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 Species A in the reply filed on 4/28/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-3, 5-7, 9-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang et al. (“Effects of Fluorine and Chromium Doping on the Performance of Lithium-Rich Li1+xMO2 (M = Ni, Mn, Co) Positive Electrodes“) in view of Xin (US 2022/0336804).
Regarding claims 1-3, Pang et al. discloses a positive electrode active material for lithium ion batteries (P10299/Abstract) including Li1.20Ni0.24Co0.13Mn0.43O1.90F0.10 (P10302/C1-2, Table 2).
Pang et al. does not disclose the Li content as 1 < Li < 1.20, or the Mn content as 0.5 < Mn < 0.667, or the Co content as 0 < Co < 0.13. However, the change in Li, Mn, and Co amounts is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Xin (see [0005], [0047]-[0049]) teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention that varying lithium, Mn, and Co amounts in a positive active material will vary the capacity and energy density of a battery. Therefore the capacity and energy density of a battery are variables that can be modified, among others, by varying the Li, Mn, and Co amounts of said active material. For that reason, the Li, Mn, and Co amounts of said active material, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the Li, Mn, and Co amounts of said active material cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the Li, Mn, and Co amounts of said active material in the material of Pang et al. as taught by Xie to obtain the desired the capacity and energy density of a battery (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claims 5-7, Pang et al. discloses a positive electrode for a lithium ion battery (P10299/Abstract) comprising a positive electrode active material including Li1.20Ni0.24Co0.13Mn0.43O1.90F0.10 (P10302/C1-2, Table 2).
Pang et al. does not disclose the Li content as 1 < Li < 1.20, or the Mn content as 0.5 < Mn < 0.667, or the Co content as 0 < Co < 0.13. However, the change in Li, Mn, and Co amounts is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Xin (see [0005], [0047]-[0049]) teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention that varying lithium, Mn, and Co amounts in a positive active material will vary the capacity and energy density of a battery. Therefore the capacity and energy density of a battery are variables that can be modified, among others, by varying the Li, Mn, and Co amounts of said active material. For that reason, the Li, Mn, and Co amounts of said active material, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the Li, Mn, and Co amounts of said active material cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the Li, Mn, and Co amounts of said active material in the material of Pang et al. as taught by Xie to obtain the desired the capacity and energy density of a battery (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claims 9-11, Pang et al. discloses a rechargeable lithium ion battery (P10299/Abstract) comprising at least one lithium ion battery cell (P10299/Abstract), each lithium ion battery cell (P10299/Abstract) including a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material including Li1.20Ni0.24Co0.13Mn0.43O1.90F0.10 (P10302/C1-2, Table 2).
Pang et al. does not disclose the Li content as 1 < Li < 1.20, or the Mn content as 0.5 < Mn < 0.667, or the Co content as 0 < Co < 0.13. However, the change in Li, Mn, and Co amounts is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Xin (see [0005], [0047]-[0049]) teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention that varying lithium, Mn, and Co amounts in a positive active material will vary the capacity and energy density of a battery. Therefore the capacity and energy density of a battery are variables that can be modified, among others, by varying the Li, Mn, and Co amounts of said active material. For that reason, the Li, Mn, and Co amounts of said active material, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the Li, Mn, and Co amounts of said active material cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the Li, Mn, and Co amounts of said active material in the material of Pang et al. as taught by Xie to obtain the desired the capacity and energy density of a battery (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 13, modified Pang et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses at least one lithium ion battery cell is a plurality of battery cells (P10299/Introduction, “vehicle” applications use a plurality of cells).
Regarding claim 14, modified Pang et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses each battery cell further includes a separator interposed between the positive electrode and a negative electrode (P10299/Abstract + Introduction, the batteries disclosed inherently have separators and negative electrodes).
Regarding claim 15, modified Pang et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses each battery cell has a specific capacity greater than 150 mAh/g (P10299/Abstract, 250-300 mAh/g).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chen et al. (“Enhanced Electrochemical Performance of Li-Rich Cathode Materials by Organic Fluorine Doping and Spinel Li1+xNiyMn2–yO4 Coating“) a lithium ion secondary battery (P121/Abstract) including a positive electrode active material including Li1.2Mn0.54Co0.13Ni0.13O1.97F0.03 (P124/C2, “TA-LLO”). It is noted that this composition is similar to that of instant independent claims 1, 5 and 9, however, it differs with respect to the lithium metal content and the cobalt and nickel contents.
Wang et al. (“Suppressing Mn Reduction of Li-Rich Mn-Based Cathodes by F-Doping for Advanced Lithium-Ion Batteries“) discloses a lithium secondary battery including a positive electrode active material including Li[Li0.133Mn0.467Ni0.2Co0.2]O1.95F0.05 (P27837/C1). It is noted that this composition is similar to that of instant independent claims 1, 5 and 9, however, it differs with respect to the lithium metal content and the cobalt content.
Hai-Lang et al. (“Synthesis and Improvement on the Electrochemical Properties
of Li[Li0.2Mn0.54Ni0.13Co0.13]O2 by Fluorine Doping “) discloses a lithium secondary battery (Abstract) including a positive electrode active material including Li[Li0.2Mn0.54Ni0.13Co0.13]O1.95F0.05 (Abstract). This material is near the ranges of the components of the instant claims, but it is noted to be out of range for Li, Ni, and Co.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P EST.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights