DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the December 17th, 2025 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”).
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
In response to the amendments received in the Remarks on December 17th, 2025:
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, and 11-23 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 18, and 20 have been amended. Claims 21-23 are new. Claims 3, 6, and 10 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 18, and 20 have been amended to incorporate wherein the graphene additive is in the form of one or more graphene sheets. This amendment is supported by Applicant’s original disclosure, including at least paragraph [0006] of Applicant’s own PG Publication.
The cores of the previous prior art-based rejections have been overcome in light of the amendment. All changes made to the rejection are as necessitated by the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with the Remarks on December 17th, 2025 with respect to claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, and 11-23 are based on the claims as amended. While Applicant’s arguments are acknowledged, they are found to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, presented below, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the Claims.
Prior Art
Previously cited Lampe EP1831952 (“Lampe”)
Li US PG Publication 2014/0023926 (“Li”)
Previously cited Song US PG Publication 2018/0151865 (“Song”)
Previously cited Wu US PG Publication 2016/0260965 (“Wu”)
Previously cited Ophir US PG Publication 2018/0166680 (“Ophir”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 11-12, 14, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lampe EP1831952 in view of Li US PG Publication 2014/0023926.
Regarding Claims 1 and 18, Lampe discloses a lithium-ion battery 10 (Fig. 1, [0013], [0059]) comprising:
a separator ([0059]);
a blended lithium-ion electrode 1 (i.e. positive electrode) (Fig. 1, [0059], [0061]), wherein the separator is between the blended lithium-ion electrode and an anode (i.e. negative electrode) (Fig. 1, [0059]);
wherein the blended lithium-ion electrode 1 comprises:
a first mixture (i.e. active material) with high specific capacity comprising a lithium metal oxide (i.e. lithium nickelate) having the formula LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 (which reads on the claimed formula Li(Ma’Mb”Mc’’’)O2 when M’ is nickel, M” is cobalt, M’’’ is aluminum, a is 0.8, b is 0.15, and c is 0.05) ([0061]); and
a second mixture (i.e. active material) with relatively high safety comprising a lithium metal phosphate (i.e. olivine compound) having the formula LiFePO4 (which reads on the claimed formula LiYPO4 when Y is iron) ([0061]);
wherein the first mixture and the second mixture are combined in a blended mixture with a ratio of the first mixture to the second mixture from 0.9:0.1 to 0.3:0.7 (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 0.01 to 99.99) ([0051]).
While Lampe discloses a positive electrode additive in the form of a conductive carbon agent at a concentration of 3 weight% is combined in the blended lithium-ion electrode of the first mixture and the second mixture ([0073]), Lampe fails to disclose wherein the additive is a graphene additive.
The simple substitution of one known element for another is to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP 2143, B.).
However, Li discloses a battery including a first electrode comprising a plurality of particles and electrochemically exfoliated graphene (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon).
Li teaches that the electrochemical graphene can be intercalated into electrode material ([0050]) and graphene sheets can include a plurality of defects formed by vacancies (Fig. 4A, [0047]). And Li teaches that even a small amount of graphene in the form of at least one thin sheet also referred to as graphene flakes, for example between 0.001 wt% and 5 wt% of the electrode with a lateral size between a few microns and several tons of microns, as a surface coating on an active material particle can cause a lithium ion battery using said electrode to achieve good electrochemical charging and discharging performance (Figs. 2A-2C, [0006], [0043]-[0045], [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrode of Lampe such that the conductive additive comprises between 0.001 wt% and 5 wt% graphene (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 0.01 to 30 weight%, and encompasses the 3 weight% of Lampe) that has a plurality of defects formed by vacancies to be combined in both the blended lithium-ion electrode of the first mixture and the second mixture, and wherein the graphene additive is in the form of at least one graphene flake as a surface coating with a lateral size between a few microns and several tons of microns, such that the lithium-ion battery comprising the blended lithium-ion electrode can achieve good electrochemical charging and discharging performance, as taught by Li.
Regarding Claim 2, Lampe in view of Li teaches the instantly claimed blended lithium-ion electrode according to Claim 1, and Lampe discloses wherein the blended lithium-ion electrode is a cathode ([0059], [0061]).
Regarding Claim 4, Lampe in view of Li teaches the instantly claimed blended lithium-ion electrode according to Claim 1, and Lampe discloses wherein the blended lithium-ion electrode is part of an electrochemical cell ([0013], [0059]),
the first mixture of the lithium metal oxide has a higher energy density than the second mixture of the lithium metal phosphate (Table 1, [0039]),
the second mixture of the lithium metal phosphate has a higher thermal conductivity than the first mixture of the lithium metal oxide ([0035]-[036]).
While Lampe does not explicitly disclose the ratio between the first mixture of the lithium metal oxide comprised and the second mixture of the lithium metal phosphate comprised is selected based on the higher energy density and the higher thermal conductivity, Lampe does disclose that it is advantageous to achieve high energy density ([0039]-[0040]) and thermal conductivity ([0035]-[0036]) through the use of the cathode material ([0039]-[0040]) to improve capacity, capability, and safety characteristics ([0040]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrode of Lampe in view of Li such that the ratio between the first mixture of the lithium metal oxide comprised and the second mixture of the lithium metal phosphate comprised is selected based on the higher energy density and the higher thermal conductivity in order to improve capacity, capability, and safety characteristics, as taught by Lampe
Regarding Claim 5, Lampe in view of Li teaches the instantly claimed blended lithium-ion electrode according to Claim 1, and Lampe discloses wherein a concentration of the first mixture in the blended lithium-ion electrode is at most 87.3 weight % (which encompasses the claimed range of 1-10 weight%) (wherein in [0073] Lampe discloses 3 weight% of a conductive additive in the electrode in conjunction with the first and second mixtures with a maximum ratio of 0.9:0.1 as disclosed in [0051] in addition to at least one binder and a solvent).
Regarding Claim 11, Lampe in view of Li teaches the instantly claimed blended lithium-ion electrode according to Claim 1, and Lampe discloses wherein the blended lithium-ion electrode is part of an electrochemical cell ([0059]) configured with a cell capacity of greater than about 2.2 Ah/cell (which overlaps the claimed range of 1 to 300 Ah) ([0056]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claim 12, Lampe in view of Li teaches the instantly claimed blended lithium-ion electrode according to Claim 1, and Lampe discloses wherein the blended lithium-ion electrode is part of an electrochemical cell ([0059]) with an average voltage of 3.75 V (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 3.2 to 4.4 V) ([0094]).
Regarding Claim 14, Lampe in view of Li teaches the instantly claimed blended lithium-ion electrode according to Claim 1, and Lampe discloses wherein the blended lithium-ion electrode is part of a lithium-ion battery 10 ([0059]), and
the lithium-ion battery is configured for use in an electric vehicle ([0092]).
Regarding Claim 19, Lampe in view of Li teaches the instantly claimed lithium-ion battery according to Claim 18, and Lampe discloses an electrolyte disposed between the anode and the blended lithium-ion electrode ([0018]).
Regarding Claim 20, Lampe discloses a method of manufacturing a blended lithium-ion electrode 1 (i.e. positive electrode) (Fig. 1, [0059], [0061]), comprising:
providing a first mixture (i.e. active material) with high specific capacity comprising a lithium metal oxide (i.e. lithium nickelate) having the formula LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 (which reads on the claimed formula Li(Ma’Mb”Mc’’’)O2 when M’ is nickel, M” is cobalt, M’’’ is aluminum, a is 0.8, b is 0.15, and c is 0.05) ([0061]); and
providing a second mixture (i.e. active material) with relatively high safety comprising a lithium metal phosphate (i.e. olivine compound) having the formula LiFePO4 (which reads on the claimed formula LiYPO4 when Y is iron) ([0061]); and
combining the first mixture and the second mixture into a blended mixture with a ratio of the first mixture to the second mixture from 0.9:0.1 to 0.3:0.7 (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 0.01 to 99.99) ([0051]).
While Lampe discloses a further combining positive electrode additive in the form of a conductive carbon agent at a concentration of 3 weight% with the blended lithium-ion electrode of the first mixture and the second mixture ([0073]), Lampe fails to disclose wherein the additive is a graphene additive.
The simple substitution of one known element for another is to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP 2143, B.).
However, Li discloses a battery including a first electrode comprising a plurality of particles and electrochemically exfoliated graphene (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon).
Li teaches that the electrochemical graphene can be intercalated into electrode material ([0050]) and that even a small amount of graphene in the form of thin sheets also referred to as graphene flakes, for example between 0.001 wt% and 5 wt% of the electrode, can cause a lithium ion battery using said electrode to achieve good electrochemical charging and discharging performance ([0043], [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Lampe such that the blended mixture is combined with a conductive additive that comprises between 0.001 wt% and 5 wt% graphene (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 0.01 to 30 weight%, and encompasses the 3 weight% of Lampe), and wherein the graphene additive is in the form of at least one graphene flake, such that the lithium-ion battery comprising the blended lithium-ion electrode can achieve good electrochemical charging and discharging performance, as taught by Li.
Regarding Claim 21, Lampe in view of Li teaches the instantly claimed electrode according to Claim 1, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1) Lampe in view of Li discloses wherein the one or more graphene sheets is provided as a graphene sheet surface coating (Li [0006]).
Regarding Claim 22, Lampe in view of Li teaches the instantly claimed electrode according to Claim 1, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1) Lampe in view of Li discloses wherein the one or more graphene sheets includes a plurality of defects formed by vacancies (Li Fig. 4A, [0047]).
Regarding Claim 23, Lampe in view of Li teaches the instantly claimed electrode according to Claim 1, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1) Lampe in view of Li discloses wherein the one or more graphene sheets is provided as graphene [sheet] flakes, wherein the graphene sheet flakes are provide in at least 1 layer (which encompasses the claimed range of 1 to 15 graphene layers), and wherein the graphene sheet flake has a lateral size between a few microns and several tons of microns (which overlaps the claimed range of 0.1 µm and 20 µm) (Li Figs. 2A-2C, [0043]-[0045]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lampe EP1831952 in view of Li US PG Publication 2014/0023926, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Song US PG Publication 2018/0151865.
Regarding Claims 7-8, Lampe in view of Li teaches the instantly claimed blended lithium-ion electrode of Claim 1, but fails to disclose a protective coating configured to be resistant against electrolyte degradation that can savage HF and PF5- and further comprising a protective coating comprised of LiF that is configured to facilitate cell cycling.
However, Song discloses a cathode active material comprising one or more mixtures ([0065]). Song teaches the use of a LiF protective coating over the cathode active material to prevent electrolyte degradation by slowing side reactions with the electrolyte, improve charge/discharge cell cycle characteristics, and improve the stability of the cathode active material ([0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the blended lithium-ion electrode of Lampe in view of Li to further comprise a protective coating of LiF to be resistant against electrolyte degradation and configured to facilitate cell cycling in order to improve the stability of the blended lithium-ion electrode, as taught by Song.
The blended lithium-ion electrode of Lampe in view of Li and Song is substantially identical to that of the claimed blended lithium-ion electrode and would therefore be capable of scavenging HF and PF5-. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that it is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use, for an old product, does not make a claim to that old product patentable. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2114).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lampe EP 1831952 in view of Li US PG Publication 2014/0023926 and Song US PG Publication 2018/0151865, as applied to Claim 8, and further in view of Wu US PG Publication 2016/0260965.
Regarding Claim 9, Lampe in view of Li and Song teaches the instantly claimed blended lithium-ion electrode of Claim 8, but fails to disclose wherein the protective coating further comprises LiOH configured against electrolyte decomposition.
However, Wu discloses a cathode active material comprising at least one mixture ([0012]). Wu teaches coating the surface of the cathode active material with LiOH to improve the electrochemical performance of the cathode ([0016]-[0018],[0069]-[0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the blended lithium-ion electrode of Lampe in view of Li and Song to further comprise LiOH within the protective coating to improve the electrochemical performance of the electrode, as taught by Wu.
The skilled artisan would recognize that Lampe in view of Li, Song, and Wu discloses wherein the protective coating further comprises LiOH (Wu [0016]-[0018], [0069]-[0070]) configured against electrolyte decomposition (Song [0022]).
Claims 13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lampe EP1831952 in view of Li US PG Publication 2014/0023926, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Ophir US PG Publication 2018/0166680.
Regarding Claim 13, Lampe in view of Li teaches the instantly claimed blended lithium-ion electrode of Claim 1, and Lampe discloses wherein the blended lithium-ion electrode is part of an electrochemical cell ([0059]).
Lampe in view of Li fails to explicitly disclose wherein the blended lithium-ion electrode is part of an electrochemical cell configured with an average capacity in a range from 120 to 250 mAh/g when charged at a 0.1 C rate.
However, Ophir discloses a blended lithium-ion electrode (e.g., layered cathode material) ([0038]) comprising: a first mixture of a lithium metal oxide and a second mixture of a lithium iron phosphate comprised of LiFePO4 ([0038]).
Ophir teaches wherein the first mixture and the second mixture are combined in a blended mixture such that there is an average battery capacity in a range from 120 to 140 mAh/g when charged at a 0.1 C-rate (Figure 3, [0033]) in order for the battery to be able to experience exemplified cell capacity and cyclability (Figure 3, [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrochemical cell of Lampe in view of Li to have an average battery capacity in a range from 120 to 140 mAh/g (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 120 to 250 mAh/g) when charged at a 0.1 C-rate such that the battery can experience exemplified cell capacity and cyclability, as taught by Ophir.
Regarding Claims 15-17, Lampe in view of Li teaches the instantly claimed blended lithium-ion electrode of Claim 1.
Lampe in view of Li fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first mixture and the second mixture enable charging at a 2C-rate, a 3C-rate, and at greater than 3C-rate.
However, Ophir discloses a blended lithium-ion electrode (e.g., layered cathode material) ([0038]) comprising: a first mixture of a lithium metal oxide and a second mixture of a lithium iron phosphate comprised of LiFePO4 ([0038]).
Ophir teaches wherein the first mixture and the second mixture enable charging at a rate between 0.1 C and 15 C (Figure 3, [0033]) to initiate polymerization of the material ([0019]) such that the battery can experience exemplified cell capacity and cyclability (Figure 3, [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the blended lithium-ion electrode of Lampe in view of Li such that the first mixture and the second mixture enable charging at a rate between 0.1 C and 15 C (which reads on the claim limitations of 2C, 3C, and greater than 3C) such that the battery can experience exemplified cell capacity and cyclability, as taught by Ophir.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA MASON RUGGIERO whose telephone number is (703)756-4652. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ula Ruddock can be reached on (571)272-1481. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/O.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729