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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on June 12, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 12, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
“…an positive electrode material mixture…” (line 6) should recite “…a positive electrode material mixture…” for purposes of clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xing (CN102324515A), cited in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) received April 18, 2023, in view of Linpen et al. (CN103531782A) and Li et al. (CN108023087A), cited in the IDS received April 18, 2023. The English machine translations of each reference are attached and referenced below.
Regarding Claim 1, Xing teaches a method of preparing a lithium manganese oxide material as the positive electrode (Para. [0008], [0015]) (i.e. a preparation method of a positive electrode material), comprising a step of mixing lithium manganese oxide with AlPO4 (Para. [0009]) (i.e. mixing aluminum phosphate with a ternary positive electrode material to form a positive electrode premix), and after mixing with solvent (i.e. mixing a solvent/dispersant with the positive electrode premix in step 1 to form a positive electrode material mix) drying by vacuum drying at 50-100 degrees Celsius (Para. [0028], [0040]) (i.e. drying the positive electrode mixture in step 2 to obtain a positive electrode material matrix), and sintering the resulting material to obtain the product (Para. [0053]) (i.e. sintering the positive electrode material matrix obtained in step 3 to obtain the positive electrode material).
Xing does not teach mixing aluminum tripolyphosphate nor mixing a colloidal silica sol.
However, Linpen et al. teaches a preparation method of a lithium manganese oxide as a positive electrode material (Para. [0006], [0017]) (i.e. a preparation method of a positive electrode material) comprising mixing raw material comprising a lithium manganese oxide (Para. [0008]) with a modified silver powder (Para. [0010]) comprising aluminum tripolyphosphate (Para. [0009]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aluminum phosphate of the method as taught by Xing to incorporate the teaching of aluminum tripolyphosphate as taught by Linpen et al., as such a material provides excellent high-rate performance, good high-temperature cycling performance, and an inexpensive, non-toxic process (Para. [0011]).
Xing as modified by Linpen et al. does not teach mixing a colloidal silica sol.
However, Li et al. teaches a method of preparing a cathode material (Para. [0008]) wherein a SiO2 gel (i.e. a colloidal silica sol) is mixed with a cathode material then dried (Para. [0012], [0013]) (i.e. mixing a colloidal silica sol with a positive electrode material premix to form a positive electrode material mixture).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Xing to incorporate the teaching of a colloidal silica sol as taught by Li et al., as such a method provides an improved specific capacity retention rate and cycle stability of the electrode material (Para. [0019]).
Regarding Claim 2, Xing as modified by Linpen et al. and Li et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Xing does not teach wherein in step (1), based on a total mass of aluminum tripolyphosphate and the ternary positive electrode material being 100%, the aluminum tripolyphosphate has a mass fraction of 0.1-1%.
However, Xing further teaches if too little aluminum phosphate is added, it will not be able to completely coat the surface of the lithium manganese oxide particle, while if too much aluminum phosphate is added, it will reduce conductivity of the spinel-shaped lithium manganese oxide and affect cycle performance of the prepared battery (Para. [0031]), therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to optimize the aluminum tripolyphosphate mass fraction of modified Xing in order to achieve desirable coating conductivity and cycle performance (Para. [0031]), as would be expected to apply to the aluminum tripolyphosphate of modified Xing as it is also used as a coating material forming a film/coating to improve stability of battery performance at high temperature and the battery’s cycle capacity at high temperature (Para. [0026] – Xing and Linpen et al. – Para. [0011]). Thus, a mass fraction of aluminum tripolyphosphate as claimed is a result effective variable (i.e. a variable that achieves a recognized result) and modifying such a mass fraction would be discovering the optimum range through routine experimentation.
It has been held that when the general conditions are disclosed in the art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP §2144.05).
Absent any showing of critical or unexpected results, such limitations appear to be routine optimization within the skill of the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the invention are therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding Claim 6, Xing as modified by Linpen et al. and Li et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Xing et al. further teaches drying by vacuum drying at 50-100 degrees Celsius (Para. [0028], [0040]) (i.e. the drying step in step (3) comprises vacuum drying).
Regarding Claim 7, Xing as modified by Linpen et al. and Li et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Xing further teaches sintering the resulting material at 450 degrees Celsius to obtain the product (Para. [0053]) (i.e. the sintering in step 4 has a temperature within the range of 450-650 degrees Celsius).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xing (CN102324515A) in view of Linpen et al. (CN103531782A) and Li et al. (CN108023087A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Feng et al. (CN111554882A). The English machine translations of each reference are attached and referenced below.
Regarding Claim 3, Xing as modified by Linpen et al. and Li et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Xing does not teach wherein the mixing in step (1) is carried out in a manner of dry mixing.
However, Feng et al. teaches a ternary cathode material preparation step wherein the ternary cathode material is mixed with another material by dry mixing to obtain a mixture (Para. [0011]) (i.e. a mixing step is carried out in a manner of dry mixing).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of mixing in step (1) of Xing to incorporate the teaching of dry mixing as taught by Feng et al., as such a mixing method provides particles evenly distributed, dense and without obvious voids, improving battery performance (Para. [0060]).
Regarding Claim 4, Xing as modified by Linpen et al., Li et al. and Feng et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 3 as explained above.
Feng et al. further teaches wherein the dry mixing is ball milling (Para. [0018]) having a ball-to-material ratio such as 2:1 (Para. [0020]) (i.e. wherein the dry mixing is ball-milling dry mixing, the ball-milling dry mixing has a ball-to-material ratio within the range of the ratio of 1.5:1-2:1.
See the rejection to claim 3 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Feng et al. cited herein.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xing (CN102324515A) in view of Linpen et al. (CN103531782A) and Li et al. (CN108023087A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kamimura et al. (US 2019/0296331).
Regarding Claim 5, Xing as modified by Linpen et al. and Li et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Xing does not teach the preparation method of the colloidal silica sold in step (2) comprises dissolving a sodium silicate aqueous solution, and adding CO2 and/or acid to form the colloidal silica sol.
However, Kamimura et al. teaches obtaining a silicon sol gel by mixing sulfuric acid with sodium silicate to obtain a silica sol (Para. [0058]) wherein the sodium silicate is an alkali metal silicate aqueous solution (Para. [0029]) (i.e. wherein a preparation method of the colloidal silica sol comprises dissolving a sodium silicate aqueous solution and adding acid to form the colloidal silica sol wherein the sodium silicate solution has a concentration within 5-25 wt% and the acid comprises sulfuric acid).
The combination of the preparation method of the colloidal silica sol as taught by Kamimura et al., with the method of Xing would yield the predictable result of providing a silica sol gel (i.e. colloidal silica sol) (Para. [0057], [0058]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the preparation method of the colloidal silica sol as taught by Kamimura et al., with the method of Xing, as the combination would yield the predictable result of providing a silica sol gel (i.e. colloidal silica sol) (Para. [0057], [0058]). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xing (CN102324515A) in view of Linpen et al. (CN103531782A) and Li et al. (CN108023087A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Feng et al. (CN111554882A), Cho et al. (US 2013/0244111), Kamimura et al. (US 2019/0296331) and Chang (CN 108110224A). The English machine translations of each foreign reference are attached and referenced below.
Regarding Claim 8, Xing as modified by Linpen et al. and Li et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Xing does not teach ball-milling dry mixing at a ball-to-material ratio of 1.5:1-2:1 for 5-25 min.
However, Feng et al. teaches a ternary cathode material preparation step wherein the ternary cathode material is mixed with another material by dry mixing to obtain a mixture (Para. [0011]) (i.e. a mixing step is carried out in a manner of dry mixing) wherein the dry mixing is ball milling (Para. [0018]) having a ball-to-material ratio such as 2:1 (Para. [0020]) (i.e. wherein the dry mixing is ball-milling dry mixing, the ball-milling dry mixing has a ball-to-material ratio within the range of the ratio of 1.5:1-2:1.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of mixing in step (1) of Xing to incorporate the teaching of dry mixing as taught by Feng et al., as such a mixing method provides particles evenly distributed, dense and without obvious voids, improving battery performance (Para. [0060]).
Xing as modified by Feng et al. does not teach ball-milling dry mixing for 5-25 min.
However, Cho et al. teaches a surface-coating a lithium manganese oxide (Para. [0044]) including dry-type mixing for 5 to 60 minutes using a ball mill (i.e. overlapping with the claimed range of 5-25 min).
The combination of 5-25 min of ball-milling dry mixing as taught by Cho et al., with the method of Xing et al. would yield the predictable result of surface-coating a lithium manganese oxide (Para. [0044] – Cho et al. and Xing – Para. [0062]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine 5-25 min of ball-milling dry mixing as taught by Cho et al., with the method of Xing et al, as the combination would yield the predictable result of surface-coating a lithium manganese oxide (Para. [0044] – Cho et al. and Xing – Para. [0062]). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Xing does not teach the preparation method of the colloidal silica sold in step (2) comprises dissolving a sodium silicate aqueous solution, and adding CO2 and/or acid to form the colloidal silica sol.
However, Kamimura et al. teaches obtaining a silicon sol gel by mixing sulfuric acid with sodium silicate having a silica concentration of 25% to obtain a silica sol (Para. [0058]) wherein the sodium silicate is an alkali metal silicate aqueous solution (Para. [0029]) (i.e. wherein a preparation method of the colloidal silica sol comprises dissolving a sodium silicate aqueous solution and adding acid to form the colloidal silica sol wherein the sodium silicate solution has a concentration within 5-25 wt% and the acid comprises sulfuric acid).
The combination of the preparation method of the colloidal silica sol as taught by Kamimura et al., with the method of Xing would yield the predictable result of providing a silica sol gel (i.e. colloidal silica sol) (Para. [0057], [0058]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the preparation method of the colloidal silica sol as taught by Kamimura et al., with the method of Xing, as the combination would yield the predictable result of providing a silica sol gel (i.e. colloidal silica sol) (Para. [0057], [0058]). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Xing further teaches drying by vacuum drying at 50-100 degrees Celsius (i.e. vacuum drying at a range overlapping with 100-150 degrees Celsius) for 1-5 hours (i.e. for 1-10 hours to obtain a positive electrode material matrix)(Para. [0028], [0040]), and the calcination of step A is carried out at 300-900 degrees Celsius for 5-30 hours (i.e. sintering the positive electrode material matrix obtained in step 3 to at a temperature overlapping with the claimed range of 450-650 and overlapping with 1-10 hours to obtain the positive electrode material), then after the calcination of step A, the lithium manganese oxide is obtained by sieving (Para. [0029]) (i.e. then subjecting the product to sieving to finally obtain the positive electrode material). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Xing does not teach a vacuum degree of -0.05 Mpa to -0.1 Mpa.
However, Chang teaches preparing a lithium manganese oxide material by drying in a vacuum drying oven at 100-102 degrees for 7 hours maintain a vacuum degree of -0.08 to -0.1 Mpa (Para. [0020]) (i.e. a vacuum degree overlapping with the claimed range of -0.05 Mpa to -0.1 Mpa).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vacuum drying method of Xing to incorporate the teaching of the vacuum degree of -0.05 Mpa to -0.1 Mpa as such a method would prevent material from falling off the electrode and improves battery performance (Para. [0024]). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights