DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the June 1st, 2026 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”).
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/20/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/15/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received on June 1st, 2026:
Claims 1-3 and 5-14 are pending in the present application. Claims 1-3, 5, and 10-11 are amended. Claims 4 has been cancelled.
Claim 1 is amended to incorporate:
limitations from original Claim 4 in which element M1 of Chemical Formula 1 is further limited to Zr only; and
limitations from original Claim 2 in which specify an operating voltage that is greater than or equal to 3.0 V and less than 4.2 V.
Claims 2 and 11 are amended to remove said limitations in which were moved to Claims 1 and 10, respectively
Claim 3 is amended to further limit the positive electrode active material to the compounds comprising Zr.
Claim 5 is amended to adjust dependency from Claim 4 to Claim 1.
Claim 10 is amended to:
further limit element M1 of Chemical Formula 1 to Zr only; and
incorporate limitations from original Claim 11 in which specify an operating voltage that is greater than or equal to 3.0 V and less than 4.2 V.
No new matter has been introduced. Support for the amended limitations is found in the applicant’s disclosure including the originally filed claims.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as described below:
Claims 1-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taek Oh et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140000100 A1) in view of Piu Ho et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180123187 A1), and further in view of Viner et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190088958 A1). The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taek Oh et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140000100 A1) in view of Piu Ho et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180123187 A1), and further in view of Viner et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190088958 A1) as further evidenced by Akimoto et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10505189 B2). The rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taek Oh et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140000100 A1) in view of Piu Ho et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180123187 A1) and further in view of Viner et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190088958 A1) as further evidenced by Kim et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180123186 A1). The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 1st, 2026 have been fully considered as further described below:
Applicant presents arguments to Claim 1 and 10 as amended. Applicant acknowledges that reference Piu Ho et al. was relied upon to teach a positive electrode material meeting the limitations of the claimed formula 1. Applicant argues that the amended limitations in which the doping element M1 is further limited to Zr is not taught by Piu Ho et al. Applicant cites the examples of Piu Ho et al. as support.
1 “A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)” (see MPEP 2123.I).
2 "Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971)" (see MPEP 2123.II).
In this case, applicant has not considered Piu Ho et al. in its entirety, and rather relies solely upon the disclosed examples to support said argument. As described in the previous office action, Piu Ho et al. teaches a positive electrode material in which can be represented by Li1+zNixMnyCo1-x-yO2 wherein x is 0.3 to 0.8, y is 0.1 to 0.45, and z is 0 to 0.2 (para. 68), meeting the limitations of the claimed Formula 1 (Lix[NiyCozMnwM1v]Ou, wherein the claimed limits of x (1.0 to 1.30), y (0.6 to 0.95), z (0.01 to 0.5), w (0.01 to 0.5), and u (1.5 to 4.5) are within or overlap the corresponding limits of the prior art). Piu Ho et al. teaches lithium ternary transition metal oxides containing Ni, Mn, and Co providing high capacity per unit weight (para. 69). Further, Piu Ho et al. teaches that the cathode material can be doped with at least two different elements selected from a limited group in which Mn and Zr are amongst said group ([0071]). Therefore, Piu Ho et al. encompasses a case in which Mn and Zr are both present in the cathode material in a doping amount.
Further, applicant argues that primary reference Taek Oh et al. teaches away from the cathode material of Piu Ho et al. (see pgs. 7-8 of the “Remarks”). Applicant cites [0048] and [0050] of Taek Oh et al. as support of said teaching away in which Taek Oh et al. discloses a preference for Mn in a greater amount in relation to other transition metals of the transition metal oxide and discloses a preferable amount ranging from 50 to 80 mol%; while, Piu Ho et al. discloses a cathode material meeting the limitations of the claimed Formula 1 in which Mn is rather provided in an amount of 0.1 to 0.45 mol.%, lying inside the claimed range of 0.01 to 0.5 mol.%
“Where the teachings of two or more prior art references conflict, the examiner must weigh the power of each reference to suggest solutions to one of ordinary skill in the art, considering the degree to which one reference might accurately discredit another. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 18 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1991)" (see MPEP 2143.01.II)
In this case, Taek Oh et al. discloses that when the Mn content is relatively low, stability may decrease, manufacturing costs may increase, and unique characteristics that belong only to the layer-structured lithium compound may be difficult to be exhibited; while, when the Mn content is relatively high, cycle stability may decrease ([0050]). Therefore, a skilled artisan would consider the Mn content as a result effective variable. Further, Piu Ho et al. has a more recent publication providing newer information in which makes it worthwhile to lower the Mn content in relation to the other elements, such as nickel, despite the misgivings of the prior art. Piu Ho et al. teaches that lithium ternary transition metal oxides containing Ni, Mn, and Co provide high capacity per unit weight (para. 69). Further, Piu Ho teaches that the cathode material represented by Li1+zNixMnyCo1-x-yO2 wherein x is 0.3 to 0.8, y is 0.1 to 0.45, and z is 0 to 0.2 suppresses the capacity fade at elevated temperatures ([0073]). Therefore, a skilled artisan would utilize the updated information of Piu Ho et al. to further improve the invention of Taek Oh et al.
Further, applicant argues a missing element in which a plateau voltage ranging from 4.1 V to 4.3 V is not taught by Viner (see pgs. 8-9 of the “Remarks”). Again, applicant relies upon the disclosed examples of Viner as support, rather than the reference in its entirety including broader disclosures. 1,2 Although Viner discloses an example NCM-based compound with a plateau voltage of 4.0 V, outside of the claimed range, the rejection is based on Viner’s broader disclosure of an electroactive material comprising a plateau voltage of 4.2 V, within the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide an electrochemical cell with improved capacity after repeated cycling of an electrochemical cell (Viner et al., [0135]).
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive.
Cited Prior Art
Previously Cited Taek Oh et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140000100 A1) (“Taek Oh et al.”)
Previously cited Piu Ho et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180123187 A1) (“Piu Ho et al.”)
Previously Cited Akimoto et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10505189 B2) (“Akimoto et al.”)
Previously Cited Viner et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190088958 A1) (“Viner et al.”)
Previously Cited Kim et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180123186 A1) (“Kim et al.”)
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 1-3, 5-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taek Oh et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140000100 A1) in view of Piu Ho et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180123187 A1), and further in view of Viner et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190088958 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Taek Oh et al. teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (para. 86). The positive electrode active material of the positive electrode can include lithium manganese-nickel oxide (para. 24) analogous to a lithium nickel composite oxide. Taek Oh et al. further teaches the lithium secondary battery operating at a voltage (operating voltage) below the plateau potential (voltage) (configuration) (para. 85). The positive electrode active material can include a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide with a dopant M’y in an amount of 0.01 mol% to 20 mol% based on the total amount of metals (para. 23, 37) providing subscript y of 0.0001 to 0.2, within and overlapping the range of claimed subscript v (amount of dopant M1 v) of 0 to 0.2 inclusive (see MPEP § 2144.05, I).
As applied above, Taek Oh et al. teaches operation at a voltage (operating voltage) below the plateau potential in which would include below the provided potential range with a lower limit value of 4.4 V (para. 11, 84) equivalent to less than 4.4 V in which overlaps the claimed range of 3.0 V to 4.2 V (see MPEP § 2144.05, I).
Taek Oh et al. does not specifically teach a lithium nickel composite oxide represented by Chemical Formula 1 (Lix[NiyCozMnwM1v]Ou, wherein the limits of x (1.0 to 1.30), y (0.6 to 0.95), z (0.01 to 0.5), and w (0.01 to 0.5)), and the dopant M1 is Zr.
Piu Ho et al. teaches a positive electrode material in which can be represented by Li1+zNixMnyCo1-x-yO2 wherein x is 0.3 to 0.8, y is 0.1 to 0.45, and z is 0 to 0.2 (para. 68) meeting the limitations of the claimed Formula 1 (Lix[NiyCozMnwM1v]Ou, wherein the claimed limits of x (1.0 to 1.30), y (0.6 to 0.95), z (0.01 to 0.5), w (0.01 to 0.5), and u (1.5 to 4.5). Piu Ho et al. teaches lithium ternary transition metal oxides containing Ni, Mn, and Co providing high capacity per unit weight ([0069]). Piu Ho et al. further teaches that the doping element of the lithium transition metal oxides can be Zr ([0074]). The doping element functions to suppress the capacity fade and improve cycling stability at elevated temperatures ([0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the positive electrode of Taek Oh et al. to include a lithium nickel composite oxide represented by Li1+zNixMnyCo1-x-yO2 wherein x is 0.3 to 0.8, y is 0.1 to 0.45, and z is 0 to 0.2 (para. 68) meeting the limitations of the claimed Formula 1 (Lix[NiyCozMnwM1v]Ou, wherein the limits of x (1.0 to 1.30), y (0.6 to 0.95), z (0.01 to 0.5), w (0.01 to 0.5), and u (1.5 to 4.5) are within or overlap the corresponding limits of the prior art) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I); and the dopant M1- is Zr as taught by Piu ho et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide a composite oxide for a cathode material in which exhibits high capacity. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select Zr as Piu Ho et al. describes Zr as a suitable dopant in suppressing the capacity fade and improving cycling stability at elevated temperatures as described above.
Taek Oh et al. does not teach the lithium/nickel composite oxide having a plateau voltage ranging from 4.1 V to 4.3 V of the charge/discharge profile.
Viner et al. teaches an electroactive material comprising a plateau voltage of 4.2 V, determined by evaluating the average voltage across plateau regions of a charge/discharge profile (para. 117, 119); the plateau voltage is a region in which the voltage is constant or substantially constant. Viner et al. teaches that the use of said teachings can result in improved capacity after repeated cycling of an electrochemical cell (para. 135).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode of Taek Oh et al. to include an electroactive material with a plateau voltage of 4.2 V of the charge/discharge profile as taught by Viner et al, within the claimed range of 4.1 V to 4.3 V. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide an electrochemical cell with improved capacity after repeated cycling as described above.
Regarding Claims 2 and 11, Claim 2 is dependent on Claim 1 and Claim 11 is dependent on Claim 10. Taek Oh et al. is modified by Piu Ho et al. and Viner et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claims 1 and 10, respectively.
Taek Oh et al. does not teach a plateau voltage at an average of 4.2 V of the charge/discharge profile as required by Claims 2 and 11.
Viner et al. teaches an electroactive material comprising a plateau voltage of 4.2 V, determined by evaluating the average voltage across plateau regions of a charge/discharge profile (para. 117, 119). Viner et al. teaches that the proposed methods can result in improved capacity after repeated cycling of an electrochemical cell (para. 135).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode of Taek Oh et al. to include an electroactive material with a plateau voltage at an average of 4.2 V of the charge/discharge profile as taught by Viner et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide an electrochemical cell with improved capacity after repeated cycling as described above.
Regarding Claim 3, Taek Oh et al. is modified by Piu Ho et al. and Viner et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, the positive electrode of Taek Oh et al. is modified by Piu Ho et al. to include a lithium nickel composite oxide represented by Li1+zNixMnyCo1-x-yO2 wherein x is 0.3 to 0.8, y is 0.1 to 0.45, and z is 0 to 0.2 (para. 68) meeting the limitations of the claimed Formula 1 (Lix[NiyCozMnwM1v]Ou, wherein the limits of x (1.0 to 1.30), y (0.6 to 0.95), z (0.01 to 0.5), w (0.01 to 0.5), and u (1.5 to 4.5) are within or overlap the corresponding limits of the prior art) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). As further applied to Claim 1, Taek Oh et al. teaches the positive electrode active material including a dopant M’y in an amount of 0.01 mol% to 20 mol% based on the total amount of metals (para. 23) providing subscript y of 0.0001 to 0.2, within and overlapping the range of corresponding subscript v (amount of dopant M1v) of 0 to 0.2 inclusive (see MPEP § 2144.05, I).
As applied to Claim 1, the dopant of Taek Oh et al. is modified by Piu Ho et al. to include Zr. Further, Piu Ho teaches that the cathode material can be doped with at least two different elements selected from a limited group in which Mn and Zr are amongst said group ([0071]). Therefore, Piu Ho et al. encompasses a case in which Mn and Zr are both present in the cathode material in a doping amount. Considering the suitable dopant amounts disclosed by Taek Oh et al., a case in which the content of Zr is 10 mol.% (subscript v is 0.1) is encompassed by the combination. Therefore, the formula for the positive electrode active material of Taek Oh et al. as modified by Piu Ho et al. includes at least claimed formula Li(Ni0.6Co0.2Mn0.1Zr0.1)O2 if not all formulas listed. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Taek Oh et al. useful to reduce gas generation during subsequent repetitive charge and discharge cycles (para. 57). One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Piu Ho et al. useful to provide a composite oxide for a cathode material in which exhibits high capacity; and to suppress the capacity fade of the battery module and improve cycling stability at elevated temperatures ([0069]-[0070]).
Regarding Claim 5, Taek Oh et al. is modified by Piu Ho et al. and Viner et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Taek Oh et al. does not teach the doping element in an amount of 300 ppm to 7000 ppm of the lithium nickel composite oxide.
Piu Ho et al. teaches that the positive electrode material comprising a lithium nickel composite oxide can include a doping element in an amount of 0.001% to about 2% by weight (equivalent to 10 ppm to 20000 ppm) based on the total weight of the positive electrode material (para. 71). Further, Piu Ho et al. describes the provided range of the doping element is necessary to achieve the beneficial effects of the invention and an amount greater than the claimed range provides limitations in capacity and cycle stability of the battery (para. 63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode active material of Taek Oh et al. to include a doping element in an amount of 0.001% to about 2% by weight (equivalent to 10 ppm to 20000 ppm) based on the total weight of the positive electrode material as taught by Piu Ho et al., overlapping the claimed range of 300 ppm to 7000 ppm (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the teachings of Piu Ho et al. to provide improved capacity and cycle stability of the battery as described above.
Regarding Claim 6, Taek Oh et al. is modified by Piu Ho et al. and Viner et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Taek Oh et. teaches the positive electrode active material having a layered structure (para. 13, 58). Therefore, all claim limitations are met. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Taek Oh et al. useful to reduce gas generation during subsequent repetitive charge and discharge cycles (para. 57).
Regarding Claim 7, Taek Oh et al. is modified by Piu Ho et al. and Viner et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).” "’Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.” (See MPEP 2112.01). Therefore, as the claimed and prior art products are substantially identical in structure and produced by a substantially identical process, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect to observe a capacity retention of 90% or more after 3800 cycles at a temperature of 25 deg. C. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Taek Oh et al. useful to reduce gas generation during subsequent repetitive charge and discharge cycles (para. 57).
Regarding Claim 8, Taek Oh et al. is modified by Piu Ho et al. and Viner et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As the claimed and prior art products are substantially identical in structure and produced by a substantially identical process, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect to observe a capacity retention of 85% after 3400 cycles at a temperature of 45 deg. C (See MPEP 2112.01). One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Taek Oh et al. useful to reduce gas generation during subsequent repetitive charge and discharge cycles (para. 57).
Regarding Claim 9, Taek Oh et al. is modified by Piu Ho et al. and Viner et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As the claimed and prior art products are substantially identical in structure and produced by a substantially identical process, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect to observe a DCIR increment of 10% or less after 3800 cycles at a temperature of 25 deg. C. (See MPEP 2112.01). One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Taek Oh et al. useful to reduce gas generation during subsequent repetitive charge and discharge cycles (para. 57).
Regarding Claim 12, Taek Oh et al. is modified by Piu Ho et al. and Viner et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Taek Oh et al. teaches a battery module comprising the lithium secondary battery (para. 29) and an electrolyte for the conduction of lithium ions (para. 86). One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Taek Oh et al. useful to reduce gas generation during subsequent repetitive charge and discharge cycles (para. 57).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taek Oh et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140000100 A1) in view of Piu Ho et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180123187 A1), and further in view of Viner et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190088958 A1) as further evidenced by Akimoto et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10505189 B2).
Regarding Claim 10, Taek Oh et al. teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (para. 86). The positive electrode active material can include lithium manganese-nickel oxide (para. 24) analogous to a lithium nickel composite oxide. Taek Oh et al. further teaches allowing the lithium secondary battery to operate at a voltage (operating voltage) below the plateau potential (voltage) (para. 85) in which implies that the operating voltage is controlled below the plateau voltage (analogous to the driving method of the claimed invention; the broadest reasonable interpretation of “driving method” includes the battery operation method of Taek Oh).
Further, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the voltage below the plateau region as further evident by the teachings of Akimoto et al.; Akimoto et al teaches electrochemical activation of electrodes occurring in a plateau region wherein undesirable reactions (gas generation, structure change) occur to exhibit high capacity; Akimoto et al. further provides an electrode material in which does not require oxygen extraction and crystal structure change to occur in a plateau region to exhibit high capacity. Therefore, methods to suppress said gas generation and structure changes are well known in the field of endeavor (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). The positive electrode active material can include a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide with a dopant M’y in an amount of 0.01 mol% to 20 mol% based on the total amount of metals (para. 23, 37) providing subscript y of 0.0001 to 0.2, within and overlapping the range of claimed subscript v (amount of dopant M1 v) of 0 to 0.2 inclusive (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). The dopant can include Fe (para. 64-65, 93).
Taek Oh et al. does not specifically teach a lithium nickel composite oxide represented by Chemical Formula 1 (Lix[NiyCozMnwM1v]Ou, wherein the limits of x (1.0 to 1.30), y (0.6 to 0.95), z (0.01 to 0.5), and w (0.01 to 0.5)).
Piu Ho et al. teaches a positive electrode material in which can be represented by Li1+zNixMnyCo1-x-yO2 wherein x is 0.3 to 0.8, y is 0.1 to 0.45, and z is 0 to 0.2 (para. 68) meeting the limitations of the claimed Formula 1 (Lix[NiyCozMnwM1v]Ou, wherein the claimed limits of x (1.0 to 1.30), y (0.6 to 0.95), z (0.01 to 0.5), w (0.01 to 0.5), and u (1.5 to 4.5) are within or overlap the corresponding limits of the prior art). Piu Ho et al. teaches lithium ternary transition metal oxides containing Ni, Mn, and Co providing high capacity per unit weight (para. 69).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the positive electrode of Taek Oh et al. to include a lithium nickel composite oxide represented by Li1+zNixMnyCo1-x-yO2 wherein x is 0.3 to 0.8, y is 0.1 to 0.45, and z is 0 to 0.2 (para. 68) meeting the limitations of the claimed Formula 1 (Lix[NiyCozMnwM1v]Ou, wherein the limits of x (1.0 to 1.30), y (0.6 to 0.95), z (0.01 to 0.5), w (0.01 to 0.5), and u (1.5 to 4.5) are within or overlap the corresponding limits of the prior art) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide a composite oxide for a cathode material in which exhibits high capacity.
Taek Oh et al. does not teach the lithium/nickel composite oxide having a plateau voltage ranging from 4.1 V to 4.3 V of the charge/discharge profile.
Viner et al. teaches an electroactive material comprising a plateau voltage of 4.2 V, determined by evaluating the average voltage across plateau regions of a charge/discharge profile (para. 117, 119); the plateau voltage is a region in which the voltage is constant or substantially constant. Viner et al. teaches that the use of said teachings can result in improved capacity after repeated cycling of an electrochemical cell (para. 135).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode of Taek Oh et al. to include an electroactive material with a plateau voltage of 4.2 V of the charge/discharge profile as taught by Viner et al, within the claimed range of 4.1 V to 4.3 V. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide an electrochemical cell with improved capacity after repeated cycling as described above.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taek Oh et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140000100 A1) in view of Piu Ho et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180123187 A1) and further in view of Viner et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190088958 A1) as further evidenced by Kim et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180123186 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Taek Oh et al. is modified by Piu Ho et al. and Viner et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 12 above. It would be obvious to provide a battery pack in which includes a plurality of battery modules as further evident by Kim et al. (para. 91) for increased voltage and capacity. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 14, Taek Oh et al. is modified by Piu Ho et al. and Viner et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 13 above. Taek Oh et al. teaches the battery module in which would be obvious to include in a battery pack as further evident by Kim et al. (para. 91) is used as a power source of a two-wheeled electric vehicle or an electric car (inherently comprising four wheels). Therefore, all claim limitations are met. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Taek Oh et al. useful to reduce gas generation during subsequent repetitive charge and discharge cycles (para. 57).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, ULA RUDDOCK can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights