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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/15/2023 and 09/23/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/15/2023 has been entered. Claims 5-7 are amended and Claims 1-7 are pending. Amendments to the specification and abstract are accepted.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sattar et al. (Influence of Mo addition on the structural and electrochemical performance of Ni-rich cathode material for lithium-ion batteries, Nature, Scientific Reports | (2020)), hereinafter “Sattar” in view of Li et al. (Long-Term Cyclability of NCM-811 at High Voltages in Lithium-Ion Batteries: an In-Depth Diagnostic Study, Chem. Mater. 2020, 32, 7796−7804), hereinafter "Li". Sattar and Li et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely non aqueous secondary batteries.
In regard to Claims 1-2, Sattar et al. discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising a positive electrode a negative electrode and a non-aqueous electrolyte (Sattar, Experimental), wherein the positive electrode contains a lithium transition metal composite oxide having a layered structure and containing at least Ni and Mo and in the lithium transition metal composite oxide, a content of Ni is 80 mol% to 95 mol% relative to a total number of moles of metal elements excluding Li, and a content of Mo is less than 3 mol% relative to the total number of moles of metal elements excluding Li (Sattar, Abstract, Experimental). Sattar et al. also discloses the negative electrode includes a negative electrode active material (Sattar, Experimental). While Sattar et al. discloses formation cycles which form a beneficial coating comprising Mo (Sattar, Pgs 2-3), it is silent as to the coating on the anode.
As is consistent with the current application the formation of the layer on the negative electrode is achieved through cycling of the cell (Original Specification, [0028]) and the resultant layer comprises material from dissolution of transition metals comprised in the cathode which includes Mo (Original Specification, [0055]). Thus, if the source of the Mo in the film on the anode layer originates in the cathode layer and is formed by cycling the cells, then the ppm of Mo on the anode is relative to the Mo mol% in the cathode layer before cycling and the charging/discharging voltage, i.e. Sattar et al. would reasonably achieve the same result given the composition of the cathode layer and the cycling of the cell.
This is further evidenced by Li et al., which discloses transition metal dissolution from the high nickel layered lithium transition metal composite oxide cathode transferring to a film formed on either a lithium metal or graphite anode, which occurs during cycling of the cell and the content in ppm of the transition metals including Ni can be optimized by the skilled artisan based on the initial concentration and the cycling voltage of the cell (Li, Abstract, Table 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the configuration of cathode as disclosed in Sattar et al. which would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of forming a film comprising a transition metal such as Mo in a range (ppm), which is a result effective variable to be optimized by the skilled artisan and is relative to the initial mol% of the transition metal and the charge/discharge voltage as taught in Li et al. and further, doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claims 3-4, Sattar et al. in view of Li et al. discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 2. Sattar et al. also discloses a layered cathode material comprising Ni 84 mol% and Mo 1 mol% (Sattar, Experimental), which is then cycled to form a film (coating) comprising Mo (Sattar, Pgs 2-3)), which is the exact Ni and Mo concentration in the cathode material provided in the current application (Original Specification, Example 1), which yielded a mass ratio of the content of Mo to a content of Ni (Mo/Ni) in the negative electrode of 2.93. Given the materials of Sun having identical compositions to the materials of the current application they cannot have mutually exclusive properties and would reasonably provide both Ni and Mo to the anode in the same range under similar conditions. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see also MPEP §2112.01.
In regard to Claim 5, Sattar et al. in view of Li et al. discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1. Sattar et al. also discloses Mn doping of the cathode material (Sattar, Abstract, Experimental) and Li et al. discloses a cathode material further comprising Mn where Mn is present in the film on the anode layer after cycling (Li, Abstract, Table 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Mn in the cathode material as disclosed in both Sattar and Li as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of the anode comprising the same transition metal due to dissolution as taught in Li et al. and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
In regard to Claim 6, Sattar et al. in view of Li et al. discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1. Sattar et al. discloses a beneficial layered lithium transition metal composite oxide cathode comprising Mo and a Ni content ≥80% which has a crystallite size ranging from about 40 to about 75 nm (Sattar, Figure 2c), which is equivalent to 400-750 and falls within the claimed range. Sattar also discloses Mo-doping suppresses the particle size growth which results in the crystallite size within a specified range, which can be optimized by the skilled artisan by adjusting the Mo doping content (Sattar, Results & Discussion). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a high nickel layered cathode comprising Mo and a crystallite size in the range of 400-750 as taught in Sattar et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefit taught in Sattar and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sattar et al. (Influence of Mo addition on the structural and electrochemical performance of Ni-rich cathode material for lithium-ion batteries, Nature, Scientific Reports | (2020)), hereinafter “Sattar” in view of Li et al. (Long-Term Cyclability of NCM-811 at High Voltages in Lithium-Ion Batteries: an In-Depth Diagnostic Study, Chem. Mater. 2020, 32, 7796−7804), hereinafter "Li" as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of Park et al. (US 20180316009 A1), hereinafter "Park". Sattar, Li and Park et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely non aqueous secondary batteries.
In regard to Claim 7, Sattar et al. in view of Li et al. discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1. While Sattar and Li et al. disclose some characteristics of the high nickel layered lithium transition metal composite oxide cathode material they are silent as to the BET specific surface area. However, the skilled artisan providing the cathode material would be aware that the material must have a specific surface area and selecting that material will result in a lithium transition metal composite oxide with a BET specific surface area.
Park et al. discloses a high nickel layered lithium transition metal composite oxide cathode material comprising Mo wherein the BET specific surface area is in a preferential range of 0.48-1.5 m2/g (Park, [0062]), which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a high nickel layered lithium transition metal composite oxide cathode material comprising Mo with a BET specific surface area within the range taught in Park et al. as doing so would have been obvious to the skilled artisan as selecting the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference has been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JONATHAN CREPEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725