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 1-3, 6-16, 19-25 are currently pending.
Claims 1-2 have been amended
Claims 12-15, 24-25 have withdrawn
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/20/2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance. This action is made final.
Status of Rejections Pending
since The Office Action of 07/15/2026
The examiner modified the rejection below to address claim 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-11, 16, 19-23, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (“Constructing a protective pillaring layer by incorporating gradient Mn4+ to stabilize the surface/interfacial structure of LiNi0.815Co0.15Al0.035O2”, 2018) and in view of Michot (PG Pub 20200274161), and CN 110506351, hereinafter as ‘351.
Regarding claim 1, 10-11, Xu et al teaches battery cell comprising cathode having material of LiNi0.815Co0.15Al0.035O2 with Mn and carbon (Tittle abstract introduction electrochemical measurement section).
Xu et al teaches the claimed limitation, but Xu et al does not teach Cy, Cz to arrive the claimed.
Michot teaches positive electrode comprising the carbon residue of less than 0.4% [para 83] which reflects claimed Cy, Cz,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the amount of carbon of Xu et al to be the same of Michot for low carbon content and controlling crystallite size [para 82].
Modified Xu et al teaches Cy and Cz as claimed and doping Al in the positive electrode but modified Xu et al does not teach Cx.
‘351 teaches a battery comprising positive electrode doping Al being control for improving life and capacity characteristic (description section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the amount of Al of modified Xu et al to be the same of ‘351 for improving life and capacity characteristic (description section).
Regarding claim 2, 23, Xu et al teaches battery cell comprising cathode having material of LiNi0.815Co0.15Al0.035O2 with Mn and carbon (Tittle abstract introduction electrochemical measurement section).
Xu et al teaches the claimed limitation, but Xu et al does not teach Cy, Cz to arrive the claimed.
Michot teaches positive electrode comprising the carbon residue of less than 0.4% [para 83] which reflects claimed Cy, Cz,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the amount of carbon of Xu et al to be the same of Michot for low carbon content and controlling crystallite size [para 82].
Modified Xu et al teaches Cy and Cz as claimed and doping Al in the positive electrode but modified Xu et al does not teach Cx.
‘351 teaches a battery comprising positive electrode doping Al being control for improving life and capacity characteristic (description section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the amount of Al of modified Xu et al to be the same of ‘351 for improving life and capacity characteristic (description section).
Regarding claim 3, 16, modified Meng et al Cy as claimed as set forth above.
Regarding claim 6 and 19, modified Meng et al teaches claimed Cx (Al) (LiNi0.815Co0.15Al0.035O2)
Regarding claim 7 and 20, modified Meng et al teaches Li, Ni, Co and Al , Mn (the Mn is adjusted )and further contain carbon [electrochemical measurement]
Regarding claim 8 and 21, modified Meng et al teaches claimed material with complex phase containing element X.
Regarding claim 9, 22, since modified Meng et al teaches the claimed structure and material, it is considered that a BET specific area is 2.0m2/g or less. It is noted that "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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/15/2026 are deemed moot in view of the following new grounds of rejection, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment to the claims which significantly affected the scope thereof (i.e., by incorporating new limitations into the independent claims, which require further search and consideration).
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 UYEN M TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at 5712721307. 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.
/UYEN M TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights