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
Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-16 are currently pending
Claims 1, 7-8, and 15 are amended
Claims 6 and 14 have been cancelled
Status of Amendments
The amendment filed 23 February 2026 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
This action has been made final.
Status of Objections and Rejections of the Office Action from 21 November 2025
The 112b rejection have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The 103 rejections over Lim are maintained in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-5, 7-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (WO 2022045712 A1), hereinafter Lim.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 7-9, 11, and 15, Lim teaches a lithium secondary battery (pg. 9, ¶ 3) comprising:
a positive electrode, as required by claim 8, comprising a positive electrode material coated onto a positive electrode current collector (pg. 4, ¶ 7), the positive electrode comprising (i) a main positive electrode material, as also required by claim 1, comprising a positive electrode active material formed of a lithium ferrum phosphoric acid (LFP) oxide, in this case LiFePO4, as required by claims 4 and 11 (pg. 8, ¶ 3), a conductive material, as also required by claim 9, in this case carbon black, as also required by claims 4 and 11 (pg. 11, ¶ 4), and a binder, as also required by claim 9, in this case PVDF, as also required by claims 4 and 11 (pg. 8, ¶ 13), and (ii) an open circuit voltage (OCV) modifier transforming the OCV, in this case a lithium nickel oxide irreversible additive in an operating range of 3.0 to 4.0 V (pg. 3, ¶ 6). This is considered to overlap with the claimed 2.5 to 3.5 V vs Li/Li+ of claims 1 and 7 and 8 and 15 because it is a lithium metal oxide within the claimed potential region. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Lim further teaches a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material coated onto a negative electrode current collector, as required by claim 8 (pg. 4, ¶ 6); and
an electrolyte, as required by claim 8 (pg. 4, ¶ 6).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 12-13, Lim teaches the positive electrode material of claim 1 and the lithium secondary battery of claim 8, wherein the positive electrode active material composition comprises the OCV modifier, in this case the irreversible additive, in an amount of 0.1 wt% to 10 wt% based on the total weight of the cathode material (pg. 4, ¶ 2). This overlaps with the claimed 3 to 12 parts by weight of claims 2 and 12 and the claimed 5 to 10 parts by weight of claims 3 and 13 with respect to 100 parts by weight of the main positive electrode material. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 5 and 10 Lim teaches the positive electrode material of claim 1 and the lithium secondary battery of claim 8, wherein the main positive electrode material comprises the positive electrode active material in an amount of 80 wt% or more based on the total weight of the cathode active material (pg. 8, ¶ 8), which overlaps with the claimed 88 to 98 wt%, the conductive material in an amount of 3.5 wt% (pg. 11, ¶ 4), which lies within the claimed range of 0.5 - 10 wt%, and the binder in an amount of 4 wt% (pg. 11, ¶ 4), which lies within the claimed range of 0.5 - 5 wt%. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Examiner notes that the 80 wt% for the positive electrode active material is taught as being used for an oxide active material represented by Formula 2. However, Lim does not suggest a different wt% for the other positive active material options. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the taught wt% of the Formula 2 active materials as the wt% for the other active materials as well.
Regarding claim 16, Lim teaches a vehicle comprising a lithium secondary battery of claim 8 (pg. 9, ¶ 7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant seems to argue that the lithium nickel oxide additive of Lim does not read on the OCV modifier of present claims 1 and 8 because Lim discusses the additive as being a component of the positive electrode material, instead of being separate from the positive electrode material. Examiner agrees that the current claims separate the main positive electrode material from the OCV modifier. However, the positive electrode material that Lim references corresponds to the claimed overarching positive electrode material composition, not the main positive electrode material, because both comprise an active material, a conductive material, a binder, and an OCV modifier mixed into a slurry before being applied to a current collector (Instant page 11, lines 9-18) (Lim pg. 11, ¶ 4). Arbitrarily grouping three components together under one title, when all four components get mixed together at the same time, does not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art and, therefore, does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Applicant argues that Lim fails to teach or suggest the use of ternary active materials as an additive for OCV improvement. Examiner respectfully points out that the OCV modifier is only required to fit one of the five claimed options and is not required to be ternary. Therefore, the lithium nickel oxide additive taught by Lim that is also included as a possible OCV modifier in present claim 7 is considered to read on the limitation.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., composition, crystal structure, reversibility) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that Lim’s objective is fundamentally different from that of the instant application, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DUSTIN KENWOOD VAN KIRK whose telephone number is (703)756-4717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/DUSTIN VAN KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722