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 .
This action is in response to applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 11/18/2025. Claims 1-6 are currently pending for examination on the merits.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2023/0361278) (Kim) (of record) in view of Lee (US 2020/0083525) and Cheng et al. (US 2023/0121840) (Cheng) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a lithium secondary battery (title; [0020]; [0046]; [0078]) comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an electrolytic solution ([0020]; [0076]; [0098]-[0099]), the positive electrode including an interlayer (lower layer) and a positive electrode mixture layer (upper layer) sequentially stacked on a positive electrode current collector ([0010]; [0048]-[0049]), the interlayer (lower layer) including a pre-doping agent (sacrificial positive electrode material), a conductive aid, and a binder ([0049]). Kim fails to disclose, however, that the pre-doping agent (sacrificial positive electrode material) is Li6MnO4 and has a surface coated with the conductive aid. Instead, Kim discloses that the pre-doping agent (sacrificial positive electrode material) includes the metal oxide Li6CoO4 ([0012]; [0058]-[0060]), and that the pre-doping agent (sacrificial positive electrode material) is designed to provide lithium that may be used for a lithium demand caused by an irreversible electrochemical reaction at the negative electrode upon initial charge ([0057]).
However, Li6MnO4 and Li6CoO4 are known alternatives in the art for use as a sacrificial positive electrode material in batteries. For instance, Lee teaches a similar lithium secondary battery (title) comprising a positive electrode (cathode) with a pre-doping agent (irreversible compensating additive) designed to supply lithium ions to the negative electrode (anode) upon initial charge ([0016]; [0038]; [0056]-[0058]). Lee further teaches that the pre-doping agent (irreversible compensating additive) may be Li6CoO4 or Li6MnO4 because both of these materials lead to the above lithium supplying effect ([0017]; [0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the Li6CoO4 pre-doping agent disclosed by Kim with Li6MnO4, as suggested by Lee, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would lead to predictable results with respect to supplying lithium to the negative electrode upon initial charging of the battery.
Furthermore, it is known in the art to coat pre-doping agents with a conductive aid. For instance, Cheng teaches a similar lithium battery in which the positive electrode includes a metal oxide pre-doping agent (lithium-rich oxide) (abstract). Cheng further teaches that a surface of the pre-doping agent (lithium-rich oxide) is preferably coated with a conductive aid (acetylene black) in order to improve the stability and conductivity of the pre-doping agent (lithium-rich oxide) ([0006]; [0010]; [0018]; [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have coated the metal oxide pre-doping agent disclosed by modified Kim with an acetylene black conductive aid, as taught by Cheng, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would improve the stability and conductivity of the pre-doping agent. Thus, modified Kim satisfies all of the limitations in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Kim further discloses that the negative electrode includes a negative electrode mixture layer formed on a negative electrode current collector (Kim: [0079]). Therefore, since the limitations in claim 2 are set in the alternative, modified Kim suggests all of the limitations in claim 2 by satisfying one of the alternative limitations.
Regarding claim 4, modified Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Kim further discloses that the interlayer (lower layer) includes the conductive aid in an amount of 0.4 to 1.5 wt % based on 100 wt % of the interlayer (lower layer) (Kim: [0065]) and the pre-doping agent (sacrificial positive electrode material) in an amount of 1 to 20 wt % based on 100 wt % of the interlayer (lower layer) (Kim: [0061]). Thus, modified Kim necessarily discloses that a ratio of the mass of the conductive aid with respect to the total mass of the pre-doping agent (sacrificial positive electrode material) and the conductive aid in the interlayer (lower layer) is between 0.02 (0.4/(20+0.4)) and 0.6 (1.5/(1+1.5)), overlapping the claimed range of 0.01 or more and 0.10 or less. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Kim to have satisfied the claimed range based on the overlapping range disclosed by Kim.
Regarding claim 5, modified Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Kim further discloses that the pre-doping agent (sacrificial positive electrode material) has a median size (D50) of 10 to 25 µm (Kim: [0062]), overlapping the claimed range of 10 µm or less. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Kim to have satisfied the claimed range based on the overlapping range disclosed by Kim.
Regarding claim 6, modified Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Examiner notes that in each of the exemplary embodiments of the instant application, each of the pre-doping agents having an initial irreversible capacity of 50% or more and an initial charging capacity of 300 mAh/g or more are lithium metal oxides, have a median size (D50) of 10 µm or less, and are coated with a conductive aid (acetylene black) (see Table 1 of the instant application). Modified Kim discloses that the pre-doping agent (sacrificial cathode material) is a lithium metal oxide (Kim: [0058]; Lee: [0017]; [0063]) and has a median size (D50) of 10 to 25 µm (Kim: [0062]), overlapping the range of 10 µm or less. Furthermore, modified Kim includes the teachings from Cheng that the metal oxide pre-doping agent is coated with acetylene black (Cheng: [0006]; [0010]; [0018]; [0035]). If the composition and structure of the prior art are substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112.01). Therefore, since the pre-doping agent disclosed by modified Kim has substantially the same composition and structure as that of the claims, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the pre-doping agent of modified Kim to inherently meet the claimed initial irreversible capacity and the claimed initial charging capacity in claim 6. Thus, modified Kim satisfies all of the limitations in claim 6.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2023/0361278) (Kim) (of record) in view of Lee (US 2020/0083525) and Cheng et al. (US 2023/0121840) (Cheng) (of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arai et al. (US 2024/0250306) (Arai) (of record).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Kim further discloses that the interlayer (lower layer) can have a thickness equal to 50% of the total thickness of the positive electrode active material layer (Kim: [0103]; see also [0066]). Kim fails to explicitly disclose, however, that the interlayer (lower layer) has a thickness of 1 µm or more and 20 µm or less.
However, general thicknesses of positive electrode active material layers are known in the art. For instance, Arai teaches a similar lithium secondary battery (title), wherein a positive electrode active material layer (120) can have a thickness between 20 µm and 100 µm depending on the desired capacity of the battery ([0144]; see Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the total thickness of the positive electrode active material layer disclosed by modified Kim to be between 20 µm and 100 µm, as taught by Arai, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would lead to a desired capacity for the battery.
Thus, given the above range for the total thickness of the positive electrode active material layer, modified Kim necessarily discloses that the interlayer (lower layer) has a thickness of between 10 µm (20*0.5) and 50 µm (100*0.5), overlapping the claimed range of 1 µm or more and 20 µm or less. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Kim to have satisfied the claimed range based on the overlapping range disclosed by modified Kim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 11/18/2025, with respect to the rejection of amended independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Kim have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kim, Lee, and Cheng.
As such, claims 1-6 stand rejected.
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 BRENDON C DARBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at (571) 270-5545. 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.
/B.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749