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
This is a final office action for application 17/779,084 in response to the amendment(s) filed on 03/10/2026. Claims 12-20, 23-28, 33 and 35-38 are under examination. Claims 26-28 remain withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/10/2026 have been fully considered but were not found persuasive over the previous prior art rejection of record for the reasons set forth below. See claims 12-20, 23-25, 33 and 35-38 rejections below.
Applicant argues “claim 12 is amended to recite an anode active material comprising silicon, wherein, before the first discharging and/or charging of the lithium ion battery, the anode active material is prelithiated to have a degree y of lithiation in a range from 0.05 to 0.30. This is not taught or suggested in the prior art of record. At best, Bhavaraju discloses an ‘anode [that] comprises an alkali metal intercalation material … the intercalation material in the anode 20 comprises a lithium metal intercalated into and/or onto a base material, such as carbon (e.g., graphite, mesoporous carbon, boron-doped diamond, carbon, and/or graphene), nickel oxide, manganese oxide, iron phosphate …’ but Bhavaraju does not contemplate a silicon-based anode that is prelithiated to have a degree y of lithiation in a range from 0.05 to 0.30.” (see e.g. pages 7-9 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Bhavaraju was relied upon in the previous rejection, in light of the amendments a new search was conducted and thus the current rejection relies upon Huang et al. for teaching a prelithiated silicon-containing anode active material. Specifically, Huang discloses “an anode composite of LixSi, where x ranges from 0 to 4.4” (see e.g. paragraph [0028] of Huang). Huang therefore expressly teaches a silicon-containing anode active material that is prelithiated and encompasses the claimed range of lithiation from 0.05 to 0.30. Because Huang discloses a range overlapping the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Further, Huang teaches that prelithiation of silicon-based anodes improves stability and charge/discharge efficiency of lithium batteries (see e.g. paragraphs [0028] and [0030] of Huang), thereby providing motivation to combine the teachings of Huang with Kubota. Accordingly, the combination of Kubota and Huang teaches or suggests all limitations of amended claim 12. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Claims 35-38 are new and depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 12, which has been amended as set forth above to distinguish over the prior art of record in this application. At least due to their dependence on claim 12, these new claims also distinguish over the prior art of record, and further claims 35-38 may be separately patentable over the cited references.” (see e.g. page 8 of applicant’s argument).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 35-38 have been separately considered and rejected based upon the combination of Kubota in view of Huang, and further in view of Li with respect to claim 38. Specifically, Kubota discloses a completely lithiated oxide cathode active material such as LiCoO2 and further discloses degrees of lithiation differing by 0.8 between the first and second cathode active materials, thereby teaching the limitations of claims 35 and 36. Kubota additionally discloses LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2, which corresponds to the claimed LiαNixMnyCozO2 material of claim 37, in combination with a spinel manganese-containing material corresponding to λ-Mn2O4. Further, Li et al. discloses an over-lithiated oxide comprising Li1.17Mn0.53Ni0.2Co0.1O2, which corresponds to the claimed formula Li1+ϵ(NixMnyCoz)1-ϵO2 where ϵ is between 0.1 and 0.6 and x+y+z=1, as recited in claim 38. Li further teaches that such over-lithiated oxide materials improve voltage fade performance while retaining favorable electrochemical characteristics. Accordingly, claims 35-38 are also rendered obvious by the cited prior art combinations. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In conclusion, the arguments and amendments filed were not found to be persuasive over the previous prior art rejection of record. The rejections of the claims have been updated to reflect the amendments where appropriate. See claims 12-20, 23-25, 33 and 35-38 rejections below.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 12-20, 23-25, 33 and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. (US-20180198120-A1) and further in view of Huang et al. (US-20070099084-A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Kubota discloses a lithium ion battery (see e.g. "lithium secondary battery" in Abstract) comprising:
a cathode (see e.g. "positive electrode" in Abstract) comprising a composite cathode active material including at least one first cathode active material and at least one second cathode active material (see e.g. "the positive electrode contains a first active material and a second active material" in Abstract and “the positive electrode contains a first active material and a second active material each capable of intercalating and deintercalating lithium” in paragraph [0015]);
and an anode (see e.g. "negative electrode" in Abstract) comprising an anode active material (see e.g. "The negative electrode contains metal lithium as an active material" in Abstract and “the negative electrode contains metal lithium as an active material” in paragraph [0016]),
wherein the second cathode active material comprises a compound with spinel structure (see e.g., "Production of Positive Electrode Containing Li0.2Mn2O4 as a second active material" in paragraph [0109]). Li0.2Mn2O4 is known to have a spinel structure.
Kubota further discloses that the first cathode active material and the second cathode active material each have a separate degree of lithiation (see e.g. "The first active material is in the state under which only deintercalation of lithium can be carried out in a battery reaction with the negative electrode immediately after assembly of the lithium secondary battery, and the second active material is in the state under which lithium can be intercalated in the battery reaction with the negative electrode immediately after assembly of the lithium secondary battery." in Abstract and “the first active material being in the state under which only deintercalation of lithium can be carried out in a battery reaction with the negative electrode immediately after assembly of the lithium secondary battery, and the second active material being in the state under which lithium can be intercalated in the battery reaction with the negative electrode immediately after assembly of the lithium secondary battery” in paragraph [0015]). Kubota discloses that each active material has a separate degree of lithiation after battery assembly. Thus, in this case this degree of lithiation would be called a and b for the first cathode active material and second cathode active material respectively.
Kubota further discloses that before a first discharging and/or charging of the lithium ion battery, the degree of lithiation of the second cathode active material is lower than the degree of lithiation of the first cathode active material (see e.g. "The first active material is in the state under which only deintercalation of lithium can be carried out in a battery reaction with the negative electrode immediately after assembly of the lithium secondary battery, and the second active material is in the state under which lithium can be intercalated in the battery reaction with the negative electrode immediately after assembly of the lithium secondary battery." in Abstract and “the first active material being in the state under which only deintercalation of lithium can be carried out in a battery reaction with the negative electrode immediately after assembly of the lithium secondary battery, and the second active material being in the state under which lithium can be intercalated in the battery reaction with the negative electrode immediately after assembly of the lithium secondary battery” in paragraph [0015]). Kubota discloses that the first active material is in a state where only deintercalation of lithium can occur in a battery reaction with the negative electrode immediately after assembly. In contrast, the second active material is in a state where lithium can be intercalated during the battery reaction with the negative electrode immediately after assembly. This indicates that the first active material has a higher degree of lithiation compared to the second active material before any initial discharging or charging, thereby disclosing the claimed limitation.
Kubota further discloses that before the first discharging and/or charging of the lithium ion battery, the anode active material is prelithiated (see e.g. "The negative electrode contains metal lithium as an active material" in paragraph [0021] and "In short, the initial charge/discharge cycle is started from discharging. During the initial discharging time, an active material for a negative electrode; i.e., metal lithium is deintercalated and ionized." in paragraph [0025]). Kubota discloses that the negative electrode contains lithium metal as an active material and that it is present prior to the first discharge, thus Kubota discloses a prelithiated anode.
Kubota does not disclose that the anode comprises an anode active material comprising silicon and, before the first discharging and/or charging of the lithium ion battery, the anode active material is prelithiated to have a degree y of lithiation in a range from 0.05 to 0.30.
Huang, however, int he same field of endeavor, prelithiated anodes, discloses an anode comprising an anode active material comprising silicon (see e.g. "In the case of silicon based active materials, this provides an anode composite of LixSi, where x ranges from 0 to 4.4." in paragraph [0028] of Huang) and, before the first discharging and/or charging of the lithium ion battery, the anode active material is prelithiated to have a degree y of lithiation in a range from 0 to 4.4 (see e.g. "In the case of silicon based active materials, this provides an anode composite of LixSi, where x ranges from 0 to 4.4." in paragraph [0028] of Huang).
Huang discloses a range that overlaps with the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Huang also teaches that pre-lithiation of the anode has been found to improve stability and charge/discharge efficiency of the batteries and thus lead to high composite anodes for lithium batteries (see e.g. paragraph [0028] and [0030] of Huang). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the anode active material of Kubota et al. such that it is an anode active material comprising silicon and, before the first discharging and/or charging of the lithium ion battery, the anode active material is prelithiated to have a degree y of lithiation in a range from 0.05 to 0.30 as taught by Huang et al. in order to have an anode that improves stability and charge/discharge efficiency of the battery as suggested by Huang. Regarding Claim 13, Kubota in view of Huang disclose the lithium ion battery of claim 12 (see e.g. claim 12 rejection above).
Kubota further discloses that the first cathode active material is LiCoO2 (see e.g., "the first active material is lithium cobalt oxide (chemical formula: LiCoO2)" in paragraph [0047] and “LiCoO2” in Examples 3 and 4 and Comparative Example 2 in Table 2). LiCoO2 is a layered oxide.
Regarding Claim 14, Kubota in view of Huang disclose the lithium ion battery of claim 12 (see e.g. claim 12 rejection above).
Kubota further discloses that the difference in the degree of lithiation between the first cathode active material and the degree of lithiation of the second cathode active material is 0.8 (see e.g. Example 9 in Table 2; the first active material is LiCoO2 which has a degree of lithiation of 1, the second active material is Li0.2Mn2O4 which has a degree of lithiation of 0.2). Thus, Kubota discloses the difference between the degree of lithiation of the first cathode active material and the second cathode active material is 1-0.2 = 0.8.
Kubota discloses a specific point within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art teaches a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 15, Kubota in view of Huang disclose the lithium ion battery of claim 14 (see e.g. claim 14 rejection above).
Kubota further discloses that the difference in the degree of lithiation between the first cathode active material and the degree of lithiation of the second cathode active material is 0.8 (see e.g. Example 9 in Table 2; the first active material is LiCoO2 which has a degree of lithiation of 1, the second active material is Li0.2Mn2O4 which has a degree of lithiation of 0.2). Thus, Kubota discloses the difference between the degree of lithiation of the first cathode active material and the second cathode active material is 1-0.2 = 0.8.
Kubota discloses a specific point within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art teaches a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 16, Kubota in view of Huang disclose the lithium ion battery of claim 13 (see e.g. claim 13 rejection above).
Kubota further discloses that the layered oxide comprises nickel and cobalt (see e.g. "LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2" in Examples 11 and 12 of Table 2). LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2 is a layered oxide comprising nickel and cobalt.
Regarding Claim 17, Kubota in view of Huang disclose the lithium ion battery of claim 16 (see e.g. claim 16 rejection above).
Kubota further discloses that the layered oxide comprises a nickel-cobalt-manganese compound (see e.g. " LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2" in Examples 11 and 12 of Table 2). LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2 is a layered oxide comprising a nickel-cobalt-manganese compound.
Regarding Claim 18, Kubota in view of Huang disclose the lithium ion battery of claim 12 (see e.g. claim 12 rejection above).
Kubota further discloses that the compound with the spinel structure comprising a compound including manganese (see e.g. "Production of Positive Electrode Containing Li0.2Mn2O4 as a Second Active Material" in paragraph [0109]). Li0.2Mn2O4 is a spinel structure comprising manganese. Regarding Claim 19, Kubota in view of Huang disclose the lithium ion battery of claim 18 (see e.g. claim 18 rejection above).
Kubota discloses that the compound with the spinel structure is Li0.2Mn2O4 (see e.g. paragraph [0109]). Although Kubota does not explicitly disclose that the spinel compound comprises λ-Mn₂O₄, it does disclose a spinel compound that is compositionally and structurally indistinguishable from the compound claimed in the instant application (see e.g. “λ-Mn₂O₄ can be obtained by delithiation of LiMn2O4” in paragraph [0053] of the instant specification; Li0.2Mn2O4 which is disclosed in the prior art is delithiated LiMn2O4). Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the compound disclosed in Kubota and the claimed compound share the same composition and structure. As such, the spinel structure comprising λ-Mn₂O₄ would be inherent in Kubota’s disclosure and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2112(III) and 2112.01(I).2112.01(I).
Regarding Claim 20, Kubota in view of Huang disclose the lithium ion battery of claim 12 (see e.g. claim 12 rejection above).
Kubota further discloses that a weight fraction of the second cathode active material is lower than a weight fraction of the first cathode active material, based on a total weight of the composite cathode active material (see e.g., Examples 1-4 in Table 2 where the proportion of second active material (mass %) is disclosed and the second active material mass % is less than 50% indicating there is more first active material than second active material).
Regarding Claim 23, Kubota in view of Huang disclose the lithium ion battery of claim 12 (see e.g. claim 12 rejection above).
Kubota in view of Huang does not explicitly disclose that the anode active material before the first discharge and/or charging of the lithium ion battery is prelithiated to an extent such that the lithium ion battery before the first discharging and/or charging has a state of charge (SoC) in a range from 1% to 30%.
However, Kubota in view of Huang discloses a prelithiated anode active material that has no structural or compositional difference to the prelithiated anode active material that is claimed by the instant application (see e.g. “Li0.1875≤x≤1.125Si1” in paragraph [0030] of the instant application and see e.g. "an anode composite of LixSi, where x ranges from 0 to 4.4" in paragraph [0028] of Huang). Because of this the anode active material before the first discharge and/or charging of the lithium ion battery being prelithiated to an extent such that the lithium ion battery before the first discharging and/or charging has a state of charge (SoC) in a range from 1% to 30% would be inherent and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2112 (III) and MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding Claim 24, Kubota in view of Huang disclose the lithium ion battery of claim 23 (see e.g. claim 23 rejection above).
Kubota in view of Huang does not explicitly state that the SoC is in the range from 3% to 25%.
However, Kubota in view of Huang discloses a prelithiated anode active material that has no structural or compositional difference to the prelithiated anode active material that is claimed by the instant application (see e.g. “Li0.1875≤x≤1.125Si1” in paragraph [0030] of the instant application and see e.g. "an anode composite of LixSi, where x ranges from 0 to 4.4" in paragraph [0028] of Huang). Because of this the SoC being in the range from 3% to 25% would be inherent and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2112 (III) and MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding Claim 25, Kubota in view of Huang disclose the lithium ion battery of claim 24 (see e.g. claim 24 rejection above).
Kubota in view of Huang does not explicitly state that the SoC is in the range from 5% to 20%.
However, Kubota in view of Huang discloses a prelithiated anode active material that has no structural or compositional difference to the prelithiated anode active material that is claimed by the instant application (see e.g. “Li0.1875≤x≤1.125Si1” in paragraph [0030] of the instant application and see e.g. "an anode composite of LixSi, where x ranges from 0 to 4.4" in paragraph [0028] of Huang). Because of this the SoC being in the range from 5% to 20% would be inherent and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2112 (III) and MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding Claim 33, Kubota in view of Huang disclose the lithium ion battery of claim 12 (see e.g. claim 12 rejection above).
Kubota does not disclose that the anode active material has a composition of Li0.1875≤x≤1.125Si1.
Huang, however, discloses an anode active material that has a composition Li0-4.4Si1 (see e.g. "In the case of silicon based active materials, this provides an anode composite of LixSi, where x ranges from 0 to 4.4." in paragraph [0028] of Huang).
Huang discloses a range that overlaps with the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Huang also teaches that pre-lithiation of the anode has been found to improve stability and charge/discharge efficiency of the batteries and thus lead to high composite anodes for lithium batteries (see e.g. paragraph [0028] and [0030] of Huang). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the anode active material of Kubota et al. such that the anode active material has a composition of Li0.1875≤x≤1.125Si1 as taught by Huang et al. in order to have an anode that improves stability and charge/discharge efficiency of the battery as suggested by Huang.
Regarding Claim 35, Kubota in view of Huang disclose the lithium ion battery of claim 12 (see e.g. claim 12 rejection above).
Kubota further discloses that the first cathode active material comprises a completely lithiated oxide (see e.g. "LiCoO2" in Example 9 of Table 2). LiCoO2 is a completely lithiated oxide.
Regarding Claim 36, Kubota in view of Huang disclose the lithium ion battery according to claim 35 (see e.g. claim 35 rejection above).
Kubota further discloses that a difference between the degree of lithiation of the first cathode active material and the degree of lithiation of the second cathode active material is 0.8 (see e.g. Example 9 in Table 2; the first active material is LiCoO2 which has a degree of lithiation of 1, the second active material is Li0.2Mn2O4 which has a degree of lithiation of 0.2). Thus, Kubota discloses the difference between the degree of lithiation of the first cathode active material and the second cathode active material is 1-0.2 = 0.8.
Kubota discloses a specific point within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art teaches a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 37, Kubota in view of Huang disclose the lithium ion battery of claim 36 (see e.g. claim 36 rejection above).
Kubota further discloses that the first cathode active material comprises LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2 with x + y + z = 1, where α = 1 (see e.g. " LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2" in Example 11 in Table 2) and wherein the second cathode active material comprises Li0.2Mn2O4 (see e.g. " Li0.2Mn2O4" in Example 10 in Table 2).
Kubota does not explicitly disclose that the second cathode active material comprises λ-Mn₂O₄, however, Kubota does disclose a spinel compound that is compositionally and structurally indistinguishable from the compound claimed in the instant application (see e.g. “λ-Mn₂O₄ can be obtained by delithiation of LiMn2O4” in paragraph [0053] of the instant specification; Li0.2Mn2O4 which is disclosed in the prior art is delithiated LiMn2O4). Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the compound disclosed in Kubota and the claimed compound share the same composition and structure. As such, the spinel structure comprising λ-Mn₂O₄ would be inherent in Kubota’s disclosure and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2112(III) and 2112.01(I).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. (US-20180198120-A1) in view of Huang et al. (US-20070099084-A1) as applied to claim 36 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US-20150372299-A1).
Regarding Claim 38, Kubota in view of Huang disclose the lithium ion battery of claim 36 (see e.g. claim 36 rejection above).
Kubota in view of Huang does not disclose that the first cathode active material is an over-lithiated oxide comprising Li1+ϵ(NixMnyCoz)1-ϵO2, where ϵ is between 0.1 and 0.6 and x+y+z=1.
Li, however, in the same field of endeavor, lithium rich layer oxide electrode materials, discloses a cathode active material that is an over-lithiated oxide comprising Li1.17Mn0.53Ni0.2Co0.1O2 (see e.g. " Li1.17Mn0.53Ni0.2Co0.1O2 " in Table 1 of Li). This corresponds directly with the claimed species because Li1.17Mn0.53Ni0.2Co0.1O2 may be expressed as Li1+ϵ(NixMnyCoz)1-ϵO2, where ϵ = 0.17, x = 0.24096, y = 0.63855, and z = 0.12048, such that x+y+z=1.
Li discloses points that lie within the ranges claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Li further teaches that this cathode active material can improve the voltage fade of OLO materials while retaining the other favorable performance and commercial attributes of OLO materials, and in particular over-lithiated NMC materials (see e.g. paragraph [0066] of Li). Therefore, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first cathode active material of Kubota et al. in view of Huang et al. such that the first cathode active material is an over-lithiated oxide comprising Li1+ϵ(NixMnyCoz)1-ϵO2, where ϵ is between 0.1 and 0.6 and x+y+z=1 as taught by Li et ai. in order to improve the voltage fade of OLO materials while retaining the other favorable performance and commercial attributes of OLO material as suggested by Li.
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 JESSE EFYMOW whose telephone number is (571)270-0795. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10:30 am - 8:30 pm 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, TONG GUO can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.J.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights