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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 15 November 2023 was considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1 - 15 in the reply filed on 8/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16 - 20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/18/2026.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kinoshita et al. (JP2013073826A, Machine Translation via EPO).
Regarding Claim 1, Kinoshita teaches a cathode (“positive electrode”, [0049-0052]) that includes a composite active material, which consists of a first component that has one or more metal salts where each metal salt is an alkali metal salt or an alkaline metal salt that further comprises M, where M is Li, Na, K or others [0037, 0039]. Examples of some lithium salts include lithium nitrate, lithium acetate and lithium hydroxide, and sodium, potassium and other similar cations can be used to make these salts [0037, 0039]. The composite active material also includes a second component including a transition metal (or a transition metal oxide, sulfide, fluoride or carbonate) [0029, 0036]. The positive electrode active material can include manganese (Mn), nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co) and other transition metals [0029]. Finally, the composite active material includes a carbon additive, which may include carbon black as a conductive material [0051], since paragraph [0079] of the reference teaches that a conductive material was used during the preparation of the positive electrode active material.
Regarding Claim 3, Kinoshita teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches the first component comprising lithium hydroxide, lithium chloride, lithium fluoride, lithium acetate, lithium nitrate or a combination of two or more [0038].
Regarding Claim 5, Kinoshita teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches that M, the either alkali or alkaline metal salt of the first component of the cathode composite, can be lithium [0038] or sodium [0040].
Regarding Claim 6, Kinoshita teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches the cathode including a binder [0050], a conductive carbon (“carbon black”) [0051], or both [0050].
Regarding Claim 7, Kinoshita teaches all the limitations of claim 6 and further teaches that the binder could comprise either polytetrafluoroethylene, polypropylene or polyethylene [0050].
Regarding Claim 10, Kinoshita teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches the cathode comprising a current collector [0052].
Regarding Claim 11, Kinoshita teaches a battery [0046] that comprises a cathode according to claim 1 [0019, 0046], an anode (“negative electrode”) [0046] and an electrolyte [0046].
Regarding Claim 12, Kinoshita teaches all the limitations of claim 11 and further teaches where the anode can comprise silicon or silicon oxides, amongst other possible transition metals and transition metal oxides [0047].
Regarding Claim 13, Kinoshita teaches all the limitations of claim 11 and further teaches that the electrolyte can comprise a lithium salt, and further comprises a solvent [0054].
Regarding Claim 14, Kinoshita teaches all the limitations of claim 13 and further teaches that the lithium salt could comprise LiPF6, LiBF4 or other lithium salts [0054].
Regarding Claim 15, Kinoshita teaches all the limitations of claim 13 and further teaches that the solvent could be comprised of propylene carbonate, ethylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate, methyl ethyl carbonate and other organic solvents [0054].
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita (JP2013073826A, Machine Translation via EPO) in further view Hibst et al. (US20110084238A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Kinoshita teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and teaches the first component of the cathode composite containing M, where M is lithium (Li). Kinoshita does not teach a molar ratio between M and one of the transition metals (or transition metal oxides, sulfides, fluorides or carbonates).
Hibst teaches a process for preparing and a process of producing a lithium vanadium oxide and at least one electrically conductive material, where the oxide mixture and the conductive material are used for the production of cathodes for batteries and electrochemical cells (Abstract). The reference teaches a cathode [0045] that comprises components that are made up of a lithium salt [0024], a transition metal [0024] (among a transition metal, transition metal oxide, sulfide, fluoride or carbonate) and a conductive component [0046] just as the instant application does, meaning the invention and the instant application and the reference are in the same field of endeavor. Hibst also teaches a molar ratio of lithium to vanadium being about 1:1.5 to 1:4 [0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cathode composite of Kinoshita with the molar ratio of lithium to vanadium disclosed in Hibst. One would have been motivated to modify the inventions in this way because it is well known in the art to use lithium and vanadium together to create a cathode because of vanadium’s multivalent redox states that allow for multiple lithium ions to be transferred per vanadium atom. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita (JP2013073826A, Machine Translation via EPO) in further view of Yamamoto et al. (JP2006228602A, Machine Translation via EPO).
Regarding Claim 4, Kinoshita teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not teach the cathode of claim 1 comprising some combination of Fe and MxAy, where MxAy is Mx(PO4)y MxFy, or a combination thereof; or Cu2S and MxAy, where MxAy is Mx(CO3)y, Mx(SO4)y, Mx(SO3)y, Mx(PO4)y, Mx(OH)y, (HCOO)yMx, (CH3COO)yMx, or any combination thereof; or Cu and MxAy, where MxAy is Mx(CO3)y, Mx(PO4)y, or a combination thereof; or MnCO3 and MxAy, where MxAy is Mx(CO3)y, where x and y are integers representing the stoichiometric ratio of M and A.
Yamamoto teaches a positive electrode (21, [0017]) that comprises lithium [0018], a transition metal (among a transition metal, transition metal oxide, sulfide, fluoride or carbonate) [0018] and a conductive material [0019] just as the instant application claims. Both inventions in the instant application and the reference are in the same field of endeavor. Yamamoto further teaches a lithium iron phosphate [0018], which reads on the first alternate limitation of this claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cathode composite of Kinoshita with the lithium iron phosphate of Yamamoto. One would have been motivated to modify the inventions in this way because when one of the preferable configurations of the cathode active material that is disclosed in the reference is used for the cathode it can allow for higher energy density [0018], according to Yamamoto.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita (JP2013073826A, Machine Translation via EPO).
Regarding Claim 8, Kinoshita teaches all the limitations of claim 6 but does not teach the cathode comprising 70 to 97wt% of the composite, 2 to 15wt% of the binder and 1 to 15wt% of the conductive carbon. However, Kinoshita does teach a mixture for the cathode that comprised, by weight, 75 parts of active material corresponding to the composite, 20 parts of the conductive material corresponding to the conductive carbon additive and 5 parts of the binder corresponding to the binder [0079]. The parts by weight of the composite material and the binder fall within the claimed ranges for weight percentage, but the parts by weight of the conductive material do not fall within/overlap with the claimed range. However, Kinoshita asserts that the amount of conductive additive material is not limited just as long as sufficient electronic conductivity is ensured in the electrodes [0050], which would include values that are slightly higher and lower than the amount disclosed in the reference. A marginal decrease in the conductive additive (i.e. 20 to 15%) will likely not negatively alter the performance of the active material. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Also, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding Claim 9, Kinoshita teaches all the limitations of claim 8 and further teaches the binder comprising polytetrafluoroethylene [0050] and the conductive carbon comprises carbon black [0051].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
JP2009187940A: Teaches a cathode active material, a cathode containing said active material and a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery.
US20030082446A1: Teaches an energy storage device and an electrochemical device, where the former contains two electrodes each comprising its own material, where each may contain a lithium intercalating material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAXIMILIAN D BAGILEO whose telephone number is (571)270-5460. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.D.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/LAURA C POWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights