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 .
Claim Status
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on June 15th, 2026 have been entered into the file.
Currently claims 1-2, 10, and 13 are amended, claims 7-8 are withdrawn, and claims 9, 12, and 16 are cancelled. Resulting in claims 1-6, 10-11, 13-15 pending for examination.
Response to Amendment
The arguments and amendments filed June 15th, 2026 have been received and entered into the file.
Applicant’s amendment of claims 1 and 2 has overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-6 presented in the previous office action mailed March 20th, 2026.
Applicant’s amendment of claims 10 and 13 has overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 10-11, 13-15 presented in the previous office action mailed March 20th, 2026.
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 1-4, 10-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (Chinese Patent Publication No. 111384371 A).
Regarding claim 1, Du teaches a lithium-containing oxide cathode material (Paragraph 10).
It is reasonable to presume that the lithium-containing oxide cathode material of Du:
has a compressive index Δλ(P100) satisfying Δλ(P100) ≥ 60%+(y/x)×5%,
has a compressive index Δλ(P300) satisfying Δλ(P300) ≥ 35%+(y/x)×5%,
where y/x is a molar ratio of Mn/Ni in the cathode material,
wherein the compressive index Δλ(P100) is calculated based on the following equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
106
473
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, where:
D50 refers to a value of particle cumulative distribution D5 of the material in a natural state without external mechanical pressure, i.e., P=0 Mpa;
D5p100 refers to a value of particle cumulative distribution D5 of the material under P=l00 Mpa;
D5 refers to a particle size value when a cumulative volume distribution of the particles is 5%;
Δλ(P100) represents the compressive index of the material when pressure P=l00Mpa;
Δλ(P200) represents the compressive index of the material when pressure P=200Mpa; and
Δλ(P300) represents the compressive index of the material when pressure P=300Mpa,
wherein the lithium-containing oxide cathode material has a chemical formula represented by Formula (3):
Li[LiaNixMnyMj]O2@M’, Formula (3), where:
0≤a≤0.3; 0.2<x<1; 0<y≤0.75; 0<j≤0.35; M is selected from at least one element of Al, Zr, Nb, Ti, Y, Sc, Cr, Co, W, Mg, La, Os, Pr, Re, Ru, Sr, Sm, Ta, and B;
M' is an oxide, phosphide, sulfide, fluoride, or chloride containing at least one element of Al, Zr, Nb, Ti, Y, Sc, Cr, Co, W, Mg, La, Os, Pr, Re, Ru, Sr, Sm, Ta, and B
Li[LiaNixMnyMj]O2 is coated with a coating layer consisting of M’; and
a molar content of cations in M' is w, w satisfying 0<w/(a+x+y+j)≤0. l.
Support for said presumption is found in that Du teaches a method of making the lithium-containing oxide cathode material which overlaps the method described by the instant disclosure, particularly relating to the conditions of the process and the materials used.
The instant disclosure provides the following steps in the preparation method of a lithium-containing oxide cathode material (Paragraph 0073):
S1: uniformly mixing a precursor having a chemical formula represented by Formula (1), a lithium source, and an optional additive containing element M2, and performing a first sintering on the mixed material in an atmosphere furnace, to obtain a primary sintered material having a chemical formula represented by Formula (2); and
S2: uniformly mixing the primary sintered material with an additive containing element M′, and performing a second sintering on the mixed material in an atmosphere furnace, to obtain a lithium-containing metal oxide having a chemical formula represented by Formula (3)
NiuMnvM1γ(OH)2, Formula (1)
where: u+v+γ=1, 0.2<u<1, 0<v≤0.75, 0≤γ≤0.35, and M1 is selected from at least one element of Al, Zr, Nb, Ti, Y, Sc, Cr, Co, W, Mg, Na, La, Os, Pr, Re, Ru, Sr, Sm, Ta, and B;
Li[LiaNixMnyMj]O2, Formula (2);
Li[LiaNixMnyMj]O2@M′, Formula (3);
wherein in Formula (2) and Formula (3), 0≤a≤0.3, 0.2<x<1, 0<y≤0.75, 0<j≤0.35; and M includes element M1 in the precursor and element M2 introduced during the first sintering, M1 and M2 being the same or different and being each selected from at least one element of Al, Zr, Nb, Ti, Y, Sc, Cr, Co, W, Mg, La, Os, Pr, Re, Ru, Sr, Sm, Ta, and B;
and wherein in Formula (3), M' is oxide, phosphide, sulfide, fluoride, or chloride containing at least one element of Al, Zr, Nb, Ti, Y, Sc, Cr, Co, W, Mg, La, Os, Pr, Re, Ru, Sr, Sm, Ta, and B, and a molar content of cations in M' is w, w satisfying 0 < w/(a+x+y+j) ≤ 0.1.
The following process steps to produce a lithium-containing oxide cathode material of Du are related to the process steps to produce a lithium-containing oxide cathode material of the instant disclosure.
Du discloses a method of preparing the cathode material of the instant disclosure including raw material of a ternary material precursor of nickel, cobalt, manganese and/or aluminum and a lithium source (Paragraph 68), which is equated with step S1 of the instant disclosure including mixing a chemical formula represented by Formula (1) and a lithium source. The instant disclosure provides the additive containing element M2 is optional (Paragraph 0008), and is thus not considered pertinent by the Examiner in obtaining the product of the instant disclosure.
The examples of suitable ternary material precursor of nickel, cobalt, manganese and/or aluminum taught by Du overlaps with the general Formula (1) of the instant claim. Du teaches the precursor may be represented by Ni1/3Co1/3Mn1/3(OH)2, Ni0.5Co0.2Mn0.3(OH)2, Ni0.5Co0.25Mn0.25(OH)2, Ni0.55Co0.15Mn0.3(OH)2, Ni0.55Co0.1Mn0.35(OH)2, Ni0.55Co0.05Mn0.4(OH)2, Ni0.6Co0.2Mn0.2(OH)2, Ni0.75Co0.1Mn0.15(OH)2, Ni0.8Co0.1Mn0.1(OH)2, Ni0.88Co0.05Mn0.07(OH)2 (Paragraph 68), which overlaps with Formula (1) of the instant claim, NiuMnvM1γ(OH)2, when M1 is Co, as the subscripts of the elements Ni, Mn, and M1 of Du lie within the ranges defined by the instant claim for u, v, and γ, respectively.
The instant disclosure provides that the lithium source in step S1 of the disclosure is at least one of lithium hydroxide, lithium carbonate, and lithium nitrate (Paragraph 0075). Du teaches the lithium-containing raw material may be LiOH (lithium hydroxide) and Li2CO3 (lithium carbonate) (Paragraph 68).
The instant disclosure provides a molar ratio Li/(Ni+Mn+M1+M2) of the lithium source to a sum of the precursor and the additive containing the element M2 ranges from 1 to 1.85, and preferably from 1 to 1.5 (Paragraph 0079). In the examples provided, Du teaches the nickel-cobalt-manganese ternary material precursor and lithium-containing compound are mixed at a molar ratio of 1:1.05 (Paragraph 86). Therefore, Du teaches a molar ratio Li/(Ni+Mn+M1+M2) of the lithium source to a sum of the precursor and the additive containing the element M2 (1:05:1) that lies within the instant range disclosed by the specification.
Additionally in step S1, Du teaches performing a first sintering on the mixed material in an atmosphere furnace, to obtain a primary sintered material having a chemical formula represented by Formula (2).
In Example 1 of the disclosure, Du teaches sintering the mixture of the precursor and the Li-containing compound followed by sintering in an atmosphere furnace at 800°C (Paragraph 86). Du teaches the oxygen concentration during sintering may be greater than or equal to 20 percent (Paragraph 68). The precursor material of Du of Example 1 is represented by Ni0.8Co0.1Mn0.1(OH)2, and thus the molar ratio of Ni/Mn, x/y, is 0.8/0.1, or 8.
The instant disclosure provides in step S1 of the method:
[0083]According to the present disclosure, when a molar ratio of Ni/Mn is greater than 1, that is, x/y>1, a relationship between a sintering temperature T1 of the first sintering and a content of Ni satisfies 550×(2-x)℃≤T1≤400×(3-x)℃, and a sintering duration of the first sintering ranges from 6 hours to 20 hours, and preferably, from 8 hours to 15 hours. The molar ratio of Ni/Mn of Example 1 taught by Du is smaller than 1
According to the teachings of the instant disclosure, the ratio x/y taught by Du is greater than 1, thus the sintering temperature should fall within the range of 550×(2-0.8)℃ ≤ T1 ≤ 400×(3-0.8)℃, or 660℃ ≤ T1 ≤ 880 ℃. Thus, the temperature for sintering taught by Du for Example 1 of the disclosure lies within the range of suitable temperatures for sintering taught by the instant disclosure according to the molar ratio of Ni/Mn in order to obtain the claimed lithium-containing oxide cathode material according to the instant disclosure.
The instant disclosure provides in step S1 of the method:
[0084]According to the present disclosure…when x≥0.6, the first sintering and the second sintering are performed in an oxygen atmosphere or a mixture atmosphere of oxygen and air.
As mentioned above, Du teaches sintering in at atmospheric furnace wherein the oxygen concentration during sintering may be greater than or equal to 20 percent. Thus, according to the subscript of nickel of the precursor material of Du of Example 1, x=0.8, Du teaches the appropriate atmospheric conditions for sintering in order to obtain the claimed lithium-containing oxide cathode material according to the instant disclosure.
Therefore, the overlap between the first step of Du and step S1 of the instant disclosure results in a primary sintered material having a chemical formula represented by Formula (2), or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan that the steps of Du discussed above would result in a primary sintered material having a chemical formula represented by Formula (2). Additionally, Du teaches in Table 2, the positive active material represented by the formula LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 overlaps with the general Formula (2) of the instant disclosure, when M1 is Co, as the subscripts of the elements Ni, Mn, and M1 of Du lie within the ranges defined by the instant claim for u, v, and γ, respectively.
Thus, Du teaches the method step S1 in the process of forming lithium-containing oxide cathode material which shares process steps, conditions, and raw materials as the instant disclosure.
Du discloses a method of preparing the cathode material of the instant disclosure including a second step of mixing and sintering the positive electrode active material matrix, formed by sintering the nickel-cobalt-manganese ternary material precursor and the Li-containing precursor described above, with an additive Al2O3 (Paragraph 86), which is equated with step S2 of the instant disclosure.
The instant disclosure provides, the additive containing the element M' is selected from at least one of oxide, hydroxide, oxyhydroxide, phosphate, fluoride, boride, nitride, carbonate, and oxalate containing the element M', which as described above is Al, Zr, Nb, Ti, Y, Sc, Cr, Co, W, Mg, La, Os, Pr, Re, Ru, Sr, Sm, Ta, and B.
As described above, Du teaches the additive is Al2O3, which is considered at additive is an oxide containing the element M’ when M’=Al.
The instant disclosure provides a molar ratio M'/(Ni+Mn+M1+M2) of the additive containing the element M' to the primary sintered material ranges from 0 to 0.1, and preferably, from 0.001 to 0.02 (Paragraph 0081).
Du teaches an additive Al2O3 is added to the positive electrode active material matrix formed in step 1 (primary sintered material) in a ratio of 100:0.3 (Paragraph 86). Thus, Du teaches the molar ratio M'/(Ni+Mn+M1+M2) of the additive containing the element M' to the primary sintered material, Ni0.8Co0.1Mn0.1(OH)2, to be 0.006 (0.6/(80+10+10)). Thus, the molar ratio at which the element M’ in the additive is added to the primary sintered material in step 2 of Du overlaps with the range of the instant claim.
The instant disclosure provides in step S1 of the method:
[0084]According to the present disclosure…when x≥0.6, the first sintering and the second sintering are performed in an oxygen atmosphere or a mixture atmosphere of oxygen and air.
Du teaches the second sintering in at atmospheric furnace (Paragraph 86). As an atmospheric atmosphere comprises oxygen, the furnace of Du is considered a mixture atmosphere of oxygen and air. Thus, according to the subscript of nickel of the precursor material of Du of Example 1, x=0.8, Du teaches the appropriate atmospheric conditions for sintering in order to obtain the claimed lithium-containing oxide cathode material according to the instant disclosure.
Thus, Du teaches the method step S2 in the process of forming lithium-containing oxide cathode material which shares process steps, conditions, and raw materials as the instant disclosure.
Therefore, the overlap between the second step of Du and step S2 of the instant disclosure results in a lithium-containing metal oxide having a chemical formula represented by Formula (3), or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan that the steps of Du discussed above would result in a lithium-containing metal oxide having a chemical formula represented by Formula (3).
In summary, as detailed above, the method of producing a lithium-containing oxide cathode material disclosed by Du aligns with the method steps to produce the lithium-containing oxide cathode material described in the instant disclosure, particularly relating to the precursor materials, their proportions, and the process conditions. Therefore, a lithium-containing oxide cathode material whose compressive index, particle size distribution, and chemical formula meeting instant claimed limitations would result from the method taught by Du, or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to tune the conditions of the process described above to obtain a lithium-containing oxide cathode material possessing the properties of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 2, Du teaches the lithium-containing oxide cathode material according to claim 1.
As described above in the rejection of claim 1, the method of producing a lithium-containing oxide cathode material by Du aligns with the method steps to produce a lithium-containing oxide cathode material described in the instant disclosure, particularly relating to the precursor materials and their quantities in each step as well as the process conditions.
Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the positive electrode active oxide material produced by the method taught by Du meets the instant claimed limitations, or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to tune the conditions of the process described above to obtain a lithium-containing oxide cathode material wherein:
the lithium-containing oxide cathode material has a compressive index Δλ(P200) satisfying Δλ(P200) ≥ 45%+(y/x)×5%.
Regarding claim 3, Du teaches the lithium-containing oxide cathode material according to claim 1.
As described above in the rejection of claim 1, the method taught by Du and embodied in Example 1 of the disclosure, the precursor material of Du comprising M1, and thus M in the final product (the disclosure provides the source of the element M in the cathode material includes the element M1 in the precursor and the optional additive containing the element M2 introduced during the first sintering process), is Co. Thus it would be obvious the ordinary artisan that if the precursor materials comprise M as cobalt, then the resulting lithium-containing oxide cathode material represented by formula (3) would comprise cobalt, meeting the instant claimed limitations when M is selected from at least one element including Co.
Further, as described above, the additive of Du included in the second step of the method was represented by Al2O3. However, Du teaches generally that the coating element of the outer coating layer is at least selected from two or more of Al, Ba, Zn, Ti, Co, W, Y, Si, Sn, B, and P and the outer coating layer on the surface of the positive electrode active material contains at least two or more oxides formed by the above elements (Paragraph 51). Thus according to the teachings of Du described in the embodiment above the ordinary artisan may include oxide additives, in addition to Al2O3, such as titanium oxide, cobalt oxide, tungsten oxide, yttrium oxide, and or boron oxide in the method of making the lithium-containing oxide cathode material according to the teachings of Du.
Thus, in the second step of mixing and sintering the positive electrode active material matrix, with an additive Al2O3 (Paragraph 86) and additionally titanium oxide, cobalt oxide, tungsten oxide, yttrium oxide, and or boron oxide, is equated with step S2 of the instant disclosure, when M’ is an oxide containing at least one element of Ti, Y, Co, W, and B.
Thus as described above and in the rejection of claim 1, the method of producing a lithium-containing oxide cathode material by Du aligns with the method steps to produce a lithium-containing oxide cathode material described in the instant disclosure, particularly relating to the precursor materials and their quantities in each step as well as the process conditions.
Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the positive electrode active oxide material produced by the method taught by Du meets the instant claimed limitations of Formula (3), or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to tune the conditions of the process described above to obtain a lithium-containing oxide cathode material meeting the instant claimed limitations;
in Formula (3):
0.02≤a≤0.2;
0.3<x<0.9;
0.05<y≤0.68;
0<j≤0.30;
0.001<w/(a+x+y+j)≤0.02;
Regarding claim 4, Du teaches the lithium-containing oxide cathode material according to claim 1.
As described above in the rejection of claim 1, the method of producing a lithium-containing oxide cathode material by Du aligns with the method steps to produce a lithium-containing oxide cathode material described in the instant disclosure, particularly relating to the precursor materials and their quantities in each step as well as the process conditions.
Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the positive electrode active oxide material produced by the method taught by Du meets the instant claimed limitations, or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to tune the conditions of the process described above to obtain a lithium-containing oxide cathode material wherein:
the lithium-containing oxide cathode material has a pellet density of ≥ 2.8 g/cm3, preferably ≥ 3 g/cm3; and/or
the lithium-containing oxide cathode material has a tap density of ≥ 1.7 g/cm3, preferably ≥ 2 g/cm3; and/or
a content of surface soluble alkali of the lithium-containing oxide cathode material satisfies the following conditions: Li2CO3≤l wt%, LiOH≤0.5 wt%;
a full width at half maximum FWHM(003) of (003) crystal plane and a full width at half maximum FWHM(104) of (104) crystal plane of the lithium-containing oxide cathode material obtained by X-Ray Diffraction, XRD, satisfy the following conditions: 0.10≤FWHM(003)≤0.25; and 0.20≤FWHM(104)≤0.50; and/or
a peak area S(003) of the (003) crystal plane and a peak area S(104) of the (104) crystal plane of the lithium-containing oxide cathode material obtained by XRD satisfy the following conditions: 1.1≤S(003)/S(104)≤1.8
Regarding claim 10, Du teaches a positive electrode sheet (plate) including a positive electrode material layer on the positive electrode current collector, the positive electrode material layer includes the positive electrode active material of the disclosed invention. Du teaches the positive electrode active material may be mixed with a binder and a conductive agent to form a slurry prior to coating on the current collector (Paragraph 75). In an embodiment of the disclosure, Du teaches the prepared positive electrode material (lithium-containing oxide cathode material) mixed with a binder and a conductive agent at a mass ratio of 98:1:1 (Paragraph 88). Thus, Du teaches the positive electrode plate comprising 98% of a lithium-containing oxide cathode material based on a total weight of the positive electrode plate, which lies within the suitable range of the instant claim, meeting the claimed limitations.
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, the method of producing a lithium-containing oxide cathode material by Du aligns with the method steps to produce a lithium-containing oxide cathode material described in the instant disclosure, particularly relating to the precursor materials and their quantities in each step as well as the process conditions.
Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the positive electrode active oxide material produced by the method taught by Du meets the instant claimed limitations, or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to tune the conditions of the process described above to obtain a lithium-containing oxide cathode material wherein:
the lithium-containing oxide cathode material has a compressive index Δλ(P100) satisfying Δλ(P100)≥60%+(y/x)×5%,
the lithium-containing oxide cathode material has a compressive index Δλ(P300) satisfying Δλ(P300)≥35%+(y/x)×5%, where y/x is a molar ratio of Mn/Ni in the lithium-containing oxide cathode material,
wherein the compressive index Δλ(P100) is calculated based on the following equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
106
473
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, where:
D50 refers to a value of particle cumulative distribution D5 of the material in a natural state without external mechanical pressure, i.e., P=0 Mpa;
D5p100 refers to a value of particle cumulative distribution D5 of the material under P=l00 Mpa;
D5 refers to a particle size value when a cumulative volume distribution of the particles is 5%;
Δλ(P100) represents the compressive index of the material when pressure P=l00Mpa;
Δλ(P200) represents the compressive index of the material when pressure P=200Mpa; and
Δλ(P300) represents the compressive index of the material when pressure P=300Mpa,
wherein the lithium-containing oxide cathode material has a chemical formula represented by Formula (3):
Li[LiaNixMnyMj]O2@M’, Formula (3), where:
0≤a≤0.3; 0.2<x<1; 0<y≤0.75; 0<j≤0.35; M is selected from at least one element of Al, Zr, Nb, Ti, Y, Sc, Cr, Co, W, Mg, La, Os, Pr, Re, Ru, Sr, Sm, Ta, and B;
M' is an oxide, phosphide, sulfide, fluoride, or chloride containing at least one element of Al, Zr, Nb, Ti, Y, Sc, Cr, Co, W, Mg, La, Os, Pr, Re, Ru, Sr, Sm, Ta, and B
Li[LiaNixMnyMj]O2 is coated with a coating layer consisting of M’; and
a molar content of cations in M' is w, w satisfying 0<w/(a+x+y+j)≤0. l.
Regarding claim 11, Du teaches the positive electrode plate according to claim 10.
It is reasonable to presume that the positive electrode plate of Du has an electrode density of ≥ 2.8 g/cm3.
Support for said presumption is found in that, as described above, Du teaches a positive electrode plate comprising a suitable proportion of lithium-containing oxide cathode material, the lithium-containing oxide cathode material produced by a method whose precursor materials, their proportions, and process conditions overlap with those of the instant claim.
Therefore, a positive electrode plate whose who density meets the instant claimed limitations would result from the method taught by Du, or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to tune the conditions of the process described above to obtain a positive electrode plate possessing the properties of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 13, Du teaches the positive electrode plate according to claim 10,
As described above in the rejection of claim 1, the method of producing a lithium-containing oxide cathode material by Du aligns with the method steps to produce a lithium-containing oxide cathode material described in the instant disclosure, particularly relating to the precursor materials and their quantities in each step as well as the process conditions.
Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the positive electrode active oxide material produced by the method taught by Du meets the instant claimed limitations, or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to tune the conditions of the process described above to obtain a lithium-containing oxide cathode material wherein:
Δλ(P200) satisfying Δλ(P200) ≥ 45%+(y/x)×5%.
Regarding claim 14, Du teaches the positive electrode plate according to claim 10.
As described above in the rejection of claim 1, the method taught by Du and embodied in Example 1 of the disclosure, the precursor material of Du comprising M1, and thus M in the final product (the disclosure provides the source of the element M in the cathode material includes the element M1 in the precursor and the optional additive containing the element M2 introduced during the first sintering process), is Co. Thus it would be obvious the ordinary artisan that if the precursor materials comprise M as cobalt, then the resulting lithium-containing oxide cathode material represented by formula (3) would comprise cobalt, meeting the instant claimed limitations when M is selected from at least one element include Co.
Further, as described above, the additive of Du included in the second step of the method was represented by Al2O3. However, Du teaches generally that the coating element of the outer coating layer is at least selected from two or more of Al, Ba, Zn, Ti, Co, W, Y, Si, Sn, B, and P and the outer coating layer on the surface of the positive electrode active material contains at least two or more oxides formed by the above elements (Paragraph 51). Thus according to the teachings of Du described in the embodiment above the ordinary artisan may include oxide additives, in addition to Al2O3, such as titanium oxide, cobalt oxide, tungsten oxide, yttrium oxide, and or boron oxide in the method of making the lithium-containing oxide cathode material according to the teachings of Du.
Thus, in the second step of mixing and sintering the positive electrode active material matrix, with an additive Al2O3 (Paragraph 86) and additionally titanium oxide, cobalt oxide, tungsten oxide, yttrium oxide, and or boron oxide, is equated with step S2 of the instant disclosure, when M’ is an oxide containing at least one element of Ti, Y, Co, W, and B.
Thus as described above and in the rejection of claim 1, the method of producing a lithium-containing oxide cathode material by Du aligns with the method steps to produce a lithium-containing oxide cathode material described in the instant disclosure, particularly relating to the precursor materials and their quantities in each step as well as the process conditions.
Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the positive electrode active oxide material produced by the method taught by Du meets the instant claimed limitations, or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to tune the conditions of the process described above to obtain a lithium-containing oxide cathode material meeting the instant claimed limitations of Formula (3): 0.02≤a≤0.2; 0.3<x<0.9; 0.05<y≤0.68; 0<j≤0.30; 0.001<w/(a+x+y+j)≤0.02.
Regarding claim 15, Du teaches the positive electrode plate according to claim 10.
As described above in the rejection of claim 1, the method of producing a lithium-containing oxide cathode material by Du aligns with the method steps to produce a lithium-containing oxide cathode material described in the instant disclosure, particularly relating to the precursor materials and their quantities in each step as well as the process conditions.
Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the positive electrode active oxide material produced by the method taught by Du meets the instant claimed limitations, or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to tune the conditions of the process described above to obtain a lithium-containing oxide cathode material wherein:
the lithium-containing oxide cathode material has a pellet density of ≥ 2.8 g/cm3; and/or
the lithium-containing oxide cathode material has a tap density of ≥ 1.7 g/cm3; and/or
a content of surface soluble alkali of the lithium-containing oxide cathode material satisfies the following conditions: Li2CO3≤l wt%, LiOH≤0.5 wt%;
a full width at half maximum FWHM(003) of (003) crystal plane and a full width at half maximum FWHM(104) of (104) crystal plane of the lithium-containing oxide cathode material obtained by X-Ray Diffraction, XRD, satisfy the following conditions: 0.10≤FWHM(003)≤0.25; and 0.20≤FWHM(104)≤0.50; and/or
a peak area S(003) of the (003) crystal plane and a peak area S(104) of the (104) crystal plane of the lithium-containing oxide cathode material obtained by XRD satisfy the following conditions: 1.1≤S(003)/S(104)≤1.8
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du as applied to claims 1-4, 10-11, and 13-15 above, and further in view of Shang (Chinese Patent Publication No. 103794778 A).
Regarding claim 5, Du teaches a lithium-containing oxide cathode material according to claim 1.
Du is silent to:
a precursor of the lithium-containing oxide cathode material has a compressive index Δλ’(P50) satisfying Δλ’(P50) ≥ 35%+(v/u)×8%, where v/u is a molar ratio of Mn/Ni in the precursor,
wherein the compressive index Δλ’(P50) of the precursor is calculated based on the following equation:
PNG
media_image2.png
93
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where:
D’50 to refers to a value of particle cumulative distribution D5 of the precursor in a natural state without external mechanical pressure, i.e. P=0 Mpa;
D’5P50 to a value of particle cumulative distribution D5 of the precursor under P=50 Mpa;
Δλ’(P50) represents the compressive index of the precursor when pressure P=50 MPa; and
Δλ’(P100) represents the compressive index of the precursor when pressure P=100 MPa.
However, Shang discloses a method for preparing a lithium nickel cobalt manganate cathode material (Paragraph 10), including the preparation of a nickel-cobalt-manganese oxyhydroxide precursor (Paragraph 11). Shang teaches the advantages of the method to form the precursor by the disclosed method is that the compacted density of the prepared nickel cobalt lithium manganate material is large, the specific capacity is high, the rate property and consistency are good, the preparation method is simple, and the preparation process is easy to control and operate (Paragraphs 21-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Du to incorporate the teachings of Shang in which the precursor of the lithium-containing oxide cathode material of Du is prepared according to the method of Shang. Doing so would advantageously result in a large compacted density, specific capacity, and rate property of the resulting cathode material and the preparation method of the method is simple, easy to control, and operate, as recognized by Shang,
It is reasonable to presume the precursor material of Du in view of Shang:
has a compressive index Δλ’(P50) satisfying Δλ’(P50) ≥ 35%+(v/u)×8%, where v/u is a molar ratio of Mn/Ni in the precursor,
wherein the compressive index Δλ’(P50) of the precursor is calculated based on the following equation:
PNG
media_image2.png
93
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where:
D’50 to refers to a value of particle cumulative distribution D5 of the precursor in a natural state without external mechanical pressure, i.e. P=0 Mpa;
D’5P50 to a value of particle cumulative distribution D5 of the precursor under P=50 Mpa;
Δλ’(P50) represents the compressive index of the precursor when pressure P=50 MPa; and
Δλ’(P100) represents the compressive index of the precursor when pressure P=100 MPa.
Support for said presumption is found in that Shang teaches a method of making the precursor of a lithium-containing oxide cathode material which overlaps the method described by the instant disclosure, particularly relating to the conditions of the process and the materials used.
The instant disclosure provides the following flows in the preparation method for the precursor of a lithium-containing oxide cathode material (Paragraph 0061)
(1) mixing, by contacting, a solution or suspension of a nickel salt, a manganese salt, and a compound containing M, to obtain a mixed salt solution; and
(2) feeding the parallel flows of the mixed salt solution, a precipitant solution, and a complexing agent solution l into a reactor for crystallization reaction, and performing solid-liquid separation, washing, heat treatment, and sieving treatment on the obtained slurry, to obtain the precursor of the lithium-containing oxide cathode material.
The following process steps to produce a lithium-containing oxide cathode material of Shang are related to the process steps to produce a lithium-containing oxide cathode material of the instant disclosure.
Shang teaches in the method a nickel salt, a cobalt salt, and a manganese salt solution are uniformly mixed in a first step to form a mixed solution (Paragraph 32).
The instant disclosure provides in step (1), the nickel salt is one or more of nickel sulfate, nickel chloride, nickel nitrate, and nickel acetate (Paragraph 0067); the manganese salt is one or more of manganese sulfate, manganese chloride, manganese nitrate, and manganese acetate (Paragraph 0068); and the compound containing M is one or more of sulfate, chloride, nitrate, acetate, citrate, carbonate, phosphate, oxalate, and fluoride containing the element M (Paragraph 0069).
In Example 1 of Shang, Shang teaches the nickel-cobalt-manganese solution was prepared using nickel sulfate, cobalt sulfate, and manganese sulfate (Paragraph 32), which overlaps with the materials used to form the precursor oxyhydroxide material of Formula (1) of the instant disclosure, when M is cobalt.
The instant disclosure provides the nickel salt, the manganese salt, or the additive containing M element are dissolved according to a molar ratio of u : v : γ (Paragraph 0063), where in the precursor material, u+v+γ=1, 0.2<u<1, 0<v≤0.75, 0≤γ≤0.35 (Paragraph 0073).
According to the teachings of Shang in Example 1, the mixed solution was prepared according to mixing nickel, cobalt, and manganese in a ratio of 0.5:0.2:0.3. Thus, Shang teaches the nickel salt, the manganese salt, or the additive containing M element are dissolved according to a molar ratio u=0.5 : v = 0.3 : γ = 0.2, which aligns with the instant disclosure’s teachings that u+v+γ=1, and the values of u, v, and γ of Shang lie within the suitable ranges for these variables disclosed by the instant specification.
The instant disclosure provides in step (2), the mixed salt solution is fed to a reactor with a precipitant solution and a complexing agent solution for crystallization reaction (Paragraph 0061).
Shang teaches in the method the metal salt solution described above is co-currently added to a reaction kettle with a precipitating agent solution and a complexing agent solution in order to perform a precipitation reaction in an alkaline environment (Paragraph 11).
The instant disclosure teaches the precipitant is an alkaline substance, and the alkali is one or more of sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, and lithium hydroxide (Paragraph 0070), the alkali solution with a concentration ranging from 2 mol/L to 10 mol/L is obtained by dissolving alkali (Paragraph 0063).
Shang teaches in the method, the precipitating agent solution is a 2-5 mol/L solution of sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, or barium hydroxide (Paragraph 16). Thus, Shang teaches precipitating agents in the method which are shared by the instant disclosure, with a concentration that overlaps the suitable concentrations disclosed by the instant specification.
The instant disclosure teaches the complexing agent is one or more of salicylic acid, ammonium sulfate, ammonium chloride, ammonium hydroxide, sulfosalicylic acid, and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (Paragraph 0071), the complexing agent solution with a concentration ranging from 2 mol/L to 13 mol/L is obtained by dissolving a complexing agent (Paragraph 0063).
Shang teaches in the method, the complexing agent solution is a 1-4 mol/L solution of ammonia or ammonium, the ammonium salt solution is preferably chlorinated, ammonium nitrate, or ammonium sulfate (Paragraph 15). Thus, Shang teaches complexing agents in the method which are shared by the instant disclosure, with a concentration that overlaps the suitable concentrations disclosed by the instant specification.
The instant disclosure provides that the reaction conditions include: a reaction temperature ranging from 40℃ to 70°C, reaction pH ranging from 10.6 to 12.5, and a reaction duration ranging from 5 hours to 100 hours (Paragraph 0066).
Shang teaches in the method of forming the precursor, the reaction conditions are controlled, specifically the pH of the reaction system of the precipitation reaction is controlled to be 8.5 to 11.5, the reaction temperature is 50 to 70 ° C, ranges which overlap the reaction conditions of the instant disclosure as suitable pH and reaction temperatures to perform the precipitation reaction.
The instant disclosure teaches in step 2, after the precipitation reaction, performing solid-liquid separation, washing, heat treatment, and sieving treatment on the obtained slurry, to obtain the precursor of the lithium-containing oxide cathode material (Paragraph 0061). Shang teaches after the precipitation reaction is sufficiently carried out, the slurry is subjected to solid-liquid separation, washed and dried to obtain the precursor, overlapping with the steps of step (2) of the method of the instant disclosure.
The instant disclosure provides the slurry has a solid content ranging from 200 g/L to 1000 g/L, and preferably, from 300 g/L to 800 g/L (Paragraph 0064). Shang teaches the solid content of the reaction system is controlled by a solid content regulating valve (Paragraph 18), and an embodiment of preparing the precursor material of Example 3 in which the solid content regulating valve is controlled at 500 g/L, which overlaps with the suitable solid content of the slurry of the instant disclosure.
In summary, as detailed above, the method of producing a precursor of the lithium-containing oxide cathode material disclosed by Shang aligns with the method steps to produce the precursor of the lithium-containing oxide cathode material described in the instant disclosure, particularly relating to the reactants, their proportions, and the process conditions.
Therefore, a precursor of the lithium-containing oxide cathode material whose compressive index and particle size distribution meeting instant claimed limitations would result from the method taught by Du in view of Shang, or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to tune the conditions of the process described above to obtain a precursor of the lithium-containing oxide cathode material possessing the properties of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 6, the lithium-containing oxide cathode material according to claim 5.
As described above in the rejection of claim 5, the method of producing a precursor of the lithium-containing oxide cathode material disclosed by Du in view of Shang aligns with the method steps to produce a precursor of the lithium-containing oxide cathode material described in the instant disclosure, particularly relating to the reactants materials and their proportions as well as the process conditions.
Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the precursor of the positive electrode active oxide material produced by the method taught by Du in view of Shang meets the instant claimed limitations, or it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to tune the conditions of the process described above to obtain a precursor of the lithium-containing oxide cathode material wherein:
a compressive index Δλ’(P100) satisfying Δλ’(P100)≥25%+(v/u)×8%.
Response to Arguments
In the remarks received June 15th, 2026, applicant argues that amended claim 1 differs from Du at least by the following limitation:
PNG
media_image3.png
125
988
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that the claimed compressive index was surprisingly found to improve compressive strength of the cathode material and avoids defects during the preparation process of the electrode plate which could lead to poor rate performance, deteriorated cycle performance, and reduced safety performance.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that as presented in the rejection above as well as in the Non-Final Rejection mailed March 20th, 2026, it is reasonable to presume that Δλ(P100) ≥ 60%+(y/x)×5% and Δλ(P300) ≥ 35%+(y/x)×5% is inherent to Du. Support for this conclusion was found in that Du teaches a method of making the lithium-containing oxide cathode material which overlaps the method described by the instant disclosure, particularly relating to the conditions of the process and the materials used. The Examiner provided that by following similar steps in the method of production of Du, a material having the same properties as that of the instant disclosure would result.
The Examiner believes that with respect to applicant’s arguments about the “surprising” compressive strength of the cathode material, applicant is arguing unexpected results. If this is the case, the Examiner provides that it is noted that it is the burden of Applicant to provide evidence that establishes that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. See MPEP 716.02(b)(I). Applicants have the burden of explaining proffered data. See MPEP 716.02(b)(II). It is further noted that in order 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. See MPEP 716.02(d) II. Additionally, the claims must be commensurate in scope with the proffered data to provide a nexus between the claims and the data establishing evidence of unexpected results. See MPEP 716.02(d). Finally, the Examiner presents that any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In the remarks received June 15th, 2026, applicant argues that the claimed Δλ is a non obvious parameter that must be precisely controlled, and Du neither discloses any numerical values of Δλ nor teaches the varying behavior of D5 under pressure. Applicant argues that a person skilled in the art cannot derive from the single particle compressive strength under 90 MPa in Du that required Δλ(P100) and Δλ(P300). Applicant argues that Du merely recites compressive strength directed to Dv50 rather than D5, and thus Du’s compressive strength index belongs to a different type of compressive strength index than the claimed compressive strength index. Applicant presents that a person skilled in the art knows that particles of different sizes have different roles in the powder, with no known or inevitable trend after being compressed.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that as presented in the rejection above as well as in the Non-Final Rejection mailed March 20th, 2026, it is reasonable to presume that Δλ is inherent to Du due to the similarities in the method of manufacturing the cathode material, notably the conditions and materials used in each of the steps. In the rejection, the Examiner outlines that the overlap between the first step of Du and step S1 of the instant disclosure results in a primary sintered material having a chemical formula represented by Formula (2) and the overlap between the second step of Du and step S2 of the instant disclosure results in a lithium-containing metal oxide having a chemical formula represented by Formula (3). Further, the Examiner provides that such similarities in the method resulting in a lithium-containing metal oxide having a chemical formula represented by Formula (3) would result in a material having the same properties of the claimed invention, including Δλ.
While Du may not explicitly disclose any numerical values of Δλ or the varying behavior of D5 under pressure, the Examiner set forth a proper rejection in outlining why these features would be inherent to the material produced by the method of Du. Applicant has not provided why the parameter Δλ is a non obvious parameter.
With respect to applicants arguments that a person skilled in the art cannot derive from the single particle compressive strength under 90 MPa in Du that required Δλ(P100) and Δλ(P300), the Examiner presents that the rejection presented above and in the Non-Final Rejection mailed March 20th, 2026, the particle compressive strength under 90 MPa in Du was not relied upon as a teaching to meet the claimed limitations of Δλ(P100) and Δλ(P300). The Examiner compared the similarity in the process of manufacturing the cathode material between the instant disclosure and Du to draw conclusions relating to Δλ(P100) and Δλ(P300) of the material produced by Du. Therefore, applicant’s allegations relating to the compressive strength index of Du being different than the claimed compressive strength index are not founded, as the claimed limitations were taught by the prior art inherently through the overlapping process of manufacturing. The Examiner did not equate the compressive index of Du with that of the instant disclosure to meet the aforementioned claimed limitations in the rejection of record.
In the remarks received June 15th, 2026, applicant argues that the Examples and Comparative Examples demonstrate how differences in process details result in Δλ outside the claimed range even using a similar method at a macroscopic level, as illustrated in Table 1’. Applicant argues that as illustrated in Table 1’, even under the same conditions of the reactor, precursor, and lithium source, Δλ can fall outside the claimed range by changing the sintering temperature of omitting certain additives. Applicant further argues the preparation method of Du is similar to Comparative Example 3 of the instant application, and Du teaches an air atmosphere which is likely to result in a lower Δλ than the value obtained in an oxygen atmosphere.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that the Examiner agrees that the instant disclosure, including Examples and Comparative Examples, illustrate how process conditions during manufacturing the cathode material contribute to the Δλ of the resulting material. However, when applicant is pointing toward Table 1’ to illustrate how the “same conditions” of the method can result in Δλ falling outside the claimed range, the Examiner presents that the process of manufacturing the cathode material in Example 5 compared to Comparative Examples 1-4 is not the same, specifically that the first sintering temperature and addition of additives differ.
According to applicant’s teachings as described in the Non-Final rejection mailed March 20th, 2026:
The instant disclosure provides in step S1 of the method:
[0082]According to the present disclosure, when a molar ratio of Ni/Mn is greater than 1, that is, x/y>1, a relationship between a sintering temperature T1 of the first sintering and a content of Ni satisfies 550×(2-x)℃≤T1≤400×(3-x)℃, and a sintering duration of the first sintering ranges from 6 hours to 20 hours, and preferably, from 8 hours to 15 hours.
Therefore, according to the teachings of the instant disclosure, the appropriate sintering temperature for Example 5 (x/y>1; x=0.9) (and thus Comparative Examples 1-2, as they use the same precursor material in the first sintering step) should fall within the range of 550×(2-0.9)℃ ≤ T1 ≤ 400×(3-0.9)℃, or 605℃ ≤ T1 ≤ 840 ℃. Thus, the Examiner notes that the Δλ of the Comparative Examples 1 and 2 falls outside of the range when the first sintering temperature does not fall within the calculated range as described in the relationship given in the disclosure relating to the nickel content (Paragraph 0082).
In the rejection presented above and in the Non-Final Rejection mailed March 20th, 2026, the Examiner calculated the range of the first sintering temperature taught by the instant disclosure according to the nickel content in the precursor material of Du. As the temperature for sintering taught by Du for Example 1 of the disclosure lies within the range of suitable temperatures for sintering taught by the instant disclosure according to the molar ratio of Ni/Mn of the material of Du, the Examiner drew the conclusion that the following of this relationship in determining a very specific process condition would result in the desired Δλ. Thus, the Examiner presents that applicant’s arguments of the importance of sintering temperature in impacting Δλ of the resulting cathode material further supports the Examiner’s original claim rejection that the first sintering temperature of Du falls within the range 550×(2-x)℃≤T1≤400×(3-x)℃ of the instant disclosure and thus the material resulting from the method must also possess a Δλ within the claimed range, as applicant establishes the relationship between sintering temperature and Δλ.
With respect to the additives in the primary sintering step that differs between Example 5 and Comparative Example 3 of the instant disclosure, the Examiner notes that the instant disclosure provides the additive containing element M2 is optional (Paragraph 0008), and is thus not considered pertinent by the Examiner in obtaining the product of the instant disclosure. Further, the argument that Comparative Example 3 is similar to the Example of Du in that no Re and Sm additives were added during the first sintering and thus the Δλ would not be within range is not founded, as the precursor material of the Example 1 of Du is Ni0.8Co0.1Mn0.1(OH)2, which differs from the precursor material of Comparative Example 3, including at least the differing Ni/Mn ratio that would require differing first sintering temperatures, which affects Δλ as described above.
As the instant disclosure establishes that varying process conditions are required which depend on the composition and identity of the precursor material of the method, the Examiner presents that applicant cannot say for sure that the precursor material of Du which does not mix in Re and Sm additives during first sintering would result in Δλ outside of the claimed range as exemplified in Comparative Example 3, nor is there any evidence in the instant disclosure to suggest such a result.
With respect to the argument that Du teaches an air atmosphere which is likely to result in a lower Δλ than the value obtained in an oxygen atmosphere, the Examiner presents that applicant has presented no such evidence or teachings from either Du or the instant disclosure that supports this assessment. Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See MPEP 716.01(c)(II). Further, the Examiner presents that if the atmosphere of Du is air as inferred by applicant in their remarks, the composition of the environment would still possess some oxygen and therefore this step can still be considered similar to that of the instant disclosure that contributes to the reasonable basis relied upon to establish inherency of Δλ of the product resulting from the method of Du.
In the remarks received June 15th, 2026, applicant argues that Du focuses on improving cycle performance by controlling compactness and compressive strength of primary particles but the parameters in Du are different from the claimed Δλ, and Du does not mention the concept of the compressive index Δλ nor provide any data suggesting its material can satisfy the claimed Δλ formula.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that as presented in the rejection above as well as in the Non-Final Rejection mailed March 20th, 2026, it is reasonable to presume that Δλ is inherent to Du due to the similarities in the method of manufacturing the cathode material, notably the conditions and materials used in each of the steps. In the rejection, the Examiner outlines that the overlap between the first step of Du and step S1 of the instant disclosure results in a primary sintered material having a chemical formula represented by Formula (2) and the overlap between the second step of Du and step S2 of the instant disclosure results in a lithium-containing metal oxide having a chemical formula represented by Formula (3). Further, the Examiner provides that such similarities in the method resulting in a lithium-containing metal oxide having a chemical formula represented by Formula (3) would result in a material having the same properties of the claimed invention, including the claimed Δλ.
While Du may not explicitly disclose the concept of the compressive index Δλ the Examiner set forth a proper rejection in outlining why these features would be inherent to the material produced by the method of Du.
With respect to applicants arguments that the claimed Δλ is different from the Δλ of Du, the Examiner presents that in the rejection presented above and in the Non-Final Rejection mailed March 20th, 2026, the Examiner compared the similarity in the process of manufacturing the cathode material between the instant disclosure and Du to draw conclusions relating to Δλ. Therefore, applicant’s allegations relating to the compressive strength index of Du being different than the claimed compressive strength index are not founded, as the claimed limitations were taught by the prior art inherently through the overlapping process of manufacturing. The Examiner did not attempt to equate the compressive index of Du with the claimed compressive index in the rejection of record.
In the remarks received June 15th, 2026, applicant argues that a person skilled in the art would be unlikely to obtain the limitation of Δλ by modifying Du in view of Shang, as Shang discloses the preparation of single-crystal materials through high speed grinding and sintering, which would destroy the secondary particle structure as required by Du and the instant application. Applicant argues that because the compressive behavior of single-crystal materials is different from polycrystalline agglomerates (D5 has different behavior), Shang thus teaches away from the claimed Δλ.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that Shang was relied upon to teach the method of manufacturing the precursor of the lithium-containing oxide cathode material which is used in the process of synthesizing the final product of a lithium-containing oxide cathode material. Du describes a cathode material that is a lithium-containing oxide material is polycrystalline and is produced via a method which implements the use of a precursor of the lithium-containing oxide material. While Shang discloses that the precursor implemented for the preparation of single-crystal material, the rejection of record modified Du to incorporate the teachings of Shang directed to the preparation of the precursor of the lithium-containing oxide cathode material, not the entire preparation process of the lithium-containing oxide cathode material. The precursor material resulting from the method of Shang was implemented in the remainder of the method (including first and second sintering steps) of Du to produce the lithium-containing oxide cathode material. There are no teachings in Du or Shang to suggest that the precursor of Shang, which is then mixed with other additives according to the method of Du and sintered, would not obtain the secondary particle structure described by Du and the instant disclosure. Further, the ordinary artisan would conclude that this particle structure is likely to result, given that the sintering conditions of the method of Du overlap with those of the instant disclosure.
In the remarks received June 15th, 2026, applicant argues that the compressive index of the instant claim are inherent and measurable structural characteristics of the material, which distinguishes it from other cathode materials in the prior art. Applicant argues that the Examiner’s position that Du’s product would possess the claimed parameters is based on the assumption that Du achieves the specific microstructure, however Du does not teach or suggest its positive electrode active material has a high compressive index. Applicant further argues that Du’s preparation method does not directly and uniquely lead to the conclusion that the resulting product inevitably possesses the claimed specific undisclosed physical parameter and thus the Examiner’s conclusion appears to constitute hindsight.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents a proper rejection was set forth above and in the Non-Final Rejection mailed March 20th, 2026 which outlined the conditions which overlapped between the method of manufacturing the cathode material of Du and the instant disclosure, including but not limited to chemical composition of precursors and additives as well as sintering temperature, to name a few. Applicant has not provided evidence that would persuade the Examiner that the preparation method disclosed by Du would not result in a cathode material having the properties of the claimed invention, given that it is manufactured by a method which shares numerous overlapping materials and conditions as the method to produce the claimed cathode material.
In the remarks received June 15th, 2026, applicant argues that even if Du’s preparation method has similar steps at a macroscopic level, a person skilled in the art has reasons to believe that to obtain the claimed material with such stringent and precisely matched combination of parameters, it is necessary to make non-obvious specific choices and precise controls over the process details of Du’s method to obtain the claimed compressive index, rather than through obvious routine optimization.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents a proper rejection was set forth above and in the Non-Final Rejection mailed March 20th, 2026 which outlined the conditions which overlapped between the method of manufacturing the cathode material of Du and the instant disclosure, including but not limited to chemical composition of precursors and additives as well as sintering temperature, to name a few. Therefore, the Examiner did not rely on process optimization to draw such a conclusion of the properties of the prepared cathode material, as Du already disclosed method steps which were compared to those of the instant disclosure. As outlined in the rejection, Du teaches the following similarities between the method of Du and the instant disclosure:
Precursor of nickel, cobalt, manganese, and/or aluminum of Du overlaps with general Formula (1) of the instant disclosure
Lithium-containing raw material of Du overlaps with the lithium source in Step 1 of the instant disclosure
Du teaches a molar ratio Li/(Ni+Mn+M1+M2) of the lithium source to a sum of the precursor and the additive containing the element M2 (1:05:1) that lies within the instant range
the temperature for sintering taught by Du for Example 1 of the disclosure lies within the range of suitable temperatures for sintering taught by the instant disclosure according to the molar ratio of Ni/Mn
Du teaches the appropriate atmospheric conditions for sintering in order to obtain the claimed lithium-containing oxide cathode material according to the instant disclosure according to the molar ratio of Ni/Mn
Du teaches the additives containing the element M’, when M’ = Al
the molar ratio at which the element M’ in the additive is added to the primary sintered material in step 2 of Du overlaps with the range of the instant claim
According to the subscript of nickel of the precursor material of Du of Example 1, Du teaches the appropriate atmospheric conditions for sintering in order to obtain the claimed lithium-containing oxide cathode material according to the instant disclosure
Therefore, the multitude of similarities described above demonstrate how the method of manufacturing the cathode material of Du fundamentally overlaps with the method of the instant disclosure. The aligning process conditions described above clearly set the stage for establishing the basis which made it reasonable for the Examiner to conclude that the cathode material resulting from the process of Du would possess the same characteristics as the claimed invention. These are not selections required by the ordinary artisan in order to tune the process, rather a very explicit set of conditions taught by Du in the Example 1 which overlap with the conditions set forth in the instant disclosure to obtained the desired cathode material. Applicant has not persuasively provided why the process of Du which so closely remembers the instant claimed process would result in a compressive index outside of the claimed range, and therefore the claimed limitations remain rejected over Du.
In the remarks received June 15th, 2026, applicant argues that the claimed compressive index also surprisingly improves the electrochemical performance such as the capacity and cycle performance of the cathode material, with the materials of the examples of the disclosure exhibiting significant advantages in cycle performance and electrode plate processing which is not predictable from simple process optimization but is unexpectedly brought about by the specific microstructure.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents it is the burden of Applicant to provide evidence that establishes that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. See MPEP 716.02(b)(I). Applicants have the burden of explaining proffered data. See MPEP 716.02(b)(II). It is further noted that in order 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. See MPEP 716.02(d) II. Additionally, the claims must be commensurate in scope with the proffered data to provide a nexus between the claims and the data establishing evidence of unexpected results. See MPEP 716.02(d). Finally, the Examiner presents that any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Further, the Examiner presents that a proper rejection was set forth above and in the Non-Final Rejection mailed March 20th, 2026 which outlined the conditions which overlapped between the method of manufacturing the cathode material of Du and the instant disclosure, including but not limited to chemical composition of precursors and additives as well as sintering temperature, to name a few. Therefore, the Examiner did not rely on process optimization to draw such a conclusion of the properties of the prepared cathode material, as Du already disclosed method steps which were compared to those of the instant disclosure. Applicant has not persuasively established why the cathode material resulting from the process of manufacturing the cathode material of Du would not possess the same claimed properties as the instant invention.
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 OLIVIA A JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.A.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights