3DETAILED 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/29/2023 and 03/29/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because it lists “manganese (Mn)” twice in lines 2 and 5. The second mention of manganese is redundant and should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 2 and 15, from which claims 4 and 16 respectively depend, recite a range for x of “0.5 > x ≤ 1” (claim 2, line 4; claim 15, line 7), but claims 4 and 16 recite “0.6 ≤ x < 1” (claim 4, lines 2-4, claim 16, lines 3-5). The variable x cannot be both smaller than 0.5 (i.e. “0.5 > x” in claims 2 and 15) and larger than or equal to 0.6 (i.e. “0.6 ≤ x” in claims 4 and 16). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
It is noted that, while the range for x may include a typographical error in claims 2 and 15, the specification recites the range exactly as it appears in the claims, and so amending the claims to change the range would likely introduce new matter. The Examiner suggests that the range recited in claims 4 and 16 be used in claims 2 and 15 because that range is supported in the original disclosure.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10, 12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koestner et al. (US PGPub 2022/0238885, hereinafter Koestner) in view of Akalay et al. (US PGPub 2012/0156566, hereinafter Akalay).
Regarding claim 1, Koestner discloses a positive electrode for a battery that cycles lithium ions (paragraph 0035), the positive electrode comprising:
an electroactive material comprising a lithium transition metal oxide (LiTMO) (paragraph 0081) formulated to undergo the reversible intercalation of lithium ions (paragraph 0080).
Koestner is silent to an OSM as recited. Akalay teaches a positive electrode for a battery (paragraph 0025) including a lithium transition metal oxide and an electrochemically inactive oxygen storage material (OSM) (paragraph 0039) formulated to store oxygen released from the lithium transition metal oxide (paragraph 0052). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have added the material of Akalay to the positive electrode of Koestner for the purpose of improving the properties of the electrode (Akalay: paragraphs 0050-0053).
Regarding claim 2, Koestner discloses the LiTMO comprises a nickel-rich lithium transition metal oxide (Ni-rich LiTMO) represented by the formula Li1+aNixMeyO2, where Me is a transition metal, 0 ≤ a ≤ 1, 0.5 > x ≤ 1, 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.5, and x + y = about 1 (paragraph 0081). It is noted that the prior art ranges are broader than those recited, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any value within the range of the prior art, including those within the claimed range, for the purpose of optimizing the function of the positive electrode.
Regarding claim 3, Koestner discloses Me is a transition metal selected from the group consisting of cobalt (Co), manganese (Mn), aluminum (Al), and combinations thereof (paragraph 0081).
Regarding claim 4, Koestner discloses the Ni-rich LiTMO comprises LiaNixCoyMn1-x-yO2 (NCM) wherein 0 ≤ a ≤ 1, 0.6 ≤ x ≤ 1, 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.4 (paragraph 0081, referred to as “NMC” in the reference). It is noted that the prior art ranges are broader than those recited, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any value within the range of the prior art, including those within the claimed range, for the purpose of optimizing the function of the positive electrode.
Regarding claim 5, Koestner discloses the LiTMO comprises a layered lithium-rich transition metal oxide represented by the formula Li1+xMe1-xO2, where 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.5 and Me is a transition metal (paragraph 0081). It is noted that the prior art ranges are broader than those recited, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any value within the range of the prior art, including those within the claimed range, for the purpose of optimizing the function of the positive electrode.
Regarding claim 6, Koestner discloses the LiTMO constitutes, by weight, greater than or equal to about 80% and less than or equal to about 95% of the positive electrode (paragraph 0029). It is noted that the prior art ranges are broader than those recited, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any value within the range of the prior art, including those within the claimed range, for the purpose of optimizing the function of the positive electrode.
Regarding claim 7, Koestner is silent to an OSM as recited. Akalay is relied upon, as above, to teach an OSM, and further to teach the OSM comprises a monobasic metal oxide, a mixed metal oxide, a solid solution of monobasic metal oxides or mixed metal oxides, or a combination thereof (paragraph 0045). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have added the material of Akalay to the positive electrode of Koestner for the purpose of improving the properties of the electrode (Akalay: paragraphs 0050-0053).
Regarding claim 8, Koestner is silent to an OSM as recited. Akalay is relied upon, as above, to teach an OSM, and further to teach the OSM being an oxide of cerium, samarium, neodymium, or a combination thereof (paragraph 0044). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have added the material of Akalay to the positive electrode of Koestner for the purpose of improving the properties of the electrode (Akalay: paragraphs 0050-0053).
