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
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 02/12/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-2 and 4-11 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 7, and 9- 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahl et al. (Pub. No. US 20190173084 A1) in view of Oh et al. (Pub. No. US 20110311869 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dahl teaches a positive electrode active material (cathode active material, see [0013]) for a lithium-rich secondary battery (secondary lithium battery, see [0013]), the positive electrode active material (cathode active material, see [0013]) comprising a surface (surface, see [0023]) modified with sulfate (enriched in sulfate, see [0023]) but fails to teach that the positive electrode active material has a sulfur (S) content of 0.3 to 1.0% by weight, wherein a chemical composition of the positive electrode active material is represented as Li.sub.aNi.sub.bMn.sub.cO.sub.dS wherein a is 1.2 to 1.8, b is 0.2 to 0.3, c is 0.5 to 1.5, and d is 2 to 3.
However, Dahl teaches wherein the positive electrode active material (cathode active material, see [0013]) has a sulfur (S) content of 0.3 to 1.0% by weight (0.1-1.6% by weight of sulfur, see Claim 2 and [0068], the sulfur content is between 1000 to 16000 ppm, which is 0.1-1.6% by weight).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sulfur content of the cathode active material of Dahl to stay between 0.3-1.0% by weight as Dahl teaches an overlapping range and the sulfur content is a result effective variable of obtaining good performance while avoiding Li.sub.2SO.sub.4 (see [0068]). Further Dahl teaches that modifications can be made (see [0091] of Dahl).
Dahl fails to teach wherein a chemical composition of the positive electrode active material is represented as Li.sub.aNi.sub.bMn.sub.cO.sub.dS wherein a is 1.2 to 1.8, b is 0.2 to 0.3, c is 0.5 to 1.5, and d is 2 to 3.
Oh teaches a chemical composition of the positive electrode active material is represented as Li.sub.aNi.sub.bMn.sub.cO.sub.dS (Li.sub.1+yMn.sub.2-y-zM.sub.zO.sub.4-xQ.sub.x, see [0053], see [0054] where M is Ni, and Q is S) wherein a is 1.2 to 1.8 (a = 1 to 1.34, see [0054], see calculation detailed below), b is 0.2 to 0.3 (b = 0 to 1, see [0054], see math calculation detailed below), c is 0.5 to 1.5 (c = 0.66 to 2, see [0054], see math calculations detailed below), and d is 2 to 3 (d = 3 to 4, see [0054], see math calculations below).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dahl such that the chemical composition of the cathode active material is represented by Li.sub.1+yMn.sub.2-y-zM.sub.zO.sub.4-xQ.sub.x where M is Ni, Q is S, y is 0 to 0.34, x is 0 to 1, and z is 0 to 1 as taught by Oh to provide lithium for initial irreversible reaction on the surface of the negative electrode and provide a lithium source to the positive electrode (see [0059] of Oh), and further it would have been obvious to modify the ranges of x, y, and z so 1+y is between 1.2 and 1.34, 2-y-z is 0.66 to 1.5, z is 0.2 to 0.3, 4-x = 3, and x=1 as Oh teaches overlapping ranges and a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I). Further Dahl teaches that modifications can be made (see [0091] of Dahl).
Regarding claim 2, Dahl in view of Oh teaches wherein the positive electrode active material (cathode active material, see [0013]) does not further include an additional layer (see Example 1, there is only one layer present which is the sulfate on the surface of the material).
Regarding claim 4, Dahl in view of Oh is silent as to wherein the positive electrode active material satisfies both the following relational equations (1) and (2):
Mn.sup.3+/Mn.sup.4+=1.0 to 2.2; and (1)
Ni.sup.2+/Ni.sup.3+=0.8 to 2.4. (2)
However, Dahl in view of Oh teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 1, therefore since there is no compositional distinction between the positive electrode active material as taught by Dahl in view of Oh and the present invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the positive electrode active material as taught by Dahl in view of Oh to exhibit the relational equations (1) and (2).
Regarding claim 6, Dahl in view of Oh is silent as to wherein the positive electrode active material has a charge/discharge capacity of 220 mAhg.sup.−1 or more at a voltage of 4.8 V and a current density of 20 mAhg.sup.−1.
However, Dahl in view of Oh teach the positive electrode active material of claim 1, therefore since there is no compositional distinction between the positive electrode active material as taught by Dahl in view of Oh and the present invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the positive electrode active material as taught by Dahl in view of Oh to exhibit a charge/discharge capacity of 220 mAhg.sup.−1 or more at a voltage of 4.8 V and a current density of 20 mAhg.sup.−1.
Regarding claim 7, Dahl teaches a method (method, see [0031]) of producing a positive electrode active material (cathode active material, see [0013]) for a lithium-rich secondary battery (secondary lithium battery, see [0013]), the method (method, see [0031]) including: preparing a positive electrode active material (cathode active material, see [0013]) comprising lithium manganese nickel oxide (LMNO) (LNMO, see [0056]) whose surface (surface, see [0023]) is modified with a sulfur precursor (sulfate precursor, see [0034]) to form sulfate (enriched in sulfate, see [0023]) on the surface (surface, see [0023]), but fails to teach wherein the content of sulfur (S) in the positive electrode active material is 0.3 to 1.0 weight %, and wherein a chemical composition of the positive electrode active material is represented as Li.sub.aNi.sub.bMn.sub.cO.sub.dS wherein a is 1.2 to 1.8, b is 0.2 to 0.3, c is 0.5 to 1.5, and d is 2 to 3.
However, Dahl teaches wherein the positive electrode active material (cathode active material, see [0013]) has a sulfur (S) content of 0.3 to 1.0% by weight (0.1-1.6% by weight of sulfur, see Claim 2 and [0068], the sulfur content is between 1000 to 16000 ppm, which is 0.1-1.6% by weight).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sulfur content of the cathode active material of Dahl to stay between 0.3-1.0% by weight as Dahl teaches an overlapping range and the sulfur content is a result effective variable of obtaining good performance while avoiding Li.sub.2SO.sub.4 (see [0068]). Further Dahl teaches that modifications can be made (see [0091] of Dahl).
Dahl fails to teach wherein a chemical composition of the positive electrode active material is represented as Li.sub.aNi.sub.bMn.sub.cO.sub.dS wherein a is 1.2 to 1.8, b is 0.2 to 0.3, c is 0.5 to 1.5, and d is 2 to 3.
Oh teaches a chemical composition of the positive electrode active material is represented as Li.sub.aNi.sub.bMn.sub.cO.sub.dS (Li.sub.1+yMn.sub.2-y-zM.sub.zO.sub.4-xQ.sub.x, see [0053], see [0054] where M is Ni, and Q is S) wherein a is 1.2 to 1.8 (a = 1 to 1.34, see [0054], see calculation detailed below), b is 0.2 to 0.3 (b = 0 to 1, see [0054], see math calculation detailed below), c is 0.5 to 1.5 (c = 0.66 to 2, see [0054], see math calculations detailed below), and d is 2 to 3 (d = 3 to 4, see [0054], see math calculations below).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dahl such that the chemical composition of the cathode active material is represented by Li.sub.1+yMn.sub.2-y-zM.sub.zO.sub.4-xQ.sub.x where M is Ni, Q is S, y is 0 to 0.34, x is 0 to 1, and z is 0 to 1 as taught by Oh to provide lithium for initial irreversible reaction on the surface of the negative electrode and provide a lithium source to the positive electrode (see [0059] of Oh), and further it would have been obvious to modify the ranges of x, y, and z so 1+y is between 1.2 and 1.34, 2-y-z is 0.66 to 1.5, z is 0.2 to 0.3, 4-x = 3, and x=1 as Oh teaches overlapping ranges and a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I). Further Dahl teaches that modifications can be made (see [0091] of Dahl).
Regarding claim 9, Dahl in view of Oh is silent to wherein the lithium manganese nickel oxide (LMNO) and the sulfur precursor react in a weight ratio of 1:0.2 to 2.0.
However, Dahl in view of Oh teach the same method and product formed by the method of the claimed invention, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the lithium manganese nickel oxide (LMNO) and the sulfur precursor to react in a weight ratio of 1:0.2 to 2.0 in order to achieve the same composition.
Regarding claim 10, Dahl in view of Oh teaches a lithium secondary battery (secondary battery, see [0024], see [0013] where the cathode active material comprise lithium therefore the battery is a secondary lithium battery) comprising the positive electrode active material (cathode active material, see [0013], see [0024]) according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 11, Dahl in view of Oh fails to teach wherein the sulfur (S) content is 0.5 to 0.7% by weight.
However, Dahl further teaches wherein the sulfur (S) content is 0.5 to 0.7% by weight (0.3% to 1.0% by weight, see [0068], see modification above).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sulfur content of the cathode active material of Dahl in view of Oh to stay between 0.5-0.7% by weight as Dahl teaches an overlapping range and the sulfur content is a result effective variable of obtaining good performance while avoiding Li.sub.2SO.sub.4 (see [0068]). Further Dahl in view of Oh teaches that modifications can be made (see [0091] of Dahl).
5. Claim(s) 5, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahl et al. (Pub. No. US 20190173084 A1) in view of Oh et al. (Pub. No. US 20110311869 A1) as applied to claim 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (Pub. No. US 20190267625 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Dahl in view of Oh fails to teach wherein the sulfate is derived from thiourea (NH.sub.2CSNH.sub.2).
However, Lee teaches wherein the sulfur precursor (sulfur precursor, see [0034]) is thiourea (NH.sub.2CSNH.sub.2) (thiourea, see [0034]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dahl in view of Oh to use thiourea in a sulfur precursor as a source of sulfur as taught by Lee to act as a redox mediator during charge/discharge of the secondary battery (see Abstract of Lee). Further Dahl in view of Oh teaches that modifications can be made (see [0091] of Dahl).
The examiner would like to note that as Dahl in view of Oh teaches a sulfate on the surface, the source of the sulfate is not required to be taught for claim 5, as the limitation is a product by process limitation and Dahl in view of Oh teach the structural limitation of the claim.
Regarding claim 8, Dahl in view of Oh fails to teach wherein the sulfur precursor is thiourea (NH.sub.2CSNH.sub.2).
However, Lee teaches wherein the sulfur precursor (sulfur precursor, see [0034]) is thiourea (NH.sub.2CSNH.sub.2) (thiourea, see [0034]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dahl in view of Oh to use thiourea in a sulfur precursor as a source of sulfur as taught by Lee to act as a redox mediator during charge/discharge of the secondary battery (see Abstract of Lee). Further Dahl in view of Oh teaches that modifications can be made (see [0091] of Dahl).
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed 02/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicants’ argument that the amendment of the positive electrode active material has a sulfur (S) content of 0.3 to 1.0% by weight is not taught by the surface concentration weight percentage as taught by Dahl. This argument is moot as Dahl teaches an overlapping range of the sulfur content of the positive electrode active material as taught under the new interpretation of Dahl.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the specific ratios (1) and (2) of claim 4 result from the specific synthesis route and even if the composition is nominally similar the oxidation state ratios can be different depending on the type of sulfur precursor used. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as Table 1 and Table 2 do not appear to show the specific synthesis route effects the specific ratios (1) and (2) as shown by Comparative Example 1 being prepared the same way as Example 1, however the surface was not modified with sulfate meaning the composition not the method of synthesis impacts the specific ratios. Further, the applicant points to Example 1 and 6 as showing nominally similar compositions cause very different oxidation state ratios, however as seen in Table 2, the sulfur content of Example 6 has a sulfur content that is more than 3 times larger than in Example 1 showing the compositions are not nominally similar, and further taking into account the other Examples in Table 2 the oxidation state ratios change depending on the sulfur content of the positive electrode active material particles and Dahl in view of Oh teaches the sulfur content within the claimed range. Therefore, Table 1 and 2 do not give support that the specific sulfur precursor alone changes the oxidation state ratios.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS CALEB MARROQUIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00 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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/DOUGLAS C MARROQUIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723