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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 26 June 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-11, and 16 are currently pending
Claims 1 and 8 are amended
Claims 2-3, 7, 12-13, and 15 have been cancelled
Status of Amendments
The amendment filed 26 June 2026 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Status of Objections and Rejections of the Office Action from 26 March 2026
The 103 rejections over Lim are withdrawn, in view of Applicant’s amendment. However, a new grounds of rejection over Oh has been set forth, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites the limitation of
“a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode material coated onto a positive electrode current collector, the positive electrode comprising:
A main positive electrode material comprising a positive electrode active material formed of a lithium ferrum phosphoric acid (LFP) oxide and
An open circuit voltage (OCV) modifier transforming the OCV.”
This appears to be claiming a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode material coated onto a positive electrode current collector in addition to a separate main positive electrode material and an OCV modifier. Examiner believes that the limitation is meant to recite “a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode material coated onto a positive electrode current collector, the positive electrode material comprising,” so as to be aligned with claim 1, and, for the purposes of this office action, will review the limitation as such. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-5, 8-11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (KR 20180013512 A), hereinafter Oh.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 8-9, and 11, Oh teaches a lithium secondary battery [0011], as required by claims 1 and 8, comprising:
a positive electrode, as required by claim 8, comprising a positive electrode material coated onto a positive electrode current collector [0084], the positive electrode material, as required by claims 1 and 8, comprising:
(i) a main positive electrode material comprising a positive electrode active material formed of a lithium ferrum phosphoric acid (LFP) oxide [0024], in this case LiFePO4 [0036], as also required by claims 4 and 11, a conductive material [0088], as also required by claim 9, in this case carbon black [0089], as also required by claims 4 and 11, and a binder [0088], as also required by claim 9, in this case PVDF [0091], as also required by claims 4 and 11, and
(ii) a second positive electrode active material of a layered lithium nickel manganese cobalt composite metal oxide system [0024];
a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material coated onto a negative electrode current collector, as required by claim 8 [0102]; and
an electrolyte, as required by claim 8 [0112].
Oh is silent as to the second positive electrode active material being an open circuit voltage (OCV) modifier transforming the OCV. However, Oh teaches the second positive electrode active material comprising a compound of the formula LiaNi1-xyCoxMnyM1zM2wO2, wherein M1 may be W, Mo, and Cr, and M2 may be Al, Zr, Ti, Mg, Ta, and Nb, 0.95≤a≤1.5, 0<x≤0.5, 0<y≤0.5, 0≤z≤0.03, 0≤w≤0.02, and 0<x+y≤0.7 [0055-0059]. This is considered to be equivalent to a ternary active material comprising a nickel-cobalt-manganese (NCM)-based active material or, when M2 is Al and 0<w≤0.02, an extended ternary active material comprising a nickel-cobalt-manganese-aluminum (NCMA)-based active material, which are both claimed as suitable OCV modifier materials in claims 1 and 8. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the second positive electrode active material to also transform the OCV as an OCV modifier because "products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Oh is silent as to the parts by weight of OCV modifier, in this case the second positive electrode active material, with respect to 100 parts by weight of the main positive electrode material. However, Oh teaches the second positive electrode active material being included in an amount of 1 to 9 wt% based on the total weight of the positive electrode active material composition including the first and second positive electrode active materials [0081], which means, inversely, that the first positive electrode active material is included in an amount of 91 to 99 wt% based on the total weight of the positive electrode active material composition. This is equivalent to the positive electrode material comprising the OCV modifier in an amount of about 1.01 to 9.89 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the main positive electrode material, when the main positive electrode material does not comprise a conductive material and a binder, which overlaps with the claimed range of 5 to 10 parts by weight of OCV modifier with respect to 100 parts by weight of the main positive electrode material, as required by claim 8. Oh further teaches the positive electrode active material composition being mixed with a conductive material and a binder in a weight ratio of 92.5:3:4.5 [0137] with the second positive electrode active material potentially being included in an amount of 0.425 wt% (1% of 92.5) to 8.325 wt% (9% of 92.5) of the total composition. This is equivalent to the positive electrode material comprising the OCV modifier in an amount of about 0.427 to 9.08 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the main positive electrode material, when the main positive electrode material further comprises a conductive material and a binder, which overlaps with the claimed range of 5 to 10 parts by weight of OCV modifier with respect to 100 parts by weight of the main positive electrode material, as required by claim 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select an OCV modifier amount within the claimed ranges. 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, Oh teaches the positive electrode material of claim 4 and the lithium secondary battery of claim 9. Oh is silent as to the wt% inclusion of the positive electrode active material, the conductive material, and the binder, based on the total weight of the main positive electrode material, rather than the total weight of the positive electrode active material layer. However, Oh teaches the positive electrode active material composition, the conductive material, and the binder being mixed in a weight ratio of 92.5:3:4.5 [0137]. The positive electrode active material composition is taught to include the second positive electrode active material in an amount of 1 to 9 wt% and, inversely, the first positive electrode active material in an amount of 91 to 99 wt% based on the total weight of the positive electrode active material composition [0081], which is equivalent to the positive electrode active material layer comprising the first positive electrode active material in an amount of 84.175 wt% (91% of 92.5) to 91.575 wt% (99% of 92.5). Combining these with the taught 3 wt% conductive material and 4.5 wt% binder of the mixture ratio yields the main positive electrode material comprising the positive electrode active material in an amount of about 91.82 to 91.97 wt%, which lies within the claimed 88 to 98 wt%, the conductive material in an amount of about 3.01 to 3.27 wt%, which lies within the claimed range of 0.5 - 10 wt%, and the binder in an amount of about 4.52-4.91 wt%, which lies within the claimed range of 0.5 - 5 wt%. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select wt% contents in the claimed ranges. 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 Oh does not specify a preferable wt% inclusion range of the positive electrode active material composition other than the ratio of Example 1. However, Oh teaches the positive electrode active material layer as including the conductive material in an amount of 1 wt% to 30 wt% [0089] and the binder in an amount of 1 wt% to 30 wt% [0091], which could broaden the individual wt% ranges past what can be calculated from the examples.
Regarding claim 16, Oh teaches a vehicle comprising a lithium secondary battery of claim 8 [0124].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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
/KOURTNEY R S CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 9/8/2026
Prosecution Insights