DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 14 are amended. Claims 1-2, 4-15 and 17-26 are pending and being examined on the merits in this office action.
Remarks
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been entered. A reply to the Applicant’s remarks/arguments is presented after addressing the claims.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office Action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments or/and arguments.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. References cited in the current Office action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The amended limitations in claim 14 do appear to have grammatic errors.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims1-2, 4-15 and 17-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 1, the newly amended limitation “… where said agglomerate comprises interstitial interfaces between each particle of said particles and closest particles to said particle” is not supported by the specification as originally filed. Even if the instant Fig. 3 shows a central particle and its closest particles form interstitial interfaces, it is only a two-dimensional section view of the agglomerate. No evidence of record supports that EACH particle forms interstitial interfaces with its closest particles in a three-dimensional agglomerate. The text of the specification as originally filed does not appear to provide a description to support that EACH particle forms interstitial interfaces with its closest particles. Therefore, the amendment has changed the scope of the invention as originally filed. This causes a written-description 112(a) issue due to introducing new matters.
The examiner has reviewed the instant specification, but did not find the support said above. Applicants are invited to point at where in the specification supports the amended limitation if they believe the original specification has the said support.
For purposes of examination, any one particle in an agglomerate in a prior art will be interpreted as forming at least one interstitial interface with its closest particles and satisfying the said amended limitation, because it appears that the one particle cannot exist if it is not directly contact with at least another particle. Note that the claim languages do not require the one particle forms interstitial interfaces with ALL closest particles, although more than one interstitial interface also satisfy the said amended limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 4-15 and 17-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda et al. (US 2020/0388841 A1, hereafter Kaneda) in view of Lim et al. (US 2018/0323435 A1, hereafter Lim).
Regarding claims 1, 4-11, 14 and 17-24, Kaneda discloses an improved cathode material (positive electrode active material 10) for use in a lithium ion battery ([0047]) comprising particles 1 having a crystallite particle size of 5-250 nm (at least 50 nm and up to 130 nm, [0069]) comprising a lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide defined by the claimed formula ([0048], [Table 1], [Table2]), wherein each particle 1 of said particles 1 comprises a coating 4 that coats the entire surface of said particle 1 (lithium-niobium compound 4 is present on the entire surfaces of the primary particles 1, [0061], reading on “… a coating completely covering said particle …”) and said coating 4 comprises LiNbO3 ([0064]).
PNG
media_image1.png
619
1280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kaneda teaches said particles 1 aggregate to form an agglomerate 2 comprising said particles 1 (secondary particle 2 formed of a plurality of flocculated primary particles 1, [0047]), wherein said agglomerate 2 comprises interstitial interfaces between each particle of said particles and closest particles to said particle (See, for example, ending locations of arrows in the annotated Fig. 1B and the above 112a rejection) and at least one interstitial interface of said interstitial interfaces does not comprise uncoated said particles 1 (the lithium-niobium compound 4 may coat the entire surface of the primary particles 1, [0061]; Fig. 1B shows all particles have been entirely coated).
Kaneda does not teach that the coating material has a thickness of 5 to 10 nanometers. Lim however teaches forming a LiNbO3 coating layer on a cathode active material ([0030]), wherein the coating layer is formed with a nano-sized thickness to prevent an increase in interface resistance ([0047]), wherein the thickness is 2 nm to 10 nm ([0077]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the LiNbO3 coating layer of Kaneda with a thickness of 2 nm to 10 nm, as taught by Lim, in order to prevent an increase in interface resistance. The claimed range of 5 nm to 10 nm overlaps or lies inside the range of 2 nm to 10 nm of Kaneda in view of Lim. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Kaneda in view of Lim teaches the coating has a composition of LiNbO3 (See above), meaning LiNbO3 is 100 mol% of the coating, which reads on the “at least 95 mole percent lithium niobate” as claimed.
Kaneda in view of Lim teaches coatings on each said particle of said particles form a homogenous layer between each said particle of said particles and said closest particles to said particle (See, for example, ending locations of arrows in the annotated Fig. 1B).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Kaneda in view of Lim further discloses that the agglomerate 2 further comprises interstitial surfaces wherein said interstitial surfaces comprise said coating 4 on each particle 1 of said particles 1 (See the annotated Fig. 1B below for the locations where some said interstitial surfaces are).
PNG
media_image2.png
720
1280
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 12, 13, 25 and 26, Kaneda in view of Lim further discloses a battery (including a battery half-cell) comprising the cathode material comprising the agglomerate ([0032], Kaneda).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on April 3, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments are based on the claims as amended. The amended claims have been addressed in the new rejections above. In addition:
1) Applicant argues:
“… it is impossible in the teachings of Kaneda to form a homogeneous coating layer between each particle and each closest particle since the primary particles are fused to each other to form the positive electrode active material. The result of the Kaneda process is a fused portion, … Kaneda is not enabling for coating the entire surface of the primary particles since only that portion exposed can be coated” and “Coating …” (the second paragraph on page 7).
In response, it is respectfully noted that the current invention is about a product (i.e., “an improved cathode material”), not about a process. The argument is largely about the process to produce the product. However, the patentability of a product does not depend on its process of production. The prior art Kaneda does teach all the claimed compositional and structural limitation of the product, as addressed above.
The third paragraph on page 7 also argues about a process, rather than which limitation of the product was not taught, and therefore not persuasive.
2) In response to the argument presented on the first paragraph at page 8. It is respectfully noted that a particle size is not a crystallite particle size. A particle may comprise multiple crystallites. The claimed size is a crystallite particle size, rather than a particle size.
3) The argument in the second paragraph of page 8 represents Applicant’s opinion or allegation, which is not supported by any factual evidence.
4) In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (either Kaneda or Lim), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-4809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ZHONGQING WEI/
ZHONGIQNG WEI, Ph.D.Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727