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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/15/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 12/15/2025 does not put the application in condition for allowance.
Examiner withdraws all rejections in the prior office action due to the amendments.
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, 7-9, and 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US Pub No. 2008/0020279) In view of Park (US Pub No. 2021/0143501)
Regarding Claim 1, Schmidt et al. teaches a method [0094] for forming a cathode with a composite nickel structure for use in a battery cell [Fig. 9-10, 0062-0063], the cathode comprising: a current collector [622, Fig. 10, 0063] surrounded by an active material 624 (first and second cathode electrode coating) on both sides of the current collector [Fig. 10, 0063]. The active can be made of a material with or without nickel [0046]. However, Schmidt et al does not explicitly teach a specific material for the two active layer material 624.
Park et al. teaches a method [0078] for forming a cathode with a composite nickel structure for use in a battery cell [Fig 3, 0031-0032], the cathode comprising:
a current collector [See 122 in figure 1, 0024 and see annotated figure 3 for the current collector] including a first side and a second side [Fig. 3, 0031]
a first cathode electrode [314, Fig. 3, 0032, NCA] coating the first side of the current collector [see annotated figure], wherein the first cathode electrode includes a first concentration of nickel; and
a second cathode electrode [312, Fig. 3, 0032, LCO] coating the second side of the current collector, wherein the second cathode electrode includes nickel-free material.
Since Schmidt et al. is open to a variety of material for the active layer material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to replace the two active layer materials on the cathode of Schmidt et al. with the cathode active layer material of Park et al. such as the NCA and LCO of Park et al. as it is merely the selection of conventional cathode active layer materials in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 2, within the combination above, modified Schmidt et al. teaches wherein the first cathode electrode includes NMC811 [Park: 0032].
Regarding Claim 3, within the combination above, modified Schmidt et al. teaches wherein the first cathode electrode includes NMC622 [Park: 0032].
Regarding Claim 7, within the combination above, modified Schmidt et al. teaches the second cathode electrode includes NMC111 [Park: 0032].
Regarding Claim 8, within the combination above, modified Schmidt et al. teaches wherein the second cathode electrode includes lithium iron phosphate [Park: 0032].
Regarding Claim 9, within the combination above, modified Schmidt et al. teaches wherein the second cathode electrode includes lithium manganese oxide [Park: 0032].
Regarding Claim 12, Schmidt et al. teaches a method [0094] for forming a cathode with a composite nickel structure for use in a battery cell [Fig. 9-10, 0062-0063], the cathode comprising: a current collector [622, Fig. 10, 0063] surrounded by an active material 624 (first and second cathode electrode coating) on both sides of the current collector [Fig. 10, 0063]. The active can be made of a material with or without nickel [0046]. However, Schmidt et al does not explicitly teach a specific material for the two active layer material 624.
Park et al. teaches a method [0066-0067] for forming a cathode with a composite nickel structure for use in a battery cell [Fig. 1, 0037-0038], the cathode comprising:
a current collector [See 122 in figure 1, 0024 and see annotated figure 3 for the current collector] including a first side and a second side [Fig. 3, 0031]
a first cathode electrode [314, Fig. 3, 0032, NCA] coating the first side of the current collector [see annotated figure], wherein the first cathode electrode includes a first concentration of nickel; and
a second cathode electrode [312, Fig. 3, 0032, LCO] coating the second side of the current collector, wherein the second cathode electrode includes nickel-free material.
Park et al. also teaches a battery cell with an anode [612, Fig. 10, 0062], a separator [614, Fig. 10,0063], and an electrolyte [0043].
Since Schmidt et al. is open to a variety of material for the active layer material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to replace the two active layer materials on the cathode of Schmidt et al. with the cathode active layer material of Park et al. such as the NCA and LCO of Park et al. as it is merely the selection of conventional cathode active layer materials in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 13, within the combination above, modified Schmidt et al. teaches wherein the first cathode electrode includes lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide, (NMC811) [Park: 0032].
Regarding Claim 14, within the combination above, modified Schmidt et al. teaches wherein the first cathode electrode includes lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide, (NMC622) [Park: 0032].
Regarding Claim 15, within the combination above, modified Schmidt et al. teaches wherein the second cathode electrode includes lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide, (NMC111) [Park: 0032].
Regarding Claim 16, within the combination above, modified Schmidt et al. teaches wherein the second cathode electrode includes lithium iron phosphate [Park: 0032].
Regarding Claim 17, within the combination above, modified Schmidt et al. teaches wherein the second cathode electrode includes lithium manganese oxide [Park: 0032].
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US Pub No. 2008/0020279) In view of Park (US Pub No. 2021/0143501) as applied above in addressing claim 1, in further view of Ho (US Pub No. 2025/0030006)
Regarding Claim 4, within the combination above, modified Schmidt et al. is silent on wherein the first cathode electrode includes lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide, (NMC811), wherein the lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide, (NMC811), is present in a range from one percent by mass of the first cathode electrode to ninety-six percent by mass of the first cathode electrode; and
wherein the first cathode electrode further includes lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide, (NMC622), wherein the lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide, (NMC622), is present in a range from one percent by mass of the first cathode electrode to ninety-six percent by mass of the first cathode electrode.
Ho et al. teaches a cathode made of NMC622 and NMC811 [0182] for a battery [abstract].
Since modified Schmidt et al. teaches the cathode the first cathode can comprise NCM (e.g., NCM-111, NCM-523, NCM-622, NCM-811, etc.) [0032], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the cathode material of Ho et al. to the first cathode electrode coating of modified Schmidt et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional cathode material for batteries in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
As the reactor cost and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting composition of the cathode, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the composition of the cathode are changed, the precise cathode composition would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “a range from one percent by mass of the first cathode electrode to ninety-six percent by mass of the first cathode electrode.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the composition of the cathode of modified Schmidt et al. to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US Pub No. 2008/0020279) In view of Park (US Pub No. 2021/0143501) as applied above in addressing claim 1, in further view of Kim (US Pub No. 2024/0178441)
Regarding Claim 5, within the combination above, modified Schmidt et al. is silent on wherein the first cathode electrode includes lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide, LiNio.Mno.2Coo0.202 (NMC622), wherein the lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide, LiNio«Mno2Co0202 (NMC622), is present in a range from one percent by mass of the first cathode electrode to ninety-six percent by mass of the first cathode electrode; and
wherein the first cathode electrode coating further includes lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide, (NMC111), wherein the lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide, (NMC111), is present in a range from one percent by mass of the first cathode electrode to ninety-six percent by mass of the first cathode electrode.
Kim et al. teaches a cathode which comprises NMC111 and NMC622 [0019] for batteries [Abstract].
Since modified Schmidt et al. teaches the cathode the first cathode can comprise NCM (e.g., NCM-111, NCM-523, NCM-622, NCM-811, etc.) [0032], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the cathode material of Kim et al. to the first cathode electrode coating of modified Schmidt et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional cathode material for batteries in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
As the reactor cost and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting composition of the cathode, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the composition of the cathode are changed, the precise cathode composition would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “a range from one percent by mass of the first cathode electrode to ninety-six percent by mass of the first cathode electrode.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the composition of the cathode of modified Schmidt et al. to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 6, within the combination above, modified Schmidt et al. is silent on wherein the first cathode electrode includes lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide, (NMC811), wherein the lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide, (NMC811), is present in a range from one percent by mass of the first cathode electrode to ninety-six percent by mass of the first cathode electrode; and
wherein the first cathode electrode further includes lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide, (NMC111), wherein the lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide, (NMC111), is present in a range from one percent by mass of the first cathode electrode to ninety-six percent by mass of the first cathode electrode.
Kim et al. teaches a cathode which comprises NMC811 and NMC111 [0145] for batteries [Abstract].
Since modified Schmidt et al. teaches the cathode the first cathode can comprise NCM (e.g., NCM-111, NCM-523, NCM-622, NCM-811, etc.) [0032], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the cathode material of Kim et al. to the first cathode electrode coating of modified Schmidt et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional cathode material for batteries in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
As the reactor cost and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting composition of the cathode, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the composition of the cathode are changed, the precise cathode composition would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “a range from one percent by mass of the first cathode electrode to ninety-six percent by mass of the first cathode electrode.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the composition of the cathode of modified Schmidt et al. to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US Pub No. 2008/0020279) in view of Park (US Pub No. 2021/0143501) in further view of Dong (US Pub No. 2022/0393226)
Regarding Claim 9-10, within the combination above, modified Schmidt et al. is silent on wherein the second cathode electrode includes lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide, Li1.0sNio.33Mno.33C 00.3302 (NMC111), wherein the lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide is present in a range from one percent by mass of the second cathode electrode to ninety-six percent by mass of the second cathode electrode;
wherein the second cathode electrode further includes lithium iron phosphate, wherein the lithium iron phosphate is present in range from one percent by mass of the second cathode electrode to ninety-six percent by mass of the second cathode electrode; and
wherein the second cathode electrode further includes lithium manganese oxide, wherein the lithium manganese oxide is present in a range from one percent by mass of the second cathode electrode to ninety-six percent by mass of the second cathode electrode.
Dong et al. teaches a cathode made of NMC111, LMO and LIP [0168].
Since modified Schmidt et al. teaches the cathode the first cathode can comprise NCM (e.g., NCM-111, NCM-523, NCM-622, NCM-811, etc.) lithium cobalt oxide (LCO), lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (NCA), lithium manganese spinel (LMO), lithium iron phosphate (LFP), or lithium nickel manganese spinel (LNMO) [0032], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the cathode material of Dong et al. for the second cathode electrode coating of modified Schmidt et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional cathode material for batteries in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US Pub No. 2008/0020279) In view of Park (US Pub No. 2021/0143501) as applied above in addressing 1, in further view of Kong (US Pub No. 2021/0151260) and Dong (US Pub No. 2022/0393226)
Regarding Claim 11, within the combination above, modified Schmidt et al. is silent on wherein the first cathode electrode includes: lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide, (NMC811); and lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide, (NMC622); and
wherein the second cathode electrode includes: lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide, (NMC111); lithium iron phosphate; and lithium manganese oxide.
Kong et al. teaches a cathode made of NMC622 and NMC811 [0134] for a battery [abstract].
Since modified Schmidt et al. teaches the cathode the first cathode can comprise NCM (e.g., NCM-111, NCM-523, NCM-622, NCM-811, etc.) lithium cobalt oxide (LCO), lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (NCA), lithium manganese spinel (LMO), lithium iron phosphate (LFP), or lithium nickel manganese spinel (LNMO) [0032], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the cathode material of Kong et al. to the first cathode electrode coating of modified Schmidt et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional cathode material for batteries in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Dong et al. teaches a cathode made of NMC111, LMO and LIP [0168].
Since modified Schmidt et al. teaches the cathode the first cathode can comprise NCM (e.g., NCM-111, NCM-523, NCM-622, NCM-811, etc.) lithium cobalt oxide (LCO), lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (NCA), lithium manganese spinel (LMO), lithium iron phosphate (LFP), or lithium nickel manganese spinel (LNMO) [0032],it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the cathode material of Dong et al. to the second cathode electrode coating of modified Schmidt et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional cathode material for batteries in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US Pub No. 2008/0020279) In view of Park (US Pub No. 2021/0143501) as applied above in addressing claim 12, in further view of Burkhardt (US Pub No. 2017/0250445)
Regarding Claim 18, within the combination above, modified Park et al. teaches wherein the battery cell is configured as a pouch cell [0076]; and silent on wherein the cathode current collector includes a conductive metal foil.
Burkhardt et al. teaches a current collector for a cathode with comprises an aluminum foil [0161].
Since modified Schmidt et al. teaches the use of a current collector, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the current collector of modified Schmidt et al. with the aluminum foil of Burkhardt et al. as it is merely the selection of conventional current collector cathode materials in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US Pub No. 2008/0020279) in view of Park (US Pub No. 2021/0143501) and Burkhardt (US Pub No. 2017/0250445 )
Regarding Claim 19, Schmidt et al. teaches a method [0094] for forming a cathode with a composite nickel structure for use in a battery cell [Fig. 9-10, 0062-0063], the cathode comprising: a current collector [622, Fig. 10, 0063] surrounded by an active material 624 (first and second cathode electrode coating) on both sides of the current collector [Fig. 10, 0063]. The active can be made of a material with or without nickel [0046]. However, Schmidt et al does not explicitly teach a specific material for the two active layer material 624.
Park et al. teaches a method [0078] for forming a cathode with a composite nickel structure for use in a battery cell [Fig 3, 0031-0032], the cathode comprising:
a current collector [See 122 in figure 1, 0024 and see annotated figure 3 for the current collector] including a first side and a second side [Fig. 3, 0031]
a first cathode electrode [314, Fig. 3, 0032, NCA] coating the first side of the current collector [see annotated figure], wherein the first cathode electrode includes a first concentration of nickel; and
a second cathode electrode [312, Fig. 3, 0032, LCO] coating the second side of the current collector, wherein the second cathode electrode includes nickel-free material.
Since Schmidt et al. is open to a variety of material for the active layer material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to replace the two active layer materials on the cathode of Schmidt et al. with the cathode active layer material of Park et al. such as the NCA and LCO of Park et al. as it is merely the selection of conventional cathode active layer materials in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Modified Schmidt et al. is silent on drying the first and second cathode electrode material to the cathode current collector; and calendaring the first cathode electrode material, second cathode electrode material, and the cathode current collector.
Burkhardt et al. teaches a method involving the coating and calendaring of a cathode electrode, where the electrode is dried [0304].
Since modified Schmidt et al. teaches the formation of a cathode for a battery, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the cathode of modified Schmidt et al. by the method of Burkhardt et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional method for forming cathodes in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US Pub No. 2008/0020279) in view of Park (US Pub No. 2021/0143501) and Burkhardt (US Pub No. 20170250445A1) as applied above in addressing claim 19, in further view of Kong (US Pub No. 2021/0151260) and Dong (US Pub No. 2022/0393226)
Regarding Claim 20, within the combination above, modified Park et al. teaches wherein the second cathode electrode material is applied to the second side of the cathode current collector after drying and calendaring the first cathode electrode material [Burkhardt: 0304] is silent on wherein the first cathode electrode material includes: lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide, (NMC811); and lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide, (NMC622); and
wherein the second cathode electrode material includes: lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide, (NMC111); lithium iron phosphate; and lithium manganese oxide.
Kong et al. teaches a cathode made of NMC622 and NMC811 [0134] for a battery [abstract].
Since modified Schmidt et al. teaches the cathode where the first cathode can comprise NCM (e.g., NCM-111, NCM-523, NCM-622, NCM-811, etc.) lithium cobalt oxide (LCO), lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (NCA), lithium manganese spinel (LMO), lithium iron phosphate (LFP), or lithium nickel manganese spinel (LNMO) [0032],it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the cathode material of Kong et al. to the first cathode electrode coating of modified Schmidt et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional cathode material for batteries in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Dong et al. teaches a cathode made of NMC111, LMO and LIP [0168].
Since Park et al. teaches the cathode the first cathode can comprise NCM (e.g., NCM-111, NCM-523, NCM-622, NCM-811, etc.) lithium cobalt oxide (LCO), lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (NCA), lithium manganese spinel (LMO), lithium iron phosphate (LFP), or lithium nickel manganese spinel (LNMO) [0032],it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the cathode material of Dong et al. to the second cathode electrode coating of modified Schmidt et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional cathode material for batteries in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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, MATTHEW MARTIN can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728