DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a final office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on 9 July 2026. Claims 1, 9, 12 and 14-17 are currently amended. Claims 1-20 are pending review in this action. The previous objections to the claims are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s corresponding amendments. The previous 35 U.S.C 112 rejections are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s corresponding amendments.
New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments are presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 and 7-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0376314, hereinafter Son in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0037680, hereinafter Park, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0377655, hereinafter Mun and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0185714, hereinafter Han.
Regarding claim 1, Son teaches a composite cathode active material. The composite cathode active material comprises core-shell particles (abstract).
Among the particles, there is a first core-shell particle including a first core comprising a first lithium transition metal oxide and a second core-shell particle including a second core comprising a second lithium transition metal oxide.
A first shell conforms to a surface of the first core and a second shell conforms to a surface of the second core (abstract).
Each shell comprises a first metal oxide and a carbonaceous material (abstract). Son teaches that the carbonaceous material includes a graphene (“first carbon-based material”) (paragraph [0062]).
The first metal oxide is within a matrix of the graphene (“first carbon-based material”). The first metal oxide is represented by MaOb (0<a≤3, 0<b<4, wherein if a is 1, 2, or 3, b is not an integer). M is at least one metal selected from among Groups 2 to 13, 15 and 16 of the periodic table of elements (abstract).
Son fails to: 1) teach a second carbon-based material having an aspect ratio of 10 or more; and 2) report the particle diameters of the first lithium transition metal oxide and the second lithium transition metal oxide.
Regarding 1), Park teaches a composite cathode active material comprising core-shell particles (paragraph [0035]). The core is a lithium transition metal oxide (paragraphs [0041-0044]). The shell includes the same metal oxide as Son and a carbonaceous material (paragraphs [0036, 0051]). Son teaches that the carbonaceous material may be carbon nanotubes with an aspect ratio of less than 300, which serve to improve the electrical conductivity of the material (paragraphs [0047, 0048, 0050]).
Mun teaches a composite cathode active material comprising core-shell particles (paragraph [0045]). The core is a lithium transition metal oxide and the shell includes a metal oxide and a carbonaceous material (paragraphs [0045, 0048-0052, 0056-0066]). Mun teaches that the carbonaceous material may be at least one of various carbon materials including carbon nanotubes, carbon nanofibers and graphene (paragraph [0052]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include carbon nanotubes with an aspect ratio of less than 300 as a second carbon-based material in Son’s shell for the purpose of enhancing the composite cathode active material’s electrical conductivity.
The optimum range for the aspect ratio overlaps the instant application's optimum range of more than 10. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding 2), Mun teaches a composite cathode active material comprising core-shell particles (paragraph [0045]). The core is a lithium transition metal oxide and the shell includes a metal oxide and a carbonaceous material (paragraphs [0045, 0048-0052, 0056-0066]). The core has an average particle size in the range 1 µm to 30 µm (paragraph [0068]).
Han teaches a composite cathode active material comprising core-shell particles (paragraphs [0055-0057]). The core is a lithium transition metal oxide (paragraphs [0040-0054]). Han teaches a first core that is a small-diameter primary particle with an average particle diameter (D50) in the range 2 µm to 8 µm (paragraph [0039]).
Han further teaches that the composite cathode active material includes a second core which is a large-diameter particle. The large-diameter particle is a secondary particle with an average particle diameter (D50) in the range 10 µm to 20 µm (paragraph [0059]). The large-diameter particle has the same material composition as the small-diameter particle (paragraph [0060]). Han teaches that the resulting bimodal particle diameter distribution allows for improved energy density, because the small-diameter particles fill in gaps between the large-diameter particles within the electrode layer (paragraphs [0015, 0031]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Son’s lithium transition metal oxide active material with a bimodal particle diameter distribution having small-diameter primary particles with an average particle diameter (D50) in the range 2 µm to 8 µm and large-diameter secondary particles with an average particle diameter (D50) in the range 10 µm to 20 µm for the purpose of achieving superior energy density.
The lithium transition metal oxide active material of Son as modified by Mun and Han is a mixture of particles with a range of diameters. The average particle diameter (D50) indicates that there are individual particles within the mixture that have diameters larger than the D50 number and individual particles that have diameters smaller than the D50 number. The present claim as phrased merely requires the presence of one individual primary particle with a diameter greater than 3 µm and one individual primary particle with a diameter greater than 1 µm.
One could look just to the small-diameter primary particles in the combination of Son, Mun and Han to find two such particles. For example, within a selection of primary particles with an average particle diameter (D50) of say 3 µm, there would be a first particle that is a primary particle and has a diameter greater than 3 µm and there would be a second particle that is a primary particle and has a diameter greater than 1 µm. The former would be the “first lithium transition metal oxide” and the latter would be the “second lithium transition metal oxide”.
On the other hand, each of the large-diameter secondary particles comprises primary particles. Given that the material of the secondary particles is the same as the material of the primary particles, it is understood that the secondary particles are formed of an agglomeration of the primary particles. As such, there would be secondary particles comprising a primary particle with a diameter of 3 µm or more. Under this interpretation, “the first lithium transition metal oxide” would be a large-diameter secondary particle, which comprises a primary particle with a particle diameter of 3 µm or more and “the second lithium transition metal oxide” would be a small-diameter primary particle with a particle diameter of 1 µm or more.
Regarding claim 2, Son as modified by Mun and Han teaches small-diameter primary particles with an average particle diameter (D50) in the range 2 µm to 8 µm (Han’s paragraph [0039]).
Within a selection of primary particles with an average particle diameter (D50) of say 3 µm, there would be a first particle that is a one-body primary particle with a diameter greater than 3 µm and there would be a second particle that is a one-body primary particle with a diameter greater than 1 µm. The former would be the “first lithium transition metal oxide” and the latter would be the “second lithium transition metal oxide”.
Regarding claim 3, Son as modified by Mun and Han teaches that the first lithium transition metal oxide is a large-diameter lithium transition metal oxide having a larger particle diameter than that of the second lithium transition metal oxide. The second lithium transition metal oxide is a small-diameter lithium transition metal oxide having a smaller particle diameter than that of the first lithium transition metal oxide (Han’s paragraphs [0039, 0058]).
Regarding claim 4, Son as modified by Mun and Han teaches that the first lithium transition metal oxide and the second lithium transition metal oxide have a bimodal particle diameter distribution (Han’s abstract).
The first lithium transition metal oxide has an average particle diameter (D50) in the range 10 µm to 20 µm (Han’s paragraph [0059]). The second lithium transition metal oxide has an average particle diameter (D50) in the range 2 µm to 8 µm (Han’s paragraph [0039]).
The optimum range for the particle diameter ratio overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 2:1 to 10:1. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Son as modified by Mun and Han teaches small-diameter lithium transition metal oxide primary particles with an average particle diameter (D50) in the range 2 µm to 8 µm (Han’s paragraph [0039]).
Within a selection of primary particles with an average particle diameter (D50) of say 3 µm, there would be a first particle with a diameter greater than 3 µm and there would be a second particle with a diameter greater than 1 µm. The former would be the “first lithium transition metal oxide” and the latter would be the “second lithium transition metal oxide”.
The optimum ranges for the particles overlaps the instant application's optimum ranges of 3 µm to 10 µm and 1 µm to 5 µm, respectively. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Alternatively, Son as modified by Mun and Han teaches large-diameter lithium transition metal oxide particles with an average particle diameter (D50) in the range 10 µm to 20 µm (Han’s paragraph [0059]). These would be the “first lithium transition metal oxide”.
The small-diameter lithium transition metal oxide primary particles with an average particle diameter (D50) in the range 2 µm to 8 µm (Han’s paragraph [0039]) would be the “second lithium transition metal oxide”.
The optimum ranges for the particles overlap the instant application's optimum ranges of 3 µm to 10 µm and 1 µm to 5 µm, respectively. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Son as modified by Park and Mun teaches that the second carbon-based material comprises carbon nanotubes (Park’s paragraph [0048]).
All carbon nanotubes can be said to comprise a carbon nanotube primary structure, which is a carbon nanotube unit.
Regarding claim 8, Son as modified by Park and Mun teaches that the carbon nanotube primary structure may be a single-walled carbon nanotube, a multi-walled carbon nanotube or a combination thereof (Park’s paragraph [0048]).
Son as modified by Park and Mun teaches that the carbon nanotube primary structure has a diameter in the range 1 nm to 50 nm (paragraph [0050]).
Son as modified by Park and Mun teaches that the carbon nanotube primary structure has an aspect ratio of less than 300 (paragraph [0048]).
Therefore, within the ranges taught by Son as modified by Park and Mun is a range of lengths that at least overlaps the instantly claimed range of lengths.
The optimum range for the diameter and the length overlaps the instant application's optimum ranges of 1 nm to 20 nm and 100 nm to 2 µm, respectively. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Son as modified by Park and Mun teaches carbon nanotubes on the core. The carbon nanotubes together are an aggregation of a plurality of nanotubes and are thus a “carbon nanotube secondary structure” and may be described as a bundle.
Son as modified by Park and Mun teaches a carbon nanotube has a diameter in the range 1 nm to 50 nm (Park’s paragraph [0050]). Then the “carbon nanotube secondary structure” will also have “a diameter” in the range 1 nm to 50 nm.
Son as modified by Park and Mun teaches that the carbon nanotube has an aspect ratio of less than 300 (Park’s paragraph [0048]).
Therefore, within the ranges taught by Son as modified by Park and Mun is a range of lengths that at least overlaps the instantly claimed range of lengths.
The optimum range for the length overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 500 nm to 1000 µm. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Son as modified by Park and Mun teaches that the carbon nanotubes (“second carbon-based material”) may be present at a range of 0.001 wt% to 5 wt% of the total weight of the composite positive electrode material (Park’s paragraph [0055]).
The carbon nanotubes (“second carbon-based material”) are on a surface of the composite positive electrode material (Park’s paragraph [0050]).
Son as modified by Park and Mun fails to teach the weight of the carbon nanotubes (“second carbon-based material”) relative to the total weight of the carbonaceous material.
It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try equal amounts by weight (50 wt%) of graphene (“first carbon-based material”) and carbon nanotubes (“second carbon-based material”) without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
The optimum range for the content of the carbon nanotubes (“second carbon-based material”) overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 0.01 wt% to 1 wt%. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, Son teaches that a first metal in the first metal oxide is at least one selected from Al, Nb, Mg, Sc, Ti, Zr, V, W, Mn, Fe, Co, Pd, Cu, Ag, Zn, Sb and Se (paragraph [0045]).
The first metal oxide is at least one selected from Al2Oz (0<z<3), NbOx (0<x<2.5), MgOx (0<x<1), Sc2Oz (0<z<3), TiOy (0<y<2), ZrOy (0<y<2), V2Oz (0<z<3), WOy (0<y<2), MnOy (0<y<2), Fe2Oz (0<z<3), Co3Ow (0<w<4), PdOx (0<x<1), CuOx (0<x<1), AgOx (0<x<1), ZnOx (0<x<1), Sb2Oz (0<z<3), and SeOy (0<y<2) (paragraph [0045]).
Regarding claim 12, Son teaches that the shell further comprises a second metal oxide.
The second metal oxide is represented by formula MaOc (0<a≤3, 0<c≤4, when c is an integer, a is 1, 2, or 3). The second metal oxide comprises the same metal as the first metal oxide. The ratio c/a is larger than the ratio b/a (paragraph [0046]).
The second metal oxide is in the first carbon-based matrix (paragraph [0053]).
Regarding claim 13, Son teaches that the second metal oxide is selected from Al2O3, NbO, NbO2, Nb2O5, MgO, Sc2O3, TiO2, ZrO2, V2O3, WO2, MnO2, Fe2O3, Co3O4, PdO, CuO, AgO, ZnO, Sb2O3, and SeO2. The first metal oxide is a reduction product of the second metal oxide (paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 14, Son teaches that in each core-shell particle, the first carbon-based material of the shell is chemically bonded to the transition metal of the lithium transition metal oxide in the core (paragraph [0047]).
A carbon atom (C) in first carbon-based material of the shell is chemically bonded to a transition metal (Me) in the lithium transition metal oxide through a C-O-Me bond via an oxygen atom (paragraph [0047]).
The first metal oxide is chemically bonded to the first carbon-based material (paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 15, Son teaches a third metal doped on each core or a third metal oxide applied to each core. The shell is on the third metal oxide. The third metal oxide is an oxide of at least one third metal selected from Al, Zr, W and Co (paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 16, Son teaches that the shell has a thickness in the range 1 nm to 1 µm (paragraph [0049]).
The shell is applied in a single step, therefore it is understood to be a single-layer structure (paragraph [0127]).
The shell is applied in a dry milling step (paragraph [0127]).
The amount of the shell is in the range 3 wt% or less relative to the total weight of the composite cathode active material (paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 17, Son teaches that the first lithium transition metal oxide and the second lithium transition metal oxide may be represented by one of the following formulas.
Formula 1 (corresponds to instantly claimed Formula 1):
LiaNixCoyMzO2-bAb, with 1.0 ≤ a ≤ 1.2, 0 ≤ b ≤ 0.2, 0.8 ≤ x ≤ 1, 0 < y ≤ 0.3, 0 < z ≤ 0.3, and x+y+z=1. M is at least on selected from manganese (Mn), niobium (Nb), vanadium (V), magnesium (Mg), gallium (Ga), silicon (Si), tungsten (W), molybdenum (Mo), iron (Fe), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), titanium (Ti), aluminum (Al), and boron (B), and A is F, S, CI, Br, or a combination thereof (paragraphs [0063-0066]).
Formula 2 (corresponds to instantly claimed Formula 2):
LiNixCoyMnzO2, with 0.8 ≤ x ≤ 0.95, 0 < y ≤ 0.2, 0 < z ≤ 0.2, and x+y+z=1 (paragraphs [0067, 0068]).
Formula 3 (corresponds to instantly claimed Formula 3):
LiNixCoyAlzO2, with 0.8 ≤ x ≤ 0.95, 0 < y ≤ 0.2, 0 < z ≤ 0.2, and x+y+z=1 (paragraphs [0067, 0068]).
Regarding claim 18, Son teaches a cathode comprising the positive electrode active material of claim 1 (paragraph [0070]).
Regarding claim 19, Son teaches a lithium battery comprising the cathode of claim 18, an anode and an electrolyte between the cathode and the anode (paragraph [0081]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0376314, hereinafter Son in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0037680, hereinafter Park, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0377655, hereinafter Mun and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0185714, hereinafter Han as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0280862, hereinafter Han ‘862.
Regarding claim 6, Son as modified by Mun and Han teaches that a weight ratio of the first transition metal oxide to the second transition metal oxide is in the range 8:2 to 7:3 (80:20 to 70:30) (Han’s paragraph [0061]).
Son as modified by Mun and Han fails to report on the specific surface area of the material.
Han ‘862 reports that a preferred specific surface area for cathode active material particles comprising a lithium transition metal oxide is in the range 0.5 m2/g to 1.6 m2/g for the purpose of enhancing battery performance (paragraphs [0034-0041, 0045]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a specific surface area in the range 0.5 m2/g to 1.6 m2/g for the purpose of enhancing battery performance.
The optimum range for the specific surface area overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 0.8 m2/g or less. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0376314, hereinafter Son in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0037680, hereinafter Park, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0377655, hereinafter Mun and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0185714, hereinafter Han as applied to claim 19 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0305582, hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 20, Son teaches that the cathode comprises a cathode current collector, which is aluminum (paragraph [0072]). The anode comprises an anode current collector, which is copper (paragraph [0086]).
Son fails to teach that the cathode current collector and/or the anode current collector includes a base layer comprising a polymer.
Wang teaches a current collector (200) for a lithium ion battery. The current collector (200) comprises a base film (220) and a metal layer (230) on both sides of the base film (220) (paragraph [0030] and figure 2). The base film (220) is a polymer comprising PET, PE, PP or PI (paragraph [0032]). The metal layer (230) comprises aluminum, copper, nickel, iron, titanium, cobalt, or an alloy thereof (paragraph [0014]).
Wang teaches that the addition of the base film improves the safety of the current collector and the energy density of the battery (paragraph [0004]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a base film comprising PET, PE, PP or PI in Son’s cathode current collector and/or the anode current collector for the purpose of improving the safety of the current collector and the energy density of the battery as taught by Wang.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 7-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-5 and 7-19 of copending Application No. 18/477,003 in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0185714, hereinafter Han.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 7-19 of copending Application No. 18/477,003 include all of the limitations of instant claims 1, 3-5 and 7-19 except that the particle diameter of the first lithium transition metal oxide is 3 µm or more.
As detailed in the present office action, Han teaches the missing limitation. It would have been obvious to form the first lithium transition metal oxide with a diameter of 3 µm or more in order to improve the energy density of the battery.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-13 and 17-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-5, 8-11 and 14-16 of copending Application No. 18/485,036 in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0185714, hereinafter Han.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-11 and 14-16 of copending Application No. 18/485,036 include all of the limitations of instant claims 1, 3-5, 7-13 and 17-19 except that the particle diameter of the first lithium transition metal oxide is 3 µm or more and the particle diameter of the second lithium transition metal oxide is 1 µm or more.
As detailed in the present office action, Han teaches the missing limitation. It would have been obvious to form the first lithium transition metal oxide with a diameter of 3 µm or more and the second lithium transition metal oxide with a diameter of 1 µm or more in order to improve the energy density of the battery.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-5, 7-13 and 17-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-8 and 16-19 of copending Application No. 17/993,714 in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0185714, hereinafter Han.
Claims 1, 3-8 and 16-19 of copending Application No. 17/993,714 include all of the limitations of instant claims 1-5, 7-13 and 17-19 except for a second core comprising a second lithium transition metal oxide, with a different particle diameter than the first lithium transition metal oxide, the particle diameter of the first lithium transition metal oxide being 3 µm or more and the particle diameter of the second lithium transition metal oxide being 1 µm or more.
As detailed in the present office action, Han teaches the missing limitation. It would have been obvious to form the first lithium transition metal oxide with a diameter of 3 µm or more and the second lithium transition metal oxide with a diameter of 1 µm or more in order to improve the energy density of the battery.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-5, 11-13 and 17-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-11 and 16-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,658,436 in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0185714, hereinafter Han and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0037680, hereinafter Park.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-11 and 16-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,658,436 include all of the limitations of instant claims 1-5, 11-13 and 17-19 except for the particle diameter of the first lithium transition metal oxide being 3 µm or more and a second carbon-based material with an aspect ratio of at least 10.
As detailed in the present office action, Han and Park teach the missing limitations. It would have been obvious to form the first lithium transition metal oxide with a diameter of 3 µm or more in order to improve the energy density of the battery and to include the second carbon-based material with an aspect ratio of at least 10 to improve the electrical conductivity of the material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s newly added limitations have been considered. However, after further search and consideration, the previously presented combination of the Son, Park, Mun and Han references was found to address the amended claims.
As a point of clarification the following remarks are further provided.
Son’s material is a powder comprising particles having a core and a conformal shell as described in Son’s abstract and the rest of Son’s disclosure. As such, Son’s material is composed of multiple particles each having a conformal shell.
Son further discloses a “general cathode active material” which may additionally be present (paragraphs [0077-0080]). Applicant’s amendment has removed this “general cathode active material’ as a possible active material.
However, applicant’s amendment does not preclude Son’s particles with core and conformal shell from including the claimed 1st core with conformal 1st shell and 2nd core with conformal 2nd shell.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILIA V NEDIALKOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-1538. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 - 5.00 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, 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.
LILIA V. NEDIALKOVA
Examiner
Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights