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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-7 were previously withdrawn.
Claims 8-11 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 3, filed 08/20/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 8-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chang et al. (US 20050118496 A1) in view of Kim et al. (.
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.
Claim(s) 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 20050118496 A1) in view of Kim et al. (Thermal Decomposition Study on Li2O2 for Li2NiO2 Synthesis as a Sacrificing Positive Additive of Lithium-Ion Batteries, 2019).
Regarding claim 8, Chang teaches an irreversible positive electrode additive for a secondary battery ([0009]-[0010]; [0029]), comprising a lithium nickel composite oxide represented by Chemical Formula 1: [Chemical Formula 1] Li2+aNi1-b-cM1bVcO2-dAd in Chemical Formula 1, M1 is at least one selected from the group consisting of Cu, Mg, Pt, Al, Co, P, W, Zr, Nb, and B, A is at least one selected from the group consisting of F, S, Cl, and Br, and 0<a<0.2, 0<b<0.5, 0.01<c<0.065, and 0<d<0.2 are satisfied ([0014]-[0015] “Li2+xNi1-yMyO2+a” the case where M is selected as vanadium; [0027]-[0028]; [0039]; [0023]). Chang teaches that in the compound taught, Nickel is partially substituted and the material can be prepared by reacting a salt, metal salt, organo-metallic salt or oxide of at least one element selected from the group consisting of P, B, C, Al, Sc, Sr, Ti, V, Zr, Mn, Fe, Co, Cu, Zn, Cr, Mg, Nb, Mo and Cd together with lithium oxide and nickel oxide by using a reaction method such as a solid phase reaction at 600℃ ([0040]; [0083]). Chang teaches multiple examples wherein the compound with which nickel is partially substituted is present in a small quantity ([0083]; [0086]; [0088]; Examples 4-6). The ranges of the subscripts of each component overlap with those of the claimed formula. 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) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Chang does not explicitly teach wherein the irreversible positive electrode additive further comprises Li2O and NiO and wherein the lithium nickel composite oxide is included in an amount of 90 to 95 wt% with respect to a total weight of the lithium nickel composite oxide, Li2O and NiO.
However, Kim teaches a method of preparing Li2O precursor for an irreversible cathode additive, namely Li2NiO2 (abstract). Kim teaches that Li2NiO2 is formed by combining Li2O and NiO at 650℃ for 12 hours under a N2 atmosphere and that Li2O and NiO remain in the final prepared material (p. 4). Kim teaches that using the Li2O precursor formed by the discussed method results in a final product having 90.9% Li2NiO2 compared to using a commercially available Li2O precursor which results in a final product having 45.6% Li2NiO2 in the final material (p. 4; p.6 section 3.3). Kim further teaches that the yield of the Li2NiO2 synthesis is significant for its performance as a cathode additive (p. 5).
The cathode additive compound taught by Chang retains the structure of Li2NiO2 despite the nickel being partially substituted. The cathode additive compounds taught by Chang and Kim are formed by similar methods.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that residual Li2O and NiO remain in the product taught by Chang and further it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to minimize the amount of residual Li2O and NiO to an amount below 10%, such as by using the LiO precursor taught by Kim.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to minimize the amount of residual Li2O and NiO to an amount below 10%, such as by using the LiO precursor taught by Kim, to increase the irreversible capacity of the final compound (p. 5). 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) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 9, modified Chang teaches he irreversible positive electrode additive of claim 8. Change further teaches wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, 0.015<c<0.055 is satisfied ([0040]; [0083]). Chang teaches multiple examples wherein the compound with which nickel is partially substituted is present in a small quantity ([0083]; [0086]; [0088]; Examples 4-6). The ranges of the subscripts of each component overlap with those of the claimed formula. 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) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 10, modified Chang teaches the irreversible positive electrode additive for a secondary battery according to claim 8. Modified Chang further teaches a positive electrode for a secondary battery, comprising the irreversible positive electrode additive, a conductive material, and a binder ([0083]-[0085]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Chang teaches the positive electrode for a secondary battery according to claim 10. Modified Chang further teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising: a negative electrode disposed to face the positive electrode; and a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode ([0051]; [0046]-[0052]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
/F.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728