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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/04/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 8-11 newly added and Claims 1-11 are pending.
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, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20210376328 A1), hereinafter “Wang” in view of 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. Wang and Sattar 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 1, Wang et al. discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising a positive electrode a negative electrode and a non-aqueous electrolyte (Wang, Abstract, [0230]), 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 (Wang, [0236]). Wang et al. also discloses the negative electrode includes a negative electrode active material and a beneficial coating comprising Mo (Wang, [0055, 0133]) and a content of Mo in the negative electrode is not greater than 0.05 wt % based on the total weight of the anode mixture layer which can be calculated as 500 ppm or less (Wang, [0134]). Although this ppm is given based on a weight of the anode mixture layer and not explicitly the ppm relative to a total mass of the lithium transition metal composite oxide in the positive electrode, the skilled artisan would routinely optimize this result effective variable to include obvious to try ppm’s of MO which would reasonably include less than 120 ppm relative to a total mass of the lithium transition metal composite oxide, given the proportions to 500 ppm or less based on the total weight of the anode mixture layer.
While Wang discloses a lithium transition metal oxide comprising Mo, it is silent as to the mol% relative to the total number of moles of metal elements excluding Li. Sattar et al. disclose a beneficial lithium transition metal oxide comprising Mo wherein the mol % of Mo is 3% or less (Sattar, Abstract, Experimental). The skilled artisan of Wang would already be providing the lithium transition metal oxide comprising Mo, and varying the content of Mo to include the amount taught in Sattar would be obvious to try for the skilled artisan with the reasonable expectation of success.
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 a lithium transition metal oxide comprising Mo as disclosed in Sattar et al. as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known material to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claims 7-9, Wang in view of Sattar et al. discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1. Wang et al. also discloses wherein the BET specific surface area of the lithium transition metal composite oxide is in a range of 0.1-50 or 0.3 -30 m2/g (Wang, [00258]), which overlaps the claimed ranges. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference, as overlapping ranges have 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.
In regard to Claims 10-11, Wang et al. discloses in view of Sattar et al. discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1. Wang et al. also discloses LiNi.sub.0.85Co.sub.0.10Al.sub.0.05O.sub.2 and LiNiO2 (Wang, [0236]), which have 85 and 100% Ni content in mol% relative to a total number of moles of metal elements excluding Li and anticipatesthe claimed ranges.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20210376328 A1), hereinafter “Wang” in view of 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” as applied to claim 1 above and further 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". Wang, 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 2-4, Wang et al. in view of Sattar et al. discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1. While Wang et al. discloses the anode comprising Mo it is silent as to the layer further comprising Nickel.
Li et al., discloses a transition metal dissolution from a 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).
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 Sattar 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.
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 lithium transition metal oxide as disclosed in Wang (Wang, [0236]), in the stoichiometry of lithium transition metal oxide taught in Sattar, wherein the anode would comprise a film to include Ni, as evidenced by Li et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of success and as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
In regard to Claim 5, Wang et al. in view of Sattar et al. discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1. Wang et al. also discloses Mn doping of the cathode material (Wang, [0236])). As evidenced by the transition metal dissolution taught in Li et al. the anode material would also reasonably include Mn after cycling the cell. 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 lithium transition metal including Mn wherein the cycling would reasonably provide some amount of Mn on the anode after cycling as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of success 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, Wang et al. in view of Sattar et al. discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1. While Wang disclose crystallite size of the anode material it is silent as to the crystallite size of the cathode material. 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 the high nickel layered cathode comprising Mo in Wang as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the primary reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Susai et al. (Improving Performance of LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 Cathode Materials for Lithium-Ion Batteries by Doping with Molybdenum-Ions: Theoretical and Experimental Studies, ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 2019, 2, 4521−4534). Susai et al. discloses a high nickel lithium transition metal oxide comprising Mo with an Mo layer formed after cycling (Susai, Abstract, 3.1).
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
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights