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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments (p. 12-14) that the mechanisms used in Park and Sun yield a cubic structure fundamentally different from the claimed vacancy-induced cubic structure and that Sun teaches against the claimed structure are persuasive.
The 35 USC § 103 of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 23 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.
Claim 1 recites “the cubic crystal structure comprises a rearranged cubic lattice derived from lithium-vacancy-induced collapse of the layered crystal structure of the lithium metal oxide particle.”
This limitation does not appear to be supported the instant disclosure because the specification states (see published application US 2022/0173390 A1) that the term “cubic structure” may collectively refer to crystal structures other than the crystal structure of a rhombohedral phase, such as NiO crystal structure, ([0056]) but does not distinguish between different cubic structures. The specification does describe a cubic crystal structure formed from collapse or restructuring of the layered crystal structure, which occurs as a result of the oxide particles being exposed to moisture in the form of a water washing treatment (in the prior art, [0012], and comparative examples) or a steam treatment (in the instant application) in order to remove residual lithium from the surface of the active material ([0040]). However, the specification also defines residual lithium as an impurity on the surface of the oxide particles rather than as a component of the layered crystal structure ([0010]). The specification therefore does not clearly support a cubic crystal phase formed by “lithium-vacancy-induced” collapse of the layered crystal structure.
Claims 2, 4-9, and 23 are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 23 are currently rejected under 112(a) but, as presented, would be allowable if the pending 112(a) rejection is persuasively overcome as the claim is currently presented.
The closest prior art is Park (US 2018/0316009 A1; previously cited). Park discloses a cathode active material comprising: a lithium metal oxide particle which includes a layered crystal structure and a cubic crystal structure (layered core with spinel shell, [0044]); and a coating layer formed on at least a portion of the surface of the lithium metal oxide particle ([0079]), the coating layer includes aluminum and a metalloid (arsenic or boron, [0079]), wherein the lithium metal oxide particle contains 80 mol% or more of nickel based on a total number of moles of all elements except for lithium and oxygen (Examples 1-4 [0114]-[0121]), the lithium metal oxide particle includes the cubic crystal structure only in a region having a thickness of less than 50 nm or less from a surface thereof when analyzing a crystal structure thereof by a high-resolution transmission electron microscopy (HR-TEM) (10 nm in Example 4, [0141]; overlapping range of 1 to 100 nm, [0052]), and the lithium metal oxide particle is undoped or doped with at least one of Al, Ti, Zr, B, and Mg ([0048],[0067]).
Park does not disclose “the cubic crystal structure comprises a rearranged cubic lattice derived from lithium-vacancy-induced collapse of the layered crystal structure of the lithium metal oxide particle.” It would not be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Park to include such a cubic structure because Park teaches a cubic structure formed by reacted the lithium metal oxide particle with a metal-organic framework to form spinel crystal structure ([0046]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE C. DISNEY whose telephone number is (703)756-1076. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 MT.
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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/C.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights