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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claim 5 in the reply filed on 08/26/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (US 2020/0358076 A1), further in view of Isojima et al. (US 2023/0369600 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Shi teaches an NMC cathode material which may have a structural formula of LiNixMnyCo1-x-yO2 (0≤x≤1, 0≤y≤1, 0≤x+y≤1) (Paragraph [0036]) which may be further doped with one or more of B, N, F, Na, Si, Cl, K, Ca, Ga, Ru, Ta, W, Co, Al, Zr, Mg, Sc, Fe, V, Nb, Cu, Zn, Rh, Y, Ti, Mo, Cr, Mn, Ce, Sm, Nd, Pr, La, Ge, Rb, Sr, In, Eu, and Tb where in some examples, the doped cathode material may include one or more metal ions from the dopant precursor particles and doped cathode material may include Nd, or Nd3+ (Paragraph [0046]). With respect to Shi, “x” may be 0.5, “y” may be 0.3, and “1-x-y” may be 0.2 such that 0≤x≤1, 0≤y≤1, and 0≤x+y≤1 are fulfilled. With respect to the instant application, “a” may be 1, “b” may be 0, “x-p” may be 0.3, “y-q” may be 0.5, “z-r” may be 0.1, and “p+q+r” may be 0.1 if element M is Co such that 0<a≤1.00, 0≤b≤0.20, x+y+z=1, and 0.03≤p+q+r<0.17 are fulfilled to arrive at the same result as taught by Shi: LiNi0.5Mn0.3Co0.2O2, also known as NMC 532, which is a well-known cathode active material in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Shi does not teach a ratio of aggregation areas of the element M which is at least one selected from B, Mg, Al, K, Ca, Ti, V, Cr, Cu, Zn, Ga, Ge, Sr, Y, Zr, Nb, Mo and W. Isojima teaches suppressing the generation of particle reaggregates in a positive electrode active material (Paragraphs [0060], [0061]), and dispersibility is excellent the less the solid particles are aggregated or sedimented (Paragraph [0537]).
Isojima does not explicitly teach an aggregation area ratio of an element M of the positive electrode active material to be less than 0.01 mm2 per 1.0mm2. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Isojima to optimize the amount of aggregation by a measurable quantity such as minimizing an aggregated surface area ratio to arrive at the claimed configuration since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the amount of aggregation in the positive electrode active material by the desire to improve battery performance by having an active material layer with excellent dispersibility and dispersion stability of solid active material particles as taught by Isojima (Paragraph [0009]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the doped NMC material of Shi with the aggregation teachings of Isojima in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as suppressing crack formation in the cathode active material by enabling dry surface doping using the dopants as taught by Shi (Paragraph [0010]) and improving battery performance by having an active material layer with excellent dispersibility and dispersion stability of solid active material particles as taught by Isojima (Paragraph [0009]). See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (D).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vivian Cheng whose telephone number is (571)270-1930. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:30am-5pm ET, Fri 7:30am-12pm 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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/V.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights