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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claims 1 and 40; claims 1-7, 29-30, 32-33, and 35-43 are pending and considered in the present Office action.
The rejections of the claims are maintained over the prior art of record. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has narrowed the range with respect to Co from 0.025-0.325 to 0.025-0.15 and argues unexpected results. Applicant’s amendment and remarks appear to try to establish the newly cited claimed range as providing unexpected results. A successful showing of unexpected results regarding a narrower range than was originally claimed/taught would bring forth a new matter issue, as it would show that the newly claimed range is a different invention than the originally disclosed range. See MPEP 2163(I)(B). No new matter issue has been made at this time, as arguments of unexpected results are not persuasive.
Applicant argues unexpected results; Applicant’s arguments and data are not persuasive for several reasons.
PNG
media_image1.png
241
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
223
646
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A. Inconsistent Compositions
The nickel amount in the claimed general formula ranges from 0.2-0.3 (both inclusive, claim 1 included above). Applicant provides a table on page 4 of the Remarks (included above) and argues unexpected results using three properties (gas loss, specific capacity and specific energy). However, the data provided is problematic, making it difficult to determine whether the claimed range is unexpected. The table provides Example “c” which has a Ni (x) value of 0.3, a Co (y) value of 0.04, an Al (y) value of 0.05, a Li value of 1.09, and a Mn value of 0.53. However, upon calculating Li and Mn based on the equations set forth in the general formula of clam 1 (i.e., 4/3 4-(2x/3-y/3-z/3, and 2/3-x/3-2y/3-2z/3, respectfully) using a Ni (x) value of 0.3, a Co (y) value of 0.04, and an Al (z) value of 0.05, the resulting Li value is 1.10 and the Mn value is 0.51. In view of this inconsistency, it is unclear what chemical formula actually obtains a specific capacity value of 170 mAh/g and a specific energy of 603 Wh/kg. The same can be said for Example “b” which shows a Ni value of 0.25, a Co value of 0.05, an Al value of 0.05, a Li value of 1.15 and a Mn value of 0.5; upon calculating Li and Mn based on the equations set forth in the general formula using a Ni value of 0.25, a Co value of 0.05, and an Al value of 0.05, the resulting Li value is 1.133 and the Mn value is 0.5166. Again, in view of this inconsistency, it is unclear what chemical formula actually obtains the reported specific capacity (227 mAh/g) and specific energy (780 Wh/kg). In view of the foregoing, it is difficult to make a conclusion on the properties (i.e., gas loss, specific capacity, specific energy) when the resulting Mn and Li values do not follow the claimed equations.
B. Applicant’s conclusions are not based on the claimed Ni range
PNG
media_image3.png
160
632
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant state the claimed range is “Ni from 0.2 to less than 0.3” (emphasis added) and concludes unexpectedness of this narrower range. However, the claimed Ni range is 0.2 to 0.3, both inclusive; as will be explained in more detail below, applicant has not shown unexpected results (with respect to specific capacity, specific energy, and gas loss) over the entire claimed range. See e.g., MPEP 716.02(d).
C. Specific Capacity, Specific Energy, and Gas Loss
I. Confusing conclusion
In discussing Examples a-g, Applicant states:
PNG
media_image4.png
74
628
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s statement asserts Example c is OUTSIDE the claimed range (i.e., “above a Ni value of 0.3”). However, the claimed Ni range is 0.2 to 0.3, thereby making Example c, having a Ni value of 0.3, INSIDE the claimed range. Thus, applicant’s assessment Example c having specific capacity and specific energy values that “dramatically suffer” is contrary to applicant’s conclusion the claimed range shows unexpected results.
II. Gas loss data unpersuasive
PNG
media_image5.png
736
662
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Item 10 of the declaration dated 09 December 2024 (provided above) states the small triangle in the bottom corner of the ternary plot represent the claimed subject matter. Two Examples that represent the claimed range (i.e., solid white triangle and solid white diamond) are provided therein. Outside the small triangle, applicant places three data points representing compositions outside the claimed range (open circle, plus sign, star shape); in view of the foregoing, Examiner understand the gas loss data outside the small triangle represent compositions outside the claimed range. The gas loss data inside the small triangle (i.e., representing compositions inside the claimed range) ranges from 0.5 x10-4 mL/mAh/g to about 2 x10-4 mL/mAh/g. Compositions outside and immediately abutting the claimed compositions (highlighted with an oval below) result in similar gas loss values (e.g., 0.5 x10-4 mL/mAh/g to about 2 x10-4 mL/mAh/g).
PNG
media_image6.png
325
569
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Provided the compositions outside the claimed range achieves the same beneficial result as the compositions inside the claimed range (e.g., 0.5 x10-4 mL/mAh/g), the claimed composition does not appear to achieve unexpected results with respect to gas loss.
III. Specific Capacity data unpersuasive
PNG
media_image7.png
271
393
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Applicant provides a ternary plot overlayed with specific capacity data. As with the gas loss data (described under section I.), the small triangle is understood to represent the specific capacity of compositions inside the claimed range, while all other data outside the small triangle appears to represent the specific capacity of compositions outside the claimed range. The claimed compositions appear to achieves specific capacity ranging from 155-250 mAh/g. Compositions outside and immediately abutting the claimed compositions (as was highlight with an oval in the gas loss plot) appear to achieve similar specific capacity values (e.g., 155- 250 mAh/g). Provided the compositions outside the claimed range achieve the same beneficial result as the compositions inside the claimed range (e.g., 155-250 mAh/g), the claimed composition does not appear to achieve unexpected results with respect to specific capacity.
IV. Specific Energy data unpersuasive
Applicant provides a ternary plot overlayed with specific energy data (see e.g., Fig. 4 of the instant disclosure). As with the gas loss data (described under section I.), the small triangle is understood to represent specific energy of the claimed compositions, while all other data outside the small triangle is understood as representing compositions outside the claimed range. The claimed compositions appear to achieve specific energy values ranging from 400-850 Wh/kg. Compositions outside and immediately abutting the claimed compositions (as was highlighted with an oval in the gas loss plot) appear to achieve similar specific energy values (e.g., 400-850 Wh/kg). Provided the compositions outside the claimed range appear to achieves the same beneficial result as the compositions inside the claimed range (e.g., 400-850 Wh/kg), the claimed compositions do not appear to achieve unexpected results with respect to specific energy.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-7, 29, and 35-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nayak (Adv. Energy Mater. 2016, 6, 1502398), hereinafter Nayak.
Regarding Claims 1-7, 29, and 35-39, Nayak discloses an electrochemical cell comprising an electrolyte (e.g., EC-DMC/LiPF6), a negative electrode (e.g., Li metal) and a positive electrode (e.g., Al doped Li and Mn rich, see abstract and 4. Experimental Section) comprising a lithium rich manganese based layered cathode material (see abstract) wherein the material is a compound of the general formula:
PNG
media_image8.png
44
274
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(see e.g., Introduction, pages 1-2)
The positive electrode further includes electroactive additives of carbon (i.e., super P) and binder (e.g., pvdf), see 4. Experimental Section. The amount of Mn is about 0.51, the amount of Ni is 0.16, the amount of Co is 0.08, and the amount of Al is about 0.05 (se e.g., page 2), thereby making the total amount of Mn, Ni, Co, and Al equal to or less than 0.9 (i.e., about 0.51 + 0.16 + 0.08 + about 0.05 = about 0.8), as claimed. The amount of Ni is not between 0.2 and 0.3, but 0.16 is close to 0.2; the amount of Co is between 0.025 and 0.15 (i.e., 0.08), and the amount Al is between 0.025 and 0.075 (i.e., 0.05), thereby satisfying the claimed x, y, and z values, or the values of Nayak are close to those claimed. 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). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties." See MPEP 2144.05, I.
Further regarding claims 2-7, Nayak discloses Al is 0.05, thereby satisfying z in claims 4-7; Nayak’s disclosure of x + y + z of 0.29 (0.16 + 0.08 + 0.05) or 0.32 (0.16 + 0.08 + 0.08) either overlaps with that claimed or is close (i.e., 0.29 or 0.32 is close to 0.3, 0.35, and/or 0.4). Similarly, the values for x + y in Nayak is close to that claimed, i.e., 0.24 is close to 0.3 and 0.35 (relevant to claims 4-7) in claims 4. In view of the foregoing, claims 2-7 are obvious over Nayak as set forth in MPEP 2144.05, I., detailed above. Generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical, see MPEP 2144.05, II., A.
Claim(s) 2-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nayak (cited above) in view of Kim. (Solid State Ionics, Volume 164, Issues 1–2, October 2003, Pages 43-49, of record in 17 Aug IDS (22 pages)), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claims 2-7, Nayak discloses Al is 0.05, thereby satisfying claim 4-7; Nayak’s disclosure of x + y + z of 0.29 (0.16 + 0.08 + 0.05) or 0.32 (0.16 + 0.08 + 0.08) either overlaps with that claimed, or is close (i.e., an x + y + z value of 0.29 and/or 0.32 is close to 0.3, 0.35, and/or 0.4, while a Ni value of 0.16 is close to 0.2, and a Co value 0.08 is close to 0.1 and 0.15), hence obvious, see MPEP 2144.05, I. and or II. A., detailed above.
Further, Kim suggests adjusting the amount of Co and Ni (e.g., Ni is 0.3, Co is 0.1), thereby resulting in higher discharge capacities compared to no cobalt (i.e., Co is 0) or higher levels of cobalt (i.e., Co of 0.3 lead to capacity fading), and decreased resistance during cycling (see e.g., pages 46 and 48). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the values of Ni and Co modified with the expectation of increased discharge capacity and decreasing resistance, as suggested by Kim. Moreover, considering the amount of Co and Ni are result effective variables with respect to capacity and resistance, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product, see MPEP 2144.05, II., B.
Claim(s) 30, and 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nayak and Kim (cited above) in view of Zhang et al. (Materials Letters 58 (2004) 3197– 3200; doi:10.1016/j.matlet.2004.05.069, of record on IDS dated 17 August 2023), Endo et al. (US 2010/0233542, of record on IDS dated 17 August 2023), and Jang et al. (Electrochemical and Solid-State Letters, 1 (1) 13-16 (1998), of record on IDS dated 17 August 2023), hereinafter Zhang, Endo and Jang.
Nayak does not disclose the general formula of claim 1 in the notation recited by claim 30. However, as evidenced by Zhang (see 1. Introduction), claim 30 appears to describe the general formula of claim 1 in solid solution notation having four components (i.e., Li2MnO3, LiCoO2, LiNi0.5Mn0.5O2 and LiAlO2). Further, as evidenced by Endo, lithium transition metal composite oxides (such as those disclosed by Nayak) are known to be formed from solid solutions combining more than one component; for example, LiNiMnCoO2 type electrodes are formed from three components including LiCoO2-LiNi0.5Mn0.5O2-Li2MnO3 (see e.g., paras. [0002]-[0073], [0121], Fig.13), see also Kim page 45. In view of the foregoing, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the composition of Nayak (as modified by Kim) includes at least three components including LiCoO2-LiNi0.5Mn0.5O2-Li2MnO3 because combining the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions would yield nothing more than predictable results. Further, Jang teaches LiAlO2 is a low cost and low-density constituent for intercalation electrodes; specifically, a solid solution of LiAlO2 with lithiated transition metal oxides increases the intercalation voltage and cathode energy density, see page 13. Considering Nayak teaches the inclusion of aluminum in the lithium transition metal composite oxide, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include LiAlO2 as a constituent with the other three lithiated transition metal oxide components (i.e., LiCoO2, LiNi0.5Mn0.5O2, Li2MnO3) with the expectation of increased intercalation voltage and energy density.
Regarding Claims 32-33, as stated in the rejection of claim 1 (see also claims 2-7, 29, and 30) Nayak suggests the claimed structure and values of Ni, Co, Mn and Al, or the values thereof are close, thereby necessarily suggesting the component nomenclature and concentrations recited in claims 32 and 33, or a component nomenclature and concentrations that is close, hence obvious, see MPEP 2144.05, I. and II.
Claim(s) 1-7, 29, and 35-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao Min et al. (CN 106910887) in view of Zheng et al. (Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 159 (2) A116-A120, 2011) and Kim et al. (Solid State Ionics, Volume 164, Issues 1–2, October 2003, Pages 43-49, of record), hereinafter Min, Zheng and Kim.
Regarding Claims 1-7, 29, and 35-39, Min discloses an electrochemical cell comprising an electrolyte, a negative electrode and a positive electrode ([0023]) comprising a lithium rich manganese based cathode material having a layered structure (see e.g., claim 3) wherein the material is a compound of the general formula:
PNG
media_image8.png
44
274
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The positive electrode further includes electroactive additives (i.e., conductive agent) of carbon (i.e., acetylene black) and binder (e.g., pvdf), see [0042]. The amount of Mn (y in Min) is greater than 0 and less than 1 (e.g., 0.54, [0038]), while the total amount of Ni, Co and Al (z in Min) is also greater than 0 and less than 1 (e.g., 0.26, [0038]). Thus, the total amount of Ni, Co, Al, and Mn is equal to or less than 0.9 (i.e., 0.54 + 0.26 = 0.8), as claimed. While the values of Ni (e.g., 0.13 is close to 0.2), Co (0.11 is close to 0.1 and 0.15), and Al (0.02) are not exactly as claimed, they are close hence obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I., detailed above). Moreover, Zheng suggests higher values of Al (e.g., up to 0.08, where 0.024, 0.048, and 0.08 were used in the examples) result in higher reversible capacity by 37% (pages A118-A119) and higher energy density (at low discharge rates), and increased thermal stability (pages A119-A120) at Al values of 0.05 (see also Conclusions). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the value of Al (z) is 0.05 with the expectation of higher reversible capacity, higher energy density, and increased thermal stability, as suggested by Zheng.
Further, Kim suggests adjusting the amount of Co and Ni (e.g., Ni is 0.3, Co is 0.1), thereby resulting in higher discharge capacities compared to no cobalt (i.e., Co is 0) or higher levels of cobalt (i.e., Co of 0.3 lead to capacity fading), and decreased resistance during cycling (see e.g., pages 46 and 48). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the values of Ni and Co modified with the expectation of increased discharge capacity and decreasing resistance, as suggested by Kim. Moreover, considering the amount of Co and Ni are result effective variables with respect to capacity and resistance, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product, see MPEP 2144.05, II.
The values suggested in the prior art (Min in view of Zheng and Kim, detailed above) either overlap with that claimed or are close, hence obvious for the same reasons detailed under the rejection over Nayaka above (see e.g., MPEP 2144.05, I. and/or II.
Claim(s) 30, and 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min, Zheng, and Kim (cited above) in view of Zhang et al. (Materials Letters 58 (2004) 3197– 3200; doi:10.1016/j.matlet.2004.05.069, of record on IDS dated 17 August 2023), Endo et al. (US 2010/0233542, of record on IDS dated 17 August 2023), and Jang et al. (Electrochemical and Solid-State Letters, 1 (1) 13-16 (1998), of record on IDS dated 17 August 2023), hereinafter Zhang, Endo and Jang.
Regarding Claim 30, Min does not disclose the general formula of claim 1 in the notation recited by claim 30. However, as evidenced by Zhang (see 1. Introduction), claim 30 appears to describe the general formula of claim 1 in solid solution notation having four components (i.e., Li2MnO3, LiCoO2, LiNi0.5Mn0.5O2 and LiAlO2). As evidenced by Zheng, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the formula of Min to form a solid solution, see e.g., Conclusions. Further, as evidenced by Endo, lithium transition metal composite oxides are known to be formed from solid solutions combining more than one component; for example, LiNiMnCoO2 type electrodes are formed from three components including LiCoO2-LiNi0.5Mn0.5O2-Li2MnO3 (see e.g., paras. [0002]-[0073], [0121], Fig.13), see also Kim page 45. In view of the foregoing, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the composition of Min includes at least three components including LiCoO2-LiNi0.5Mn0.5O2-Li2MnO3 because combining the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions would yield nothing more than predictable results. Further, Jang teaches LiAlO2 is a low cost and low-density constituent for intercalation electrodes; specifically, a solid solution of LiAlO2 with lithiated transition metal oxides increases the intercalation voltage and cathode energy density, see page 13. Considering Min teaches the inclusion of aluminum in the lithium transition metal composite oxide, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include LiAlO2 as a constituent with the other three lithiated transition metal oxide components (i.e., LiCoO2, LiNi0.5Mn0.5O2, Li2MnO3) with the expectation of increased intercalation voltage and energy density.
Regarding Claims 30, and 32-33, as set forth above, Min as modified by Zheng and Kim discloses a layered lithium rich layered cathode compound having a general formula of claim 1, where the values of Li, Ni, Co, Mn, and Al overlap with that claimed or are lose, thereby necessarily suggesting the component nomenclature and concentrations recited in claims 32 and 33, or a component nomenclature and concentrations that is close, hence obvious, see MPEP 2144.05, I. and II.
Claim(s) 40-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nayak (Adv. Energy Mater. 2016, 6, 1502398), Kim. (Solid State Ionics, Volume 164, Issues 1–2, October 2003, Pages 43-49), Zhang et al. (Materials Letters 58 (2004) 3197– 3200; doi:10.1016/j.matlet.2004.05.069), Endo et al. (US 2010/0233542), and Jang et al. (Electrochemical and Solid-State Letters, 1 (1) 13-16 (1998)), hereinafter Nayak, Kim, Zhang, Endo and Jang (all of record).
Regarding Claim 40, Nayak discloses an electrochemical cell comprising an electrolyte (e.g., EC-DMC/LiPF6), a negative electrode (e.g., Li metal) and a positive electrode (e.g., Al doped Li and Mn rich, see abstract and 4. Experimental Section) comprising a lithium rich manganese based layered cathode material (see abstract) wherein the material is a compound of the general formula:
PNG
media_image8.png
44
274
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(see e.g., Introduction, pages 1-2)
The positive electrode further includes electroactive additives of carbon (i.e., super P) and binder (e.g., pvdf), see 4. Experimental Section. The amount of Mn is about 0.51, the amount of Ni is 0.16, the amount of Co is 0.08, and the amount of Al is about 0.05 (se e.g., page 2), thereby making the total amount of Mn, Ni, Co, and Al equal to or less than 0.9 (i.e., about 0.51 + 0.16 + 0.08 + about 0.05 = about 0.8), as claimed. The amount of Ni is not between 0.2 and 0.3, but 0.16 is close to 0.2; the amount of Co is between 0.025 and 0.15 (i.e., 0.08), and the amount Al is between 0.025 and 0.075 (i.e., 0.05), thereby satisfying the claimed x, y, and z values, or the values of Nayak are close to those claimed. 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). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties." See MPEP 2144.05, I.
Nayak does not disclose the general formula in the notation recited in claim 40. However, as evidenced by Zhang (see 1. Introduction), claim 40 appears to describe the general formula in solid solution notation having four components (i.e., Li2MnO3, LiCoO2, LiNi0.5Mn0.5O2 and LiAlO2). Further, as evidenced by Endo, lithium transition metal composite oxides (such as those disclosed by Nayak) are known to be formed from solid solutions combining more than one component; for example, LiNiMnCoO2 type electrodes are formed from three components including LiCoO2-LiNi0.5Mn0.5O2-Li2MnO3 (see e.g., paras. [0002]-[0073], [0121], Fig.13), see also Kim page 45. In view of the foregoing, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the composition of Nayak includes at least three components including LiCoO2-LiNi0.5Mn0.5O2-Li2MnO3 because combining the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions would yield nothing more than predictable results. Further, Jang teaches LiAlO2 is a low cost and low-density constituent for intercalation electrodes; specifically, a solid solution of LiAlO2 with lithiated transition metal oxides increases the intercalation voltage and cathode energy density, see page 13. Considering Nayak teaches the inclusion of aluminum in the lithium transition metal composite oxide, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include LiAlO2 as a constituent with the other three lithiated transition metal oxide components (i.e., LiCoO2, LiNi0.5Mn0.5O2, Li2MnO3) with the expectation of increased intercalation voltage and energy density.
Regarding Claims 41-43, Nayak discloses Al is 0.05, thereby satisfying z in claims 42-43; Nayak’s disclosure of x + y + z of 0.29 (0.16 + 0.08 + 0.05) or 0.32 (0.16 + 0.08 + 0.08) is close to that claimed (i.e., 0.29 or 0.32 are close to 0.4 (relevant to claims 41 and 43)). Similarly, the values for x + y in Nayak are close to that claimed, i.e., 0.24 is close to 0.3 (relevant to claim 42). In view of the foregoing, claims 41-43 are obvious over Nayak as set forth in MPEP 2144.05, I., detailed above. Generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical, see MPEP 2144.05, II., A. Further, Kim suggests adjusting the amount of Co and Ni (e.g., Ni is 0.3, Co is 0.1), thereby resulting in higher discharge capacities compared to no cobalt (i.e., Co is 0) or higher levels of cobalt (i.e., Co of 0.3 lead to capacity fading), and decreased resistance during cycling (see e.g., pages 46 and 48). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the values of Ni and Co are modified with the expectation of increased discharge capacity and decreasing resistance, as suggested by Kim. Moreover, considering the amount of Co and Ni are result effective variables with respect to capacity and resistance, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product, see MPEP 2144.05, II., B.
Claim(s) 40-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao Min et al. (CN 106910887) in view of Zheng et al. (Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 159 (2) A116-A120, 2011), Kim et al. (Solid State Ionics, Volume 164, Issues 1–2, October 2003, Pages 43-49), Zhang et al. (Materials Letters 58 (2004) 3197– 3200; doi:10.1016/j.matlet.2004.05.069), Endo et al. (US 2010/0233542), and Jang et al. (Electrochemical and Solid-State Letters, 1 (1) 13-16 (1998)), hereinafter Min, Zheng, Kim, Zhang, Endo, and Jang (all of record).
Regarding Claim 40-43, Min discloses an electrochemical cell comprising an electrolyte, a negative electrode and a positive electrode ([0023]) comprising a lithium rich manganese based cathode material having a layered structure (see e.g., claim 3) wherein the material is a compound of the general formula:
PNG
media_image8.png
44
274
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The positive electrode further includes electroactive additives (i.e., conductive agent) of carbon (i.e., acetylene black) and binder (e.g., pvdf), see [0042]. The amount of Mn (y in Min) is greater than 0 and less than 1 (e.g., 0.54, [0038]), while the total amount of Ni, Co and Al (z in Min) is also greater than 0 and less than 1 (e.g., 0.26, [0038]). Thus, the total amount of Ni, Co, Al, and Mn is equal to or less than 0.9 (i.e., 0.54 + 0.26 = 0.8), as claimed. While the values of Ni (e.g., 0.13 is close to 0.2), Co (0.11 is close to 0.1 and 0.15), and Al (0.02) are not exactly as claimed, they are close, hence obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I., detailed above). Moreover, Zheng suggests higher values of Al (e.g., up to 0.08, where 0.024, 0.048, and 0.08 were used in the examples) result in higher reversible capacity by 37% (pages A118-A119) and higher energy density (at low discharge rates), and increased thermal stability (pages A119-A120) at Al values of 0.05 (see also Conclusions). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the value of Al (z) is 0.05 with the expectation of higher reversible capacity, higher energy density, and increased thermal stability, as suggested by Zheng.
Further, Kim suggests adjusting the amount of Co and Ni (e.g., Ni is 0.3, Co is 0.1), thereby resulting in higher discharge capacities compared to no cobalt (i.e., Co is 0) or higher levels of cobalt (i.e., Co of 0.3 lead to capacity fading), and decreased resistance during cycling (see e.g., pages 46 and 48). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the values of Ni and Co modified with the expectation of increased discharge capacity and decreasing resistance, as suggested by Kim. Moreover, considering the amount of Co and Ni are result effective variables with respect to capacity and resistance, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product, see MPEP 2144.05, II.
The values suggested in the prior art either overlap with that claimed or are close (i.e., values suggests in the prior art overlap with, or are closeto, limitations of claims 41-43), hence obvious for the same reasons detailed under the rejection over Nayaka above (see e.g., MPEP 2144.05, I. and/or II.)
Min does not disclose the general formula in the notation recited by claim 40. However, as evidenced by Zhang (see 1. Introduction), claim 40 appears to describe the general formula in solid solution notation having four components (i.e., Li2MnO3, LiCoO2, LiNi0.5Mn0.5O2 and LiAlO2). As evidenced by Zheng, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the formula of Min to form a solid solution, see e.g., Conclusions. Further, as evidenced by Endo, lithium transition metal composite oxides are known to be formed from solid solutions combining more than one component; for example, LiNiMnCoO2 type electrodes are formed from three components including LiCoO2-LiNi0.5Mn0.5O2-Li2MnO3 (see e.g., paras. [0002]-[0073], [0121], Fig.13), see also Kim page 45. In view of the foregoing, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the composition of Min includes at least three components including LiCoO2-LiNi0.5Mn0.5O2-Li2MnO3 because combining the elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions would yield nothing more than predictable results. Further, Jang teaches LiAlO2 is a low cost and low-density constituent for intercalation electrodes; specifically, a solid solution of LiAlO2 with lithiated transition metal oxides increases the intercalation voltage and cathode energy density, see page 13. Considering Min teaches the inclusion of aluminum in the lithium transition metal composite oxide, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include LiAlO2 as a constituent with the other three lithiated transition metal oxide components (i.e., LiCoO2, LiNi0.5Mn0.5O2, Li2MnO3) with the expectation of increased intercalation voltage and energy density.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 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 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729