Regarding claim 10, Koestner is silent to an OSM as recited. Akalay is relied upon, as above, to teach an OSM, and further to teach the OSM has a crystalline lattice structure (figure 1) and is formulated to store oxygen in its crystalline lattice structure (paragraph 0039), and wherein the OSM has an oxygen storage capacity of greater than or equal to about 400 micromoles of oxygen per gram (paragraph 0052; figure 1). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have added the material of Akalay to the positive electrode of Koestner for the purpose of improving the properties of the electrode (Akalay: paragraphs 0050-0053).
Regarding claim 12, Koestner is silent to the OSM as recited. Akalay is relied upon, as above, to teach an OSM, and further to teach the OSM constitutes, by weight, greater than or equal to about 1 % and less than or equal to about 10% of the positive electrode (claims 6-8). Based on the molar ratios recited and the molecular weights of the compounds, it can be determined that Akalay at least teaches a range of weight percentages that overlaps the claimed range. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have added the material of Akalay to the positive electrode of Koestner for the purpose of improving the properties of the electrode (Akalay: paragraphs 0050-0053).
Regarding claim 14, Koestner discloses a polymer binder and an electrically conductive material, wherein the polymer binder and the electrically conductive material are each present in the positive electrode in an amount constituting, by weight, greater than or equal to about 0.5% and less than or equal to about 30% of the positive electrode (paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 15, see the rejections of claims 1, 2, and 5.
Regarding claim 16, see the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 17, see the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 18, see the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 19, Koestner is silent to the OSM as recited. Akalay is relied upon, as above, to teach an OSM, and further to teach a weight ratio of the OSM to the LiTMO is greater than or equal to about 1:99 and less than or equal to about 1:9 (claim 4). Based on the molar ratios recited and the molecular weights of the compounds, it can be determined that Akalay at least teaches a range of weight ratios that overlaps the claimed range. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have added the material of Akalay to the positive electrode of Koestner for the purpose of improving the properties of the electrode (Akalay: paragraphs 0050-0053).
Regarding claim 20, Koestner discloses a battery that cycles lithium ions, the battery comprising:
a negative electrode (figure 1, negative electrode 22) comprising an electroactive negative electrode material;
a positive electrode (positive electrode 24 spaced apart from the negative electrode and comprising an electroactive positive electrode material; and
a separator (electrolyte 30) disposed between the negative electrode and the positive electrode that provides a medium for the conduction of lithium ions between the negative electrode and the positive electrode (paragraph 0055),
wherein the electroactive positive electrode material comprises an electroactive material comprising a lithium transition metal oxide (LiTMO) (paragraph 0081) formulated to undergo the reversible intercalation of lithium ions (paragraph 0080), and wherein the LiTMO comprises at least one of:
a nickel-rich lithium transition metal oxide (Ni-rich LiTMO) represented by the formula Li1+aNixMeyO2, where Me is a transition metal, 0 ≤ a ≤ 1, 0.5 > x ≤ 1, 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.5, and x + y = about 1 (paragraph 0081); or
a layered lithium-rich transition metal oxide represented by the formula Li1+xMe1-xO2, where 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.5 and Me is a transition metal (paragraph 0081) selected from the group consisting of cobalt (Co), manganese (Mn), aluminum (Al), and combinations thereof (paragraph 0081). It is noted that the prior art ranges are broader than those recited, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any value within the range of the prior art, including those within the claimed range, for the purpose of optimizing the function of the positive electrode.
Koestner is silent to an OSM as recited. Akalay teaches a positive electrode for a battery (paragraph 0025) including a lithium transition metal oxide and an electrochemically inactive oxygen storage material (OSM) (paragraph 0039) formulated to store oxygen released from the lithium transition metal oxide (paragraph 0052). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have added the material of Akalay to the positive electrode of Koestner for the purpose of improving the properties of the electrode (Akalay: paragraphs 0050-0053).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 11, and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 9, 11, and 13 are deemed to contain allowable subject matter because they recite configurations of the OSM not reasonably disclosed, taught, or suggested in the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited prior art generally discloses positive electrodes for lithium ion batteries.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC C HOWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-9834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/MARC C HOWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights