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 Objections
Claims 1, 3-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: The applicant did not properly underline the added limitations or strike through cancelled limitations to the amendments per MPEP 714(c). Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Amendment
The amendments received 09/15/2025 have been received and overcome the 112(b) rejection as previously set forth, but do not overcome the 103 rejection as previously set forth in Non-final office action filed 06/13/2025.
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.
Claims 1, 3-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20200358076-A1), hereinafter referred to as ‘Shi’, and in view of ‘Multifunctionality of cerium decoration in enhancing the cycling stability and rate capability of a nickel-rich layered oxide cathode’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Hao’, in view of ‘Enhanced electrochemical performances of cerium-doped Li-Rich Li1.2Ni0.13Co0.13Mn0.54O2 cathode material’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Wang’, in further view of ‘Formation and thermodynamic stability of oxygen vacancies in typical cathode materials for Li-ion batteries: Density functional theory study’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Hu’
Regarding Claim 1,
Shi teaches an electrochemical cell comprising: a first electrode ; a second electrode (Shi, “ Further, the battery may be manufactured, such that the battery includes the cathode as described above, a negative electrode, or an anode, a separator disposed between the cathode and the anode”, see [0049]) having at least 50 wt. % nickel (Shi, “LiNixMnyCo1-x-yO2 (0≤x≤1, 0≤y≤1, 0≤x+y≤1). Example compositions of NMC may include LiNi0.333Mn0.333Co0.333O2(NMC111), LiNi0.5Mn0.2Co0.3O2(NMC523), LiNi0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2(NMC622), and/or LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2(NMC811). In one example, NMC may be LiNi0.64Mn0.2Co0.16O2”, see [0036]) (The examiner notes that converting from moles to weight excluding the lithium and oxygen is calculated by multiplying by the molar mass and dividing by the overall sample)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0 to 100% broadly overlaps the claimed range of at least 50%. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05
and at least 2.5 wt. % of cerium but no more than 10 wt. % (Shi, “In some examples, in the doped cathode material, a weight ratio of the one or more dopants to the cathode material may be less than about 15 wt. %. …may be greater than about 0.01 wt. % and less than about 15 wt. %”, see [0047]); and an electrolyte in contact with each of the first and second electrodes (Shi, “electrolyte. The electrolyte may be 1 M LiPF6”, see [0076]).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.01% to 15% broadly overlaps the claimed range of 2.5 % to 10%. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Shi does not teach such that the second electrode has a higher oxygen-release energy than a same electrode free of the rare-earth element.
Hao teaches such that the second electrode has a higher oxygen-release energy than a same electrode free of the rare-earth element (Hao, “the Ce-NCM811 cathode with oxygen vacancies inhibits lattice oxygen release and reduces the degree of cation mixing,32 which contributes to the improvement of the structural stability and electrochemical performance.”, Results and Discussion).
Shi and Hao are analogous as they are both related to NCM811 doped with Ce.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the material when doped with Cerium would provide a higher oxygen release energy than a same electrode free of the rare-earth element.
Modified Shi does not teach such that a threshold-release-energy for oxygen is at least 90 kJ/mol.
Wang teaches such that a threshold-release-energy for oxygen is at least 90 kJ/mol (Wang,” The binding energy of Ce–O (ΔHf(Ce–O) = −1024.6 kJ mol−1) is stronger than that of M − O (M = Mn, Co, Ni), which can improve the crystal structure stability.”, Results and Discussion) (The examiner notes that the absolute valve of the energy is being taken, due to the fact that sign indicates that the movement of energy in or out the system, so the energy would be consider as 1024.6 kJmol^-1)
Wang teaches that this Ce-O bond from doped cathode on the surface can improve the crystal structure stability (Wang,” The binding energy of Ce–O (ΔHf(Ce–O) = −1024.6 kJ mol−1) is stronger than that of M − O (M = Mn, Co, Ni), which can improve the crystal structure stability.”, Results and Discussion).
Hu teaches that formation energies above 1eV (96.48 kJ/mol= 1 eV* (1.602*10^-19 J/eV)*(6.022*10^23 atom/mol) *1 kJ/1000J) are the most stable (Hu, “For the case of delithiated Li2MnO3, the oxygen vacancy formation energy is −0.80 eV at the maximally delithiated state (Li0.5MnO3), at which the Li-ions in the Li-layer are all removed from the lattice while Li-ions in the transition metal layer is leaving in the lattice. This shows that the structure of the delithiated state is thermodynamically unstable”, see 3.1) (Hu, “The O-vacancy formation energies are decreased to 1.64, 1.07 and 0.78 eV for LiMnO2, LiCoO2, and LiNiO2, respectively. But these values are still large enough, indicating the intrinsic O-vacancy concentration in the bulk is still low at room temperature (kBT ~ 0.02 eV).”, 3.1) (Hu, “the surfaces of LiNiO2(104), Li2MnO3(100) and NCM-333(104) are stable at room temperatures”, 3,3 ).Shi, Wang, and Hu are analogous as they are both of the same field lithium nickel cobalt manganese materials doped with Ce.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a threshold-release-energy for oxygen is at least 90 kJ/mol, as Wang teaches that when Cerium is doped on the surface it has a value greater than that in binding energy with oxygen and Hu teaches that the energy is stable.
Regarding Claim 3,
Modified Shi teaches the electrochemical cell of claim 2, wherein w is at least 0.8(Shi, “LiNixMnyCo1-x-yO2 (0≤x≤1, 0≤y≤1, 0≤x+y≤1). Example compositions of NMC may include LiNi0.333Mn0.333Co0.333O2(NMC111), LiNi0.5Mn0.2Co0.3O2(NMC523), LiNi0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2(NMC622), and/or LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2(NMC811). In one example, NMC may be LiNi0.64Mn0.2Co0.16O2”, see [0036]) (The examiner notes that converting from moles to weight excluding the lithium and oxygen is calculated by multiplying by the molar mass and dividing by the overall sample).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0 to 100% broadly overlaps the claimed range of at least 80%. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 4,
Modified Shi teaches the electrochemical cell of claim 3, wherein the second electrode has at least 5 wt. % cerium (Shi, “In some examples, in the doped cathode material, a weight ratio of the one or more dopants to the cathode material may be less than about 15 wt. %. …may be greater than about 0.01 wt. % and less than about 15 wt. %”, see [0047]).
(The examiner notes that converting from moles to weight excluding the lithium and oxygen is calculated by multiplying by the molar mass and dividing by the overall sample)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.01% to 15% broadly overlaps the claimed range of 5% Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 5,
Modified Shi teaches the electrochemical cell of claim 3, wherein the second electrode has at least 7.5 wt. % cerium (Shi, “In some examples, in the doped cathode material, a weight ratio of the one or more dopants to the cathode material may be less than about 15 wt. %. …may be greater than about 0.01 wt. % and less than about 15 wt. %”, see [0047]).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.01% to 15% wt broadly overlaps the claimed range of 7.5% wt Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 6,
Modified Shi teaches the electrochemical cell of claim 2, wherein the second electrode has 6-8 wt. % cerium (Shi, “In some examples, in the doped cathode material, a weight ratio of the one or more dopants to the cathode material may be less than about 15 wt. %. …may be greater than about 0.01 wt. % and less than about 15 wt. %”, see [0047]).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.01% to 15% broadly overlaps the claimed range of 6-8%wt Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 7,
Modified Shi teaches the electrochemical cell of claim 6, wherein the electrolyte is configured to transport lithium ions between the first and second electrodes (the examiner notes that this is an inherent feature of all batteries with an electrolyte see MPEP 2163.07(a))
Regarding Claim 8,
Modified Shi teaches the electrochemical cell of claim 7, wherein the electrolyte includes a lithium salt (Shi, “electrolyte. The electrolyte may be 1 M LiPF6”, see [0076]).
Regarding Claim 9,
Modified Shi teaches the electrochemical cell of claim 3, wherein the second electrode is a cathode (Shi, “A doped cathode material for lithium-ion batteries is disclosed”, see Abstract).
Regarding Claim 10,
Modified Shi teaches a vehicle comprising the electrochemical cell of claim 1 (Shi, “resulting in widespread use as secondary cells in portable electronics or electric vehicles, for example.”, see [0003])
Regarding Claim 11,
Shi teaches a cathode assembly comprising: an electrode having a lithium metal oxide with at least 80 wt. % nickel having at least 80 wt. % nickel (Shi, “LiNixMnyCo1-x-yO2 (0≤x≤1, 0≤y≤1, 0≤x+y≤1). Example compositions of NMC may include LiNi0.333Mn0.333Co0.333O2(NMC111), LiNi0.5Mn0.2Co0.3O2(NMC523), LiNi0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2(NMC622), and/or LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2(NMC811). In one example, NMC may be LiNi0.64Mn0.2Co0.16O2”, see [0036])
(The examiner notes that converting from moles to weight excluding the lithium and oxygen is calculated by multiplying by the molar mass and dividing by the overall sample)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0 to 100% broadly overlaps the claimed range of at least 80%. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05
and no more than at least 7.5 wt. % but no more than 10 wt. % cerium, wherein the nickel and cerium are present at a surface of the electrode (Shi, “In some examples, in the doped cathode material, a weight ratio of the one or more dopants to the cathode material may be less than about 15 wt. %. …may be greater than about 0.01 wt. % and less than about 15 wt. %”, see [0047]);
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.01% to 15% broadly overlaps the claimed range of 7.5 to 10 wt% Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Shi does not teach such that a threshold-release-energy for oxygen is at least 95 kJ/mol.
Wang teaches such that a threshold-release-energy for oxygen is at least 95 kJ/mol (Wang,” The binding energy of Ce–O (ΔHf(Ce–O) = −1024.6 kJ mol−1) is stronger than that of M − O (M = Mn, Co, Ni), which can improve the crystal structure stability.”, Results and Discussion) (The examiner notes that the absolute valve of the energy is being taken, due to the fact that sign indicates that the movement of energy in or out the system, so the energy would be consider as 1024.6 kJmol^-1)
Wang teaches that this Ce-O bond from doped cathode on the surface can improve the crystal structure stability (Wang,” The binding energy of Ce–O (ΔHf(Ce–O) = −1024.6 kJ mol−1) is stronger than that of M − O (M = Mn, Co, Ni), which can improve the crystal structure stability.”, Results and Discussion).
Hu teaches that formation energies above 1eV (96.48 kJ/mol= 1 eV* (1.602*10^-19 J/eV)*(6.022*10^23 atom/mol) *1 kJ/1000J) are the most stable (Hu, “For the case of delithiated Li2MnO3, the oxygen vacancy formation energy is −0.80 eV at the maximally delithiated state (Li0.5MnO3), at which the Li-ions in the Li-layer are all removed from the lattice while Li-ions in the transition metal layer is leaving in the lattice. This shows that the structure of the delithiated state is thermodynamically unstable”, see 3.1) (Hu, “The O-vacancy formation energies are decreased to 1.64, 1.07 and 0.78 eV for LiMnO2, LiCoO2, and LiNiO2, respectively. But these values are still large enough, indicating the intrinsic O-vacancy concentration in the bulk is still low at room temperature (kBT ~ 0.02 eV).”, 3.1) (Hu, “the surfaces of LiNiO2(104), Li2MnO3(100) and NCM-333(104) are stable at room temperatures”, 3,3 ).Modified Shi ,Wang, and Hu are analogous as they are both of the same field lithium nickel cobalt manganese materials doped with Ce.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a threshold-release-energy for oxygen is at least 95 kJ/mol, as Wang teaches that when Cerium is doped on the surface it has a value greater than that in binding energy with oxygen and Hu teaches that the energy is stable.
Regarding Claim 12,
Modified Shi teaches the electrode of claim 11, wherein the cerium is present in a cathode coating (Shi, “In some examples, the one or more metal oxides may include one or more of…CeO2”, see [0038])
Regarding Claim 13,
Modified Shi teaches the electrode of claim 12, wherein the cathode coating is 1 to 100 nm (Shi, “In some examples, an average size of the dopant precursor particles 201 may be greater than 1 nm and less than 10 μm”, see [0052]).
Regarding Claim 14,
Modified Shi teaches The electrode of claim 11, wherein the cerium is present as a dopant (Shi, “As such, the dry surface doping may include doping the metal dopant into the surface of the cathode material.”, see [0028]) (Shi, “In some examples, the one or more metal oxides may include one or more of…CeO2”, see [0038]).
Regarding Claim 15,
Modified Shi teaches the electrode of claim 11, wherein the nickel is present in a lithium metal oxide of nickel-cobalt-manganese, lithium-nickel-cobalt-aluminum, and/or nickel-cobalt-manganese- aluminum (Shi, “LiNixMnyCo1-x-yO2 (0≤x≤1, 0≤y≤1, 0≤x+y≤1). Example compositions of NMC may include LiNi0.333Mn0.333Co0.333O2(NMC111), LiNi0.5Mn0.2Co0.3O2(NMC523), LiNi0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2(NMC622), and/or LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2(NMC811). In one example, NMC may be LiNi0.64Mn0.2Co0.16O2”, see [0036]).
Regarding Claim 16,
Modified Shi teaches the electrode of claim 11, wherein the surface is configured to facilitate reduction when arranged in an electrochemical cell (the examiner notes that it is inherent in the fact that the surface is a cathode that it facilitates reduction see MPEP 2163.07(a))
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 6, the applicant argues:
“Shit merely describes including a dopant at the broad range of 0.01 to 15wt%, which is much broader than the claimed critical range.”
However, this is not convincing. The applicant highlights that Shi is a ‘merely a dopant’, which suggest that the instant application is not a dopant. However, the specification describes cerium as a dopant (“Alternatively, or in combination, the rare-earth element (e.g., cerium) may be present as a dopant.”, see [0003]). The application highlights that this range allows for balanced cycling performance and specific capacity (Shi, “In some examples, the weight ratio or the molar ratio may be selected so as to achieve balanced cycling performance, specific capacity, DCR, and mechanical strength of a cathode incorporating the doped cathode material in a battery.”, see [0048]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill In the art to have selected the Cerium.
On pg. 6, the applicant argues:
“In short, none of the cited references disclose, teach, or suggest an ‘electrode’ with ‘a threshold energy of at least 90 kJ/mol’ let alone recognize the criticality of the claimed ranges-specifically 2.5% to 10 wt% cerium. The instant specification explains that ‘at loading levels exceeding 10%...energy densities may decrease, and cell poisoning may occur.”
However, this argument is not convincing. Wang teaches the binding energy of the Ce-O bond is 1024.6 kJ/mol (Wang, see results and discussion). The application states that binding energy and threshold energy are communicative terms (“In refinement, the binding energy or threshold release energy for oxygen”, see pg.6). the Wang reference would be within the given range and teach the amendments to claim 1 and claim 11. For compact prosecution, further search and consideration has also revealed that higher release energies are favorable as they reduced oxygen gas evolution in the electrode according to ‘Stepwise Dopant Selection Process for High-Nickel LayeredOxide Cathodes’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Kim’ (Kim, “Potential dopant candidates that can improve the electrochemical performance of high-nickel NCM (LiNixCoyMnzO2, x ≥ 0.9) were comprehensively investigated by applying a systematic theoretical stepwise pruning process. From the three criteria of mitigating anisotropic lattice collapse, reducing oxygen-gas evolution”, see Summary). Kim also teaches that certain dopants increase the oxygen release energy (Kim, “Al, Si, Mn, Cu, and Ir dopants were observed to substantially increase the oxygen-vacancy formation energy compared with that of the undoped case (−0.12 eV).”, see ). Further, “Formation and thermodynamic stability of oxygen vacancies in typical cathode materials for Li-ion batteries: Density functional theory study ‘’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Hu’ teaches that formation energies above 1eV (96.48 kJ/mol= 1 eV* (1.602*10^-19 J/eV)*(6.022*10^23 atom/mol) *1 kJ/1000J) are the most stable (Hu, “For the case of delithiated Li2MnO3, the oxygen vacancy formation energy is −0.80 eV at the maximally delithiated state (Li0.5MnO3), at which the Li-ions in the Li-layer are all removed from the lattice while Li-ions in the transition metal layer is leaving in the lattice. This shows that the structure of the delithiated state is thermodynamically unstable”, see 3.1) (Hu, “The O-vacancy formation energies are decreased to 1.64, 1.07 and 0.78 eV for LiMnO2, LiCoO2, and LiNiO2, respectively. But these values are still large enough, indicating the intrinsic O-vacancy concentration in the bulk is still low at room temperature (kBT ~ 0.02 eV).”, 3.1) (Hu, “the surfaces of LiNiO2(104), Li2MnO3(100) and NCM-333(104) are stable at room temperatures”, 3,3 ). Therefore, the oxygen release energy would have been obvious in order to make the electrode more stable. In terms of the range of cerium, in order to overcome the 103 rejection for overlapping ranges, the applicant would need to establish that the range is non-obvious (see MPEP 716.02) . The applicant distinguishes levels greater than 10% as creating poisoning (see [0024]). However, the applicant does not establish the criticality of the lower end of the range. Further, the applicant does not demonstrate criticality in examples or comparative examples. Similarly, all dependent claims are rejected.
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 SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am to 5pm.
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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/S.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752