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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Regarding the IDS submitted by applicant, all references have been considered except where lined through. Specifically, foreign application citation number 11 of the IDS filed 09/19/2025 does not have a proper translation included in the file wrapper and will therefore not be considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20250192220 A1, present in the IDS filed 09/16/2025) in view of Ohzuku et al. (US 20030087154 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 4 and 5, Park teaches a positive electrode active material composition with excellent quick charging performance, lifespan characteristics, and energy density comprising LiaNibCocMndMeO2 where M can be W or V (Park Formula 1, 0010, 0012). Further, Park teaches that 1<a, 0≤b≤0.5, 0≤c≤0.1, 0.5≤d<1.0, and 0≤e≤0.2. These ranges allow for a variety of compositions including Li1.10Mn0.52Ni0.33Co0.04W0.01O2 which is present in instant claim 5 which is dependent upon instant claim 1 and therefore is necessarily within the range as stated in claim 1. Park is silent to the average oxidation state of Mn. Ohzuku teaches a positive electrode active material comprising at least lithium, nickel, manganese, and oxygen. Ohzuku further teaches that the Manganese, Mn, has an average oxidation state of 3.5-4, which fully encompasses the claimed range and can be manipulated as desired using conventional techniques, so as to have a high storage capacity, long storage life, and excellent cycle life (Ohzuku 0034-0036). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to take the positive electrode active material of Park and, in view of routine experimentation of an established range in order to exhibit excellent quick charging performance, lifespan characteristics, and energy density, to result in a composition such as Li1.10Mn0.52Ni0.33Co0.04W0.01O2. Further, it would have been obvious to modify the oxidation states of the composition as desired in view of routine experimentation in order to have a high storage capacity, long storage life, and excellent cycle life of the resulting composition, such as an oxidation state of Mn of 3.96, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Park in view of Ohzuku teaches claim 1 as described above and the range of Park allows for any value of x or a in the claimed range. e in Park corresponds with a in the instant application and e can be anywhere within the range of 0-0.1 which fully encompasses the claimed range. Further, though Park does not specify x as a value of interest, x in the instant application only affects Ni and A, both of which Park teaches a range fully encompassing any possible combination where x and a would affect the value. It would have been obvious in view of routine experimentation of a known range in order to exhibit excellent quick charging performance, lifespan characteristics, and energy density, to result in a composition where a is in the range of 0-0.01 and an x value is in the range of 0.01-0.04, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Park in view of Ohzuku teaches claim 1 as described above and Ohzuku teaches Nickel having an average oxidation state of 2.0-2.5 which overlaps with the claimed range and can be manipulated as desired using conventional techniques known in the art, so as to have a high storage capacity, long storage life, and excellent cycle life (Ohzuku 0034-0036).
Regarding claims 7, 10, and 11 Park teaches a positive electrode active material composition with excellent quick charging performance, lifespan characteristics, and energy density comprising LiaNibCocMndMeO2 where M can be W or V (Park Formula 1, 0010, 0012). Further, Park teaches that 1<a, 0≤b≤0.5, 0≤c≤0.1, 0.5≤d<1.0, and 0≤e≤0.2. These ranges allow for a variety of compositions including Li1.12Mn0.51Ni0.29Co0.065W0.015O2 which is present in instant claim 11 which is dependent upon instant claim 7 and therefore is necessarily within the range as stated in claim 7. Park is silent to the average oxidation state of Mn. Ohzuku teaches a positive electrode active material comprising at least lithium, nickel, manganese, and oxygen. Ohzuku further teaches that the Manganese, Mn, has an average oxidation state of 3.5-4, which fully encompasses the claimed range and can be manipulated as desired using conventional techniques, so as to have a high storage capacity, long storage life, and excellent cycle life (Ohzuku 0034-0036). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to take the positive electrode active material of Park and, in view of routine experimentation of an established range in order to exhibit excellent quick charging performance, lifespan characteristics, and energy density, to result in a composition such as Li1.12Mn0.51Ni0.29Co0.065W0.015O2. Further, it would have been obvious to modify the oxidation states of the composition as desired in view of routine experimentation in order to have a high storage capacity, long storage life, and excellent cycle life of the resulting composition, such as an oxidation state of Mn of 3.96, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Park in view of Ohzuku teaches claim 7 as described above and the range of Park allows for any value of x or a in the claimed range. e in Park corresponds with a in the instant application and e can be anywhere within the range of 0-0.1 which fully encompasses the claimed range. Further, though Park does not specify x as a value of interest, x in the instant application only affects Ni and A, both of which Park teaches a range fully encompassing any possible combination where x and a would affect the value. It would have been obvious in view of routine experimentation of a known range in order to exhibit excellent quick charging performance, lifespan characteristics, and energy density, to result in a composition where a is in the range of 0-0.03 and an x value is in the range of 0.02-0.09, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 12, Park in view of Ohzuku teaches claim 7 as described above and Ohzuku teaches Nickel having an average oxidation state of 2.0-2.5 which overlaps with the claimed range and can be manipulated as desired using conventional techniques known in the art, so as to have a high storage capacity, long storage life, and excellent cycle life (Ohzuku 0034-0036).
Regarding claims 13, 16, and 17 Park teaches a positive electrode active material composition for a lithium ion secondary battery with excellent quick charging performance, lifespan characteristics, and energy density comprising LiaNibCocMndMeO2 where M can be W or V (Park Formula 1, 0010, 0012). Further, Park teaches that 1<a, 0≤b≤0.5, 0≤c≤0.1, 0.5≤d<1.0, and 0≤e≤0.2. These ranges allow for a variety of compositions including Li1.10Mn0.52Ni0.33Co0.04W0.01O2 which is present in instant claim 17 which is dependent upon instant claim 13 and therefore is necessarily within the range as stated in claim 13. Park is silent to the average oxidation state of Mn. Ohzuku teaches a positive electrode active material comprising at least lithium, nickel, manganese, and oxygen. Ohzuku further teaches that the Manganese, Mn, has an average oxidation state of 3.5-4, which fully encompasses the claimed range and can be manipulated as desired using conventional techniques, so as to have a high storage capacity, long storage life, and excellent cycle life (Ohzuku 0034-0036). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to take the positive electrode active material of Park and, in view of routine experimentation of an established range in order to exhibit excellent quick charging performance, lifespan characteristics, and energy density, to result in a composition such as Li1.10Mn0.52Ni0.33Co0.04W0.01O2. Further, it would have been obvious to modify the oxidation states of the composition as desired in view of routine experimentation in order to have a high storage capacity, long storage life, and excellent cycle life of the resulting composition, such as an oxidation state of Mn of 3.96, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Park in view of Ohzuku teaches claim 13 as described above and the range of Park allows for any value of x or a in the claimed range. e in Park corresponds with a in the instant application and e can be anywhere within the range of 0-0.1 which fully encompasses the claimed range. Further, though Park does not specify x as a value of interest, x in the instant application only affects Ni and A, both of which Park teaches a range fully encompassing any possible combination where x and a would affect the value. It would have been obvious in view of routine experimentation of a known range in order to exhibit excellent quick charging performance, lifespan characteristics, and energy density, to result in a composition where a is in the range of 0-0.03 and an x value is in the range of 0.01-0.09, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 18, Park in view of Ohzuku teaches claim 13 as described above and park further teaches that a separator is disposed between the positive and negative electrodes of an electrode assembly (Park 0005).
Regarding claim 19, Park in view of Ohzuku teaches claim 13 as described above and Ohzuku teaches Nickel having an average oxidation state of 2.0-2.5 which overlaps with the claimed range and can be manipulated as desired using conventional techniques known in the art, so as to have a high storage capacity, long storage life, and excellent cycle life (Ohzuku 0034-0036).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN ROBERT BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-0640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 ET.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/SEAN R. BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights