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 . 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on July 8, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that Applicant believes that no serious search burden exists. This is not found persuasive because each Group possesses a separate classification and requires a separate field of search as set forth in the Office Action dated May 27, 2026. Specifically, a search for the positive electrode structure of Group I will not yield references drawn to the method steps used to manufacture said electrode. Likewise, a search of the method steps recited in Group II will not yield the structure recited in Group I. Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Ishikawa et al. (US 2019/0221837 A1), hereinafter “Ishikawa.”
Regarding claim 1, Ishikawa discloses a positive electrode comprising:
a fluorinated lithium-rich and manganese-based oxide (LMR) material according to formula (1), Li1+xMe1-xO2-yFy (Table 1, Examples 1-7), wherein:
Me is a transition metal selected from the group consisting of Co and Mn (Table 1, Examples 1-7);
Me comprises greater than or equal to 50% Mn on an atomic basis, in this case 50% Mn and 50% Co (Table 1, Examples 1-7);
0 < x ≤ 0.33, in this case x = 2 (Table 1, Examples 1-7); and
0 < y ≤ 0.1, in this case 0.05 ≤ y ≤ 0.1 (Table 1, Examples 1-7).
Regarding claim 2, Ishikawa further discloses that 0.005 ≤ y ≤ 0.08, in this case y = 0.05 (Table 1, Example 7).
Regarding claim 3, Ishikawa further discloses that the fluorinated LMR material has a layered crystal structure including a transition metal layer, an oxygen layer, and a lithium layer, and wherein fluorine ions in the fluorinated LMR material are present at anion sites within the oxygen layer, in this case the lithium composite oxide possesses a R-3m space group crystal structure (¶ [0021]-[0023]) which would include the recited layers and anion sites.
Regarding claim 5, Ishikawa discloses a battery comprising:
a negative electrode comprising an electroactive negative electrode material (¶ [0185] & [0189], Fig. 1, ref. no. 22);
a positive electrode (¶ [0189], Fig. 1, ref. no. 21) comprising a fluorinated lithium-rich and manganese-based oxide (LMR) material according to formula (1), Li1+xMe1-xO2-yFy (Table 1, Examples 1-7), wherein:
Me is a transition metal selected from the group consisting of Co and Mn (Table 1, Examples 1-7);
Me comprises greater than or equal to 50% Mn on an atomic basis, in this case 50% Mn and 50% Co (Table 1, Examples 1-7);
0 < x ≤ 0.33, in this case x = 2 (Table 1, Examples 1-7);
0 < y ≤ 0.1, in this case 0.05 ≤ y ≤ 0.1 (Table 1, Examples 1-7); and
an electrolyte infiltrating the positive electrode, in this case the positive electrode is impregnated with a nonaqueous electrolyte (¶ [0191]), the electrolyte comprising an organic solvent and lithium salt (¶ [0217]).
Regarding claim 6, Ishikawa further discloses that 0.005 ≤ y ≤ 0.08, in this case y = 0.05 (Table 1, Example 7).
Regarding claim 7, Ishikawa further discloses that the fluorinated LMR material has a layered crystal structure including a transition metal layer, an oxygen layer, and a lithium layer, and wherein fluorine ions in the fluorinated LMR material are present at anion sites within the oxygen layer, in this case the lithium composite oxide possesses a R-3m space group crystal structure (¶ [0021]-[0023]) which would include the recited layers and anion sites.
Regarding claim 9, Ishikawa further discloses that the organic solvent comprises fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) (¶ [0218] & [0225]-[0226]) and diethyl carbonate (DEC) (¶ [0218], [0220], & [0226]).
Regarding claim 10, Ishikawa further discloses that the lithium salt comprises lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) (¶ [0243] & [0261]).
Regarding claim 12, Ishikawa further discloses that the electroactive negative electrode material comprises a silicon oxide-based material, in this case SiOx (¶ [0209]), and a carbon-based material, in this case the negative electrode may include a conductive agent such as graphite, carbon black, graphite fluoride, and organic conductive materials (¶ [0214]).
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.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa as applied to claims 1 and 5, above, and further in view of Kang et al. (US 2005/0058588 A1), hereinafter “Kang.”
Regarding claim 4, Ishikawa does not disclose formula (2), LiaNibMncO2-yFy. However, Kang teaches formula (2) as a positive electrode active material, in this case Li1+xNiαMnβCoγM’δO2-zFz (¶ [0011]), wherein:
1.1 ≤ a ≤ 1.2, in this case 0 ≤ x ≤ 0.3 (¶ [0011]) resulting in 1.0 ≤ Li ≤ 1.3;
0.25 ≤ b ≤ 0.4, in this case 0.2 ≤ α ≤ 0.6 (¶ [0011]);
0.6 ≤ c ≤ 0.75, in this case 0.2 ≤ β ≤ 0.6 (¶ [0011]); and
0.005 ≤ y ≤ 0.08, in this case 0 ≤ z ≤ 0.2 (¶ [0011]).
When γ = δ = 0 the chemical formula simplifies to Li1+xNiαMnβO2-zFz (see ¶ [0011]).
One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that substituting the positive active material taught by Kang for that disclosed by Ishikawa would have yielded the predictable result of a functional lithium ion battery. See M.P.E.P. § 2143 I. B. Furthermore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have substituted the Li1+xNiαMnβO2-zFz taught by Kang for the Li1.2Mn0.4Co0.4O1.9F0.1 and Li1.2Mn0.4Co0.4O1.95F0.05 disclosed by Ishikawa in order to yield the predictable result of a functioning lithium ion battery.
Regarding claim 8, Ishikawa does not disclose formula (2), LiaNibMncO2-yFy. However, Kang teaches formula (2) as a positive electrode active material, in this case Li1+xNiαMnβCoγM’δO2-zFz (¶ [0011]), wherein:
1.1 ≤ a ≤ 1.2, in this case 0 ≤ x ≤ 0.3 (¶ [0011]) resulting in 1.0 ≤ Li ≤ 1.3;
0.25 ≤ b ≤ 0.4, in this case 0.2 ≤ α ≤ 0.6 (¶ [0011]);
0.6 ≤ c ≤ 0.75, in this case 0.2 ≤ β ≤ 0.6 (¶ [0011]); and
0.005 ≤ y ≤ 0.08, in this case 0 ≤ z ≤ 0.2 (¶ [0011]).
When γ = δ = 0 the chemical formula simplifies to Li1+xNiαMnβO2-zFz (see ¶ [0011]).
One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that substituting the positive active material taught by Kang for that disclosed by Ishikawa would have yielded the predictable result of a functional lithium ion battery. See M.P.E.P. § 2143 I. B. Furthermore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have substituted the Li1+xNiαMnβO2-zFz taught by Kang for the Li1.2Mn0.4Co0.4O1.9F0.1 and Li1.2Mn0.4Co0.4O1.95F0.05 disclosed by Ishikawa in order to yield the predictable result of a functioning lithium ion battery.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa as applied to claim 10, above, and further in view of Dong et al. (US 2023/0395863 A1), hereinafter “Dong.”
Regarding claim 11, Ishikawa does not disclose that the electrolyte further comprises lithium difluorophosphate (LiPO2F2). However, Dong teaches an electrolyte including LiPF6 (¶ [0030]-[0031]) and LiPO2F-2 (¶ [0032]) to the electrolyte. One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that additionally including LiPO2F-2 would have resulted in an increase in battery capacity retention (¶ [0032]), thereby facilitating improved battery performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have added LiPO2F-2 to the electrolyte in order to have facilitated improved battery operation.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Saito et al. (US 2025/0364561 A1), hereinafter “Saito.”
Regarding claim 13, Ishikawa does not disclose that the electroactive negative electrode material comprises greater than 97% lithium by weight. However, Saito teaches a negative electrode comprising lithium metal as the negative electrode active material (¶ [0069]), which is 100% by weight lithium. One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such a negative electrode would have yielded the predictable result of a functioning lithium ion battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the lithium content of the electroactive negative electrode material to have been greater than 97% by weight in order to have yielded the predictable result of a functional lithium ion battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights