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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites that the aspect ratio is “equal to or less than 2.5”. However, this extends below the lower limit and range of parent claim 1, which specifies that the aspect ratio is equal to or more than 1.9. Correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al (US 20220416241). Regarding claim 1, the reference is directed to a lithium ion battery comprising a negative electrode, positive electrode, and nonaqueous electrolyte ([0140] et seq). Regarding claims 1 and 2, the positive electrode comprises a material that in an embodiment has the composition LiNi0.80Co0.11Mn0.09O2, which anticipates the formula of claim 2 ([0167]). The nickel is contained in an amount of higher than 75 mol% as recited in claim 1. The positive electrode material can be a secondary particle that is made of rod-type primary particles ([0108]). The negative electrode comprises a negative electrode material comprising a carbon material and an Si containing material ([0173], Table 2). In several embodiments, the amount of elemental Si is between 5 and 10% of the total electrode active material as a whole (Examples 11-15). Regarding claim 10, the Si containing material is SiOx ([0173]).
While it is taught that the primary particles can be “rod shaped,” the aspect ratio of such particles is not expressly taught (≥1.9 as recited in claim 1, ≤2.5 as recited in claim 2).
However, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because the disclosure of “rod-shaped” suggests the claimed aspect ratio range(s) to one skilled in the art. While “rods” can have various relative dimensions, a skilled person would be able to create an electrode material with appropriate properties and morphology by using an appropriate aspect ratio in the primary particles. As such, an aspect ratio of approximately 2 or 3 would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use in the primary particles of Han et al.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. as applied to claims 1, 2, 5 and 10 above, and further in view of Park et al (Nature Energy, 2022).
Han et al. do not expressly teach that the positive active material has a Co/Mn ratio of 0 to 0.42 as recited in claim 3.
Park et al. is directed to cobalt-free nickel rich layered cathodes, in particular a Mo-enhanced Ni 90/Mn 10 cathode material (abstract).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because the artisan would be motivated to use the active material of Park et al. in the cathode of Han et al. In the abstract, Park teaches that “the Mo-NM90 cathode is able to deliver a high capacity with cycling stability suitable for the long service life for electric vehicles at a reduced material cost, further the realization of a commercially viable Co-free cathode for LIBs.” Accordingly, the artisan would be motivated to use the active material of Park et al. in the cathode of Han et al. As the material of Park is cobalt free, the ratio of Co to Mn is 0, which meets the claim limitation.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. as applied to claims 1, 2, 5 and 10 above, and further in view of Wang et al (Advanced Functional Materials, April 2023).
Han et al. do not expressly teach that the positive active material (lithium composite oxide) comprises W as recited in claim 4.
Wang et al. is directed to nickel rich layered oxide cathodes that comprise 0.5 mol% W (abstract).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because the artisan would be motivated to use the active material of Wang et al. in the cathode of Han et al. In the abstract, Wang teaches that “such an improved performance is ascribed to the pre-introduced nanometer-sized spinel and rock-salt crystal domains, which remarkably improve the structure stability, and the [radial] alignment of primary particles, and effectively reduce the anisotropic mechanical strain in deep charge states.” Accordingly, the artisan would be motivated to use the active material of Wang et al. in the cathode of Han et al.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. as applied to claims 1, 2, 5 and 10 above, and further in view of Luo et al (J. Power Sources, 2022).
Han et al. do not expressly teach that the positive active material (lithium composite oxide) comprises a covering part comprising a boron compound as recited in claim 6.
Luo et al. is directed to nickel rich cathode material that comprises a coating of Li2B4O7 (abstract).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because the artisan would be motivated to use the covering material of Luo et al. in the cathode of Han et al. In the abstract, Luo teaches that “the synergic modification can improve the electrochemical properties of the material by effectively stabilizing the crystal structure and mitigating the erosion of the electrolyte.” Accordingly, the artisan would be motivated to use the covering material of Luo et al. in the cathode of Han et al.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. in view of Luo as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Du et al (Applied Materials and Interfaces, 2016).
Modified Han et al. do not expressly teach that the covering part further comprises an aluminum oxide as recited in claim 7.
Du et al. is directed to nickel rich layered oxide cathodes that have a nano-Al2O3 coating (abstract).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because the artisan would be motivated to further add the coating of Du et al to the active material of modified Han et al. In the abstract, Du teaches that “Such a coating shell acts as a scavenger to protect the cathode material from attack by HF and serious side reactions, which remarkably enhances the cycle performance at 55C and upper operating voltage (4.4 and 4.5 V).” Accordingly, the artisan would be motivated to use the coating of Du in the active material of modified Han et al.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. as applied to claims 1, 2, 5 and 10 above, and further in view of Zhang et al (Applied Materials and Interfaces, 2022).
Han et al. teaches that the negative electrode further comprises a current collector ([0172]). However, the reference does not expressly teach that the negative electrode active layer comprises an upper layer and a lower layer, wherein the Si element amount in the upper layer is 90% or more of the total Si amount in the electrode (claim 8) or that the upper layer is 0.4 to 0.8 of a thickness of the electrode as a whole (claim 9).
Zhang et al. is directed to functionally graded graphite/silicon composite electrodes (abstract). The preferred electrode comprises a parabolic Si composition gradient wherein the electrode comprises three layers of equal thickness (section 2.1) and the middle layer comprises a higher percentage of Si than the outer layers (abstract).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because the artisan would be motivated to use the negative electrode of Zhang et al. in the battery of Han et al. First, it is noted that the upper two layers of Zhang can correspond to the “upper layer” of the present claims, and the bottom layer corresponds to the “lower layer.” The thickness ratio of the upper layer defined in this manner to the entire negative electrode is thus 0.67. In the abstract, the reference teaches that “the two Si-poor surface layers guarantee the major mechanical support and the middle Si-rich layer ensures the high capacity, the as prepared PG-Si/Gr electrode can not only effectively improve the stability of the electrode structure but also efficiently enable high capacity and stable electrochemical reactions.” Accordingly, the artisan would be motivated to use the negative electrode of Zhang et al. in the battery of Han et al. Further regarding the limitation in claim 8 that the Si element amount in the upper layer is 90% or more of the total Si amount in the electrode, this limitation would be rendered obvious as the artisan would be able follow the guidance in the reference to optimize the amount of Si in the middle layer (therefore the “upper layer”). In section 2.1, the reference teaches a weight distribution of Si of 5:20:5% across the thickness of the disclosed three layers. This equals a 25:5 ratio in the two layers as they are defined in the claim, which provides a baseline Si amount of 83% in the upper layer. The use of 90% Si in the upper layer would be obvious one skilled in the art, as it has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan Crepeau whose telephone number is (571) 272-1299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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 phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272-1700. Documents may be faxed to the central fax server at (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Jonathan Crepeau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
September 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights