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
The amendment filed on 02/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 10 have been amended, Claims 2 and 8 are canceled and Claims 1, 3-4, 7 and 9-14 are pending.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Morishima et al. (US 20070059602 A1), hereinafter "Morishima". Morishima et al. is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because it pertains to the same field of endeavor, namely cathode materials.
In regard to Claim 1, Morishima et al. discloses a lithium secondary battery, comprising: a positive electrode having a positive active material; a negative electrode having a negative active material and an electrolyte system (Morishima, Abstract), providing ionic conductivity between the positive electrode and the negative electrode to allow lithium ions to move between the positive electrode and the negative electrode to perform an electrochemical reaction for charging and discharging (known function of electrolyte in the lithium ion secondary battery).
Morishima et al. also discloses an ionic provider, wherein the ionic provider includes a reactive anionic group and a cation bonded to the reactive anionic group and wherein the reactive anionic group has a phosphorus-oxygen bond (Fe4(P2O7)3 or Li3Fe2(PO4)3) added in the positive electrode and being inactive during the electrochemical reaction (Morishima, [0012, 0040]). Additionally, the original specification provides the same Fe4(P2O7)3 as disclosed in Morishima et al. as the ionic provider combined with a positive electrode active material in the same way and it is chosen for its properties including being capable of releasing the reactive anionic group by absorbing thermal energy to react with the positive active material (Original Specification, Sample 9 and 17).
Further, Morishima et al. discloses a specific example wherein the positive electrode material is LiNi.sub.0.8 Co.sub.0.17Al.sub.0.03O.sub.2 and the ionic provider is FePO.sub.4 (Morishima, Example 2), which necessarily discloses a Nickel content of 75% or more. Morishima et al. also discloses the ratio of the ionic provider to the positive electrode active material at 0.1 wt % or more (Morishima, [0129]) and a specific example wherein the wt% of the ionic provider is 20 wt% (Morishima, Example 14), which supports an overall wt% of the ionic provider of 0.1-20 wt% relative to the positive active material which can be used to calculate the wt% of the ionic provider based on a total weight of the positive electrode. Using 10 parts conductive agent, 5 parts binder and 85 parts positive material and ionic provider the wt% of the ionic provider based on total weight of the positive electrode can be calculated to 0.085-14.17%, which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference, as overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claims 3-4 and 7, Morishima et al. discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 1. Morishima et al. also discloses wherein the reactive anionic group is P2074- (Morishima, [0012]) which is asymmetrical.
In regard to Claim 9, Morishima et al. discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 1. Morishima et al. also discloses wherein the ionic provider is distributed between positive active material particles or is coated on a surface of the positive electrode, as the materials are all suspended in a solvent and a slurry formed which is used to coat a current collector (Morishima, [0071]), which is the same process used in the original specification wherein the ionic provider is distributed between positive active material particles (Original Specification, Sample 1).
In regard to Claims 10-11, Morishima et al. discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 1. Morishima et al. also discloses a lithium receiver (Li4Ti5O12 and TiO2V2O5) distributed between negative active material particles or coated on a surface of the negative electrode (Morishima, [0082]), wherein the lithium receiver is capable of reacting with lithium to form lithium alloy or lithium compound (Morishima, [0074, 0077]).
Morishima further discloses a combination of lithium receiver and active material wherein an electric potential which the lithium receiver is reacted with lithium is different from an electric potential which the negative active material of the negative electrode is reacted with lithium (TiO2V2O5 or TiO2P2O5 by definition have an electric potential different than Li4Ti5O12). Finally, Morishima discloses Li4Ti5O12 (Morishima, [0076-0077]), which is the same material provided in the original specification for its ability to react with lithium to form lithium alloy or lithium compound, but does not involve in the electrochemical reaction (Original Specification, Page 8).
In regard to Claims 12 and 14, Morishima et al. discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 1. Morishima et al. also discloses an ionic provider of Fe4(P2O7)3 (Morishima, [0012]), which by definition has a cation that has a valence ranging from +1 to +3 and is the same ionic provider provided in the original specification for its property of not being dissociable in a polar solution (Original Specification, Samples 9,17).
In regard to Claim 13, Liu et al. discloses Morishima et al. discloses the lithium secondary battery of claim 1. Morishima et al. also discloses an embodiment wherein the negative active material is lithium metal (Morishima, [0135]).
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 02/13/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on Application Number-18/082,020 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/13/2026 that Morishima actually teaches away from the claimed 10 wt% concentration of the present claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The 35 U.S.C 102 (a)(1) rejection has been changed to a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based on the amended claim 1 and as discussed above. As demonstrated the calculations for the wt% of the ionic provider based on the total weight of the positive electrode disclose a wt% that encompasses the claimed wt% in amended claim 1 and is nothing more than a result-effective variable to be optimized.
Additionally, Applicants arguments that Morishima fails to disclose or suggest the specific high-nickel concentration (weight percentage of nickel is more than 75%) is incorrect as a high nickel positive active material is disclosed in the reference as mentioned in the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection above. Further, providing alternatives to the embodiments would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Lastly, Morishima providing Fe4(P2O7) in a positive electrode regardless of intended use is the same compound used in the current application and as stated in In re Spada, “products of identical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990) see also MPEP § 2112.01.
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 KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights