Ni and Mn are the same element or that Han’s disclosure of at least 50 mole-% Ni and Mn are the same element or that Han’s disclosure of at least 50 mole-% Ni, standing alone, expressly discloses at least 50 mole-% Mn. Rather, the rejection relies on the teachings of Han and the additional teachings of Erk concerning the composition of the electrode active material. The references are properly considered for their respective teachings, and the fact that Han emphasizes Ni-rich embodiments does not negate the teachings of the reference concerning the selection and combination of Ni, Mn, and other transition metals in electrode active materials.
Applicant’s reliance on Han’s exemplary or preferred compositions is also not persuasive. A prior-art reference is not limited to its working examples, and the disclosure of a preferred embodiment does not necessarily constitute a teaching away from other disclosed alternatives. To establish teaching away, Applicant would need to identify evidence that the prior art criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the proposed modification. Applicant has not identified such a teaching in Han. Rather, Han and Erk are directed to electrode active materials containing transition-metal components, and the claimed composition represents a selection of relative amounts of known transition-metal constituents in the same general field.
Applicant next argues that Erk does not cure the alleged deficiency of Han because Erk likewise teaches that at least 60 mole-% of TM is Ni. However, the fact that Erk contains Ni-rich embodiments does not establish that the skilled artisan would have been taught away from modifying the relative amounts of the transition-metal constituents.
With respect to Kern, Applicant similarly relies upon Kern’s examples containing 80 or 90 mole-% Ni and 0 or 10 mole-% Mn. Applicant reliance on these examples is not sufficient to overcome the rejection. The examples represent particular embodiments and do not, without more, establish that Kern teaches away from the broader compositional teachings of the reference. Applicant has not identified a disclosure in Kern indicating that increasing the relative amount of Mn would be unsuitable, undesirable, or otherwise contrary to the teachings of the reference.
Applicant also argues that Kern’s halogen treatment is unrelated to the claimed process. This argument does not address the rationale for combining the references. The reference need not have identical purposes or disclose the claimed invention as a whole. Rather, the relevant consideration is whether the teachings of the references, when considered together, would have suggested the claimed combination to one of ordinary skill in the art. Here, the references concern electrode active materials and treatments thereof and therefore address subject matter within the same general field of endeavor.
Applicant’s assertion that there was “no teaching, suggestion, motivation, or other reason” to combine Han, Erk, and Kern, is likewise unpersuasive. The rationale for modifying or combining prior-art teachings may be implicit and may arise from the nature of the problem being addressed, the teachings of the references, known alternatives, design considerations, or the ordinary creativity and technical knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art.
In particular, selecting the relative amounts of Ni and Mn in a known electrode active material constitutes selection and optimization of known compositional variables where the prior art provides ranges and alternatives for those components. Applicant has not provided evidence that the selection of a Mn-containing composition would have been beyond the ordinary skill in the art or that such a selection would have produced an unexpected result sufficient to overcome the prima facie case of obviousness.
Finally, Applicant’s assertion that the proposed combination would require “impermissible hindsight” is not persuasive. Hindsight is not established merely because the precise claimed combination is not expressly disclosed in a single reference. The determination of obviousness properly considers the teachings of the references as a whole and whether a skill artisan would have had reason to modify or combine those teachings with a reasonable expectation of success.
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, 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (WO 2020069886), hereinafter Han, in view of Erk et al. (US 20200161652), hereinafter Erk.
Regarding claim 1, Han teaches a process for a manufacture of a cathode active material with a core-shell structure (Abstract):
Providing a particulate electrode active material according to g general formula (Abstract):
Li1-xTM1-xO2 (Abstract);
TM is a combination of metals and includes Ni and Mn, and, optionally, at least one element selected from Al, Mg, Ba and transition metals other than Ni and Mn (Abstract);
"x" is in a range of from 0.075 to 0.2 (Abstract, Han teaches “x” range of 0-0.2);
At least 50 mole-% of the metal of TM is Mn (Abstract);
Treating said particulate electrode active material with an aqueous buffer solution with a pH value in a range of from 2.0 to 10.5 (pg. 4, ln. 21-25, Han teaches pH values of 2-14);
Removing a liquid phase in step (b) by a solid-liquid separation method (Abstract);
Treating a residue from step (c) at a temperature in a range of from 140 to 750°C (pg. 5, ln. 26-34, Han specifically teaches temperature range of 50-450°C).
Han fails to teach the general formula Li1+xTM1-xO2.
Erk teaches the general formula Li1+xTM1-xO2.
Han and Erk are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrode active materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the composition taught by Han in view of Erk to employ the alternative lithium stoichiometry, since both references are directed to lithium metal oxide cathode materials and such modification merely represents the use of a known alternative composition to obtain predictable cathode material properties.
Additionally, it is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select a value of “x” within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Similarly, it is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select a pH value within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Han teaches that at least 50 mole-% of the transition metal TM is Ni, with the remainder of TM comprising Mn and/or other disclosed transition metals. Where the remaining transition-metal content is Mn, the disclosed compositional ranges encompass a composition in which at least 50 mole-% of the TM is Mn. Accordingly, Han’s disclosure encompasses the claimed Mn-containing transition-metal composition, and the limitation requiring at least 50 mole-% Mn would have been an obvious selection of the disclosed transition-metal components and their respective amounts.
Further, it is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select a temperature value within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 3, Han and Erk teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Han further teaches the solid-liquid separation~ method in step (c) is a filtration (pg. 7, ln. 4-10).
Regarding claim 4, Han and Erk teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Han further teaches the aqueous buffer solution in step (b) has a pH value in a range of from 4.0 to 9.5 (pg. 4, ln. 21-25).
Specifically, Han teaches pH values of 2 to 14. It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select a pH value within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 5, Han and Erk teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Han further teaches the process according to claim 1 comprising a step (e) after step (d) (pg. 16, ln. 38 - pg. 17, ln. 5):
washing the heat-treated material residue from step (d) one to four times with water (pg. 16, ln. 38 - pg. 17, ln. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify wash with water the number of times claimed. The number of washing cycles constitutes a result-effective variable that affects the removal of residual impurities and surface species from the cathode active material. Optimization of the number of washing repetitions to achieve the desired degree of cleanliness would have been achieved through routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 6, Han and Erk teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Han further teaches step (b) is performed at a temperature in a range of from 25 to 90°C (pg. 5, ln. 26-34).
Specifically, Han teaches temperature ranging from 50-450°C. It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select a temperature value within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 7, Han and Erk teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Han further teaches removing the liquid by a solid-liquid separation method (Abstract). However, Han does not expressly disclose recycling the removed liquid phase. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to at least partially recycle the liquid phase obtained during the solid0liquid separation step. Recycling process liquids is a well-known and conventional practice in chemical and materials processing operations to reduce waste generation, decrease raw material consumption, lower manufacturing costs, and improve overall process efficiency.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the separated liquid may contain residual buffer components or process chemicals that remain suitable for reuse. Therefore, it would have been obvious to recycle at least a portion of the liquid phase as a matter of routine process optimization and to achieve the predictable benefits of reduced waste and improved manufacturing economy.
Claims 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Kern et al. (US 20200144617), hereinafter Kern.
Regarding claim 2, Han and Erk teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Han further teaches TM is a combination of metals according to a general formula (I) (pg. 10, ln. 24-42):
(NiaCobMnc)1-dMd (pg. 10, ln. 24-42);
"a" being in a range of from 0.75 to 0.95 (pg. 10, ln. 24-42);
"b" being zero or in a range of from 0.01 to 0.2 (pg. 10, ln. 24-42, specifically 0.025-0.2);
"c" being in a range of from 0.6 to 0.75 (pg. 10, ln. 24-42, specifically 0.025-0.2);
"d" being in a range of from 0 to 0.1 (pg. 10, ln. 24-42, specifically 0-0.1);
M is at least one of Al, Mg, Ti, Mo, W and Zr (pg. 10, ln. 24-42);
a + b + c = 1 (pg. 10, ln. 24-42).
Han fails to teach the claimed range of “a”.
Kern teaches TM is a combination of metals according to a general formula (I) (pg. 10, ln. 24-42):
(NiaCobMnc)1-dMd ([0070-0077]);
"a" being in a range of from 0.3 to 0.95 ([0070-0077]);
"b" being zero or in a range of from 0.01 to 0.2 ([0070-0077]);
"c" being in a range of from 0.6 to 0.75 ([0070-0077]);
"d" being in a range of from 0 to 0.1 ([0070-0077]);
M is at least one of Al, Mg, Ti, Mo, W and Zr ([0070-0077]);
a + b + c = 1 ([0070-0077]).
Han and Kern are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrode active materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the composition taught by Han to employ a nickel content within the range taught by Kern. It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select a nickel content within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
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 Tamara Orduna whose telephone number is (571) 431-1457. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/TAMARA ORDUNA/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 /Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
