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 .
Request for Suspension of Action
Applicant's request filed on 8/21/2025 for suspension of action in this application under 37 CFR 1.103(a), is dismissed as being improper. MPEP § 709 states financial hardship is not a show of good and sufficient reasons for granting suspension under 37 CFR 1.103(a).
A petition for suspension of action to allow applicant time to submit an information disclosure statement will be dismissed as failing to present good and sufficient reasons, since 37 CFR 1.97 provides adequate recourse for the timely submission of prior art for consideration by the examiner. Other non-limiting situations where a suspension request may be dismissed due to a lack of good and sufficient cause are:
A. The applicant needs more time to determine their patent prosecution strategy (e.g. unsure what claim scope to seek);
B. The applicant is experiencing a financial hardship; and
C. The applicant is still developing a business strategy for the invention (e.g. testing market viability).
See MPEP § 709.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments directed to Wang and Hennige failing to teach or suggest new limitations recited in instant claim 15 (see Remarks filed 8/15/2025), neither Wang nor Hennige are relied upon to teach or suggest said claim limitations. Instead, a combination of Wang and a new reference Xing et al. (US 2019/0027724A1) are relied upon to teach the new claim limitation. Xing teaches a separator/membrane having a ceramic coating layer on one or more surfaces of the separator/membrane, wherein the one or more ceramic materials is selected from sulfides (see Title, Abstract, [0090]-[0118]). Xing further discloses the composite membrane/separators offer performance synergy where there is an overall enhancement of separator properties and performance without any adverse effects ([0090]-[0118]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the separator of Wang to incorporate a ceramic coating including a sulfide because Xing teaches improved performance.
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.
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) 7, 12, 15-17, 19, 22, 36-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2011/0168550 A1) in view of Xing et al. (US 2019/0027724A1).
Regarding claim 15, Wang discloses a bipolar lithium ion cell (lithium-ion battery, see Title, Abstract) comprising:
a bipolar lithium ion cathode comprising two different cathode active materials located in two distinct cathode layers on a single current collector (cathode electrode structure 103 including a current collector 113 on which a bi-layer cathode structure 802 is deposited on the surface 201 of the current collector 113, wherein second layer 820 comprises a second cathodically active material different than the first cathodically active material in the first layer 810 [0102]-[0111], Fig. 8A-9), wherein:
i) the two different cathode layers are disposed adjacent to one another, and the current collector is disposed adjacent to one cathode layer only;
ii) the current collector is disposed adjacent to and between the two different cathode layers;
iii) the two different cathode layers are both disposed adjacent to the current collector in different regions on a surface of the current collector; or
iv) the cathode comprises two layers each of the distinct cathode layers in which, on one side of the current collector, the two different cathode layers are disposed adjacent to one another and the current collector is disposed adjacent to a first type of cathode layer only and, on an opposite side of the current collector, two different cathode layers are disposed adjacent to one another and the current collector is disposed adjacent to the first type of cathode layer only ([0102]-[0111], Fig. 8A-9 cathode electrode structure 103 satisfies i)); and
wherein the two different cathode active materials are selected from: lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NMC) in which nickel (Ni) is present in at least 50 wt % of the total weight of Ni, manganese (Mn), and cobalt (Co): lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (NCA); lithium nickel manganese cobalt aluminum oxide (NMCA), lithium iron phosphate (LFP), lithium manganese iron phosphate (LMFP), lithium manganese nickel iron phosphate (LMNFP), lithium iron cobalt phosphate (LFCP), lithium iron manganese cobalt phosphate (LFMCP), and any combinations thereof (first cathodically active material selected from list in paragraph [0105], second cathodically active material selected from list in paragraph [0107]);
an anode comprising an anode active material (anode [0041], negative electrode material [0044]);
an electrolyte (electrolyte [0041]).
Although Wang further discloses the cell further comprises a separator between the cathode and the anode (separator layer 104 [0041]), the reference does not disclose the separator is coated on one or both sides with a ceramic material comprising a sulfide.
Xing discloses a separator/membrane having a ceramic coating layer on one or more surfaces of the separator/membrane, wherein the one or more ceramic materials is selected from sulfides (see Title, Abstract, [0090]-[0118]). Xing further discloses the composite membrane/separators offer performance synergy where there is an overall enhancement of separator properties and performance without any adverse effects ([0090]-[0118]).
Wang and Xing are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely battery separators.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the separator of Wang to incorporate a ceramic coating including a sulfide because Xing teaches improved performance.
Regarding claim 7, modified Wang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Wang further discloses the LFP has the general chemical formula LiFePO4 (LiFePO4 [0105], [0107]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Wang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Further regarding claim 12 reciting “the NMC, NCA, NMCA, LFP, LMFP, LMNFP, LFCP, or LFMCP is partially unlithiated”, product-by-process limitations are not given patentable weight since the method does not provide additional structure to the product claim (see MPEP 2113 and 2114).
Regarding claim 16, modified Wang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Wang further discloses the anode active material comprises a material selected from: a graphite, natural graphite, synthetic graphite, hard carbon, mesophase carbon, appropriate carbon blacks, coke, fullerenes, lithium metal, lithium powder, niobium titanium oxide (TNO) niobium pentoxide, intermetallic alloy, silicon alloy, tin alloy, silicon, silicon oxide, titanium oxide, tin oxide, lithium titanium oxide, silicon-functionalized graphene, silicon-functionalized graphite, other silicon-functionalized carbon, amorphous silicon, silicon nanotube, silicon compound, SiOx, in which x≤2 or x<2, graphene, carbon nanotube, hard carbon, or hard carbon and amorphous silicon or silicon nanotubes, or any combinations thereof (graphitic particles, silicon, tin, lithium titanate used along or together [0044]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Wang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Wang further discloses the anode active material comprises graphite and silicon (silicon…used with graphitic microbeads [0044]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Wang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Wang further discloses the electrolyte comprises an ionic liquid, an organic liquid, or a combination thereof and a lithium salt , but electrolyte does not contain lithium hexafluorophosphate as an electrolyte lithium salt (lithium salt in organic solvent, lithium salts include LiBF6 or LiClO4 [0041]).
Regarding claim 22, modified Wang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Xing further discloses the ceramic material further comprises Al2O3, Al2O3-SiO2, another oxide ceramic, or any combinations thereof (the one or more ceramic materials is selected from…metal oxides, metal sulfides and mixtures thereof, metal oxides including alumina, silica, titania, zirconia, etc., see Title, Abstract, [0090]-[0118]).
Regarding claim 36, modified Wang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Further regarding claim 36 reciting “the cathode, in an uncycled state, further comprises an unlithiated metal phosphate”, product-by-process limitations are not given patentable weight since the method does not provide additional structure to the product claim (see MPEP 2113 and 2114).
Regarding claim 37, modified Wang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Further regarding claim 37 reciting “the anode, prior to cycling, does not contain lithium ion or lithium metal”, product-by-process limitations are not given patentable weight since the method does not provide additional structure to the product claim (see MPEP 2113 and 2114).
Regarding claim 38, modified Wang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Wang further discloses one or more of the cathode active materials does not contain cobalt (see list of materials in paragraph [0105] or [0107] which include materials not containing cobalt).
Regarding claim 39, modified Wang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Wang further discloses none of the cathode active materials contain cobalt (see list of materials in paragraph [0105] and [0107] which include materials not containing cobalt).
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2011/0168550 A1) in view of Xing et al. (US 2019/0027724A1), as applied to claims 7, 12, 15-17, 19, 22, 36-39, in view of Park (US 2016/0329597 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Wang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Wang does not disclose the LMFP has the general chemical formula LiFe1-xMnxPO4, wherein 0<x<1.
Park discloses a lithium battery comprising a first positive active material and a second positive active material independently chosen among Formulae 1-4, including Formula 2 represented by LiMe’PO4, where Me’ is at least one of Fe, Mn, Ni, Co, V (Title, Abstract, [0011], [0013]). Park further discloses the olivine-based phosphoric acid compound has an olivine structure that is very stable and promotes chemical safety, which when used as positive active material improves battery safety ([0073]).
Wang and Park are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely lithium batteries comprising cathodes that use different cathode active materials.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate LiMe’PO4, where Me’ is at least one of Fe, Mn, Ni, Co, V, as one of the cathode active materials in Wang because Park teaches improved battery safety.
Further, while the combination above does not explicitly disclose LMFP, there are only a finite number of solutions for selecting Me’, namely, selecting a combination of Fe and Mn among the list of Fe, Mn, Ni, Co, V. Thus, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).
Regarding claim 9, modified Wang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Wang does not disclose the LMNFP has the general chemical formula LiFe1-(x+y)MnxNiyPO4, wherein 0<x<1, 0<y<1 and x+y<1.
Park discloses a lithium battery comprising a first positive active material and a second positive active material independently chosen among Formulae 1-4, including Formula 2 represented by LiMe’PO4, where Me’ is at least one of Fe, Mn, Ni, Co, V (Title, Abstract, [0011], [0013]). Park further discloses the olivine-based phosphoric acid compound has an olivine structure that is very stable and promotes chemical safety, which when used as positive active material improves battery safety ([0073]).
Wang and Park are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely lithium batteries comprising cathodes that use different cathode active materials.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate LiMe’PO4, where Me’ is at least one of Fe, Mn, Ni, Co, V, as one of the cathode active materials in Wang because Park teaches improved battery safety.
Further, while the combination above does not explicitly disclose LMNFP, there are only a finite number of solutions for selecting Me’, namely, selecting a combination of Fe, Ni and Mn among the list of Fe, Mn, Ni, Co, V. Thus, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).
Regarding claim 10, modified Wang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Wang does not disclose the LFCP has the general chemical formula LiFe1-xCoxPO4, in which 0<x<1.
Park discloses a lithium battery comprising a first positive active material and a second positive active material independently chosen among Formulae 1-4, including Formula 2 represented by LiMe’PO4, where Me’ is at least one of Fe, Mn, Ni, Co, V (Title, Abstract, [0011], [0013]). Park further discloses the olivine-based phosphoric acid compound has an olivine structure that is very stable and promotes chemical safety, which when used as positive active material improves battery safety ([0073]).
Wang and Park are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely lithium batteries comprising cathodes that use different cathode active materials.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate LiMe’PO4, where Me’ is at least one of Fe, Mn, Ni, Co, V, as one of the cathode active materials in Wang because Park teaches improved battery safety.
Further, while the combination above does not explicitly disclose LMCP, there are only a finite number of solutions for selecting Me’, namely, selecting a combination of Fe and Co among the list of Fe, Mn, Ni, Co, V. Thus, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).
Regarding claim 11, modified Wang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Wang does not disclose the LFCMP has the general chemical formula LiFe1-(x+y)MnxCoyPO4, in which 0<x<1, 0<y<1 and x+y<1.
Park discloses a lithium battery comprising a first positive active material and a second positive active material independently chosen among Formulae 1-4, including Formula 2 represented by LiMe’PO4, where Me’ is at least one of Fe, Mn, Ni, Co, V (Title, Abstract, [0011], [0013]). Park further discloses the olivine-based phosphoric acid compound has an olivine structure that is very stable and promotes chemical safety, which when used as positive active material improves battery safety ([0073]).
Wang and Park are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely lithium batteries comprising cathodes that use different cathode active materials.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate LiMe’PO4, where Me’ is at least one of Fe, Mn, Ni, Co, V, as one of the cathode active materials in Wang because Park teaches improved battery safety.
Further, while the combination above does not explicitly disclose LFCMP, there are only a finite number of solutions for selecting Me’, namely, selecting a combination of Fe, Co and Mn among the list of Fe, Mn, Ni, Co, V. Thus, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2011/0168550 A1) in view of Xing et al. (US 2019/0027724A1), as applied to claims 7, 12, 15-17, 19, 22, 36-39, in view of Chen et al. (US 2003/0157413 A1).
Regarding claim 21, modified Wang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Wang does not disclose the electrolyte further comprises a flame retardant.
Chen discloses a lithium ion battery with improved safety, wherein additives that suppress gas evolution and retard flames in the lithium batteries are added to the lithium battery electrolyte (Title, Abstract).
Wang and Chen are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely lithium batteries.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a fire retarding additive in the electrolyte in Wang because Chen teaches improved safety.
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 JAMES LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 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, NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached at (571)270-3879. 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.
/James Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 9/8/2025