DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the November 13th, 2025 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”).
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 Amendments
In response to the amendments received in the Remarks on November 13th, 2025:
Claims 1-20 are pending the current application. Claims 1-5, 13-16, and 18-19 have been withdrawn.
Prior Art
Previously cited Chen CN113991079 (“Chen”)
Previously cited Wang CN114477312 (“Wang”)
Previously cited Sun US PG Publication 2009/0272939 (“Sun”)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with the Remarks on August 6th, 2024 with respect to Claims 6-12, 17, and 20 are acknowledged, however, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Wang fails to read on the instant claim limitations because Wang discloses a “crude” operating method and does not teach or suggest a detailed control of pH, concentration of complexing agent, and stirring rotational speed is not persuasive.
There is not a specific requirement of detail a reference must disclose in order to be relevant prior art. Wang discloses a sufficient amount of information within their disclosure that a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the steps required to complete the disclosed method for preparing a positive electrode material precursor.
Wang explicitly states a desired flow rate, concentration, and stirring rotational speed ([n0007]-[n0022], and as cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on August 13th, 2025 (“Non-Final Rejection)) for preparing a positive electrode material precursor. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize those defined operating ranges to teach a detailed control of flow rate, concentration, and stirring rotational speed.
While Applicant is correct in stating that Wang does not explicitly disclose a detailed control of pH, Wang was used as a secondary reference to modify the primary reference, Chen. Chen sufficiently discloses motivation for optimizing and/or controlling the pH of the solution ([n0027] and as cited in the Non-Final Rejection). It is not required for Wang to teach a detailed control of pH to modify the primary reference, Chen.
Based solely on this argument, the rejection of record is maintained.
Additionally, Applicant’s argument that because Wang discloses a layered doping achieved by adding a rubidium salt solution and a molybdenum salt solution to achieve rubidium and molybdenum doping which is different from the claim composition is not persuasive.
While Applicant is correct in stating that Wang discloses a rubidium salt solution and a molybdenum salt solution in addition to the claimed composition within the positive electrode precursor material, the claims as currently written fail to exclude additional components within the precursor. And, therefore, the composition of Wang does not teach away from the claim limitations.
Based solely on this argument, the rejection of record is maintained.
Additionally, Applicant’s argument that Wang is directed to solving the problem of crack formation during precursor nucleation and not the problem related to the technical issues addressed by the present claims is not persuasive.
While Wang and the instant disclosure may address different technical issues, it is possible that both the technical issues addressed by Wang and the Applicant could be achieved with the material of Chen in view of Wang. Additionally, the claim limitations as currently written do not require any specific technical issue be solved. And, therefore, it is not a requirement for Chen in view of Wang to address any technical issues, including those technical issues the Applicant addressed in the instant disclosure.
Based solely on this argument, the rejection of record is maintained.
Additionally, Applicant’s argument that Sun fails to read on the instant claim limitations because Sun only discloses a nitrogen atmosphere and pH range are optimal conditions for forming the shell layer without involving the positive electrode material precursor having a specific element composition, such as claimed, is not persuasive.
While Applicant is correct in stating that there are differences in the preparation methods of Sun and the instant claim limitations, Chen in view of Wang disclose a preparation method that reads on the instant claim limitations. Chen in view of Wang solely fail to disclose a specific composition of the shell precursor material. Sun discloses a shell precursor material that reads on the limitation ([0050] and as cited in the Non-Final Rejection). The benefit of the shell precursor material of Sun (improving life cycle characteristics ([0052] and as cited in the Non-Final Rejection) would be true regardless of the preparation method used to obtain said shell precursor material and any potential deviances in the core material on which it covers.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Chen in view of Wang disclose that the instant preparation method is known and Sun discloses that the shell precursor material is known, and therefore, it would have been obvious to try a known preparation method to achieve a known shell precursor material.
Based solely on this argument, the rejection of record is maintained.
Lastly, Applicant’s argument of unexpected results is not persuasive.
In Applicant’s instant disclosure, Examples 1-4 satisfy the claimed flow rate ranges for the first salt solution, the complexing agent solution used with the first salt solution, the precipitant solution used with the first salt solution, the second salt solution, the complexing agent solution used with the second salt solution, and the precipitant solution used with the second salt solution. Within these examples, Example 1 has a reversible capacity of 125.89 mA/hg (Table 1). While Example 7 has a complexing agent solution used with the first salt solution flow rate of 4 kg/h (which falls outside of the claimed range of 1-3 kg/h), yet has a reversible capacity of 126.84 mA/hg, which is higher than that of Example 1. Therefore, no criticality of solution flow rate can be established based on these results.
In order to establish criticality, all Examples satisfying the claimed range must have more desirable data points than those that do not satisfy all claimed ranges. For example, if Applicant were to argue that the polyvinylpyrrolidone added in step (4) was critical and that unexpected results occur when this material is not present – that would be a persuasive argument because Examples 1 and 13 have the exact same process parameters and operating conditions except Example 13 omits the polyvinylpyrrolidone added in step (4). Example 1 having a reversible capacity of 125.89 mA/hg and a capacity retention of 92.61% while Example 13 only has a reversible capacity of 117.59 mA/hg and a capacity retention of 88.69%. The claim limitations as currently written do not claim the polyvinylpyrrolidone added in step (4) and an amendment would need to be made in conjunction with this type of argument to be successful.
Based solely on this argument, the rejection of record is maintained.
Overall, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of record is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 6-12, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen CN113991079 (machine translation provided in a previous office action) in view of Wang CN114477312 (machine translation provided in a previous office action) and Sun US PG Publication 2009/0272939.
Regarding Claim 6, Chen discloses a preparation method for a positive electrode material precursor ([n0001]) comprising:
injecting (i.e. dissolving) a first metal salt mixed solution (i.e. solution A), a complexing agent solution (i.e. solution C), and a precipitant solution (i.e. solution D) simultaneously into a reaction device (i.e. container), carrying out a primary co-precipitation reaction during the injection to obtain a core of the positive electrode material precursor ([n0014]-[n0019]), subsequently injecting (i.e. dissolving) a second metal salt mixed solution (i.e. solution B), the complexing agent solution, and the precipitant solution simultaneously into the reaction device, and carrying out a secondary co-precipitation reaction during the injection to obtain the positive electrode material precursor ([n0014]-[n0019]).
Chen discloses simultaneously injecting the solutions ([n0044]) but fails to explicitly disclose a continuous injection and a continuous solution.
However, Wang discloses a method for preparing a positive electrode material precursor ([n0003]) by performing a primary co-precipitation reaction and a secondary co-precipitation reaction ([n0007]-[n0008]).
Wang teaches combining a metal salt solution, a precipitant solution, and a complexing agent solution ([n0005]) at a flow rate between 20 and 500 L/h ([n0013], [n0022]) at a concentration between 2 and 16 g/L ([n0012], [n0022]) in a continuous manner ([n0007]-[n0008]) and stirred at a speed between 300 and 600 rpm ([n0012]) at a temperature between 40 and 70oC ([n0012]) in order to obtain a precursor material with a desired average particle size to form a core-shell structure positive electrode material precursor ([n0008]-[n0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the preparation method of Chen such that the primary co-precipitation reaction and the secondary co-precipitation reaction are both carried out in a manner of continuous injection and continuous reaction with a flow rate, concentration, and stirring rotational speed for the primary co-precipitation reaction between 20 and 500 L/h, 2 and 16 g/L (which encompasses the claimed range of 7-11 g/L), 300 and 600 rpm (which encompasses the claimed range of 300-380 rpm) for the first mixed salt metal solution, the complexing agent solution, and the precipitant solution and a flow rate, concentration, and stirring rotational speed for the secondary co-precipitation reaction between 20 and 500 L/h, 2 and 16 g/L (which encompasses the claimed range of 8-12 g/L), 300 and 600 rpm (which overlaps the claimed range of 250-350 rpm) for the second mixed salt metal solution, the complexing agent solution, and the precipitant solution and wherein both the primary and secondary co-precipitation reactions are carried out at a temperature between 40 and 70oC in order to obtain a precursor material with a desired average particle size to form a core-shell structure positive electrode material precursor, as taught by Wang.
The skilled artisan would recognize that the preparation method of Chen in view of Wang discloses wherein the first metal salt mixed solution is injected at a flow rate between 0.04 kg/h (i.e.
2
g
L
*
20
L
h
*
1
k
g
1000
g
) and 8 kg/h (i.e.
16
g
L
*
500
L
h
*
1
k
g
1000
g
) (which overlaps the claimed range of 8-12 kg/h) into the reaction device during the primary co-precipitation reaction; the complexing agent solution is injected at a flow rate of 0.04-8 kg/h (which encompasses the claimed range of 1-3 kg/h) into the reaction device during the primary co-precipitation reaction; the precipitant solution is injected at a flow rate of 0.04-8 kg/h (which encompasses the claimed range of 2.4-3 kg/h) during the primary co-precipitation reaction; and wherein the second metal salt mixed solution is injected at a flow rate of 0.04-8 kg/h (which overlaps the claimed range of 8-12 kg/h) into the reaction device during the secondary co-precipitation reaction; the complexing agent solution is injected at a flow rate of 0.04-8 kg/h (which encompasses the claimed range of 1-3 kg/h) into the reaction device during the secondary co-precipitation reaction; the precipitant solution is injected at a flow rate of 0.04-8 kg/h (which encompasses the claimed range of 2.4-3 kg/h) during the secondary co-precipitation reaction.
And Chen discloses wherein the positive electrode material precursors comprises a core and a shell wrapped around the core ([n0008]), wherein the core is, for example, Ni0.30Fe0.30Mn0.40(OH)2 (which satisfies the claimed NixFeyMn1-x-y(OH)2 when x=y=0.30) (as exemplified in Example 3 [n0060]) and the core and shell are both assembled by flaky primary particles ([n0009]).
While Chen does not explicitly state that a pH of the solution inside the reaction device is 9.5-11 during the primary co-precipitation reaction process and a pH of the solution inside the reaction device is 8.5-11 during the secondary co-precipitation reaction process, Chen does teach that the pH value during the co-precipitation reaction is 10-13 such that a uniform co-precipitation reaction can occur to obtain a precursor with uniform product size and composition ([n0027]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the preparation method of Chen in view of Wang such that a pH of the solution inside the reaction device is 10-13 (which overlaps the claimed range of 9.5-11) during the primary co-precipitation reaction process and a pH of the solution inside the reaction device is 10-13 (which overlaps the claimed range of 8.5-11) during the secondary co-precipitation reaction process such that a uniform co-precipitation reaction can occur to obtain a precursor with uniform product size and composition, as taught by Chen.
While Chen states that the amount of iron present influences the capacity of the material and thereby the cycle life of the battery ([n0010]), Chen in view of Wang fails to explicitly disclose a shell precursor material that falls within the claimed MaMn1-a(OH)2 wherein M is Fe.
However, Sun discloses a positive electrode active material for lithium secondary batteries with a core-shell multi-layer structure ([0007]).
Sun teaches the use of a shell layer as represented by (Mn1-yM’y)(OH)2 wherein M’ is selected from a group comprising Fe ([0050]) that is formed from a metal salt mixed solution comprising an aqueous manganese composite metal salt solution and a transition metal salt aqueous solution (i.e. such as iron) ([0013], [0016]-[0017], [0050]) mixed in the solvent water ([0016]) including sulfate, nitrate, and chloride salts ([0044]) in order to preserve cycle life characteristics of the active material ([0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the preparation method of Chen in view of Wang such that the shell layer is represented by (Mn1-yM’y)(OH)2 wherein M’ is selected from a group comprising Fe (which overlaps the claimed MaMn1-a(OH)2) and formed from a metal salt mixed solution that is formulated by mixing an iron salt, a manganese salt, and a solvent such as water in order to preserve cycle life characteristics of the active material, as taught by Sun.
The skilled artisan would recognize that Chen in view of Wang and Sun discloses wherein the second metal salt mixed solution is formulated by mixing an iron salt, a manganese salt, and a solvent (Sun [0044], [0050]).
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).
Regarding Claim 7, Chen in view of Wang and Sun teaches the instantly claimed preparation method according to Claim 6, and Chen discloses wherein the first metal salt mixed solution is formulated by mixing a [divalent] nickel salt (i.e. NiSO4), a [divalent] iron salt (i.e. FeSO4), a [divalent] manganese salt (i.e. MnSO4), and a solvent (i.e. deionized water) ([n0014], [n0023], [n0060]).
Regarding Claim 8, Chen in view of Wang and Sun teaches the instantly claimed preparation method according to Claim 6, and Chen discloses wherein metal ions of the first metal salt mixed solution have a total concentration of 1 mol/L (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 1-4 mol/L) ([n0060]).
Regarding Claim 9, Chen in view of Wang and Sun teaches the instantly claimed preparation method according to Claim 7, and Chen discloses wherein the nickel salt, the iron salt, and the manganese salt have a molar ratio x:y:(1-x-y), wherein x=y= 0.3 (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 0.2≤x≤0.7 and 0.2≤y≤0.5) ([n0059]).
Regarding Claim 10, Chen in view of Wang and Sun teaches the instantly claimed preparation method according to Claim 7, and Chen discloses wherein the nickel salt comprises nickel sulfate NiSO4 (which meets the claim limitation of any one of nickel sulfate, nickel chloride, or nickel nitrate) ([n0060]);
wherein the iron salt comprises ferrous sulfate FeSO4 (which meets the claimed limitation of ferrous sulfate or ferrous chloride) ([n0060]);
wherein the manganese salt comprises manganese sulfate MnSO4 (which meets the claimed limitation of any one of manganese sulfate, manganese chloride, or manganese nitrate) ([n0060]);
wherein the solvent comprises deionized water ([n0060]);
wherein the complexing agent has a concentration of 0.1-10 mol/L (which encompasses the claimed range of 1-3 mol/L) ([n0025]);
wherein the complexing agent comprises an ammonia complexing agent (i.e. ammonia water) ([n0025]);
wherein the precipitant has a concentration of 0.1-10 mol/L (which encompasses the claimed range of 1-3 mol/L) ([n0025]);
wherein the precipitant comprises an alkali solution wherein the alkali solution comprises a sodium hydroxide or a potassium hydroxide solution ([n0025], [n0060]).
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).
Regarding Claim 11, Chen in view of Wang and Sun teaches the instantly claimed preparation method according to Claim 6, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 6) Chen in view of Wang and Sun discloses wherein the primary co-precipitation reaction is carried out at 40-70oC (which encompasses the claimed range of 40-60o) (Wang [n0012]).
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).
Regarding Claim 12, Chen in view of Wang and Sun teaches the instantly claimed preparation method according to Claim 6, and Chen discloses wherein metal ions of the second metal salt mixed solution have a total concentration of 1 mol/L (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 1-4 mol/L) ([n0060]).
Regarding Claim 17, Chen in view of Wang and Sun teaches the instantly claimed preparation method according to Claim 6.
Chen in view of Wang and Sun fails to disclose wherein before the primary co-precipitation reaction, deionized water, the complexing agent solution, and the precipitant solution are added to the reaction device as a bottom solution for the primary co-precipitation reaction.
However, Wang teaches before the co-precipitation reaction, adding water, the complexing agent solution, and the precipitant solution to the reaction device as a bottom solution for the primary co-precipitation reaction ([n0006]-[n0007]) in order to achieve a desired average particle size for the precursor material ([n0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the preparation method of Chen in view of Wang and Sun to further comprise before the primary co-precipitation reaction adding deionized water, the complexing agent solution, and the precipitant solution as a bottom solution for the primary co-precipitation reaction in order to achieve a desired average particle size for the precursor material, as taught by Wang.
Regarding Claim 20, Chen in view of Wang and Sun teaches the instantly claimed preparation method according to Claim 6, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 6) Chen in view of Wang and Sun discloses wherein the secondary co-precipitation reaction is carried out at 40-70oC (which encompasses the claimed range of 40-60o) (Wang [n0012]).
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).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA MASON RUGGIERO whose telephone number is (703)756-4652. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-6pm 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached on (571)272-1481. 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.
/O.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights