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/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I: claims 1-14, and 19-20, and Species I: claims 3-7 (wherein B=Cr, and A is Sr, Be, Ca, Zn, or Co) in the reply filed on August 21st, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-7 and 19-20 are pending in the application.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (KR101418065B1) and further in view of Gao (Gao et. al., Selecting Substituent Elements for Li-Rich Mn-Based Cathode Materials by Density Functional Theory (DFT) Calculations. Chem. Mater. 12 May (2015); 27 (9): 3456–3461.) and Ma (Ma et. al., Li-Rich Layered/Spinel Cathode Composite 3/4[Li2MnO3·LiCxO2]·1/4[LiCxMnO4] (Cx = Cr1-yCoy) for Li-Ion Batteries (2019). J. Electrochem. Soc., 166, A5065).
Regarding claim 1, Jeong discloses a positive electrode active material for a positive electrode (pg. 005, lines 10-12) for lithium secondary battery comprising a metal oxide represented by Chemical Formula 1 (claim 1):
Li2[Mn1-(x+y)CrxVy]O3, wherein 0 < x < 0.25 and 0 < y < 0.25.
Accordingly, Jeong teaches a baseline Li2MnO3 matrix doped with a combination of two dopants, where one of the dopants is chromium (Cr); therefore, Jeong teaches the presence of the claimed dopant B= Cr present in a range of 0 < x < 0.25 (Crx from Chemical Formula 1: Li2[Mn1-(x+y)CrxVy]O3; claim 1), which overlaps and encompasses the specific dopant concentrations of 0.06 recited in the claimed formula, Li2Mn0.88A0.06B0.06O3. Jeong also teaches a co-dopant (V) present in a range of 0 < y < 0.25 (Vy from Chemical Formula 1; claim 1), which overlaps and encompasses the numerical fraction (0.06) claimed for dopant A, though Jeong teaches vanadium (V) as the co-dopant instead of one of the claimed co-dopants (Co, Sr, Be, Ca, or Zn).
Regarding the numerical ranges for the claimed dopants A and B, it is noted that when the prior art discloses a general range that overlaps or routinely encompasses the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness is established (see MPEP §2144.05). Here, Jeong renders the specific stoichiometric concentrations (0.06) for both dopants within the transition metal layer obvious, leaving only the selection of the remaining claimed options for the second dopant (i.e. Co, Sr, Be, Ca, or Zn), as the alternative co-dopant to be established.
Gao teaches a systematic density functional theory (DFT) study analyzing the influences of various cation substituents for Mn in Li2MnO3 cathode materials (pg. 3456, col. 2, para. 2). Gao further evaluates and groups transition metals (vanadium (V), chromium (Cr), and cobalt (Co); (pg. 3456, col. 2, para. 2) as art-recognized equivalents for substitution at the Mn site to regulate structural stability (abstract), electronic structure and electronic properties (conductivity; abstract; pg. 3458, col. 1, para. “3.2. Oxygen Release”, lines 17-24), and oxygen evolution (pg. 3458, col. 2, para. “3.1. Electronic Structure”, lines 1-12). Therefore, Gao motivates the exchange or substitution of various transition metals within the Li2MnO3 framework to achieve optimal electronic conductivity and minimize potential decay (abstract).
In addition, Ma discloses the actual physical implementation of co-doping Li2MnO3-based systems specifically with combinations of chromium (Cr) and cobalt (Co) (Ma, pg. A5065, col. 2., para. 2 lines 1-8; structurally integrated Li-rich layered and spinel composites 3/4[Li2MnO3 · LiCxO2] ·1/4[LiCxMnO4], wherein Cx =Cr1-yCoy and y = 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 and 1). Ma further teaches that the simultaneous incorporation of Co and Cr results in a synergistic effect, significantly enhancing electrochemical performance (pg. A5065, col. 2., para. 2 lines 1-8), cyclability, and structural stabilization within Li-rich manganese oxide phases (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the metal oxide in the cathode material in the battery of Jeong by substituting the vanadium (V) co-dopant with cobalt (Co), as suggested by Gao, and optimizing the concentrations to arrive at the claimed Li2Mn0.88A0.06B0.06O3, within the overlapping ranges of Jeong.
Specifically, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the substitution of V with Co because Gao establishes Co and V as functionally interchangeable structural modifiers for the Mn sites in Li2MnO3. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been driven by a reasonable expectation of success to choose the specific combination of Co and Cr (the combination A=Co and B=Cr; instant claim 1 line 7) in order to utilize the known synergistic benefits expressly taught by Ma, such as achieving structural stability (pg. A5071, col. 16-19), “Electrochemical performances” section, lines 10-16), suppressed oxygen release (pg. A5068, col. 2, “Electrochemical performances” section, lines 10-16), and enhanced discharge capacity and cycling stability (pg. A5065, col. 2, para. 1, lines 12-14). Further, the optimization of the specific doping amounts to 0.06 would represent nothing more than routine experimentation within the overlapping, predictable ranges as taught by Jeong, in order to maximize these known synergistic advantages.
Regarding claim 2, modified Jeong teaches all features of claim 1 as described above, including wherein A and B are dopants in the following combination: A=Co and B=Cr (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 7, modified Jeong teaches all features of claim 1 as described above, including wherein A and B are dopants in the following combination: A=Co and B=Cr (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 19, modified Jeong teaches all features of claim 1 as described above, including that it would be obvious to arrive at the claimed cathode comprising Li2Mn0.88A0.06B0.06O3 (see rejection of claim 1 above; Jeong discloses a positive electrode, claim 1, pg. 005, lines 10-12).
Regarding claim 20, modified Jeong teaches all features of claim 1 as described above, including that it would be obvious to arrive at the claimed rechargeable battery and a cathode comprising Li2Mn0.88A0.06B0.06O3 (see rejection of claim 1 above; Jeong discloses a lithium secondary battery, claim 1; positive electrode, pg. 005, lines 10-12. Jeong further teaches an anode and an electrolyte (negative electrode and electrolyte, pg. 005, lines 20-23).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong, Gao, and Ma, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liang (Liang, X., Zeng, S., Liu, Y., Shi, L., & Liu, T. (2015). Enhance cycling performance of LiMn2O4 cathode by Sr2+ and Cr3+ doping. Materials Science and Technology, 31(4), 443–447).
Regarding claim 3, modified Jeong teaches all features of claim 1 as described above, including a positive active material comprising a modified Li₂MnO₃ base matrix co-doped with chromium (Cr) and cobalt (Co). Modified Jeong does not explicitly teach that the second dopant is strontium (Sr), to form a matrix containing both Cr and Sr dopants.
Liang teaches a lithium manganese oxide cathode material successfully modified by co-doping with both Sr²⁺ and Cr³⁺ to form a multi-dopant structure LiSr0.1Cr0.1 Mn1.8O4 (LSCMO; pg. 443, col. 2, lines 5-10). Liang further teaches that the simultaneous incorporation of Sr and Cr dopants into a manganese-based lithium transition metal oxide significantly improves heavy current charge–discharge performance and improves capacity retention (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the positive active material of Jeong by incorporating strontium (Sr) as a co-dopant alongside chromium (Cr), as taught by Liang, in order to achieve the known benefits of improved heavy current charge–discharge performance and improved capacity retention. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Liang establishes that the specific dual-doping combination of Sr and Cr works synergistically within lithium manganese oxides to increase crystallinity and to achieve better ordering of local structure, a lower lattice strain (pg. 444, col. 2, para. 1), and optimized high-rate capability (pg. 445, col. 1, lines 1-4). Given that both the lithium manganese oxide matrix of Jeong and Liang rely on manganese redox chemistry, and that both suffer from similar structural degradation issues (LMO suffers fast capacity during cycling, especially at high load charge–discharge; pg. 443, col. 1, “Introduction” section, lines 7-16), an ordinary artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in that applying Liang’s dual Sr/Cr doping strategy to Jeong's base matrix, it would yield a structurally robust cathode with similarly enhanced capacity retention and cycling stability.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong, Gao, and Ma, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishida (JP2003045414A).
Regarding claim 4, modified Jeong teaches all features of claim 1 as described above, including a positive active material comprising a modified Li₂MnO₃ base matrix (Li2[Mn1-(x+y)CrxVy]O3) that includes the first claimed dopant, chromium (Cr). However, modified Jeong does not explicitly teach the inclusion of beryllium (Be) as the second co-dopant.
Ishida discloses an electrode active material-containing layer for a lithium secondary battery ([0001]) containing lithium manganese oxide matrices modified with combinations of dopants, explicitly including vanadium (V), beryllium (Be), and chromium (Cr) (claim 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the positive electrode active material of Jeong by substituting the vanadium (V) co-dopant with beryllium (Be) or otherwise incorporating beryllium alongside chromium, as suggested by Ishida. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this substitution because Ishida establishes Be alongside Cr and V as effective atomic groups and dopants capable of stabilizing the manganese-based lithium interstitial sites. Substituting or co-doping with known atomic groups (Be for V) within the same or a similar baseline Li-Mn-O matrix would represent the substitution of one known element for another to achieve the predictable result of tuning the capacity and improving rate characteristics (Ishida, [0006]). Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would proceed with a reasonable expectation of success because the prior art operates within the same technical subfield of transition-metal-doped lithium manganese oxides to solve the same or a similar problem of lattice degradation (Ishida, [0006] and [0011]; Applicant, [0008]), which would affect overall capacity and cathode performance.
Regarding claim 5, modified Jeong teaches all features of claim 1 as described above, including a positive active material comprising a modified Li₂MnO₃ base matrix (Li2[Mn1-(x+y)CrxVy]O3) that includes the first claimed dopant, chromium (Cr). However, modified Jeong does not explicitly teach the inclusion of calcium (Ca) as the second co-dopant.
Ishida discloses an electrode active material-containing layer for a lithium secondary battery ([0001]) containing lithium manganese oxide matrices modified with combinations of dopants, explicitly including vanadium (V), calcium (Ca), and chromium (Cr) (claim 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the positive electrode active material of Jeong by substituting the vanadium (V) co-dopant with calcium (Ca) or otherwise incorporating calcium alongside chromium, as suggested by Ishida. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this substitution because Ishida establishes Ca alongside Cr and V as effective atomic groups and dopants capable of stabilizing the manganese-based lithium interstitial sites. Substituting or co-doping with known atomic groups (Ca for V) within the same or a similar baseline Li-Mn-O matrix would represent the substitution of one known element for another to achieve the predictable result of tuning the capacity and improving rate characteristics (Ishida, [0006]). Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would proceed with a reasonable expectation of success because the prior art operates within the same technical subfield of transition-metal-doped lithium manganese oxides to solve the same or a similar problem of lattice degradation (Ishida, [0006] and [0011]; Applicant, [0008]), which would affect overall capacity and cathode performance.
Regarding claim 6, modified Jeong teaches all features of claim 1 as described above, including a positive active material comprising a modified Li₂MnO₃ base matrix (Li2[Mn1-(x+y)CrxVy]O3) that includes the first claimed dopant, chromium (Cr). However, modified Jeong does not explicitly teach the inclusion of zinc (Zn) as the second co-dopant.
Ishida discloses an electrode active material-containing layer for a lithium secondary battery ([0001]) containing lithium manganese oxide matrices modified with combinations of dopants, explicitly including vanadium (V), zinc (Zn), and chromium (Cr) (claim 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the positive electrode active material of Jeong by substituting the vanadium (V) co-dopant with zinc (Zn) or otherwise incorporating zinc alongside chromium, as suggested by Ishida. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this substitution because Ishida establishes Zn alongside Cr and V as effective atomic groups and dopants capable of stabilizing the manganese-based lithium interstitial sites. Substituting or co-doping with known atomic groups (Zn for V) within the same or a similar baseline Li-Mn-O matrix would represent the substitution of one known element for another to achieve the predictable result of tuning the capacity and improving rate characteristics (Ishida, [0006]). Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would proceed with a reasonable expectation of success because the prior art operates within the same technical subfield of transition-metal-doped lithium manganese oxides to solve the same or a similar problem of lattice degradation (Ishida, [0006] and [0011]; Applicant, [0008]), which would affect overall capacity and cathode performance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Park (US20140147727A1): appears to disclose a cathode active material having high capacity and excellent lifetime characteristics that includes an Li2MnO3 oxide (abstract) with dopants that are similar to the disclosed dopants A and B (claim 11).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXIS R OSTWALT whose telephone number is (571)272-8650. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-5pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 5712707692. 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.
/A.R.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights