DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the March 26th, 2026 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”). The
text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior
Office 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received on March 26th, 2026:
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are pending in the current application. Claims 1 and 6 are amended.
Claim 1 is amended to specify that the tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide modified by a nitrogen-doped carbonaceous material is prepared from a nickel manganese oxide precursor having a formula Ni0.5Mn1.5O4.
Claim 6 is amended to specify that the nickel manganese oxide precursor has a formula Ni0.5Mn1.5O4.
Applicant’s amendment finds support in the disclosure including [0037] of the originally filed specification. No new matter has been added.
The new grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as described below:
Claims 1, 2, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 111916726 A) in view of Niwata et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180331362 A1). The rejections are maintained.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 111916726 A) in view of Niwata et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180331362 A1), and further in view of Kong et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 20160023147 A). The rejection is maintained.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 111916726 A) in view of Niwata et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180331362 A1), and further in view of Park et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 3312914 A1). The rejection is maintained.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 111916726 A) in view of Niwata et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180331362 A1), and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180013129 A1). The rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendment to Claim 6.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 111916726 A) in view of Niwata et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180331362 A1) and Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180013129 A1) as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of Ali et al. (Supercritical CO2-assisted synthesis of Lithium-rich layered metal oxide material for Lithium-ion batteries, 2022, ScienceDirect, Vol. 383, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssi.2022.115991). The rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendment to Claim 6.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 111916726 A) in view of Niwata et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180331362 A1), Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180013129 A1) , and Ali et al. (Supercritical CO2-assisted synthesis of Lithium-rich layered metal oxide material for Lithium-ion batteries, 2022, ScienceDirect, Vol. 383, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssi.2022.115991) as applied to Claim 7 above, and further in view of Seymour et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140113200 A1). The rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendment to Claim 6.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 111916726 A) in view of Niwata et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180331362 A1) and Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180013129 A1) as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of Hongyu et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 102723481 A). The rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendment to Claim 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed March 26th, 2026 have been fully considered but are deemed unpersuasive as further described below:
Regarding Claim 1, applicant argues that Niwata teaches that M1 of the formula representing the lithium composite oxide for a positive electrode active material may be tungsten, but does not provide a specific example of a lithium composite oxide comprising tungsten (see pg. 8 of the “Remarks”).
“Objective evidence which must be factually supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration to be of probative value includes evidence of unexpected results … See, for example, In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984)” (see MPEP 716.01(c)).
"The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)" (see MPEP 2144.07).
Niwata is not required to teach a specific example of tungsten to support a case of obviousness absent objective evidence of nonobviousness. The scope of Niwata’s invention and the disclosed formula LiaMn(1-b-c)NibM1cO2-dFe representing the lithium composite oxide encompass a case where M1 is tungsten and a ratio of a sum of molar numbers of nickel and manganese to a molar number of tungsten is 1:0.5; further, Niwata provides a finite list of suitable compounds that can represent element M1 in which it would be obvious to select any compound from said list. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive.
Further, applicant argues that it would be nonobvious to choose a nickel manganese oxide precursor of Ni0.5Mn1.5O4 when preparing the electrode material as Niwata teaches a 1:1 ratio of Ni to Mn (see pg. 9 of the “Remarks”). However, Claim 1 specifies a ratio of a sum of molar numbers of nickel and manganese to a molar number of tungsten of 1:0.5 in the tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide, rather than in a nickel manganese oxide precursor as applicant suggests; therefore, applicant’s arguments are not in commensurate with the scope of the claims. Further, the amended claim language, “the tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide modified by a nitrogen-doped carbonaceous material is prepared from a nickel manganese oxide precursor having a formula Ni0.5Mn1.5O4,” is deemed a product-by process limitation:
“‘[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.’ In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)” (see MPEP 2113(I)).
Primary reference Chen et al. teaches a positive electrode material for a lithium battery (para. 37) comprising a nickel-manganese binary positive electrode material including (modified by) a nitrogen doped carbon coating layer (carbonaceous material) (para. 59, 121); and the nickel-manganese binary positive electrode material of Chen et al. is modified by Niwata to include a tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide wherein a ratio of a sum of molar numbers of nickel and manganese to a molar number of tungsten is 1:0.5 ([0076]-[0077]). Therefore, the method of forming the tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide modified by the nitrogen doped carbon coating layer (carbonaceous material) is not given patentable weight as the claimed product is taught or suggested by the prior art. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant presents arguments to Claim 6 in which are based on the claim as amended (see pg. 9 of the “Remarks”). Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 6 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds 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.
The new grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Cited Prior Art
Previously Cited Chen et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 111916726 A) ("Chen et al.")
Previously Cited Hongyu et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 102723481 A) (“Hongyu et al.”)
Previously Cited Kong et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 20160023147 A) (“Kong et al.”)
Previously Cited Park et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 3312914 A1) (“Park et al.”)
Previously Cited Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180013129 A1) (“Lee et al.”)
Previously Cited Ali et al. (Supercritical CO2-assisted synthesis of Lithium-rich layered metal oxide material for Lithium-ion batteries, 2022, ScienceDirect, Vol. 383, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssi.2022.115991) (“Ali et al.”)
Previously Cited Seymour et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140113200 A1) (“Seymour et al.”)
Previously Cited Niwata et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180331362 A1) (“Niwata et al.”)
Wang et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 106025199 A) (“Wang et al.”)
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 111916726 A) in view of Niwata et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180331362 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen et al. teaches a high-nickel cobalt free positive electrode material for a lithium battery (para. 37) comprising a nickel-manganese binary positive electrode material including (modified by) a nitrogen doped carbon coating layer (carbonaceous material) (para. 59, 121).
Chen et al. does not teach that the nickel-manganese binary positive electrode material is a tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide. Further, Chen et al. does not teach that a ratio of a sum of molar numbers of nickel and manganese to a molar number of tungsten is 1:0.5 in the tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide.
Niwata et al. teaches a lithium composite oxide for a positive electrode active material comprising LiaMn(1-b-c)NibM1cO2-dFe wherein M1 can include tungsten and 0.8≤a≤1.2, 0<b<0.5, 0≤c≤0.5, (b+c)<1, −0.1≤d≤0.2, and 0≤e≤0.1 (Formula (11), [0076]-[0077]). Therefore, said formula and subscript limits (moles) encompass a case in which a molar ratio of Mn:Ni:M1(tungsten) represented by (1-b-c):b:c is (1/3):(1/3):(1/3) in which is equal to a 1:1:1 ratio, where a molar ratio of a sum of nickel and manganese to tungsten is (2/3):(1/3) in which is equivalent to 1:0.5 (para. 77). Niwata et al. teaches that a high energy density can be obtained by utilizing said lithium composite oxide (para. 72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nickel-manganese binary positive electrode material of Chen et al. to include a tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide represented by LiaMn(1-b-c)NibM1cO2-dFe wherein M1 can include tungsten and 0.8≤a≤1.2, 0<b<0.5, 0≤c≤0.5, (b+c)<1, −0.1≤d≤0.2, and 0≤e≤0.1 ) encompassing a case in which a molar ratio of Mn+Ni:M1(tungsten) is 1:0.5 (2/3:1/3) as taught by Niwata et al. “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)” (see MPEP 2145.05(I)). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide an alternative positive electrode material in which provides high energy density as described above.
The claim language, “the tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide modified by a nitrogen-doped carbonaceous material is prepared from a nickel manganese oxide precursor having a formula Ni0.5Mn1.5O4,” is deemed a product-by process limitation (see MPEP 2113(I)). Therefore, the method of forming the tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide modified by the nitrogen doped carbon coating layer (carbonaceous material) is not given patentable weight as the claimed product is taught or suggested by the prior art (Chen et al. as modified by Niwata et al. as described above).
Regarding Claim 2, Chen et al. is modified by Niwata et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Chen et al. teaches the ratio of the nitrogen-doped carbonaceous material to the nickel-manganese binary positive electrode material (modified by Niwata et al. to include tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide) of 1-10%:80-98%, within and overlapping the claimed range of 1:9 to 1:2. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See 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, I). As Chen et al. is modified by Niwata et al. to include a tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide as the nickel-manganese binary positive electrode material, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the weight ratio of the nitrogen-doped carbonaceous material to the nickel-manganese binary positive electrode material as described by Chen et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the ratio of Chen et al. to provide an electrode active material in which effectively solves a problem of poor rate performance of cobalt-free cathode materials (Chen et al., para. 19).
Regarding Claim 10, Chen et al. is modified by Niwata et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Chen et al. further teaches a lithium battery comprising the positive electrode material (para. 37). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the teachings of Chen et al. to provide an electrode active material in which effectively solves a problem of poor rate performance of cobalt-free cathode materials (Chen et al., para. 19).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 111916726 A) in view of Niwata et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180331362 A1), and further in view of Kong et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 20160023147 A).
Regarding Claim 3, Chen et al. is modified by Niwata et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1 above, the nickel-manganese binary positive electrode material is modified by Niwata et al. to include tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide.
Chen et al. does not teach an average particle size of 1 μm to 100 μm of the tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide modified by the nitrogen-doped carbonaceous material.
Kong et al. teaches a positive electrode active material comprising W (tungsten)-doped lithium nickel manganese oxide with an average particle diameter (size) of 8 μm (para. 110), within the claimed range of 1 μm to 100 μm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode material of Chen et al. (as modified by Niwata et al. above to include a tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide modified by the nitrogen-doped carbonaceous material) to further include an average particle size of 8 μm as taught by Kong et al, within the claimed range of 1 μm to 100 μm. As Chen et al. is silent to the particle size, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to existing prior art to determine suitable particle sizes for a positive electrode material for a lithium battery. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification as taught by Kong et al. to provide a cathode active material in which improves the output characteristics of the battery (Kong et al., para. 29).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 111916726 A) in view of Niwata et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180331362 A1), and further in view of Park et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 3312914 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Chen et al. is modified by Niwata et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Chen et al. does not teach a ratio of a sum of molar numbers of nickel and manganese to a molar number of lithium is 1:1 to 1:4 in the tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide modified by the nitrogen-doped carbonaceous material.
Park et al teaches a lithium transition metal oxide such as LiNi1-YMnYO2 (here, 0<Y<1) in which can be doped with tungsten (para. 83-84) forming a tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide in which the molar ratio of a sum of molar numbers of nickel and manganese to a molar number of lithium is 1:1 (when Y is any number from 0 to 1, the ratio remains true), within the claimed range of 1:1 to 1:4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode material of Chen et al. (as modified by Niwata et al. above to include a tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide modified by the nitrogen-doped carbonaceous material) to further include a molar ratio of a sum of molar numbers of nickel and manganese to a molar number of lithium as 1:1 as taught by Park et al., meeting the claim limitations of 1:1 to 1:4. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide an alternate positive electrode active material layer in which is capable of reversible intercalation and deintercalation of lithium (Park et al., para. 83).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 111916726 A) in view of Niwata et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180331362 A1) and Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180013129 A1), and further in view of Wang et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 106025199 A)
Regarding Claim 6, Chen et al. teaches a high-nickel cobalt free positive electrode material for a lithium battery (para. 37) comprising a nickel-manganese binary positive electrode material including (modified by) a nitrogen doped carbon coating layer (carbonaceous material) (para. 59, 121). Chen et al. teaches preparing the nickel-manganese precursor prior to modifying with the nitrogen doped carbon coting layer (para. 17).
Chen et al. does not teach the nickel-manganese binary positive electrode material as a tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide. Further, Chen et al. does not teach a ratio of a sum of molar numbers of nickel and manganese to a molar number of tungsten as 1:0.5 in the tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide modified by the nitrogen-doped carbonaceous material.
Niwata et al. teaches a lithium composite oxide for a positive electrode active material comprising LiaMn(1-b-c)NibM1cO2-dFe wherein M1 can include tungsten and 0.8≤a≤1.2, 0<b<0.5, 0≤c≤0.5, (b+c)<1, −0.1≤d≤0.2, and 0≤e≤0.1 (Formula (11), [0076]-[0077]). Therefore, said formula and subscript limits (molar number) encompass a case in which a molar ratio of Mn:Ni:M1(tungsten) represented by (1-b-c):b:c is (1/3):(1/3):(1/3) in which is equal to a 1:1:1 ratio, where a molar ratio of a sum of nickel and manganese to tungsten is (2/3):(1/3) in which is equivalent to 1:0.5 (para. 77). Niwata et al. teaches that a high energy density can be obtained by utilizing said lithium composite oxide (para. 72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nickel-manganese binary positive electrode material of Chen et al. to include a tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide represented by LiaMn(1-b-c)NibM1cO2-dFe wherein M1 can include tungsten and 0.8≤a≤1.2, 0<b<0.5, 0≤c≤0.5, (b+c)<1, −0.1≤d≤0.2, and 0≤e≤0.1 encompassing a case in which a molar ratio of Mn+Ni:M1(tungsten) is 1:0.5 (2/3:1/3) as taught by Niwata et al. (see MPEP 2145.05(I)). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide an alternative positive electrode material in which provides high energy density as described above.
Chen et al. does not teach a method for preparing the positive electrode material comprising:
a) preparing a nickel manganese oxide precursor from nickel source and manganese source by a coprecipitation method;
b) preparing a tungsten lithium nickel manganese oxide precursor from tungsten source, lithium source and the nickel manganese oxide precursor by the coprecipitation method;
c) preparing tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide by sintering the tungsten lithium nickel manganese oxide precursor at high temperature;
d) modifying the tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide with a nitrogen-doped carbonaceous material.
Lee et al teaches a method for preparing a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery comprising preparing a nickel raw material (nickel source) and a manganese raw material (manganese source) by a coprecipitation reaction (method) forming a nickel manganese oxide precursor (para. 9, 174-175) (analogous to step (a)). The nickel manganese oxide precursor obtained by the coprecipitation method is mixed with tungsten oxide (tungsten source) and a lithium raw material (lithium source)(Example 3) (para. 182) to form a tungsten lithium nickel manganese oxide precursor (analogous to step (b)). The tungsten lithium nickel manganese oxide precursor is heat-treated at high temperature (preparing step) forming a tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide (para 182), analogous to a sintering step (para. 42) (analogous to step (c)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode material of Chen et al. to include the steps of forming the positive electrode active material as taught by Lee et al. in which include a) preparing a nickel manganese oxide precursor from nickel source and manganese source by a coprecipitation method; b) preparing a tungsten lithium nickel manganese oxide precursor from tungsten source, lithium source and the nickel manganese oxide precursor by the coprecipitation method; and c) preparing tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide by sintering the tungsten lithium nickel manganese oxide precursor at high temperature. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification as taught by Lee et al. to provide a positive electrode active material according to the present invention in which is suitable for batteries requiring high capacity, long lifetime, and thermal stability (Lee et al., para. 14).
When performing the described modification, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide (as modified by Niwata et al.) with the nitrogen-doped carbonaceous material (as taught by Chen et al.) after preparing the tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide as taught by Park et al. as Chen et al. teaches preparing the nickel-manganese precursor prior to modifying with the nitrogen doped carbon coting layer (step d) (para. 17).
Chen et al. does not teach the nickel manganese oxide precursor having a formula Ni0.5Mn1.5O4.
Wang et al. teaches a method for preparing a positive electrode material for a lithium battery (para. 3). The method comprises preparing a nickel manganese oxide precursor having a formula Ni0.5Mn1.5O4 (para. 76-80 teaches preparing a nickel-manganese precursor Ni0.5Mn1.5(OH)4 from a nickel source and manganese source in which is dried, sintered, and heated to form a nickel manganese oxide precursor Ni0.5Mn1.5O4 in which is mixed with lithium hydroxide and subjected to further processing to obtain the cathode material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the nickel manganese oxide precursor of Chen et al. to have a formula Ni0.5Mn1.5O4 as taught by Wang et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide a suitable precursor to use in a method for preparing a lithium nickel manganese oxide with excellent performance by controlling the preparation process parameters; and allows for further coating of the cathode with a suitable material (para. 31). "Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.)."
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 111916726 A) in view of Niwata et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180331362 A1), Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180013129 A1), and Wang et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 106025199 A) as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of Ali et al. (Supercritical CO2-assisted synthesis of Lithium-rich layered metal oxide material for Lithium-ion batteries, 2022, ScienceDirect, Vol. 383, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssi.2022.115991).
Regarding Claim 7, Chen et al. is modified by Niwata et al., Lee et al., and Wang et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 6 above. As applied to Claim 6 above, the positive electrode material of Chen et al. is modified by Niwata et al. above to include a tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide in which is modified by the nitrogen-doped carbonaceous material as taught by Chen et al. Further Chen et al. teaches the nickel-manganese binary cathode material (a tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide as modified by Niwata et al.) and nitrogen-carbon containing compound ZiF8 were mixed uniformly (para. 129) analogous to step (1). Chen et al. further teaches calcining at a temperature of 700°C, within the claimed range of 400~800°C in a nitrogen (inert) atmosphere to obtain the high-nickel cobalt free cathode material coated with nitrogen-doped graphite carbon (para. 3) (analogous to step (3).
Chen et al. does not teach dispersing in a solvent to prepare a reaction solution; or 2) preparing an intermediate product by subjecting the reaction solution to a temperature of 40 to 80 °C and a pressure of 1000 to 1500 psi under an atmosphere of carbon dioxide.
Ali et al. teaches a supercritical CO2 process for synthesis of lithium manganese nickel oxide cathode materials in which involve adding a precursor to a solvent and transferring to a reactor (forming a reaction solution) and subjecting the mixture (reaction solution) to a temperature of 80°C and a pressure of 77 bar (~1117 psi) under an atmosphere of carbon dioxide prior to calcining (Ali et al., §2.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode material of Chen et al. (as modified by Niwata et al. above to include a tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide modified by the nitrogen-doped carbonaceous material) to further include dispersing a precursor ( as formed in step(1) of Chen et al.) in a solvent forming a reaction solution and subjecting the mixture (reaction solution) to a temperature of 80°C (meeting the limitations of the claimed range of 40 to 80 °C) and a pressure of 77 bar (~1117 psi) (within the claimed range of 1000 to 1500 psi) under an atmosphere of carbon dioxide prior to calcining as taught by Ali et al. When performing the described modification, it would have been obvious to performing the described step as a second step using the precursor formed in step (1) of Chen et al. as Ali et al. teaches performing the steps prior to calcining (step (3)). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide a supercritical CO2-assisted material in which has higher discharge capacities and capacity retention at high C-rates indicating an improvement in the rate performance (Ali et al., §3.2).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 111916726 A) in view of Niwata et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180331362 A1), Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180013129 A1), Wang et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 106025199 A), and Ali et al. (Supercritical CO2-assisted synthesis of Lithium-rich layered metal oxide material for Lithium-ion batteries, 2022, ScienceDirect, Vol. 383, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssi.2022.115991) as applied to Claim 7 above, and further in view of Seymour et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140113200 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Chen et al. is modified by Niwata et al., Lee et al., Wang et al., and Ali et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 7 above.
Chen et al. does not teach the nitrogen-containing compound comprising one or more of pyrrole, phenylpyrrole, pyridine, graphite carbon nitride, ethylenediamine, propylenediamine, benzenediamine, melamine and aniline.
Seymour teaches melamine (nitrogen containing compound) as a source of carbon in which can provide dopant nitrogen for a carbon electrode material (para. 93).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode material of Chen et al. to further include melamine as the nitrogen-containing compound as taught by Seymour. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide dopant nitrogen to increase electron conduction and induce pseudocapacitive functionality of an electrode material (Seymour, para. 94).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 111916726 A) in view of Niwata et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180331362 A1), Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180013129 A1), and Wang et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 106025199 A) as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of Hongyu et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 102723481 A).
Regarding Claim 9, Chen et al. is modified by Niwata et al., Lee et al., and Wang et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 6 above. As applied to Claim 6 above, the positive electrode material of Chen et al. is modified to include the tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide as taught by Niwata et al. as the nickel-manganese binary positive electrode material in which is modified by the nitrogen doped carbon coating material layer as taught by Chen et al.
Chen et al. does not teach the tungsten source comprising ammonium metatungstate, tungsten hexachloride, sodium tungstate, ammonium tungstate, tungsten disulfide or a mixture thereof.
Hongyu et al. teaches a positive electrode material for a lithium battery comprising a tungsten-doped lithium nickel manganese oxide (para. 1, 13). Hongyu et al. further teaches the tungsten source as tungsten hexachloride (para. 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode material of Chen et al. (as modified by Niwata et al. above to include a tungsten-containing lithium nickel manganese oxide modified by the nitrogen-doped carbonaceous material) to further include the tungsten source as tungsten hexachloride. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification as taught by Hongyu et al. to provide an alternative positive electrode material in which improves charge-discharge cycle performance (Hongyu et al., para. 23).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, ULA RUDDOCK can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729