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/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-8 and 14, drawn to product, classified in H01M 4/505.
II. Claims 9-13, drawn to process, classified in H01M 4/36.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case, Invention I can be prepared by dissolving the first lithium salt in an organic solution before combining with the dissolved second lithium salt.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with 314-341-0988 on 06/09/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group 1, claims 1-8 and 14. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 9-13 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 10, 2024, November 11, 2024, May 13, 2025 and November 19, 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 lines 5-6 recites that the first lithium salt may be a lithium-rich manganese-based system xLi2MnO3-(1-x)LiMnyB1-yO2 wherein B is selected from one or two metal ions of Ni, Co, or Al. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “B” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “one or two metal ions of Ni, Co, or Al,” while the accepted meaning is “B”. For the purpose of prosecution, the term is definite and treated inconsistent with the accepted meaning because the specification via claim 1 has clearly redefined the term.
Claim 1 line 4, it is clear the descriptor “layered-structure” is being applied to only LiAO2 due to the wording in instant specification [0012] “at least one of spinel-structure LiAO4, layered-structure LiBO2”.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1 line 2, there seems to be an “a” missing before the word “surface”. Similarly in claim 4 line 1-2, there seems to be an “a” missing before the word thickness. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 3, 4 and 8 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.
Regarding claims 3, 4, and 8, the phrase "optionally" reads as an exemplary term and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0280300, hereinafter Maeda.
Regarding claim 1, Maeda teaches a positive electrode active material (‘positive electrode impregnated with an electrolyte’ [0103]), characterized by comprising a substrate (‘LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2’ [0105]) and a coating layer (‘nonaqueous electrolytic solution’ [0117]) located on a surface of the substrate (‘nonaqueous electrolytic solution was poured and impregnated on the power generating element which includes the positive electrode’ [0118]), wherein
the substrate comprises a first lithium salt, the first lithium salt being selected from at least one of Li[NiaCobMnc]O2 wherein 0<a<1, 0<b<1, 0<c<1, and a+b+c=1; and (‘LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2’ [0105], where a=b=c=1/3 and a+b+c=1)
the coating layer [0117] comprises a second lithium salt containing fluorine, phosphorus, and oxygen and the oxygen in the second lithium salt containing lone electron pairs (‘lithium diflurorphosphate’ [0117], one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that lithium difluorophosphate has lone electron pairs on the oxygen).
Regarding claim 4, Maeda teaches the positive electrode active material [0103] according to claim 1, characterized in that thickness of the coating layer [0117] is 10 nm to 100 nm (‘positive electrode active material layer having a thickness of 70 µm’ [0105], one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that when the electrolytic solution impregnates the positive electrode, it would have the same thickness as said positive electrode i.e. 70 µm). Maeda teaches a value which lies inside the claimed range and therefore anticipates the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, Maeda teaches the positive electrode active material [0103] according to claim 1, characterized in that the second lithium salt is selected from lithium difluorophosphate (‘lithium diflurorphosphate’ [0117]).
Regarding claim 14, Maeda teaches a lithium-ion battery (‘fabrication of lithium ion secondary battery’ [0118]), comprising a positive electrode plate (‘positive electrode (GC1)’ [0118]), a separator (‘porous film separator 31’ [0118]), and a negative electrode plate (‘negative electrode (NGA1)’ [0118]), characterized in that the positive electrode plate comprises the positive electrode active material according to claim 1 (‘positive electrode (GC1)’ [0118] is the above mentioned positive electrode mixture and electrolytic solution from [0105] and [0117]).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0280300, hereinafter Maeda as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Maeda teaches, as mentioned above, positive electrode coated (impregnated) with a nonaqueous electrolytic solution [0018] wherein the second lithium salt (nonaqueous electrolytic solution) contains lithium difluorophosphate [0117] and the first lithium salt (positive electrode) contains LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 [0105].
However, Maeda fails to teach the second lithium salt having a mass percentage of 0.1% to 20% based on the total mass of the positive electrode active material.
Maeda teaches that the inclusion of lithium difluorophosphate (second lithium salt) in the nonaqueous electrolytic solution improves the charge rate by the formation of a low resistant film derived from lithium difluorophosphate on the surface of a positive electrode active material at the initial stage of charging. Therefore, the amount of lithium difluorophosphate (second salt) is considered an art recognized result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the amount of lithium difluorophosphate in the nonaqueous electrolytic solution in order to improve the charge rate, as taught by Maeda. In optimizing this amount of lithium difluorophosphate, one would arrive at the claimed relationship, barring evidence to criticality of unexpected results.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0280300, hereinafter Maeda, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0384847, hereinafter Takahashi.
Regarding claim 2, Maeda teaches, as mentioned above, positive electrode coated (impregnated) with a nonaqueous electrolytic solution [0018] wherein the second lithium salt (nonaqueous electrolytic solution) contains lithium difluorophosphate [0117] and the first lithium salt (positive electrode) contains LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 [0105].
However, Maeda fails to teach that the surface of the coating layer has protruding agglomerated particles formed by the second lithium salt.
Takahashi teaches lithium diflurorphosphate for a nonaqueous electrolytic solution and a nonaqueous secondary battery (Abstract). The lithium difluorophosphate is presumed to be a powder composed of primary particles and spherical secondary particles in which the primary particles are aggregated (agglomerated) at room temperature and normal pressure [0202].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the protruding agglomerated particles of Takahashi on the surface of the second lithium salt of Maeda in order to generate a small amount of heat when dissolved in the nonaqueous electrolytic solution [0200].
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0280300, hereinafter Maeda, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0006767, hereinafter Du.
Regarding claims 6-8, Maeda teaches, as mentioned above, positive electrode coated (impregnated) with a nonaqueous electrolytic solution [0018] wherein the second lithium salt (nonaqueous electrolytic solution) contains lithium difluorophosphate [0117] and the first lithium salt (positive electrode) contains LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 [0105]. The purpose of the positive electrode with the nonaqueous electrolytic solution is to improve charge rate while maintaining the energy density [0004-0005].
However, Maeda fails to teach the positive electrode active material containing a first and second particles and the specifics thereof regarding median particle size (instant claim 6), mass ratio (instant claim 7), and crystal form (instant claim 8).
Du teaches a lithium ion battery containing a positive electrode plate comprising of a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode active material layer. The positive electrode active material layer includes a first sub-layer and a second sub-layer (Abstract). In the positive electrode plate, a least a portion of the second positive electrode active material in the second sub-layer has a polycrystalline structure (reads on first particle), and the remainder thereof has a monocrystalline structure (reads on second particle) [0022]. The second positive electrode active material preferably has a Dv50 of 5 µm to 15 µm [0020]. This demonstrates an overlap in ranges taught for both ranges of instant claim 6. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a Prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). In the second positive active material, it is most preferably that the mass ratio of the polycrystalline structure to the monocrystalline structure is 95:5 to 50:50 [0033]. This demonstrates an overlap in ranges taught for both the mass ratios of instant claims 7 and 8. The purpose of this second sub-layer is to further improve the processing performance and mechanical performance of the entire positive electrode plate and increase the energy density of the lithium ion battery [0022].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the active material in the second sub-layer of Du in the active material of Maeda for the purposes of battery performance and energy density (MPEP 2144.06).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mia K Holbrook whose telephone number is (571)272-9253. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571) 270-5256. 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.
/M.K.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights