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 Arguments
The following is in response to the applicant’s remarks filed 9/4/26.
The applicant submits that the arguments overcome the previous rejection.
The examiner agrees, and the previous rejection is withdrawn.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 12 – 19, 21, 33 – 34, and 36 - 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, US20130071753A1, and Choi, US20240088347A1, and Kubota, US20180198120A1.
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches a lithium-ion battery [0002] comprising:
a cathode comprising a composite cathode active material including at least one first cathode active material and at least one second cathode active material (cathode comprising olivine and over-lithiated cathode materials)[0005]; and
an anode comprising an anode active material selected from the group consisting of carbon-containing material, silicon, silicon suboxide, silicon alloy, aluminum alloy, indium, indium alloy, tin, tin alloy, cobalt alloy and mixtures thereof [0100 - 0103],
wherein the second cathode active material comprises a compound with olivine structure [0044],
wherein the first cathode active material (over-lithiated material) has a degree a of lithiation [0047 – 0051] and the second cathode active material (olivine material) has a degree b of lithiation [0053 – 0055],
wherein, before a first discharging and/or charging of the lithium-ion battery, the degree b of lithiation of the second cathode active material is lower than the degree a of lithiation of the first cathode active material (over-lithiated material having a higher degree of lithiation)[0047 - 0055],
wherein a weight fraction of the second cathode active material is in a range from 5 to 25 wt % based on a total weight of the composite cathode active material (20 – 80%)[examples 1 – 8][0122 – 0129]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. [MPEP 2144.05 I].
Kim does not teach wherein, before the first discharging and/or charging of the lithium-ion battery, the anode active material is prelithiated and where 0 < b < 0.5.
Choi teaches a lithium ion battery [0005] comprising a cathode comprising a first and second cathode material [0094] wherein, before the first discharging and/or charging of the lithium ion battery, the anode active material is prelithiated [0008][0051], and wherein prelithtiating an anode improves capacity and cycle characteristics [00082]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the prelithiated anode of Choi into the battery of Kim to improve battery performance.
Kubota teaches a lithium ion battery [0002] comprising a cathode comprising a first and second cathode material [0015] wherein a degree of lithiation of the first cathode material is greater than the degree of lithiation of the second cathode material (one in a state of intercalation and the other in a state of deintercalation)[0015] wherein, before the first discharging and/or charging of the lithium-ion battery, the anode active material is prelithiated and where 0 < b < 0.5 (in a completely discharged state)[0024]. Further, Kubota teaches that the cathode comprising the claimed lithiation relationship prevents dendrite formation [0028]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the lithiation of Kubota into the battery of Kim to prevent dendrites.
Regarding claim 13, combined Kim teaches the lithium-ion battery according to claim 12.
Further, Kim teaches wherein the first cathode active material is selected from the group consisting of: a layered oxide, including an over-lithiated oxide (OLO)[0005].
Regarding claim 14, combined Kim teaches the lithium-ion battery according to claim 12.
Further, Kim teaches wherein 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 0.1 or more [0048][0054]. 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 reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05 I].
Regarding claim 15, combined Kim teaches the lithium-ion battery according to claim 14.
Further, Kim teaches wherein the difference is 0.5 or more [0048][0054]. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of Americav.Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [MPEP 2144.05 I].
Regarding claim 16, combined Kim teaches the lithium-ion battery according to claim 13.
Further, Kim teaches wherein the layered oxide comprises nickel and cobalt [0051].
Regarding claim 17, combined Kim teaches the lithium-ion battery according to claim 16.
Further, Kim teaches wherein the layered oxide comprises a nickel-cobalt-manganese compound or a nickel-cobalt-aluminum compound [0051]
Regarding claim 18, combined Kim teaches the lithium-ion battery according to claim 12.
Further, Kim teaches wherein the compound with the olivine structure comprises: a compound including iron; a compound including iron and manganese; or a compound including cobalt and/or nickel [0053 – 0055].
Regarding claim 19, combined Kim teaches the lithium-ion battery according to claim 12.
Further, Kim teaches wherein 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 [0046][examples 1 – 8].
Regarding claim 21, combined Kim teaches the lithium-ion battery according to claim 12,
Further, Kim teaches wherein the anode active material is selected from the group consisting of: synthetic graphite, natural graphite, graphene, mesocarbon, hard carbon, soft carbon, silicon- carbon composite, silicon, silicon alloy, aluminum alloy, indium, tin alloy, cobalt alloy, and mixtures thereof [0100 - 0103].
Regarding claim 33, combined Kim teaches the lithium-ion battery according to claim 32.
Further, Chae teaches wherein 0.05<y<0.3 [0021]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exist [MPEP 2144.05 I].
Regarding claim 34, combined Kim teaches lithium-ion battery according to claim 12.
Further, Kim teaches wherein the compound with the olivine structure is LibMPO4, where M is selected from the group consisting of iron, cobalt, nickel, manganese, and combinations thereof [0014]
Regarding claim 36, combined Kim teaches lithium-ion battery according to claim 12.
Further, Kubota teaches wherein 0 < b <0.5 (completely discharged)[0024].
Regarding claim 37, combined Kim teaches lithium-ion battery according to claim 12.
Further, Kim teaches wherein 0.8< a<1.15, and the first cathode active material is selected from the group consisting of LiaNixMnyCozO2 with x+y+z=1, and LiaCo2 or LiaNixCoyO2 with x+y=1 (formula 3)[0012]
Regarding claim 38, combined Kim teaches lithium-ion battery according to claim 35.
Further, Kubota teaches wherein the degree a of lithiation of the first cathode active material is a >= 1 (in a charged state)[0025], and wherein the degree b of lithiation of the second cathode active material is b = 0 (completely discharged)[0024]
Claims 22 – 24 and 32 – 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, US20130071753A1 and Kubota, US20180198120A1 as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of Chae, US20220006065A1 (previously cited).
Regarding claim 22, combined Kim teaches the lithium-ion battery according to claim 12,
Combined Kim does not teach wherein 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%.
Chae teaches a lithium secondary battery [0003] wherein 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% [0013]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exist [MPEP 2144.05 I]. Further, Chae teaches pre-lithiation performed within the claimed range allows for a more stable passivation layer to be formed on the surface of the negative electrode which improves battery cycling performance [0014]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the teachings for SOC from Chae with the pre-lithiatiated material of combined Kim to improve battery performance.
Regarding claim 23, combined Kim teaches the lithium-ion battery according to claim 22,
Further, Chae teaches wherein the SoC is in the range from 3% to 25% [0013]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exist [MPEP 2144.05 I].
Regarding claim 24, combined Kim teaches the lithium-ion battery according to claim 23,
Further, Chae teaches wherein the SoC is in the range from 5% to 20% [0013]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exist [MPEP 2144.05 I].
Regarding claim 32, combined Kim teaches the lithium-ion battery according to claim 12.
Combined Kim does not teach wherein the anode active material is prelithiated substoichiometrically, wherein a degree of y of lithiation of the anode active material is 0.01 to 0.5.
Chae teaches a lithium secondary battery [0003] wherein the anode active material is prelithiated substoichiometrically, wherein a degree of y of lithiation of the anode active material is 0.01 to 0.5 (SOC is a measure of the intercalation/deintercalation of lithium in the active material)[0021]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exist [MPEP 2144.05 I]. Further, Chae teaches pre-lithiation performed within the claimed range allows for a more stable passivation layer to be formed on the surface of the negative electrode which improves battery cycling performance [0014]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the teachings from Chae with the pre-lithiated material of combined Kim to improve battery performance.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, US20130071753A1, and Choi, US20240088347A1, and Kubota, US20180198120A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi II, US20130260244A1.
Regarding claim 35, combined Kim teaches lithium-ion battery according to claim 12.
Combined Kim does not teach wherein the second cathode active material has a particle size in a range from 0.2 micron to 5 microns.
Choi II teaches a lithium ion battery comprising a cathode comprising a first and second cathode material [0003][0011] wherein the second cathode active material has a particle size in a range from 0.2 micron to 5 microns (5 microns or greater/ 1 micron or less)[0011]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exist [MPEP 2144.05 I]. Further, Choi II teaches that cathode particles within this size range improve energy density of the cathode material [0009]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the particle size of Choi II into the cathode material of combined Kim to improve energy density.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-1340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/PATRICK MARSHALL GREENE/Examiner, Art Unit 1724 /BRIAN R OHARA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1724
