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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made to applicant’s amendment of claims 1 and 3 filed on 06/11/2026. Claims 2 has been canceled. Accordingly, claims 1 and 3-12 remain pending and are claims addressed and examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that the prior art of does not teach a high nickel content, the prior art of record still meets applicant’s requirement of Formula 1 which defines the high nickel content of the active material. Amended claim 1 claims that the content of nickel is between 0.7-1. In the example taught by Wang, the nickel content is 1 which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.7-1 that defines the high-nickel content. Applicant has not argued or presented any unpredictable results, thus the prior art still renders the invention obvious.
With regards to applicant’s argument that the amendments to claim 1 better highlight the technical synergy between the specific High-Ni active material composition and the ZIF-8/MOF-177 MOF (see response pg. 7), the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which flows naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 20200185788 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 20170279109 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Xu teaches a positive electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery (¶ 0096), comprising: a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode active material layer on one surface or two opposing surfaces of the positive electrode current collector (¶ 0072). In ¶ 0030, Xu also teaches a positive electrode active material that is a nickel-based oxide. Xu goes on to teach that the positive electrode active material layer comprises: a metal organic framework (MOF) of HKUST-1 (¶ 0074, ¶ 0079 - ¶ 0080). Xu does not teach that a metal organic framework of ZIF-8, MOF-177, or a combination thereof.
In a similar field of endeavor, Wang teaches lithium metal oxide composites suitable for use as electrode materials such as a cathode in lithium-ion batteries (¶ 0038). Wang teaches that such composite may be prepared from metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) (¶ 0039). Similar to Xu, Wang teaches that the MOF may be HKUST-1 (¶ 0061). Wang goes on to teach MOF-177 and ZIF- 8 as other examples the MOF may be selected from (¶ 0061). Wang also teaches that any combination of the MOFs may be used (¶ 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the rt, at the time the invention was effectively filed to substitute the HKUST-1 MOF taught by Xu with an MOF such as ZIF- 8 taught by Wang as there are no unpredictable results. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Xu teaches that the positive electrode active material that is the nickel-based oxide comprises a lithium composite oxide represented by Chemical Formula 1: Chemical Formula 1 LiaNixM1yM2zO2+b wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, 0.9≤a≤1.3, 0.7≤x≤1, 0≤y≤0.3, 0≤z≤0.1, -0.1≤b≤0.1, M1 is at least one element selected from Co, Mn, or Al, and M2 is at least one element selected from Al, B, Ce, Co, Cr, F, Mg, Mn, Mo, Nb, P, S, Ti, V, W, or Zr (¶ 0030). However, Xu does not teach that x+y+z=1.
As mentioned earlier, Wang teaches lithium metal oxide composites suitable for use as cathode materials (¶ 0038). Similar to Xu, Wang teaches that the composite may include nickel, cobalt and manganese (¶ 0048). In ¶ 0048, Wang teaches LiNiO2 as an example of such lithium metal oxide. In this example, a = 1, x = 1, y = 0, z = 0 and b = 0 making x+y+z=1. This falls within the range of the claimed invention. 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to try a material such as LiNiO2 as taught by Wang as this is within the range taught by modified Xu and will therefore predictably yield a suitable material for a cathode.
With regards to claim 3, Xu in view of wang teaches the positive electrode of claim 1. Xu teaches the positive electrode wherein: the positive electrode active material that is the nickel-based oxide includes an NCM-based positive electrode active material wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, M1 includes Co and Mn; M2 is at least one element selected from Al, B, Ce, Cr, F, Mg, Mo, Nb, P, S, Ti, V, W, or Zr; 0.9≤a≤1.3; 0.7≤x≤1; 0<y≤0.3, and 0≤z≤0.1, an NCA-based positive electrode active material wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, M1 includes Co and Al; M2 is at least one element selected from B, Ce, Cr, F, Mg, Mn, Mo, Nb, P, S, Ti, V, W, or Zr; 0.9≤a≤1.3; 0.7≤x≤1; 0<y≤0.3, and 0≤z≤0.1 (¶ 0030).
With regards to claim 4, Xu teaches that a content of the metal organic framework based on the total amount of the positive electrode active material layer is about 0.1 wt% to about 40 wt% (¶ 0100).
With regards to claim 5, Xu teaches that a content of the positive electrode active material based on the total amount of the positive electrode active material layer is about 55 wt% to about 98 wt% (¶ 0100).
With regards to claim 6, Xu teaches that the positive electrode active material layer further comprises a binder, a conductive material, or a combination thereof (¶ 0010).
With respect to claim 7, Xu teaches that the metal organic framework is included in an amount of about 0.05 wt% to about 40 wt%, the positive electrode active material is included in an amount of about 55 wt% to about 98 wt%, the binder is included in an amount of about 1 wt% to about 5 wt%, and the conductive material is included in an amount of about 1 wt% to about 5 wt% based on the total amount of the positive electrode active material layer (¶ 0100).
With regards to claim 9, Xu teaches that a loading amount of the positive electrode active material layer is about 1 mg/cm2 to about 80 mg/cm2 per area of one surface of the positive electrode current collector (¶ 0100).
With regards to claim 11, Xu in view of Wang teaches the lithium battery of claim 1. Xu also teaches a rechargeable lithium battery comprising the positive electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1 (¶ 0020, ¶ 0096, and claim 19).
With regards to claim 12, Xu in view of Wang teaches the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 11. Xu teaches the rechargeable lithium battery comprises an assembly in which the positive electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery; a separator; and a negative electrode are sequentially stacked (¶ 0020).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 20200185788 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 20170279109 A1) as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Suyama (US 20190089008 A1).
With regards to claim 8, Xu teaches the positive electrode of claim 1. Additionally, Xu
teaches that the electrode is calendered to a thickness of about 60 μm (¶ 0100). However, Xu does not specifically teach that a thickness of the positive electrode active material layer is about 1 μm to about 200 μm, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look to prior art.
In a similar field of endeavor, Suyama teaches a positive electrode for a secondary lithium battery. Suyama teaches the positive electrode wherein: a thickness of the positive electrode active material layer is about 1 μm to about 100 μm (¶ 0093). This is within the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to adjust the thickness of the positive electrode active material layer taught by Xu to a thickness within the range taught by Suyama; This would predictably yield an effective positive electrode.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 20200185788 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 20170279109 A1) as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Sanada (US 20130065119 A1).
With regards to claim 10, Xu teaches the positive electrode of claim 1. Xu does not teach that the positive electrode active material layer is patterned in the form of a plurality of circles, stripes, rings, or a combination thereof.
In a similar field of endeavor, Sanada teaches a positive electrode for a lithium-ion secondary battery (¶ 0011). Sanada teaches that the positive electrode active material layer is patterned in the form of a plurality of stripes (¶ 0039, ¶ 0083, ¶ 0087 and Fig. 2). In ¶ 0093, Sanada teaches that when the electrode is formed with the pattern, it is possible to achieve large capacity and excellent charge-discharge performance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the positive electrode active material taught by modified Xu to include a pattern as taught by Sanada as this would predictably improve the capacity and charge-discharge performance of the battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNSUYADOR YUSIF whose telephone number is (571)272-4531. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am - 5 pm (M-R).
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, Galen H Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/HUNSUYADOR MUGEESATU YUSIF/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights