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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 07/02/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-2 and 4-16 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Claim 3 has been cancelled.
Specification
2. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 14, lines 15 and 16 recites “Li.sub.1.5Ni.sub.0.25Mn.sub.0.75O.sub.2.5” as the material used in examples 1 and 2-6, however in Table 1 on page 15, the material is given the formula: “Li.sub.1.5Ni.sub.0.25Mn.sub.0.75O.sub.2”, and further on Page 18, lines 2, 5, and 8 the same material is given a formula of: “Li.sub.1.5Ni.sub.0.25Mn.sub.0.75O”. Therefore it is unclear in the given examples if the formula whether the molar amount of O is 2.5, 2, or 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
4. Claims 1-2 and 4-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 1, 7, and 14 each require at least a feature, “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 from 0.5 to 1.5, and d is 2 to 3” and in claim 14 “a is 1.5 to 1.8”. This features, specifically where “sulfur (S) content of 0.3 to 1.0% by weight” and the molar ratio of sulfur in the chemical composition is 1, is not reasonably enabled by the as-filed specification.
The Wands factors of MPEP 2164.01(a) have been considered and claims 1, 7, and 14 are not found to be enabled at least because: there is no direction provided by the inventor for making the italicized feature (Factor F); there are no working examples for making the italicized feature (Factor G); and/or an undue quantity of experimentation is needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure (Factor H).
The feature is not described in the specification in such a way to enable the skilled artisan to make the invention because no example is given where the sulfur content is 0.3 to 1.0% and the molar ratio of S in the chemical composition is 1. Applicant’s published specification paragraph [0061-0062] do give support for a ratio of sulfur precursor to lithium manganese nickel oxide, and [0057] gives a formula for the lithium manganese nickel oxide where the molar ratio of S is 1, but does not give guidance on how the S content is maintained at a molar ratio of 1 while the weight percentage is also maintained at 0.3 to 1.0%. Undue experimentation is required to determine the exact amount of sulfur precursor and the exact lithium manganese nickel oxide composition required to achieve the proper molar ratios while maintaining 0.3 to 1.0% by weight of sulfur.
Appropriate explanation or clarification is required.
Regarding claim(s) 2, 4-6, 8-13, and 15-16, the claim(s) is/are rejected as they depend from, and therefore incorporate the claimed subject matter from claims rejected under this statute.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
6. Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-7, and 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (Pub. No. KR 20210046572 A) in view of Dahl et al. (Pub. No. US 20190173084 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches a positive electrode active material (positive electrode active material, see [0031]) for a lithium-rich secondary battery (secondary battery, see [0098]), wherein a crystal structure (crystal structure, see [0031]) of the positive electrode active material (positive electrode active material, see [0031]) is such that an X-ray spectrum (see [0034], although this is not mentioned as being part of a x-ray spectrum, the structures are present, therefore would be present in an X-ray spectrum) of the positive electrode active material (positive electrode active material, see [0031]) exhibits peaks corresponding to a rhombohedral LiMO.sub.2 structure (LiMO2 of rhombohedral structure, see [0034]) and a monoclinic Li.sub.2MnO.sub.3 structure (Li2MnO3 of a monoclinic structure, see [0034]), but fails to teach the positive electrode active material comprising a surface modified with sulfate such 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 the positive electrode active material (cathode active material, see [0013]) comprising a surface (surface, see [0023]) modified with sulfate (enriched in sulfate, see [0023]) such that 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 and 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 Choi such that the surface of the positive electrode active material is enriched in sulfate in 0.1-1.6% by weight as taught by Dahl to improve the cycle durability of the battery, increase discharge capacity at rapid discharges, and decrease internal resistance and degradation while maintaining the discharge capacity of the active material (see [0011] of Dahl). Further it would have been obvious to modify the sulfur content to stay within the claimed range of 0.3 to 1.0% as Dahl teaches an overlapping range 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), and Dahl teaches the sulfur content is a result effective variable of obtaining good performance while avoiding Li.sub.2SO.sub.4 (see [0068] of Dahl).
Choi in view of 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.
However, Choi in view of Dahl teach wherein a chemical composition of the positive electrode active material is represented as Li.sub.aNi.sub.bMn.sub.cO.sub.dS (Chemical Formula 1, see [0032], note the formula does not explicitly include sulfur in the equation, however the composition would include Sulfur in the formula as it is coated in sulfate as seen in the modifications above, further note y may be 0 in the equation, and where M1 is Sulfur), wherein a is 1.2 to 1.8 (0<a<=1.6, see math calculations below), b is 0.2 to 0.3 (0<=b<=0.4, see math calculations below), c is 0.5 to 1.5 (0<c<=1, see math calculations below), and d is 2 to 3 (2<d<=2.6, see math calculations below).
Math calculations: see [0032] of Choi, rLi2MnO3 * (1-r)LiaNixCoyMnzM11-(x+y+z)O2, see [0033] 0<r<=0.6, 0<a<=1, 0<=x<=1, 0<=y<1, 0<=z<1 and 0<x+y+z<=1.
When r is just greater than 0 then a, b, c, and d infinitely approach being equal to the lowest value of each in LiaNixCoyMnzM11-(x+y+z)02, therefore 0<a, 0<=b (where b is x), 0<c (where c is z, since r must be above 0, and Mn is present in the first half of the equation, c must be greater than 0), and 2<d (where d is content of O, since O is present in first half of equation and r is greater than 0, then the content of O must be greater than 2).
When r is equal to 0.6, the maximum of each material can be calculated:
a: (0.6)(2) + (0.4)(1) = 1.6, therefore a <=1.6
b: (1-0.6)(1) = 0.4, therefore b<=0.4
c: (0.6)(1) + (1-0.6)(1) = 1, therefore c<=1
d: (0.6)(3) + (1-0.6)(2) = 2.6, therefore d <=2.6
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Choi in view of Dahl such that a stays within the claimed range of 1.2 to 1.6, b stays within the claimed range of 0.2 to 0.3, c stays within the claimed range of 0.5 to 1 as Choi teaches overlapping or encompassing ranges for each range 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).
Although Choi in view of Dahl fails to teach wherein the formula includes S in a molar ratio of 1, Choi in view of Dahl does teach a compound including sulfur in the same weight percent as a sulfate on the surface of the material and teaches the same crystal structure. Further, it has been held that differences in concentration cannot be the basis for patentability without a showing of criticality of the concentration and a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the differences in the claimed invention and the prior art is a recitation of concentration. Therefore the composition taught by Choi in view of Dahl is found to be obvious over the claimed composition.
Regarding claim 2, Choi in view of Dahl teaches wherein the positive electrode active material (positive electrode active material, see [0031]) does not further include an additional layer (see Example 1 of Dahl, sulfate is only coated once, therefore there are no additional layers on the surface beyond the sulfate layer).
Regarding claim 4, Choi in view of Dahl is silent 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, Choi in view of Dahl teaches a same or similar positive electrode active material, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the same or similar properties to be exhibited by the same or similar material. Therefore the positive electrode active material as taught by Choi in view of Dahl is expected to exhibit a relational equations (1) and (2) which overlaps or is close enough to the claimed range to be found obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Choi in view of Dahl 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, Choi in view of Dahl teaches a same or similar positive electrode active material, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the same or similar properties to be exhibited by the same or similar material. Therefore the positive electrode active material as taught by Choi in view of Dahl is expected to exhibit a charge/discharge capacity which overlaps or is close to the claimed range in a way which obviates the claimed range.
Regarding claim 7, Choi teaches a method (method of manufacturing, see [0020]) of producing a positive electrode active material (positive electrode active material, see [0031]) for a lithium-rich secondary battery (secondary battery, see [0098]), the method (method of manufacturing, see [0020]) comprising: preparing a positive electrode active material (positive electrode active material, see [0031]) comprising lithium manganese nickel oxide (LMNO) (see chemical formula 1 in [0032]), wherein a crystal structure (crystal structure, see [0031]) of the positive electrode active material (positive electrode active material, see [0031]) is such that an X-ray spectrum (see [0034], although this is not mentioned as being part of a x-ray spectrum, the structures are present, therefore would be present in an X-ray spectrum) of the positive electrode active material (positive electrode active material, see [0031]) exhibits peaks corresponding to a rhombohedral LiMO.sub.2 structure (LiMO2 of rhombohedral structure, see [0034]) and a monoclinic Li.sub.2MnO.sub.3 structure (Li2MnO3 of a monoclinic structure, see [0034]), but fails to teach having a surface modified with a sulfur precursor to form sulfate on the surface, 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 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]), wherein the content of sulfur (S) in the positive electrode active material (cathode active material, see [0013]) is 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 and 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 Choi to add the method of coating the surface of the positive electrode active material in sulfate in 0.1-1.6% by weight as taught by Dahl to improve the cycle durability of the battery, increase discharge capacity at rapid discharges, and decrease internal resistance and degradation while maintaining the discharge capacity of the active material (see [0011] of Dahl). Further it would have been obvious to modify the sulfur content to stay within the claimed range of 0.3 to 1.0% as Dahl teaches an overlapping range 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), and Dahl teaches the sulfur content is a result effective variable of obtaining good performance while avoiding Li.sub.2SO.sub.4 (see [0068] of Dahl).
Choi in view of 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.
However, Choi in view of Dahl teach wherein a chemical composition of the positive electrode active material is represented as Li.sub.aNi.sub.bMn.sub.cO.sub.dS (Chemical Formula 1, see [0032], note the formula does not explicitly include sulfur in the equation, however the composition would include Sulfur in the formula as it is coated in sulfate as seen in the modifications above, further note y may be 0 in the equation, and where M1 is Sulfur), wherein a is 1.2 to 1.8 (0<a<=1.6, see math calculations below), b is 0.2 to 0.3 (0<=b<=0.4, see math calculations below), c is 0.5 to 1.5 (0<c<=1, see math calculations below), and d is 2 to 3 (2<d<=2.6, see math calculations below).
Math calculations: see [0032] of Choi, rLi2MnO3 * (1-r)LiaNixCoyMnzM11-(x+y+z)O2, see [0033] 0<r<=0.6, 0<a<=1, 0<=x<=1, 0<=y<1, 0<=z<1 and 0<x+y+z<=1.
When r is just greater than 0 then a, b, c, and d infinitely approach being equal to the lowest value of each in LiaNixCoyMnzM11-(x+y+z)02, therefore 0<a, 0<=b (where b is x), 0<c (where c is z, since r must be above 0, and Mn is present in the first half of the equation, c must be greater than 0), and 2<d (where d is content of O, since O is present in first half of equation and r is greater than 0, then the content of O must be greater than 2).
When r is equal to 0.6, the maximum of each material can be calculated:
a: (0.6)(2) + (0.4)(1) = 1.6, therefore a <=1.6
b: (1-0.6)(1) = 0.4, therefore b<=0.4
c: (0.6)(1) + (1-0.6)(1) = 1, therefore c<=1
d: (0.6)(3) + (1-0.6)(2) = 2.6, therefore d <=2.6
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Choi in view of Dahl such that a stays within the claimed range of 1.2 to 1.6, b stays within the claimed range of 0.2 to 0.3, c stays within the claimed range of 0.5 to 1 as Choi teaches overlapping or encompassing ranges for each range 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).
Although Choi in view of Dahl fails to teach wherein the formula includes S in a molar ratio of 1, Choi in view of Dahl teaches including sulfur in the same weight percent as a sulfate on the surface of the material and teaches the same crystal structure. Further, there is no showing of criticality of the claimed molar ratio of S in the chemical composition in the instant published specification, and it has been held that generally differences in concentration cannot be the basis for patentability. Therefore it is the Examiner’s position that the positive electrode active material as taught by Choi in view of Dahl obviates the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, Choi in view of Dahl 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, Choi in view of Dahl 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, Choi in view of Dahl teaches a lithium secondary battery (secondary battery, see [0098]) comprising the positive electrode active material (positive electrode active material, see [0031]) according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 11, Choi in view of Dahl fails to teach wherein the sulfur (S) content is 0.5 to 0.7 % by weight.
However, Choi in view of Dahl teaches wherein the sulfur (S) content is 0.5 to 0.7% by weight (0.3 to 1.0%, see modifications above).
it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Choi in view of Dahl such that the sulfur content to stays within the claimed range of 0.5 to 0.7% as Choi in view of Dahl teaches an encompassing range 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), and Dahl teaches the sulfur content is a result effective variable of obtaining good performance while avoiding Li.sub.2SO.sub.4 (see [0068] of Dahl).
Regarding claim 12, Choi in view of Dahl fails to teach wherein the d is 2.5 to 3.
However, Choi in view of Dahl teaches wherein the d is 2.5 to 3 (2<d<=2.6, see modifications above).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Choi in view of Dahl such that d stays within the claimed range of 2.5 and 2.6 as Choi in view of Dahl teaches an overlapping range and it has been held that 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, it has been held that differences in concentration cannot be the basis for patentability.
Regarding claim 13, Choi in view of Dahl fails to teach wherein the a is 1.5 to 1.8.
However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Choi in view of Dahl such that a stays within the claimed range of 1.5 to 1.6, as Choi 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).
Regarding claim 14, Choi teaches a positive electrode active material (positive electrode active material, see [0031]) for a lithium-rich secondary battery (secondary battery, see [0098]), but fails to teach the positive electrode active material comprising a surface modified with sulfate such 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 1.5 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 the positive electrode active material (cathode active material, see [0013]) comprising a surface (surface, see [0023]) modified with sulfate (enriched in sulfate, see [0023]) such that 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 and 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 Choi such that the surface of the positive electrode active material is enriched in sulfate in 0.1-1.6% by weight as taught by Dahl to improve the cycle durability of the battery, increase discharge capacity at rapid discharges, and decrease internal resistance and degradation while maintaining the discharge capacity of the active material (see [0011] of Dahl). Further it would have been obvious to modify the sulfur content to stay within the claimed range of 0.3 to 1.0% as Dahl teaches an overlapping range 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), and Dahl teaches the sulfur content is a result effective variable of obtaining good performance while avoiding Li.sub.2SO.sub.4 (see [0068] of Dahl).
Choi in view of 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.
However, Choi in view of Dahl teach wherein a chemical composition of the positive electrode active material is represented as Li.sub.aNi.sub.bMn.sub.cO.sub.dS (Chemical Formula 1, see [0032], note the formula does not explicitly include sulfur in the equation, however the composition would include Sulfur in the formula as it is coated in sulfate as seen in the modifications above, further note y may be 0 in the equation, and where M1 is Sulfur), wherein a is 1.5 to 1.8 (0<a<=1.6, see math calculations below), b is 0.2 to 0.3 (0<=b<=0.4, see math calculations below), c is 0.5 to 1.5 (0<c<=1, see math calculations below), and d is 2 to 3 (2<d<=2.6, see math calculations below).
Math calculations: see [0032] of Choi, rLi2MnO3 * (1-r)LiaNixCoyMnzM11-(x+y+z)O2, see [0033] 0<r<=0.6, 0<a<=1, 0<=x<=1, 0<=y<1, 0<=z<1 and 0<x+y+z<=1.
When r is just greater than 0 then a, b, c, and d infinitely approach being equal to the lowest value of each in LiaNixCoyMnzM11-(x+y+z)02, therefore 0<a, 0<=b (where b is x), 0<c (where c is z, since r must be above 0, and Mn is present in the first half of the equation, c must be greater than 0), and 2<d (where d is content of O, since O is present in first half of equation and r is greater than 0, then the content of O must be greater than 2).
When r is equal to 0.6, the maximum of each material can be calculated:
a: (0.6)(2) + (0.4)(1) = 1.6, therefore a <=1.6
b: (1-0.6)(1) = 0.4, therefore b<=0.4
c: (0.6)(1) + (1-0.6)(1) = 1, therefore c<=1
d: (0.6)(3) + (1-0.6)(2) = 2.6, therefore d <=2.6
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Choi in view of Dahl such that a stays within the claimed range of 1.5 to 1.6, b stays within the claimed range of 0.2 to 0.3, c stays within the claimed range of 0.5 to 1 as Choi teaches overlapping or encompassing ranges for each range 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).
Although Choi in view of Dahl fails to teach wherein the formula includes S in a molar ratio of 1, Choi in view of Dahl teaches including sulfur in the same weight percent as a sulfate on the surface of the material. Further, there is no showing of criticality of the claimed molar ratio of S in the chemical composition in the instant published specification, and it has been held that generally differences in concentration cannot be the basis for patentability. Therefore it is the Examiner’s position that the positive electrode active material as taught by Choi in view of Dahl obviates the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 15, Choi in view of Dahl fails to teach wherein the d is 2.5 to 3.
However, Choi in view of Dahl teaches wherein the d is 2.5 to 3 (2<d<=2.6, see modifications above).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Choi in view of Dahl such that d stays within the claimed range of 2.5 and 2.6 as Choi in view of Dahl teaches an overlapping range and it has been held that 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, it has been held that differences in concentration cannot be the basis for patentability.
Regarding claim 16 Choi in view of Dahl teaches wherein a crystal structure (crystal structure, see [0031]) of the positive electrode active material (positive electrode active material, see [0031]) is such that an X-ray spectrum (see [0034], although this is not mentioned as being part of a x-ray spectrum, the structures are present, therefore would be present in an X-ray spectrum) of the positive electrode active material (positive electrode active material, see [0031]) exhibits peaks corresponding to a rhombohedral LiMO.sub.2 structure (LiMO2 of rhombohedral structure, see [0034]) and a monoclinic Li.sub.2MnO.sub.3 structure (Li2MnO3 of a monoclinic structure, see [0034]).
7. Claim(s) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (Pub. No. KR 20210046572 A) in view of Dahl et al. (Pub. No. US 20190173084 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (Pub. No. US 20190267625 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Choi in view of Dahl fails to teach wherein the sulfate is derived from thiourea (NH.sub.2CSNH.sub.2). The examiner would like to note this claim is introducing a method step into a product claim, therefore since the product of claim 1 has been taught by the prior art the method is not required to be taught as it is a product by process claim.
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 Choi in view of Dahl 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).
Regarding claim 8, Choi in view of Dahl 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 Choi in view of Dahl 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).
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 4-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
9. 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 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
Prosecution Insights