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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 1/30/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Examiner notes the following amendments made to the claims:
Claim 11 amended to further specify the definition of degree of lithiation and the claimed ranges of lithium content
Claim 12 cancelled
New claims 28-31 added
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/18/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11 and its dependent claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, by amending to further limit the definition of degree of lithiation to specifically regard the amount of lithium intercalation, and additionally incorporating the subject matter of previously presented claim 12, the previously applied prior art is overcome. Examiner is not fully convinced that the process in which the degree of lithiation is lowered impacts the inventive product, which is an active material with a lower fraction of lithium, but in order to proceed with prosecution the previous rejection will be withdrawn and a new one is made in place of it, in view of Kim (US 20150171423 A1), which teaches partially lithiated cathode materials which meet the limitations of claim 11, and Ansari (US 20210143400 A1), which teaches the prelithiation of the anode as well as limitations of claims 28-29. As of right now, there is currently not considered to be any allowable subject matter present in the claims.
New claims 28-29 are rejected in view of Kim and further in view of Ansari (US 20210143400 A1), new claims 30-31 are rejected in view of Kim and further in view of Zhu.
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.
Claim(s) 11, 13, 17, 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20150171423 A1) in view of Zhu (US 20200395593 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches the following elements:
A lithium ion battery comprising: (“ FIG. 3 is an exploded perspective view of a lithium battery 100 according to an embodiment.” Kim [0047] and “Lithium batteries may be classified into lithium ion batteries, lithium ion polymer batteries, and lithium polymer batteries according to the types of separator and electrolyte.” Kim [0048])
a cathode comprising a composite cathode active material including a first cathode active material and a second cathode active material; (“A composite cathode active material according to an embodiment includes a core including a lithium compound and a coating layer formed on at least one portion of the core. The coating layer includes at least two oxide phases having different structures.” Kim [0033]. In this case, the first and second cathode active material are the two oxides on the coating later.)
and an anode comprising an anode active material, (“A lithium battery according to another embodiment includes a cathode including a cathode active material, an anode including an anode active material,” Kim [0046])
wherein the first and the second cathode active materials are each selected from the group consisting of: layered oxides, compounds with olivine structure, compounds with spinel structure, and combinations thereof, (“The coating layer may include a spinel-structured oxide phase and a layer-structured oxide phase.” Kim [0019])
the first cathode active material has a degree a of lithiation and the second cathode active material has a degree b of lithiation, where the degree a of lithiation is a measure of a fraction of maximally cyclable lithium content that is intercalated within the first cathode active material and where the degree b of lithiation is a measure of a fraction of maximally cyclable lithium content that is intercalated within the second cathode active material before a first discharging and/or charging of the lithium ion battery, a < 1, b < 1 and |a-b|< 0.1, (“The coating layer may include a spinel-structured oxide phase and a layer-structured oxide phase. For example, the coating layer may include at least two oxide phases selected from the group consisting of layer-structured LiCoO.sub.2, spinel-structured Li.sub.0.49CoO.sub.2, Li.sub.0.5Co.sub.1.1O.sub.2,” Kim [0038] In this case, if Li0.49CoO2 and Li0.5Co1.1O2 were chosen as the two oxide phases in the coating layer, the two degrees of lithiation would be 0.49 and 0.5. These are both <1 and within 0.1 of each other.)
wherein 0.5 ≤ a ≤ 0.9 and/or 0.5 ≤ b ≤ 0.9, (“The coating layer may include a spinel-structured oxide phase and a layer-structured oxide phase. For example, the coating layer may include at least two oxide phases selected from the group consisting of layer-structured LiCoO.sub.2, spinel-structured Li.sub.0.49CoO.sub.2, Li.sub.0.5Co.sub.1.1O.sub.2,” Kim [0038] In this case, if Li0.49CoO2 and Li0.5Co1.1O2 were chosen as the two oxide phases in the coating layer, the two degrees of lithiation would be 0.49 and 0.5. These either overlaps (0.5) or nearly overlap (0.49) with the claimed ranges, which both present a case of obviousness. Further into the specification, Kim also teaches a variety of cathode materials having a degree of lithiation of 0.9, see paragraph [0062] where the molar fraction of lithium for most of the listed materials is between 0.9 and 1.8. Li0.9 would also overlap with the claimed range. Kim also discusses that these materials undergo intercalation/deintercalation reactions, as noted in applicant arguments “The cathode active material may be any material commonly used in the art in addition to the composite cathode active material. Although the cathode active material commonly used in the art is not particularly limited thereto, a material that allows reversible intercalation and deintercalation of lithium ions may be used.” Kim [0062].)
Examiner notes that the degree of lithiation of the second cathode material, 0.49, nearly overlaps the claimed range of 0.5 ≤ b ≤ 0.9. Based on Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985), a nearly overlapping range that is not shown to be taught away by the prior art. As in that case, the proportions are so close that one skilled in the art would expect them to have the same properties. In this case, a degree of lithiation of 0.49 would be expected to have the same properties of 0.5, and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Kim is silent on the following elements of claim 11:
and before the first discharging and/or charging of the lithium ion battery, the anode active material is prelithiated.
However, Zhu teaches all of the elements of claim 11 that are not found in Kim. Specifically, Zhu teaches pre-lithiating an anode material.
and before the first discharging and/or charging of the lithium ion battery, the anode active material is prelithiated. (“In one example, a rate and or a degree to which the anode is pre-lithiated may be controlled. Controlling the rate may include adjusting a current density that is used for pre-lithiating the anode. Controlling the degree to which the anode is pre-lithiated may include controlling a duration whereby the anode is pre-lithiated.” Zhu [0007]. Not only does Zhu teach pre-lithiating an anode material, but also optimizing the amount in order to produce the best results and improve capacity and efficiency [Zhu [0008]])
Zhu and Kim are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of lithium ion secondary batteries containing cathode materials with similar crystal structures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim by pre-lithiating the anode material in order to increase initial coulombic efficiency and first discharge capacity (“As indicated via Table 2, there was an increase in initial coulombic efficiency of about 6.6% and an increase of about 6% in the first discharge capacity after 10% pre-lithiation with lithium metal” Zhu [0037]).
The additional limitations of claims 13, 17, 30, and 31 would all be met without requiring any further modification or motivation.
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches all of the following elements:
The lithium ion battery according to claim 11, wherein the first cathode active material and the second cathode active material have a different crystal structure. (“The coating layer may include a spinel-structured oxide phase and a layer-structured oxide phase. For example, the coating layer may include at least two oxide phases selected from the group consisting of layer-structured LiCoO.sub.2, spinel-structured Li.sub.0.49CoO.sub.2, Li.sub.0.5Co.sub.1.1O.sub.2,” Kim [0038]
Regarding claim 17, modified Kim teaches all of the elements of claim 11, as shown above. Zhu, which is used to modify Kim and pre-lithiate the anode, teaches all of the following elements of claim 17:
The lithium ion battery according to claim 11, wherein before the first discharging and/or charging of the lithium ion battery, the anode active material is prelithiated to an extent such that the lithium ion battery has a state of charge (SoC) > 0 before the first discharging and/or charging. (Zhu Table 1 shows that the cells made via the process taught in the prior art results in 10% pre-lithiation. Based on the definition provided in the instant specification, “The SoC indicates the capacity of the lithium ion battery that is still available, in relation to the maximum capacity of the lithium ion battery, and may be easily determined by way, for example, of the voltage and/or the current flow of the lithium ion battery.” Instant spec [0033]. Given that the anode material is pre-lithiated prior to initial charging, it would therefore have a state of charge greater than 0 and would therefore anticipate the claimed limitation. Additionally, Zhu states “As indicated via Table 2, there was an increase in initial coulombic efficiency of about 6.6% and an increase of about 6% in the first discharge capacity after 10% pre-lithiation with lithium metal as the auxiliary electrode, as compared to the control cells. Such a result is indicative of the lithium loss on the anode side being compensated during the first charge cycle.” Zhu [0037], which implies that there is 6% additional charge during first charge/discharge after pre-lithiation. Therefore, the state of charge prior to initial discharging or charging would be at least 6%. This not only meets the claimed limitation, but is within the range provided in paragraph [0037] of the instant specification “the assembled lithium ion battery before the first discharging and/or charging has a state of charge (SoC) in the range from 1% to 30%, preferably from 3% to 25%, more preferably from5% to 20%.” Instant spec [0037].)
Regarding claim 30, Kim teaches all of the following elements:
The lithium ion battery according to claim 11, wherein the anode active material is selected from the group consisting of carbon-containing materials, silicon, silicon suboxide, silicon alloys, aluminum alloys, indium, indium alloys, tin, tin alloys, cobalt alloys, and mixtures thereof. (“The material that allows reversible intercalation and deintercalation of lithium ions may be a carbonaceous material, and any carbonaceous anode active material commonly used in lithium batteries may be used. Examples of the carbonaceous material may include crystalline carbon, amorphous carbon, or mixtures thereof. Examples of the crystalline carbon include graphite such as natural graphite or artificial graphite” Kim [0054])
Regarding claim 31, Kim teaches all of the following elements:
The lithium ion battery according to claim 30, wherein the anode active material is selected from the group consisting of synthetic graphite, natural graphite, graphene, mesocarbon, doped carbon, hard carbon, soft carbon, fullerene, silicon-carbon composite, silicon, surface-coated silicon, silicon suboxide, silicon alloys, lithium, aluminum alloys, indium, tin alloys, cobalt alloys, and mixtures thereof. (“The material that allows reversible intercalation and deintercalation of lithium ions may be a carbonaceous material, and any carbonaceous anode active material commonly used in lithium batteries may be used. Examples of the carbonaceous material may include crystalline carbon, amorphous carbon, or mixtures thereof. Examples of the crystalline carbon include graphite such as natural graphite or artificial graphite” Kim [0054])
Claim(s) 14, 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20150171423 A1) in view of Zhu (US 20200395593 A1) and further in view of Ansari (US 20210143400 A1).
Regarding claim 14, modified Kim teaches all of the elements of claim 13, as shown above. Kim and Zhu are silent on the following elements of claim 14:
The lithium ion battery according to claim 13, wherein the first cathode active material is a compound with spinel structure and the second cathode active material is a compound with olivine structure.
However, Ansari teaches all of the elements of claim 14 that are not found in Kim or Zhu:
The lithium ion battery according to claim 13, wherein the first cathode active material is a compound with spinel structure and the second cathode active material is a compound with olivine structure. (“Furthermore, cathode active materials may be mixed in step 401, where the active material may comprise lithium cobalt oxide (LCO), lithium iron phosphate, lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (NMC), lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (NCA), lithium manganese oxide (LMO), lithium nickel manganese spinel, or similar materials or combinations thereof,” Ansari [0039]. In this case, lithium iron phosphate and lithium manganese oxide are olivine and spinel structures, respectively.)
Ansari and Kim are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of cathodes for secondary batteries containing a mixture of active materials with different crystal structures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second active materials of Kim, having the claimed degree of lithiation, to be of olivine and spinel crystal structure. This would be desirable as by having two active materials, one can contribute to pre-lithiation of the anode and one can contribute to lithium cycling (“In an example embodiment, one active layer on each side may comprise a prelithiation source, while the other active layer on each side comprises the lithium that is cycled during normal operation of the cell.” Ansari [0054])
The same substitution would also meet the limitations of claims 28 and 29, for which no further motivation of modification would be required.
Regarding claim 28, modified Kim teaches all of the elements of claim 11, as shown above. Kim and Zhu are silent on the following elements of claim 28:
The lithium ion battery according to claim 11, wherein the first cathode active material is a compound with spinel structure comprising manganese, and the second cathode active material is a compound with olivine structure comprising iron and/or manganese.
However, Ansari teaches all of the elements of claim 28 that are not found in Kim or Zhu:
The lithium ion battery according to claim 11, wherein the first cathode active material is a compound with spinel structure comprising manganese, and the second cathode active material is a compound with olivine structure comprising iron and/or manganese. (“Furthermore, cathode active materials may be mixed in step 401, where the active material may comprise lithium cobalt oxide (LCO), lithium iron phosphate, lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (NMC), lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (NCA), lithium manganese oxide (LMO), lithium nickel manganese spinel, or similar materials or combinations thereof,” Ansari [0039]. In this case, lithium iron phosphate and lithium manganese oxide are olivine and spinel structures, respectively.)
Regarding claim 29, modified Kim teaches all of the elements of claim 28, as shown above. Kim and Zhu are silent on the following elements of claim 29:
The lithium ion battery according to claim 28, wherein the compound with the spinel structure comprises LiaMn2O4, and the compound with the olivine structure comprises LibFePO4.
However, Ansari teaches all of the elements of claim 29 that are not found in Kim or Zhu:
The lithium ion battery according to claim 28, wherein the compound with the spinel structure comprises LiaMn2O4, and the compound with the olivine structure comprises LibFePO4. (“Furthermore, cathode active materials may be mixed in step 401, where the active material may comprise lithium cobalt oxide (LCO), lithium iron phosphate, lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (NMC), lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (NCA), lithium manganese oxide (LMO), lithium nickel manganese spinel, or similar materials or combinations thereof,” Ansari [0039]. In this case, lithium iron phosphate and lithium manganese oxide are olivine and spinel structures, respectively.)
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20150171423 A1) in view of Zhu (US 20200395593 A1) and further in view of Yui (US 20190165374 A1)
Regarding claim 15, modified Kim teaches all of the elements of claim 11, as shown above. Kim and Zhu are silent on the following elements of claim 15:
The lithium ion battery according to claim 11, wherein particles of the second cathode active material have on average a smaller diameter than particles of the first cathode active material.
However, Yui teaches all of the elements of claim 15 that are not found in Kim or Zhu:
The lithium ion battery according to claim 11, wherein particles of the second cathode active material have on average a smaller diameter than particles of the first cathode active material. (“a ratio of an average particle diameter of the first cathode active material to an average particle diameter of the second cathode active material is 2.0 or more and 4.3 or less.” Yui [0034])
Yui and Kim are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of secondary batteries having multiple cathode active materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the particle of Kim having multiple components to be a first and second particle having different sizes in order to improve the energy density per volume (“According to the present disclosure, the particle diameter ratio of the first cathode active material and the second cathode active material is specified and thus the energy density per volume may be improved.” Yui [0014])
The teachings of Yui would also meet the limitations of claim 16 without requiring any further modification or motivation.
Regarding claim 16, modified Kim teaches all of the elements of claim 15, as shown above. Kim and Zhu are silent on the following elements of claim 16:
The lithium ion battery according to claim 15, wherein the particles of the first cathode active material have on average a diameter di> 1 pm and the particles of the second cathode active material have on average a diameter d2<1pm.
However, Yui teaches all of the elements of claim 16 that are not found in Kim or Zhu:
The lithium ion battery according to claim 15, wherein the particles of the first cathode active material have on average a diameter d1 > 1 µm and the particles of the second cathode active material have on average a diameter d2 <1µm. (“a ratio of an average particle diameter of the first cathode active material to an average particle diameter of the second cathode active material is 2.0 or more and 4.3 or less.” Yui [0034] and “The average particle diameter (D.sub.50) of the second cathode active material is, for example, 0.1 μm or more, may be 0.2 μm or more, and may be 0.5 μm or more. Meanwhile, the average particle diameter (D.sub.50) of the second cathode active material is, for example, 10 μm or less, and may be 3 μm or less.” Yui [0050]. If the diameter of the second cathode material were chosen to be greater than 0.5 μm, then the limitations of claim 16 would be met as smallest the first cathode material could be is 2 times that, therefore being larger than 1 μm)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.1 μm or more and 10 μm or less for the diameter of the second cathode material overlaps the claimed range of 1 μm or less for the same parameter. Based on the provided ratio in the prior art [Yui 0034], this makes the range of the first cathode material diameter from 0.2 μm to 43 μm, which overlaps the claimed range of 1 μm or more for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
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 BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET whose telephone number is (571)272-0156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm except for the first Friday of bi-week.
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 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.
/BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights