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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on 4/28/2026 was received. Claim 1 was amended. Claims 8-10 were cancelled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued on 1/30/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) on claims 1-20 are withdrawn because Applicant alleged “Whether the coating amount is expressed using one conventional unit system or another does not render the claim scope unclear, because the result of the formulas is not affected so long as the same unit basis is used for both x and y” in Applicant Arguments on page 1 filed on 04/28/2026 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 7, 11, 17 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 104577194 A). The rejections are restated below to address the amendment.
Regarding to claims 1, 3, 11: Zhang et al. disclose lithium-ion batteries (par. 2), comprising:
a positive electrode sheet (par. 12) and a negative electrode sheet (par. 13), wherein the positive electrode sheet comprises a positive electrode active material and a supplementary lithium material, the positive electrode active material can be lithium manganese iron phosphate (par. 10) and the supplementary lithium material can be LiNixCoyMnzO2 or LiNixCoyAlzO2, wherein 0 ≤x, y, z ≤ 1, x+y+z=1 (one example of LiNixCoyMnzO2, wherein 0 ≤x, y, z ≤ 1, x+y+z=1, is LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2 (NMC 811)) (LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2 equivalent to X=Mn and Ni in 80% of ternary material in mole percentage) (par. 10), the negative electrode sheet comprises a negative electrode active material, the negative electrode active material is graphite (par. 10).
Zhang et al. further disclose the amount of the supplementary lithium material in the active positive electrode is 0.5 wt.% to 15 wt.% (equivalent to A2) (par. 10). As the positive electrode comprises the lithium manganese iron phosphate and the supplementary lithium material, the amount of the lithium manganese iron phosphate in the active positive electrode is calculated to be 85 wt.% to 99.5 wt.% (equivalent to A1).
Zhang et al. further disclose the specific capacity and the initial efficiency of the positive electrode active material are 155 -162 mAh/g (equivalent to M1) and 98.5 -99.5% (equivalent to ŋ1) (par. 10) respectively. The specific capacity and the initial efficiency of the graphite are 355 - 360 mAh/g (equivalent to M3) and 93 - 94% (equivalent to ŋ3) (Example 3 in par. 28, Example 1 in par. 18) respectively.
Zhang et al. further disclose the areal density on the positive electrode is 10 – 50 mg/cm² (equivalent to x) (par. 10). The areal density of the negative electrode (equivalent to y) is calculated based on an excess of 5%–30% of the corresponding capacity of the positive electrode active material (par. 10, see below for the mathematical expression).
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
n
e
g
a
i
t
v
e
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
d
e
a
c
t
i
v
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
x
(
a
r
e
a
l
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
d
e
)
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
d
e
a
c
t
i
v
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
x
(
a
r
e
a
l
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
d
e
)
=1.05 -1.30
Following numbers are taken as an example:
the specific capacity the positive electrode active material (M1)=162 mAh/g,
the areal density on the positive electrode (x)=38 mg/cm²,
the specific capacity the negative electrode active material (M3)=360 mAh/g,
the excess of the corresponding capacity of the negative electrode material over the positive electrode active material=1.2,
The mathematical expression:
360
m
A
h
/
g
x
(
y
m
g
/
c
m
2
)
162
m
A
h
/
g
x
(
38
m
g
/
c
m
2
)
=1.2
y is calculated to be 20.52 mg/cm2. The ratio of y/x is 0.54.
Zhang et al. is silence on M2, ŋ2. However, M2, ŋ2 can be 231 mAh/g and 83.1% respectively as evidenced by Sun et al. (US 20220216507 A1) (example of NMC 811 (LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2) in par. 183).
Following numbers are taken as an example to calculate formula (1) and (2):
M1=162 mAh/g, ŋ1=98.5%, A1=85%,
M2=231 mAh/g, ŋ2=83.1%, A2=15%,
M3=360 mAh/g, ŋ3=94%,
x=38 mg/cm², y=20.52 mg/cm2
Formula (1) = 1.11
Formula (2) = 0.68
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).
Regarding to claim 2: Zhang et al. disclose lithium-ion batteries (par. 2) as describe above. It is the position of the examiner that the actual full-cell specific capacity of the lithium manganese iron phosphate is inherent, given that the active materials, the mass percentage of lithium manganese iron phosphate and the supplementary lithium material, and the ratio of y/x disclosed by Zhang et al. have the same materials and similar ranges as the present application. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention’s features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999).
Regarding to claims 7, 17: Zhang et al. disclose the areal density on the positive electrode is 10 – 50 mg/cm² (equivalent to x) (par. 10). The areal density of the negative electrode (equivalent to y) is calculated based on an excess of 5%–30% of the corresponding capacity of the positive electrode active material (par. 10, see below for the mathematical expression).
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
n
e
g
a
i
t
v
e
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
d
e
a
c
t
i
v
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
x
(
a
r
e
a
l
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
d
e
)
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
d
e
a
c
t
i
v
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
x
(
a
r
e
a
l
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
d
e
)
=1.05 -1.30
Following numbers are taken as an example:
the specific capacity the positive electrode active material (M1)=162 mAh/g,
the areal density on the positive electrode (x)=38 mg/cm²,
the specific capacity the negative electrode active material (M3)=360 mAh/g,
the excess of the corresponding capacity of the negative electrode material over the positive electrode active material=1.2,
The mathematical expression:
360
m
A
h
/
g
x
(
y
m
g
/
c
m
2
)
162
m
A
h
/
g
x
(
38
m
g
/
c
m
2
)
=1.2
y is calculated to be 20.52 mg/cm2. The ratio of y/x is 0.54.
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).
Claims 4, 6, 14, 18, 19, 20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 104577194 A) as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (CN 103700839 A), Xu et al. (US 20090136836 A1), and Dai et al. (US 20150249261 A1).
Regarding to claims 4, 6, 14: Zhang et al. disclose lithium-ion batteries (par. 2) as described in paragraph 3 above. Zhang et al. fail to explicitly disclose a is in the range of 500ppm-1500ppm. However, Wu et al. disclose lithium-ion batteries (par. 2). The battery comprises lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (equivalent to the ternary material) as a cathode material (par. 6). The residual alkali content of LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.3O2 is 1430ppm in Example 6 (par. 144). Wu et al. recognize when using LiH2PO4 solution as a treatment agent for residual alkali content in lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide materials, H+ generated from the hydrolysis of LiH2PO4 neutralizes alkaline substances, thereby removing them. When the solution pH is too low, below 5.0, the solution is too acidic and damages the lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide material; when the solution pH is too high, above 6.5, the removal effect of residual alkali in the solution is not good (par. 75). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can adjust pH level to yield more or less residual alkali content in the lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
The combination of Zhang et al. and Wu et al. fails to explicitly disclose b is in the range of 2.9g/Ah-3.8g/Ah. However, Xu et al. disclose a lithium-ion battery (abstract). The battery comprises electrolyte. The amount of the electrolyte injected can be from about 1.5 to 4.9 g/Ah (par. 28). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the amount of electrolyte of Xu et al. in the lithium-ion batteries of Zhang et al. because Xu et al. teach that 1.5 to 4.9 g/Ah is a workable amount of electrolyte (par. 28). 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).
The combination of Zhang et al., Wu et al. and Xu et al. fails to explicitly disclose c is in the range of 200 ppm-400 ppm. However, Dai et al. disclose a metal-ion battery (abstract). The battery comprises ionic liquid electrolyte. A water content of the ionic liquid electrolyte is no greater than 400 ppm (par. 11). Dai et al. recognize a reduced water content can be attained by electrochemical drying of water, such as by cycling the battery through one or more charge/discharge cycles, during which residual water in the electrolyte can be consumed by decomposition into H2 gas that can be released from the battery (par. 47). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can adjust electrochemical drying condition to yield more or less water content in the electrolyte. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Following numbers are taken as an example to calculate formula (3):
M1=162 mAh/g, ŋ1=98.5%, A1=85%,
M2=231 mAh/g, ŋ2=83.1%, A2=15%,
a=1430 ppm, b= 2.9 g/Ah, c=400ppm
Formula (3) = 0.89
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).
Regarding to claim 18: Zhang et al. disclose the amount of the supplementary lithium material in the active positive electrode is 0.5 wt.% to 15 wt.% (equivalent to A2) (par. 10). As the positive electrode comprises the lithium manganese iron phosphate and the supplementary lithium material, the amount of the lithium manganese iron phosphate in the active positive electrode is calculated to be 85 wt.% to 99.5 wt.% (equivalent to A1). 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).
Regarding to claims 19, 20: Zhang et al. disclose the supplementary lithium material can be LiNixCoyMnzO2 or LiNixCoyAlzO2, wherein 0 ≤x, y, z ≤ 1, x+y+z=1 (one example of LiNixCoyMnzO2, wherein 0 ≤x, y, z ≤ 1, x+y+z=1, is LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2 (NMC 811)) (LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2 equivalent to X=Mn and Ni in 80% of ternary material in mole percentage) (par. 10). 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).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 104577194 A) in view of Perera et al. (US 20210305560 A1).
Regarding to claim 5: Zhang et al. disclose lithium-ion batteries (par. 2) as describe in paragraph 3 above. Zhang et al. fail to explicitly disclose the Mn dissolution of the lithium ion battery after 2000 charge-discharge cycles at 45°C is less than 700 ppm. However, Perera et al. disclose methods for inhibition of transition metal dissolution (abstract). Perera et al. disclose electrolyte additives, such as butylamine, N,N-dicyclohexylcarbmiimide, amino and trimethylsilane can suppress or prevent the Mn dissolution by scavenging water and HF impurities in the electrolyte (par. 41). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can add electrolyte additives to suppress or prevent the Mn dissolution. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Claims 12, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 104577194 A) as applied in claim 2 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (CN 103700839 A), Xu et al. (US 20090136836 A1), and Dai et al. (US 20150249261 A1
Regarding to claims 12, 15: Zhang et al. disclose lithium-ion batteries (par. 2) as described in paragraph 3 above. Zhang et al. fail to explicitly disclose a is in the range of 500ppm-1500ppm. However, Wu et al. disclose lithium-ion batteries (par. 2). The battery comprises lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (equivalent to the ternary material) as a cathode material (par. 6). The residual alkali content of LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.3O2 is 1430ppm in Example 6 (par. 144). Wu et al. recognize when using LiH2PO4 solution as a treatment agent for residual alkali content in lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide materials, H+ generated from the hydrolysis of LiH2PO4 neutralizes alkaline substances, thereby removing them. When the solution pH is too low, below 5.0, the solution is too acidic and damages the lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide material; when the solution pH is too high, above 6.5, the removal effect of residual alkali in the solution is not good (par. 75). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can adjust pH level to yield more or less residual alkali content in the lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
The combination of Zhang et al. and Wu et al. fails to explicitly disclose b is in the range of 2.9g/Ah-3.8g/Ah. However, Xu et al. disclose a lithium-ion battery (abstract). The battery comprises electrolyte. The amount of the electrolyte injected can be from about 1.5 to 4.9 g/Ah (par. 28). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the amount of electrolyte of Xu et al. in the lithium-ion batteries of Zhang et al. because Xu et al. teach that 1.5 to 4.9 g/Ah is a workable amount of electrolyte (par. 28). 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).
The combination of Zhang et al., Wu et al. and Xu et al. fails to explicitly disclose c is in the range of 200 ppm-400 ppm. However, Dai et al. disclose a metal-ion battery (abstract). The battery comprises ionic liquid electrolyte. A water content of the ionic liquid electrolyte is no greater than 400 ppm (par. 11). Dai et al. recognize a reduced water content can be attained by electrochemical drying of water, such as by cycling the battery through one or more charge/discharge cycles, during which residual water in the electrolyte can be consumed by decomposition into H2 gas that can be released from the battery (par. 47). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can adjust electrochemical drying condition to yield more or less water content in the electrolyte. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Following numbers are taken as an example to calculate formula (3):
M1=162 mAh/g, ŋ1=98.5%, A1=85%,
M2=231 mAh/g, ŋ2=83.1%, A2=15%,
a=1430 ppm, b= 2.9 g/Ah, c=400ppm
Formula (3) = 0.89
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).
Claims 13, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 104577194 A) as applied in claim 3 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (CN 103700839 A), Xu et al. (US 20090136836 A1), and Dai et al. (US 20150249261 A1).
Regarding to claims 13, 16: Zhang et al. disclose lithium-ion batteries (par. 2) as described in paragraph 3 above. Zhang et al. fail to explicitly disclose a is in the range of 500ppm-1500ppm. However, Wu et al. disclose lithium-ion batteries (par. 2). The battery comprises lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (equivalent to the ternary material) as a cathode material (par. 6). The residual alkali content of LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.3O2 is 1430ppm in Example 6 (par. 144). Wu et al. recognize when using LiH2PO4 solution as a treatment agent for residual alkali content in lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide materials, H+ generated from the hydrolysis of LiH2PO4 neutralizes alkaline substances, thereby removing them. When the solution pH is too low, below 5.0, the solution is too acidic and damages the lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide material; when the solution pH is too high, above 6.5, the removal effect of residual alkali in the solution is not good (par. 75). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can adjust pH level to yield more or less residual alkali content in the lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
The combination of Zhang et al., Wu et al. fails to explicitly disclose b is in the range of 2.9g/Ah-3.8g/Ah. However, Xu et al. disclose a lithium-ion battery (abstract). The battery comprises electrolyte. The amount of the electrolyte injected can be from about 1.5 to 4.9 g/Ah (par. 28). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the amount of electrolyte of Xu et al. in the lithium-ion batteries of Zhang et al. because Xu et al. teach that 1.5 to 4.9 g/Ah is a workable amount of electrolyte (par. 28). 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).
The combination of Zhang et al., Wu et al. and Xu et al. fails to explicitly disclose c is in the range of 200 ppm-400 ppm. However, Dai et al. disclose a metal-ion battery (abstract). The battery comprises ionic liquid electrolyte. A water content of the ionic liquid electrolyte is no greater than 400 ppm (par. 11). Dai et al. recognize a reduced water content can be attained by electrochemical drying of water, such as by cycling the battery through one or more charge/discharge cycles, during which residual water in the electrolyte can be consumed by decomposition into H2 gas that can be released from the battery (par. 47). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can adjust electrochemical drying condition to yield more or less water content in the electrolyte. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Following numbers are taken as an example to calculate formula (3):
M1=162 mAh/g, ŋ1=98.5%, A1=85%,
M2=231 mAh/g, ŋ2=83.1%, A2=15%,
a=1430 ppm, b= 2.9 g/Ah, c=400ppm
Formula (3) = 0.89
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).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed on 4/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues:
Sun uses an indium sheet as the anode which is different than the anode material (graphite) used in Zhang.
Sun uses a different test method compared to the instant application to obtain the initial efficiency and the first-charge specific capacity of the ternary material.
The Office has not identified any teaching in Zhang that the alleged "supplementary lithium material" would possess the same first-charge specific capacity and initial efficiency as NMC811 measured in Sun's indium-anode, all-solid-state cell, nor has the Office provided an articulated reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected those particular Sun values for Zhang's system.
Zhang does not expressly disclose these added limitations in the specific combination now required by amended claim 1, particularly within Applicant's claimed formula-based framework.
In response:
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The prior art of Kwon et al. (US 20190115618 A1) discloses an anode for an all solid cell (abstract). The solid cell comprises a cathode (10) and an anode (30) (par. 44). The cathode active material can be lithium nickel cobalt manganese (par. 44) and the anode active material can be graphite or indium (par. 50). Another prior art of Sastry et al. (US 20160233539 A1) discloses a solid-state battery (abstract). The solid-state battery comprises a cathode and an anode. The cathode material can be lithium nickel-cobalt-manganese oxide and the anode material can be graphite or indium (par. 97). Since both Kwon and Sastry recognize the equivalency of graphite and indium in the field of anode active materials when pairing with the cathode active material of lithium nickel cobalt manganese. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to know that the NMC 811 of Sun et al. can work as the supplementary lithium material of Zhang et al. regardless of whether the anode material is graphite or indium, as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent anode active materials recognized in the art. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The test methods (lithium as the negative electrode, EC/EMC and LiPF6 as electrolyte, 2.5-4.3V as voltage range, 0.1C as charge rate, and button cell configuration) are not in the claim limitations and do not change the structure of the product. Thus, the test methods do not have patentable weight.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Both Kwon and Sastry recognize the anode active material can be graphite or indium when pairing with the cathode active material of lithium nickel cobalt manganese in solid state batteries. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could take the NMC 811 of Sun et al. as the supplementary lithium material of Zhang et al. regardless of whether the anode material is graphite or indium, as the substitution of graphite for indium is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. In addition, the anode material used during the test is not cited in the claim limitation. Thus, the anode material used during the test does not have patentable weight.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The added limitations are addressed in paragraph 3 above. Even Zhang is silent on the relationship among these parameters. However, “a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments” (MPEP 2123.I.). Therefore, one of ordinary skill could discover the optimum or workable ranges through routine experiments as Zhang teaches the structure and the range of the parameters of the high energy lithium iron phosphate battery.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PIN JAN WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/PIN JAN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights