DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-21 are presented for examination, wherein claims 4-6 and 8-9 are withdrawn.
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.1 and B.1 in the reply filed on August 20, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-3, 7, and 10-21 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 1, from which claims 2-3, 7, and 10-19 depend and claims 20-21 incorporate by reference, recites the limitation “the general empirical formula” (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 7, and 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (US 2020/0313157).
Regarding independent claim 1, Johnson teaches an over-lithiated cathode active material for use in a lithium ion battery, wherein said lithium ion battery comprises:
(i) an anode;
(ii) a cathode comprising said over-lithiated cathode active material;
(iii) a porous separator between said anode and cathode to prevent a short circuit; and,
(iv) a non-aqueous electrolyte comprising a lithium salt and aprotic solvent,
said battery tested with multiple charge/discharge cycles,
wherein said over-lithiated cathode active material comprises a first lithium metal oxide phase and a second lithium metal oxide phase that is different from said first lithium metal oxide phase, wherein
said first lithium metal oxide phase having a substantially spinel structure and may have a chemical structure that may be represented by
LiNim’Mnn’Coo’O2; and
wherein 0≤m’<1, 0≤n’<1, and 0≤o’<1, and where m’+n’+o’=1;
said second lithium metal oxide phase having a substantially layered structure comprising said first lithium metal oxide phase having said substantially spinel structure and may have said chemical structure that may be represented by
LiNim’Mnn’Coo’O4; and
wherein 0≤m’<1, 0≤n’<1, and 0≤o’<1, and where m’+n’+o’=1
(e.g. ¶¶ 0003, 05, 09, 14, 17, 20, 23, 27-29, 33-36, 74-83, 86-90, 92, 95-97, 109, 115-116, 120-121, 124-128, ad 139-167), reading on “electrode active material with lithiated spinel character;” alternatively, regarding the preamble limitation “lithiated spinel character,” Johnson teaches a substantially identical first lithium metal oxide phase (e.g. having said substantially spinel structure and may have said chemical structure, see further infra regarding doubling the stoichiometric ratio, compared with the instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0010,13, 35, 41, 44-45, and 71-85), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed limitation, see also e.g. MPEP § 2112.01, said cathode active material comprising:
(1) said first lithium metal oxide phase having said substantially spinel structure and may have said chemical structure that may be represented by
LiNim’Mnn’Coo’O2,
wherein 0≤m’<1, 0≤n’<1, and 0≤o’<1, and where m’+n’+o’=1 (e.g. supra), said taught formula with a doubled stoichiometric ratio may be represented as:
Li2Ni2m’Mn2n’Co2o’O4,
wherein 0≤m’<1, 0≤n’<1, and 0≤o’<1, and where m’+n’+o’=1 (e.g. supra), severably establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed ranges, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “the general empirical formula
Li2Ni2-x-yMnxM’yO4 (Formula I);
wherein M’ comprises ions of one or more metal ions other than Ni and Mn ions; 0<x≤0.66; 0≤y≤0.25; 0<(x+y)<1; and the material has a Ni:Mn molar ratio that is greater than 2:1.”
The following Table is provided merely for illustrative purposes
Claim 1
Art
Overlap
Li
2
2
2
Ni:
2-x-y,
0<x≤0.66;
0≤y≤0.25;
0<(x+y)<1
2m’, 0≤m’<1;
0≤2m’<2
1.1≤X<2
Mn:
x,
0<x≤0.66
0<(x+y)<1
2n’, 0≤n’<1;
0≤2n’<2
0<X≤0.66
M’:
e.g. Co
y,
0≤y≤0.25;
0<(x+y)<1
e.g. Co,
2o’, 0≤o’<1;
0≤2n’<2
e.g. Co,
0≤Y≤0.25
O
4
4
4
Ni:Mn ratio
Ni:Mn: >2:1
Ni: 0≤2m’<2;
Mn: 0≤2n’<2
Ni:Mn: >2:1
Regarding claims 2-3 and 7, Johnson teaches the active material of claim 1, wherein said first lithium metal oxide phase having said substantially spinel structure and may have said chemical structure that may be represented by
LiNim’Mnn’Coo’O2,
wherein 0≤m’<1, 0≤n’<1, and 0≤o’<1, and where m’+n’+o’=1 (e.g. supra), reading on “M’ comprises one or more transition metal ions” (claim 2); “the transition metal ion is selected from the group consisting of Co, Ti, V, Fe, Cu and Zr” (claim 3); and, “wherein M’ comprises Co” (claim 7).
Regarding claims 10-12, Johnson teaches the active material of claim 1, wherein said first lithium metal oxide phase having said substantially spinel structure and may have said chemical structure that may be represented by
LiNim’Mnn’Coo’O2,
wherein 0≤m’<1, 0≤n’<1, and 0≤o’<1, and where m’+n’+o’=1 (e.g. supra), severably establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed ranges, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “0<x<0.5” (claim 10); “0<y≤0.1” (claim 12); and, “0<x<0.5 and 0<y≤0.1” (claim 12).
The following Table is provided merely for illustrative purposes
Claim 1
Claim 10
Claim 11
Claim 12
Art
Overlap
Li
2
2
2
2
2
2
Ni:
2-x-y,
0<x≤0.66;
0≤y≤0.25;
0<(x+y)<1
2-x-y,
0<x<0.5;
0≤y≤0.25;
0<(x+y)<1
2-x-y,
0<x≤0.66;
0<y≤0.1;
0<(x+y)<1
2-x-y,
0<x<0.5;
0<y≤0.1;
0<(x+y)<1
2m’, 0≤m’<1;
0≤2m’<2
1.4<X<2
Mn:
x,
0<x≤0.66;
0<(x+y)<1
x,
0<x<0.5;
0<(x+y)<1
x,
0<x≤0.66
0<(x+y)<1
x,
0<x<0.5;
0<(x+y)<1
2n’, 0≤n’<1;
0≤2n’<2
0<X<0.5
M’:
e.g. Co
y,
0≤y≤0.25; 0<(x+y)<1
y,
0≤y≤0.25; 0<(x+y)<1
y,
0<y≤0.1; 0<(x+y)<1
y,
0<y≤0.1; 0<(x+y)<1
e.g. Co,
2o’, 0≤o’<1;
0≤2n’<2
e.g. Co,
0<Y≤0.1
O
4
4
4
4
4
Ni:Mn ratio
Ni:Mn: >2:1
Ni:Mn: >2:1
Ni:Mn: >2:1
Ni: 0≤2m’<2;
Mn: 0≤2n’<2
Ni:Mn: >2:1
Regarding claims 13-15, Johnson teaches the active material of claim 1, wherein said first lithium metal oxide phase having said substantially spinel structure and may have said chemical structure that may be represented by
LiNim’Mnn’Coo’O2,
wherein 0≤m’<1, 0≤n’<1, and 0≤o’<1, and where m’+n’+o’=1 (e.g. supra), severably establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed ranges, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “the Ni:Mn molar ratio is in the range of about 2.01:1 to about 9:1” (claim 13); “the Ni:Mn molar ratio is about 3:1 or greater” (claim 14); and, “the Ni:Mn molar ratio is about 5:1 or greater” (claim 15).
The following Table is provided merely for illustrative purposes
Claim 1
Claim 10
Claim 11
Claim 12
Art
Overlap
Li
2
2
2
2
2
2
Ni:
2-x-y,
0<x≤0.66;
0≤y≤0.25;
0<(x+y)<1
2-x-y,
0<x≤0.66;
0≤y≤0.25;
0<(x+y)<1
2-x-y,
0<x≤0.66;
0≤y≤0.25;
0<(x+y)<1
2-x-y,
0<x≤0.66;
0≤y≤0.25;
0<(x+y)<1
2m’, 0≤m’<1;
0≤2m’<2
1.1≤X<2
Mn:
x,
0<x≤0.66
0<(x+y)<1
x,
0<x≤0.66
0<(x+y)<1
x,
0<x≤0.66
0<(x+y)<1
x,
0<x≤0.66
0<(x+y)<1
2n’, 0≤n’<1;
0≤2n’<2
0<X≤0.66
M’:
e.g. Co
y,
0≤y≤0.25; 0<(x+y)<1
y,
0≤y≤0.25; 0<(x+y)<1
y,
0≤y≤0.25; 0<(x+y)<1
y,
0≤y≤0.25; 0<(x+y)<1
e.g. Co,
2o’, 0≤o’<1;
0≤2n’<2
e.g. Co,
0≤Y≤0.25
O
4
4
4
4
4
4
Ni:Mn ratio
Ni:Mn: about 2.01:1 to about 9:1
Ni:Mn: about 3:1 or greater
Ni:Mn: about 5:1 or greater
Ni: 0≤2m’<2;
Mn: 0≤2n’<2
Ni:Mn: about 5:1 to about 9:1
Regarding claim 17, Johnson teaches the active material of claim 1, wherein said first lithium metal oxide phase having said substantially spinel structure and may have said chemical structure that may be represented by
LiNim’Mnn’Coo’O2,
wherein 0≤m’<1, 0≤n’<1, and 0≤o’<1, and where m’+n’+o’=1 (e.g. supra), indicating the oxygen atom is not substituted, i.e. 0 mol% substitution of oxygen, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed range, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “up to 5 mol % of the oxygen thereof is replaced by fluorine.”
Regarding claim 18, Johnson teaches the active material of claim 1, wherein said first lithium metal oxide phase having said substantially spinel structure and may have said chemical structure that may be represented by
LiNim’Mnn’Coo’O2,
wherein 0≤m’<1, 0≤n’<1, and 0≤o’<1, and where m’+n’+o’=1 (e.g. supra), but does not expressly teach the limitation “the metal ions of the material of Formula I are partially disordered relative to an ideal lithiated spinel structure.”
However, Johnson teaches said battery tested with multiple charge/discharge cycles (e.g. supra), wherein during cycling a partial charge and/or discharge results in lithium ions intercalating/deintercalating from said active material, so that lithium ions of said substantially spinel structure is partially disordered relative to a fully lithiated spinel structure, reading on said limitation; alternatively,
Johnson teaches a substantially identical first lithium metal oxide phase (e.g. having said substantially spinel structure and may have said chemical structure, see further supra regarding doubling the stoichiometric ratio, compared with the instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0010, 30-31, 34, 41,-42, and 44), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed limitation, see also e.g. MPEP § 2112.01.
Regarding claim 19, Johnson teaches the active material of claim 1, wherein said over-lithiated cathode active material comprises said first lithium metal oxide phase and said second lithium metal oxide phase that is different from said first lithium metal oxide phase, wherein
said first lithium metal oxide phase having said substantially spinel structure and may have said chemical structure that may be represented by
LiNim’Mnn’Coo’O2; and
wherein 0≤m’<1, 0≤n’<1, and 0≤o’<1, and where m’+n’+o’=1;
said second lithium metal oxide phase having said substantially layered structure comprising said first lithium metal oxide phase having said substantially spinel structure and may have said chemical structure that may be represented by
LiNim’Mnn’Coo’O4; and
wherein 0≤m’<1, 0≤n’<1, and 0≤o’<1, and where m’+n’+o’=1
(e.g. supra), wherein it is understood that said cathode active material, which comprises said first lithium metal oxide phase and said second lithium metal oxide phase, refers to particles incorporating therein said first substantially spinel and second substantially layered phases (see also e.g. ¶¶ 0043 and 142 plus e.g. Figures 7A-D), reading on “the material comprises structurally-intergrown Ni-rich components consisting of partially-disordered lithiated spinel components, partially-disordered layered components and, optionally, more extensively disordered rock-salt components.”
Regarding claims 20-21, Johnson is applied as provided supra, with the following modifications.
Regarding independent claim 20, Johnson teaches said lithium ion battery comprising said anode; said cathode comprising said cathode active material; a porous separator between said anode and cathode to prevent a short circuit; and, said non-aqueous electrolyte comprising said lithium salt and aprotic solvent (e.g. supra), reading on “electrochemical cell comprising an anode, a cathode, and a lithium-containing electrolyte…, wherein the cathode comprises the electrode active material of claim 1,” but does not expressly teach said non-aqueous electrolyte “contacting the anode and cathode.”
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to fill pores of said separator with said non-aqueous electrolyte so that said electrolyte contacts both of said anode and cathode, since a function of electrolyte is to help transfer ions between the anode and cathode, reading on “a lithium-containing electrolyte contacting the anode and cathode.”
Regarding independent claim 21, Johnson teaches said lithium ion battery but does not expressly teach “a plurality of the electrochemical cell of claim 20 electrically connected in series, in parallel, or in both series and parallel.”
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate and connect in series or parallel in order to increase the voltage and/or capacities, depending on the application for use of the battery.
Art of Record
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the timely art of record teaches or suggests the claimed electrode active material with the specifically claimed lithiated spinel character of claim 1, having the specifically claimed stoichiometric ratios of the specifically claimed elements (claim 1), that is structurally integrated with the claimed layered-layered lithium metal oxide, having the specifically claimed stoichiometric ratios of the specifically claimed elements of claim 16.
See also the instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0010-13, 28, 34, 44, 46-47, 49, and 54.
Conclusion
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Thackeray et al (Thackeray et al, Review–From LiMn2O4 to Partially-Disordered Li2MnNiO4: The Evolution of Lithiated-Spinel Cathodes for Li-Ion Batteries, J. Electrochem. Soc. 169 (Feb 2022));
Thackeray et al (US 2023/0108813);
Thackeray et al (US 2022/0029161);
Thackeray et al (US 2022/0029160);
Ji et al (US 2021/0313578);
Shi et al (US 2021/0257620);
Vaughey et al (US 2020/0321655);
Zhang et al (US 2019/0288340);
Thackeray et al (US 2019/0207214);
Croy et al (US 2019/0013518);
Thackeray et al ((US 2018/0351163); and,
Croy et al (US 2018/0254483).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI whose telephone number is (571)270-5828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-4.
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, TIFFANY LEGETTE-THOMPSON can be reached at (571)270-7078. 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.
/YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights