DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 01/22/26, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1 is/are amended; claim(s) 9, 11–14, 16, and 17 remain(s) withdrawn; claim(s) 2–6, 8, 10, and 15 is/are canceled; and claims 18–21 are newly added without entering new matter. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 03/21/25 has/have been maintained and altered as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, as established below.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to for the following informality: in lines 1–4, “a ratio of a peak intensity of phosphorus (P) in the porous core portion and the shell portion of the Ni-based active material precursor to a peak intensity of phosphorus on the surface of the secondary particle” should read “[[a]] the ratio of [[a]] the peak intensity of phosphorus (P) in the porous core portion and the shell portion of the Ni-based active material precursor to [[a]] the peak intensity of phosphorus on the surface of the secondary particle” to denote proper antecedence from claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites “the primary particles constituting the surface of the secondary particle” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation given that claim 1 recites “a secondary particle comprising a plurality of particulate structures, wherein each of the plurality of particulate structures comprises: a porous core portion; and a shell portion comprising a plurality of primary particles” (lines 3–6). As it appears that claim 1 never specifies a portion of primary particles constituting “the surface of the secondary particle” (claim 1, line 18), it is unclear which portion of primary particles claim 19’s “the primary particles constituting the surface of the secondary particle” references or whether such is intended to reference claim 1’s “shell portion comprising primary particles radially arranged on the porous core portion … [and] comprising plate particles … wherein major axes of the plate particles are oriented along a normal direction to the surface of the secondary particle” (lines 6, 7, 31, and 32).
¶ 0064 and figs. 2B and 2C describe a secondary particle including primary particles 30 (30a/b/c) at the surface of the secondary particle. Further, such primary particles appear envisaged as the same primary particles in the shell of each of claim 1’s “plurality of particulate structures” (see primary particles 30 in fig. 1), though such is exemplary (by being one embodiment, per ¶ 0052) and, thus, non-limiting. Thus, under broadest reasonable interpretation, for this Office Action claim 19 will be interpreted to require that, in any portion of 60–80% primary particles that constitute the secondary particle’s surface, major axes of the primary particles are oriented along a normal direction to the surface of the secondary particle, which appears consistent with ¶ 0064 and figs. 1 and 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 18, 20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (CN 108155357 A) (Chang) in view of Deng et al. (CN 110713215 A) (Deng) and Soma et al. (US 20070292764 A1) (Soma).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 18, Chang discloses a nickel (Ni)-based active material precursor (¶ 0071; the metal hydroxide comprises the active material precursor; see also ¶ 0083 and ¶ 0090), comprising a secondary particle comprising a plurality of particulate structures (¶ 0012; the primary particle structure also applies to the metal hydroxide precursor to the active material),
wherein each of the plurality of particulate structures comprises a porous core portion; and a shell portion comprising a plurality of primary particles radially arranged on the porous core portion (¶ 0012, the porous inner portion corresponds to the core and the outer portion corresponds to the shell; fig. 1A shows the secondary particle comprises a plurality of particulate structures comprising primary particles in the shell; see also figs. 1C, 3A, 3B, 3C, and 7B), the primary particles comprising plate particles (fig. 1A; ¶ 0018, 0036), wherein the Ni-based active material precursor is a compound represented by instant Formula 1, where 1–x–y–z = 0.6, x = y = 0.2, z = 0, and M is absent because z = 0 (e.g., Ni0.6Co0.2Mn0.2(OH)2, Ex. 1, ¶ 0128).
Chang further desires good conductivity (¶ 0069) and stability (¶ 0048) from the active material, as well as envisions infusing such with dopants (e.g., boron, ¶ 0065), but fails to explicitly disclose that phosphorus (P) is adsorbed and coated in the porous core portion, along one or more grain boundaries of the plurality of primary particles, and on the surface of the secondary particle, and the content of the phosphorus is 0.01–2 wt% based on a total weight of the Ni-based active material precursor.
Deng teaches a nickel-based active material precursor for a lithium secondary battery, comprising a particulate structure (Title; ¶ 0014; the precursor is a metal hydroxide with nickel as the main metal, see ¶ 0013; fig. 2 shows a SEM image of the particulate structure). Deng teaches including phosphorus (P) in the porous core portion and on the surface of the secondary particle (¶ 0018; Ex. 1, ¶ 0079; see also ¶ 0032, 0033). Because Deng teaches that P is supplied in the form of ions and that the phosphorus enters the core via atomic diffusion (¶ 0018), the precursor of Deng would appear to necessarily contain P as ions adsorbed and coated in the porous core portion, along one or more grain boundaries of the plurality of primary particles of the shell portion, and on the surface of the secondary particle. Deng teaches that such phosphorus doping improves the particle’s conductivity and stability (¶ 0052, 0053).
Deng and Chang are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely core-shell, Ni-based active material precursors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate phosphorus into Chang’s particle in the form of ions adsorbed and coated in the porous core portion of the secondary particle, along one or more grain boundaries of the plurality of primary particles of the shell portion, and on the surface of the secondary particle, as taught by Deng and including the phosphorus content taught by Deng, with the reasonable expectation of improving the particle’s conductivity and stability, as taught by Deng and desired by Chang.
Deng further teaches that the phosphorus is in the form of high-valence ions (¶ 0018) and exemplifies phosphite, hypophosphite, or pyrophosphate (¶ 0031), yet, while teaching that these embodiments are non-limiting (Deng, ¶ 0056), Chang/Deng fails to explicitly disclose that the phosphorus is in the form of phosphate ions.
Soma teaches a core-shell active material consisting of a lithium composite oxide that may include nickel (¶ 0038, 0039). Specifically, Soma teaches that phosphorus in the core and on the surface of a particle is in a form of phosphate ions, PO43- (¶ 0040; Exs. 3 and 4 (¶ 0118–0122), are phosphate doped).
Soma is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely core-shell active material including phosphorus.
As Deng does not appear necessarily limited to the above species as long as high-valence P is used, while Soma recognizes phosphate ions as a suitable source of high-valence P in core-shell active material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely substitute Deng’s phosphite, hypophosphite, or pyrophosphate with Soma’s phosphate with the reasonable expectation of achieving successful phosphorus doping and coating in modified Chang’s particle, as suggested by Soma (e.g., MPEP 2143 (B.), 2144.07).
Regarding the limitation that the content of the phosphate ions is in a range of 0.05–2 wt% based on a total weight of the Ni-based active-material precursor, in appearing unconcerned with the specific amount of P, modified Chang fails to explicitly disclose such a wt% based on the phosphate ions.
The skilled artisan would recognize, however, that enough phosphate must be present to improve conductivity and stability without detracting from the bulk active material precursor for suitable Li+ intercalation and capacity/energy density (as suggested by Deng’s ¶ 0052 and similarly suggested in Soma’s ¶ 0101). To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited 0.05–2 wt% phosphate ions by routinely optimizing the phosphate’s wt% relative to the precursor (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Moreover, Deng teaches that the particle core is formed before adding phosphorus (e.g., Ex. 1, ¶ 0079) such that the majority of the phosphorus would be in the shell. While part of the phosphorus—present in the form of phosphate ions, per Soma—diffuses into the core of the particle, such would reasonably be a smaller amount than the phosphorus remaining in the shell due to the limited rate of atomic diffusion (Deng’s ¶ 0013, 0014, and 0018). Thus, it appears that modified Chang would necessarily disclose or render obvious that the content of the phosphorus in the form of phosphate ions present on the surface of the secondary particle is greater than the content of phosphorus in the form of phosphate ions present in the porous core portion and between the plurality of primary particles.
Assuming, arguendo, that the content of the phosphorus present on the surface of the secondary being greater than the content of phosphorus present in the porous core portion and between the plurality of primary particles were not necessarily true based on modified Chang’s precursor, Soma further teaches that the content of phosphorus on the surface of the particle is greater than the content of phosphorus in the porous core portion by forming a reaction-suppressing layer (¶ 0040; see also ¶ 0009 and Examples 3 and 4, ¶ 0118–0122), which improves battery performance by reduces gas generation via suppressing electrolytic-cathode reaction (¶ 0025).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention’s effective filing date, to configure modified Chang’s P-coating to exhibit greater phosphorus content on the surface of the secondary particle than inside—in the porous core and between the primary particles—as taught by Soma, with the reasonable expectation of ensuring sufficient coating with phosphorus to improve battery performance by suppressing gas generation, as taught by Soma.
Soma further teaches confirming the phosphate’s presence via TOF-SIMS (¶ 0012), but modified Chang fails to explicitly disclose that a ratio of a peak intensity of phosphorus (P) in the porous core portion and the shell portion of the Ni-based active material precursor to a peak intensity of phosphorus on the surface of the secondary particle, obtained by TOF-SIMS of the Ni-based active material precursor, is 1:2 to 1:4.
However, modified Chang, as outlined above, discloses or renders obvious that the content of the phosphorus present on the surface of the particle is greater than the content of phosphorus present in the porous core portion to suppress gas generation and improve battery performance (per Soma’s ¶ 0025, 0040, and examples). Importantly, the instant specification notes that the instant TOF-SIMS reflects the relative P content between the core and shell (e.g., ¶ 0056). The skilled artisan, then, would recognize that a sufficient amount of phosphorus must be in both the particle’s core/grain boundaries as well as shell to achieve Deng’s improved conductivity and stability but that a greater portion of phosphorus should be present in the shell than in the core/grain boundaries to achieve Soma’s gas-generation suppression for improved performance. To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited 1:2 to 1:4 (claim 1) or 1:2.3 to 1:3.7 (claim 18) by routinely optimizing the ratio of phosphorus between the core/grain boundaries and shell and, thus, necessarily optimizing the TOF-SIMS ratio (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Chang further discloses that major axes of the plate particles are oriented along a normal direction to the surface of the secondary particle (¶ 0036; fig. 1A shows that this radial arrangement results in the major axes of plate particles’ 11c being normal to the surface of the overall secondary particle), and a thickness-to-length ratio of the plate particles is in a range of 1:2 to 1:20 (fig. 1B, ¶ 0041), falling within 1:2–20, wherein the plurality of particulate structures are arranged in a multi-center isotropic array (¶ 0036; figs. 1A and 7B show that the array has multiple centers), wherein the porous core portion has a pore size of preferably 200~550 nm (¶ 0043), falling within 150 nm to 1 μm, and a porosity of 5% to 15% (¶ 0044), falling within 5–15%, and the shell portion has a porosity of 1% to 5% (¶ 0044), falling within 1–5%, and the Ni-based active material precursor is an electrode active material precursor for a lithium secondary battery (e.g., ¶ 0010 and exs.).
It is submitted that the above disclosure further reads on claim 7; i.e., the content of Ni is, e.g., 60 mol% based on a total content of transition metals in the Ni-based active material precursor (based on Ni0.6Co0.2Mn0.2(OH)2, Ex. 1, ¶ 0128), falling within 33–95 mol%.
Regarding claim 20, modified Chang discloses the Ni-based active material precursor of claim 1, wherein the shell portion has a pore size of 20~90 nm (Chang’s ¶ 0043), falling within 20–90 nm, and the porous core portion has a pore size of 200~550 nm (Id.), falling within 150–550 nm.
Regarding claim 21, modified Chang discloses the Ni-based active material precursor of claim 7.
Chang further discloses a general formula of the (final) active material of LiaNi(1–x–y–z)CoxMnyMzO2, where M is a dopant such as Al, where, in one embodiment, a may be 1.0 ≤ a ≤ 1.1; 0.1 < x ≤ 0.33, 0.05 ≤ y ≤ 0.3; 0 < z ≤ 0.05, and 1/3 ≤ (1–x–y–z) ≤ 0.95 (¶ 0062–0068), further disclosing that Ni content may greater than the amount of each of the other transition metals for high Li+ diffusion, good conductivity, and high capacity (¶ 0069), further disclosing that the material may be LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 (as in Ex. 1 above) or LiNi0.85Co0.1Al0.05O2 (¶ 0070). Further, one skilled in the art would understand that because the precursor hydroxide is lithiated at a 1:1 Li:transition-metal ratio (as in above materials and Ex. 1), the transition metals’ molar ratios in the product oxide would be dictated by the precursor’s ratios.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely incorporate as Chang’s precursor a material such as Ni0.85Co0.1Al0.05(OH)2—so that the content of Ni based on the total content of transition metals in the Ni-based active material precursor would be 85 mol%, falling within 85–95 mol%—with the reasonable expectation of achieving high Li+ diffusion, conductivity, and capacity, as suggested by Chang.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (CN 108155357 A) (Chang) in view of Deng et al. (CN 110713215 A) (Deng) and Soma et al. (US 20070292764 A1) (Soma), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Kim et al. (WO 2019147098 A1; citation to English equivalent US 20200350582 A1) (Kim).
Regarding claim 19, modified Chang discloses the Ni-based active material precursor of claim 1.
As discussed in claim 1, Chang envisages many radially—and, thus, normally—oriented primary particles within each “particulate structure” extending to the surface of the secondary particle (e.g., 11c of fig. 1) but fails to specify 60–80% of the primary particles constituting the surface of the secondary particle’s having major axes oriented along a normal direction to the surface of the secondary particle.
Kim teaches a cathode active material including a secondary particle formed of aggregated primary particles (Abstract), where the secondary particle may include a radial array (¶ 0038, fig. 1). Kim teaches that preferably ≥ 70% of the primary particles are arranged vertically with respect to a tangent line at the point where the primary particle meets the surface of the secondary particle (¶ 0028, fig. 1)—and, thus, ≥ 70% normally oriented (see also 90° at ¶ 0027). Kim teaches that such creates a relatively large number of Li+-diffusion passages between boundaries on the surface of the secondary particle, as well as suppresses stress from volume change during (dis)charge to suppress cracking (¶ 0035).
Kim is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely primary/secondary particle structures in cathode active material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure ≥ 70% of Chang’s primary particles constituting the surface of the secondary particle to be normally oriented to the surface with the reasonable expectation of creating Li+ passageways and suppressing cracking during (dis)charge, as taught by Kim. This ≥ 70% overlaps the instant 60–80% such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful active material with sufficient Li+ conductivity and suppressed cracking (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Double Patenting
The text forming the basis for the double-patenting rejection may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1, 7, 18, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14–21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,456,458 in view of Soma et al. (US 20070292764 A1) (Soma).
Ref. claims 14–21 encompass instant claims 1 and 7 besides 1) specifying that the phosphorus is in the form of phosphate ions and 2) overlapping the wt%.
Regarding 1), Soma teaches a cathode active material (Title) that contains Co and may contain Ni (¶ 0038, 0039), where phosphorus may be both atop and within the particle in the form of PO43- (¶ 0040).
Soma and the ref. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely phosphorus-containing cathode active material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that the ref.'s phosphorus must necessarily exist in the particle in some form, and, as demonstrated by Soma, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to incorporate the phosphorus as phosphate ions and reasonably expect to achieve a successful active material/precursor, as suggested by Soma.
Regarding 2), ref. claim 14’s 0.01–2 wt% P—which would exist in the form of phosphate ions, per Soma—overlaps the recited 0.05–2 wt% such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful active-material precursor with suitable P-coating content (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Further, ref. claim 21’s TOF-SIMS of 1:2 to 1:4 overlaps instant claim 18’s 1:2.3 to 1:3.7 such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful precursor with appropriately distributed P content in the core and shell (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Further, ref. claims 19 and 20 overlap instant claim 21’s 85–95 mol% Ni such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful precursor with appropriate Ni content (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14–21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,456,458 in view of Soma et al. (US 20070292764 A1) (Soma), as applied to instant claim 1, further in view of Chang et al. (CN 108155357 A) (Chang).
Ref. claim 18’s porous core portion’s pore size of 150 nm to 1 μm overlaps the recited 150–550 nm core pore size such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful precursor with appropriately sized core/pores (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Further, ref. claim 18 recites a porous shell portion but fails to specify the shell’s pore size and, thus, 20–90 nm.
Chang teaches a substantially similar active-material precursor (see above), where the shell may include a pore size preferably 20~90 nm (¶ 0043).
Chang is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely Ni-based hydroxide active-material precursors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that the ref.'s porous shell must necessarily be incorporated with some pore size, and, as demonstrated by Chang, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to employ a size of 20–90 nm.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 and 18–21 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Deng teaches the incorrect phosphorus content. Examiner respectfully submits that such argument is moot in light of the new grounds of rejection, where Deng and Soma establish the P/phosphate content as result-effective and, thus, optimizable.
Applicant further argues that Deng only teaches the content of P versus the content of phosphate ions, and it would be non-obvious to substitute Deng’s hypophosphite (H2PO2-), phosphite (PO33-), or pyrophosphate (P2O74-) with Soma’s (ortho)phosphate (PO43-), particularly because Deng relies on ionic diffusion of the species versus forming phosphate-ion coatings across the shell and grain boundaries. Examiner respectfully reiterates that Deng’s species are “preferable” (¶ 0031), and Deng clarifies that such examples are non-limiting (¶ 0077).
Rather, Deng was merely used to teach the concept of coating/infusing with a high-valence phosphorus source (¶ 0018). Examiner then employed Soma to demonstrate that the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success when using (ortho)phosphate—a similarly high-valence P source—as Chang/Deng’s P source (MPEP 2145 (IV): obviousness hinges on the prior art’s combined suggestions). The auxiliary argument that Deng’s phosphite species behave too differently than Soma’s phosphate species appears speculative given no evidence of such of record and, thus, unpersuasive (see MPEP 2145 (I)). Further, again, Deng and Soma together establish the phosphate content as result-effective, making the 0.05–2 wt% phosphate ions appear optimizable.
Applicant then argues that Soma’s coating is applied to a finished active material versus a precursor and, thus, inapplicable. However, the proposed modification does not bodily incorporate Soma’s finished material into Chang/Deng (MPEP 2145 (III)), and Soma’s material may contain Ni (¶ 0037–0039). As the only difference between a hydroxide precursor and oxide product is that the precursor has been lithiated and calcined (as in Chang’s ¶ 0127), it is unclear how Soma’s teachings would “require substantial process changes” (Remarks, p. 12). Again, Soma merely demonstrates PO43- as another suitable coating/infusing P source (see MPEP 2143 (B.)), and the specification is devoid of comparative coating with PO43- versus the other species, making this argument unpersuasive.
Applicant then argues that modified Chang would not necessarily achieve greater phosphate content in the shell, and, accordingly, the TOF-SIMS is not optimizable. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Deng’s P-infusing distributes more P—in the form of phosphate, via Soma—in the shell than core/grain boundaries (¶ 0018), but, even if such were not inherent, Soma teaches forming more phosphate in the shell to form the reaction-suppressing layer to suppress gas generation (see claim 1). The skilled artisan would have then recognized that enough phosphate must be in the core for Deng’s conductivity and stability but that a greater portion of phosphorus should be present in the shell than in the core/grain boundaries to achieve Soma’s gas-generation suppression (see above), so the artisan would have routinely reached the recited ratio by routinely optimizing the shell:core P-content ratio. Again, Deng and Soma together implicitly establish the phosphate distribution as result-effective, and Applicant’s auxiliary arguments relating to process-dependency, diffusion kinetics, and the like appear speculative and, thus, unpersuasive. Moreover, Examiner further addresses the TOF-SIMS’s criticality below.
Applicant then argues that the 0.05–2 wt% is outside Deng’s wt%. Again, the phosphate content as implicitly result-effective/optimizable independent of Deng’s exemplary wt%.
Turning to the criticality of the TOF-SIMS, though Examiner agrees that the TOF-SIMS ratio, based on the declaration filed 02/14/25, presents unexpected results in view of Chang, Deng, and Soma (see Response to Arguments in O.A. dated 03/21/25 for full discussion), Examiner still believes that these results are incommensurate with the claimed scope. Though Applicant argues that the precursor is for a lithium secondary battery and, thus, now commensurate, such is still intended use (MPEP 2111.02, 2114) given the scope is to the precursor, while the results stem from incorporating the precursor into a lithium-metal-oxide cathode active material, which is incorporated into a positive electrode within a lithium secondary battery alongside a separator/electrolyte and negative electrode (spec., e.g., ¶ 00180–00183 and Tables 1 and 2). Further, the LIB is not compared against other devices, so it remains unclear if the results would occur if employing the precursor in, e.g., a capacitor.
Moreover, other concerns still exist. The results pertain to life-span characteristics, rate property, and gas generation, yet the skilled artisan would understand that other factors influence these outcomes, including at least the following:
Claim 1 allows any particle size of the secondary particle, whereas the skilled artisan would recognize that such diameter affects the Li+-diffusion distance and, thus, (dis)charge efficiency and rate properties (as seen in ¶ 0003). It is unclear if substantially similar results would occur with secondary particles of, e.g., 2 μm as at 50 μm.
Claim 1 allows any Ni molar content from 30% to < 100%, but high-Ni active materials are known to contribute high capacity (as in Chang’s ¶ 0069). It is unclear if substantially similar results would occur at, e.g., 30% Ni as at 90%.
Claim 1 would allow a battery with any negative electrode active material, whereas the skilled artisan would understand that different negative active materials exhibit different capacities and perform differently electrochemically (e.g., Si well known to exhibit higher capacity than graphite but experience more volume expansion). It is unclear if the results, specifically the rate properties, would occur using any negative active material.
Claim 1 would allow a battery with any concentration of active material, binder, and conductive material in either electrode, whereas the skilled artisan would understand that active-material content would affect the life-span and rate properties. It is unclear if substantially similar results would occur at, e.g., 70 wt% active material in each electrode as at, e.g., 95%. The same would be true for the conductive-material and binder contents (e.g., unclear if results would occur at 1 ppb binder in each electrode).
Claim 1 would allow a battery with any electrolyte, whereas the results appear tailored to liquid electrolytes (see declaration as well as ¶ 00183). It is unclear if such results would occur with, e.g., a solid, inorganic electrolyte.
Thus, absent additional evidence or declaration explaining each of these discrepancies, per MPEP 716.02(d), this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant finally argues, with respect to the double-patenting rejection, substantially similar arguments against Soma as coating a finished active material versus precursor, but Examiner applies the same response as above.
For new claims 18–21, see the new grounds of rejection.
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 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 JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 EST M-Th, 9:00-1:00 EST F.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751