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 .
Summary
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted May 22, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 2-4 and 6 are cancelled and claims 1 and 5 are amended, resulting in claims 1, 5, and 7 pending for examination.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitin (Muralidharan, N. et al. LiNixFeyAlzO2, a new cobalt-free layered cathode material for advanced Li-ion batteries. Journal of Power Sources. 471, 228389. Available online July 1, 2020.) in view of Zhai (Zhai, P. et al. Interface Engineering for Lithium Metal Anodes in Liquid Electrolyte. Advanced Energy Materials. 10, 34. First published July 30, 2020).
Regarding claims 1, 5, and 7, Nitin teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Nitin pg.3, Electrochemical cell assembly and testing) comprising: a positive electrode (cathode), a negative electrode (lithium metal anode), and a non-aqueous electrolyte (Gen 2 electrolyte), wherein the positive electrode includes a positive electrode active material (NFA), the positive electrode active material including a composite oxide represented by LiNi0.857 Fe0.052 Al0.091O2 (Ni: 0.034 + 0.823 = 0.857 (Table S2), x = 0.052, y = 0.091, and x + y = 0.143, 1- x - y = 0.857, Nitin pg. 6 left column and Table S2) and having a structure based on a layered rock-salt type crystal structure (rock salt type crystal structure, R3m space group, Nitin pg. 6 left column first paragraph).
The composite oxide of Nitin does not teach 0.06 ≤ x ≤ 0.12.
However, the value of x of Nitin (0.052) is significantly close to the claimed range (0.06). It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Additionally, Nitin teaches that the presence of iron and aluminum in the composite oxide improves structural stability, safety, and cycle life (Nitin pg. 2 left column last paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the amount of iron and aluminum in the composite oxide, including amounts resulting in 0.06 ≤ x ≤ 0.12, in order to achieve stability, safety, and cycle life suitable for a desired battery application.
Nitin teaches a lithium metal negative electrode but does not expressly teach that lithium metal deposits on the negative electrode during charge, and the lithium metal dissolves from the negative electrode into the non-aqueous electrolyte during discharge.
Zhai teaches that Li metal negative electrodes undergo plating/stripping behavior (Zhai pg. 12 third paragraph). Therefore, lithium metal deposition on the negative electrode during charge and lithium metal dissolution from the negative electrode into the non-aqueous electrolyte during discharge are inherent to the secondary battery of Nitin.
Additionally, Nitin and the instant specification both disclose secondary batteries comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a non-aqueous electrolyte, wherein the positive electrode active material includes a composite oxide comprising Li, Ni, Fe, Al, O and having a layered rock-salt type crystal structure (LiNi0.85 Fe0.052 Al0.091O2, Nitin pg. 6 left column; instant specification Table 1 Examples A2-A4). Therefore, lithium metal deposition on the negative electrode during charge and lithium metal dissolution from the negative electrode into the non-aqueous electrolyte during discharge are inherent to secondary battery of Nitin.
Nitin does not teach the non-aqueous electrolyte containing an oxalate salt.
Zhai teaches that lithium salts with fluorinated anions, such as lithium difluorooxalate borate (LiDFOB), stabilize Li metal negative electrodes and are widely used Li salts in electrolytes (Zhai pg. 22 right column last line – pg. 23 left column). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add LiDFOB to the electrolyte of Nitin in order to improve the stability of the negative electrode.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 103
The rejections of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muralidharan (Muralidharan, N. et al. Lithium Iron Aluminum Nickelate, LiNixFeyAlzO2 New Sustainable Cathodes for Next Generation Cobalt Free Li Ion Batteries. Advanced Materials. 32, 34, 2002960. First published July 15, 2020.) in view of Zhai (Zhai, P. et al. Interface Engineering for Lithium Metal Anodes in Liquid Electrolyte. Advanced Energy Materials. 10, 34. First published July 30, 2020) are overcome by applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in the response filed May 22, 2026. These rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Belharouak (US 20200235390 A1): appears to disclose a battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte, wherein the positive electrode active material comprises Li, Ni, Fe, Al, and O (claims 14-15).
Debois (US 2015/0171467 A1): appears to disclose secondary batteries comprising a cathode, an anode, a composite oxide, and a non-aqueous electrolyte including a lithium salt such as LiDFOB (Debois [38-73]).
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 JULIA S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/J.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights