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 claims 9 and 11-17 in the reply filed on 05/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/27/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 9-17 are currently pending in the application, of claim 10 is withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-8 were cancelled.
Claims 9 and 11-17 are being examined on the merits in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “a volume median diameter Dv50 less than or equal to 7 µm”, and the claim also recites “preferably ranging from 2 to 6 µm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9 and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0083289).
Regarding claims 9 and 13-14, Chen teaches an electrochemical cell (i.e., a lithium-ion battery) (paragraph [0088]) comprising:
at least one anode (paragraph [0088]),
at least one cathode (paragraph [0088]) comprising a mixture comprising:
more than 50 to 99% by weight of a lithium phosphate of manganese and iron of formula: LixMni-y-zFeyMzPO4 where 0.8<x<1.2; 0.5<1-y-z<1; 0<v50.5; 0<z<0.2 and M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of B, Mg, Al, Si, Ca, Ti, V, Cr, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Y, Zr, Nb and Mo (i.e., dLMFP in the amount of greater than 70% which reads on the claimed formula and % by weight respectively) (paragraph [0011]-[0015]) (see formula (1));
1 to less than 50% by weight of at least one lithium oxide of nickel selected from (i.e., NMC and NCA) (paragraph [0011]):
i) a lithium oxide of nickel, manganese and cobalt of formula Liw(NixMnyCozMt)O2 where 0.95w<1.1; 0.83<x; 0<y; 0<z; 0<t; M being at least one element selected from the group consisting of Al, B, Mg, Si, Ca, Ti, V, Cr, Fe, Cu, Zn, Y, Zr, Nb, W, Mo, Sr, Ce, Ta, Ga, Nd, Pr and La (i.e., NMC in the amount of 30% or less (since dLMFP is 70%) which reads on the claimed formula and % by weight respectively) (paragraph [0016]-[0025]) (see formula (2)),
ii) a lithium oxide of nickel, cobalt and aluminum of formula Liw(NixCoyAlzMt)O2 where 0.95ws1.1; 0.80<x; 0<y; 0<z; 0<t; M being at least one element selected from the group consisting of B, Mg, Si, Ca, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Cu, Zn, Y, Zr, Nb, W, Mo, Sr, Ce, Ga, Ta, Nd, Pr and La (i.e., NCA in the amount of 30% or less (since dLMFP is 70%) which reads on the claimed formula and % by weight respectively) (paragraph [0032]-[0036) (see formula (3)), and
iii) a mixture of said lithium oxide of nickel, manganese and cobalt with said lithium oxide of nickel, cobalt and aluminum (i.e., NMC and NCA) (paragraph [0011]).
Regarding claim 15, Chen teaches in the mixture, in the lithium oxide of nickel, the index x of the nickel ranges from 0.84 to 0.90 (i.e., 0.8) (see formula (3)).
Regarding claim 16, Chen teaches in the mixture, in the lithium oxide of nickel, the index x of the nickel is less than or equal to 0.98 or less than or equal to 0.90 (i.e., a>0.6) (paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 17, Chen teaches in the mixture, the lithium phosphate of manganese and iron, the index 1-y-z of manganese ranges from 0.6 to less than 1 (paragraph [0014]).
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0083289) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0251728).
Regarding claim 11, Chen teaches the battery as described above in claim 1 including the lithium oxide of nickel.
Chen does not explicitly teach the lithium oxide of nickel is monocrystalline.
Shin, directed to battery materials (abstract), teaches using monocrystalline lithium oxide of nickel (i.e., NMC) improves cycle performance as well as rate charge capability by eliminating internal grain boundaries and inter-granular fracture (paragraph [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium oxide of nickel of Chen to be monocrystalline in order to improve cycle performance and charge capability, as suggested by Shin.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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. In other words, claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to incorporate:
all the limitations of claim 9 and claim 12
Applicant is encouraged to consider amending claim 1 accordingly to place the application in condition of allowance.
The prior art whether alone or in combination do not teach or fairly suggest the limitations “in the mixture, the at least one lithium oxide of nickel is in the form of particles whose size distribution is characterized by a volume median diameter Dv50 less than or equal to 7 pm, preferably ranging from 2 to 6 pm, the median diameter being measured on particles not forming part of an agglomerate of particles.” as recited in claim 12 in combination with claim 9.
Pertinent
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Maxwell et al. (U.S. Patent Application 2022/0020977). Maxwell teaches a cathode material with NMC and LMFP (paragraph [0147]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN ROLDAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 7:00 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, TONG GUO can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights