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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) are moot because the new ground of rejection in this office action is being made on newly added claims 40, 45-47, 49-51, 53, 57 and 58. The restriction requirement and election of species in the non-final rejection was made on the following claim 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
299
629
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, drawn to a coated cathode material comprising a cathode active material comprising lithium transition metal oxide comprising LiMn2O4 particles having a diameter from 10 nm to 100um with an interfacial coating comprising a conductive polythiophene polymer, specifically poly(3, 4- ethylenedioxythiophene) in a thickness of 10-100 nm in the reply filed on 11-11-2024 is acknowledged.
Claims 41-44, 48, 52 and 58 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11-11-2024. Claims 41-44 and 48 are withdrawn because “a substrate comprising a cathode active material comprising a lithium transition metal oxide, LiMn2O4 where the cathode active material comprises a particle having a diameter from 10 nm to 100 um where the interfacial coating comprising a conductive polythiophene polymer, specifically poly(3, 4- ethylenedioxythiophene) in a thickness of 10-100 nm. Claim 52 is withdrawn because the elected species chosen was the cathode and not the anode.
Claims 59 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 11-11-2024. Claim 59 is withdrawn because the elected species chosen was the cathode and not the anode.
Claim Objections
Claims 55-56 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being a multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 55-56 have not been further treated on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 40, 45-47, 49-51, 53-54 and 57 are 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. Claim 40 is rejected because it is unclear what is meant by “the substrate comprises at least one of a metal oxide, carbon, graphite and silicon”. It is unclear how a substrate (current collector) comprises active materials. The specification teaches a coated cathode comprising a substrate comprising a cathode active material and an interfacial coating. Claim 40 is rejected because the phrase “at least one of a metal oxide, carbon, graphite and silicon” should instead be selected from the group consisting of at least one of …and silicon” because of the use of “and”. Claim 40 is rejected because the claim should cite “wherein the interfacial coating composition is selected from the group consisting of at least one of polythiophene, … and polyaniline” because of the use of “and”. Claim 40 is rejected because no cathode material is claimed in the claim. Cathode materials comprise lithium metal oxides like the lithium oxides claimed in dependent claim 45. Claim 45 is rejected because the claims should use the phrase “selected from the group consisting of” because of the use of “and”. Claim 49 is rejected because it is unclear what the claim is claiming. Claim 50 is rejected because the claim does not further limit claim 40 from which the claim depends from because the claim language is redundant. Claim 51 is rejected because no cathode material is claimed in claim 40. Claim 57 is rejected because it is unclear what is 5 C or 10 C cited in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 40, 45, 49-51 and 53-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ju et al. “Improvement of the Cycling Performance of LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 Cathode Active Materials by a Dual-Conductive Polymer Coating”.
Ju et al. teaches on page 2547-2548, a cathode comprising LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 particles coated with PEDOT-co-PEG [poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene)-co-poly(ethylene glycol) in a thickness of 11-18 nm [teaching an interfacial composition comprising polythiophene in a thickness from 10-100 nm]. Ju et al. teaches on page 2547, a battery comprising a positive electrode comprising as shown in Figure 2 (a) a pristine LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 and in figure (b) surface modified LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 particles [teaching a substrate comprising at least a metal oxide on a planar and complex surface comprising a lithium manganese oxide claimed in claim 45. Ju et al. shows on page 2549, that specific capacity and cycle life is improved with the positive active material is surface modified. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 57 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ju et al. “Improvement of the Cycling Performance of LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 Cathode Active Materials by a Dual-Conductive Polymer Coating”. Ju et al. teaches on page 2547-2548, a cathode comprising LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 particles coated with PEDOT-co-PEG [poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene)-co-poly(ethylene glycol) in a thickness of 11-18 nm [teaching an interfacial composition comprising polythiophene in a thickness from 10-100 nm]. Ju et al. teaches on page 2547, a battery comprising a positive electrode comprising as shown in Figure 2 (a) a pristine LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 and in figure (b) surface modified LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 particles [teaching a substrate comprising at least a metal oxide on a planar and complex surface comprising a lithium manganese oxide claimed in claim 45. Ju et al. shows on page 2549, that specific capacity and cycle life is improved with the positive active material is surface modified. Since Ju et al. teaches the claimed coated cathode material comprising lithium manganese oxide particles having a coating layer and a thickness from 11-18 nm comprising a polythiophene and teaches that specific capacity and cycle life is improved with the positive active material when the surface is surface modified, then inherently the same rechargeable battery characterized by a low temperature (0°C) capacity greater than 10 mAh/g at 5 C; a room temperature (25°C) capacity greater than 40 mAh/g and 10 C and a high temperature (50°C) capacity greater than 80 mAh/g at 10 Cmust also be obtained.
In addition, the presently claimed property of rechargeable battery characterized by a low temperature (0°C) capacity greater than 10 mAh/g at 5 C; a room temperature (25°C) capacity greater than 40 mAh/g and 10 C and a high temperature (50°C) capacity greater than 80 mAh/g at 10 C would have obviously have been present once the Ju et al. product is provided. In re Best, 195 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1977).
Claim(s) 46-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ju et al. “Improvement of the Cycling Performance of LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 Cathode Active Materials by a Dual-Conductive Polymer Coating”.
Ju et al. teaches on page 2547-2548, a cathode comprising LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 particles coated with PEDOT-co-PEG [poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene)-co-poly(ethylene glycol) in a thickness of 11-18 nm [teaching an interfacial composition comprising polythiophene in a thickness from 10-100 nm]. Ju et al. teaches on page 2547, a battery comprising a positive electrode comprising as shown in Figure 2 (a) a pristine LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 and in figure (b) surface modified LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 particles [teaching a substrate comprising at least a metal oxide on a planar and complex surface comprising a lithium manganese oxide claimed in claim 45. Ju et al. shows on page 2549, that specific capacity and cycle life is improved with the positive active material is surface modified. Ju et al. teaches the claimed invention as explained above but does not teach that the surface has a width of 1-2 micrometers or a height of 6-7 micrometers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create a substrate having a width of 1-2 micrometers and a height of 6-7 micrometers comprising planar and complex surfaces comprising a three-dimensional surface, since it has been held that where general conditions of a 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 233.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create a substrate having a width of 1-2 micrometers and a height of 6-7 micrometers comprising planar and complex surfaces comprising a three-dimensional surface, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
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 Laura Weiner whose telephone number is (571)272-1294. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm EST M-F.
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, Milton Cano can be reached at 313-446-4937. 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.
/LAURA S. WEINER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/Laura Weiner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723