DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the January 13th, 2026 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”).
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 .
Response to Amendments
In response to the amendments received in the Remarks on January 13th, 2026:
Claims 1-11 and 13-17 are pending in the current application. Claims 2, 8, 11, and 15 are amended. Claims 1-10 stand withdrawn. Claim 12 is cancelled.
Claim 11 has been amended to emphasize that the first mixture is formed by a wet process and the second mixture is formed by a dry process. This amendment is supported by Applicant’s original disclosure, including at least paragraph [0170] of Applicant’s own PG Publication.
Claim 15 has been amended to overcome the 35 USC 112b rejection as outlined in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on October 14th, 2025.
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112 is overcome in light of the amendment.
The previous nonstatutory double patenting rejection is overcome in light of the amendment.
The cores of the previous prior art-based rejections have been overcome in light of the amendment. All changes made to the rejection are as necessitated by the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with the Remarks on January 13th, 2026 with respect to Claims 11 and 13-17 are based on the claims as amended. While Applicant’s arguments are acknowledged, they are found to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, presented below, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the Claims.
Prior Art
Previously cited Sun US PG Publication 2009/0087362 (“Sun”)
Kong US PG Publication 2015/0287984 (“Kong”)
Previously cited Fujiki US PG Publication 2013/0052534 (“Fujiki”)
Previously cited Hong US PG Publication 2001/0012586 (“Hong”)
Claim Interpretation
The limitation “pulverizing” as seen in at least line 5 of Claim 1 is interpreted to mean “reducing to dust or powder, as by pounding or grinding.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun US PG Publication 2009/0087362 in view of Kong US PG Publication 2015/0287984, Fujiki US PG Publication 2013/0052534, and Hong US PG Publication 2001/0012586.
Regarding Claim 11, Sun discloses a method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material ([0008]), the method comprising steps of:
forming a first mixture by mixing magnesium fluoride MgF2, lithium fluoride LiF, a nickel compound, and aluminum fluoride AlF3 ([0008]-[0010]) to create a fluorine compound powder ([0008]-[0010]),
forming a second mixture by mixing the first mixture powder with powder of a metal oxide (i.e. coating Li[Co1-xMx]O2-aFa which can be represented by LiCoO2 with a fluorine based powder as evidenced in Examples 1 ([0059]), 3 ([0082]), and 7 ([0091]) ([0011], [0051]), and
annealing (which corresponds to the instantly claimed heating) the second mixture at a temperature higher than or equal to 150oC and lower than or equal to 900oC (which overlaps the claimed range of higher than or equal to 735oC and lower than or equal to 1050oC) ([0024])1,
wherein the metal oxide comprises a metal M, and
wherein the metal M is cobalt (i.e. LiCoO2) (which meets the claim limitation of one or more selected from a group comprising cobalt, manganese, nickel, and iron) ([0011]. [0051], [0059], [0082]).
While Sun discloses that: the first mixture is formed in an aqueous solution ([0023]), and that the first mixture is a powder (wherein the skilled artisan would recognize that pulverizing a material would result in a powder) ([0008]), and that the second mixture should be dried ([0024]); Sun fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first mixture is formed by a wet process, the first mixture is pulverized after forming the first mixture, and the second mixture is formed by a dry process2.
However, Kong discloses a method for manufacturing a cathode active material (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon). Kong teaches mixing raw materials for forming a layered cathode active material by a wet mixing process, since wet mixing allows for more uniform mixing and increased reactivity of a mixture ([0035], [0055]). Followed by drying the wet mixture by spray-drying into a powder form and then combining with a coating material based compound via a solid phase dry reaction in order to sufficiently coat the active material while saving on operation costs ([0060]).
Further, Fujiki discloses a method for manufacturing a cathode active material including lithium, magnesium, and one or two more transition metals ([0010]). Fujiki teaches pulverizing the powder of the raw material using a pulverizing mill such that the size of the material can be controlled and optimized to be within 11 and 13 µm in order to control the absorption edge energies of the active material (Tables 1-3, [0076], [0191]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Sun such that the first mixture is formed by a wet process since wet mixing allows for more uniform mixing and increased reactivity of a mixture (as taught by Kong), then subsequently drying and pulverizing the first mixture into a powder after the components have been mixed together to form the raw material in order to be able to control and optimize the size of the material to be within 11 and 13 µm in order to control the absorption edge energies of the active material (as taught by Fujiki), and then taking the dried, pulverized first mixture and forming the second mixture by mixing with a powder of a metal oxide by a dry process in order to save on operation costs (as taught by Kong).
While Sun teaches the use of a nickel source, Sun in view of Kong and Fujiki fails to disclose wherein the nickel source is nickel hydroxide.3
However, Hong discloses a method for making a positive electrode (Abstract, [0005]). Hong teaches the use of a nickel hydroxide powder within the positive electrode active material in conjunction with other metal compounds (including magnesium fluoride MgF2, lithium fluoride LiF, and aluminum fluoride AlF3) based on the ability of the nickel hydroxide to mix homogeneously with other active material additives before or during electrode preparation ([0015], [0043]-[0044]) and such that the combination of the metal compounds and nickel hydroxide can improve high temperature performance ([0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Sun in view of Kong and Fujiki such that the nickel source is nickel hydroxide due to the ability of the nickel hydroxide to mix homogenously with the magnesium fluoride, lithium fluoride, and aluminum fluoride to form the first mixture and such that the combination of the materials within the first mixture can improve high temperature performance, as taught by Hong.
1 In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
2 Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
3 The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 13, Sun in view of Kong, Fujiki, and Hong teaches the instantly claimed method of manufacturing a positive electrode active material of Claim 11.
While Sun in view of Kong, Fujiki, and Hong does not explicitly teach wherein in the first mixture, a number of atoms of magnesium contained in the magnesium fluoride is greater than or equal to 0.005 times and less than or equal to 0.05 times a number of atoms of the metal M contained in the metal oxide, Sun does disclose that the coating element, comprising magnesium fluoride, is within 0.1 to 10% by weight of the mass of the cathode active material (comprising the metal oxide) ([0052]).
Further, Sun exemplifies the use of 2 kg of the coated LiCoO2 (Example 7 [0091]), in which the second mixture would therefore comprise between 0.002 and 0.2 kg of the fluorine based powder coating material (which comprises the claimed magnesium fluoride (MgF2), lithium fluoride (LiF), a nickel compound, and aluminum fluoride (AlF3) as defined in the rejection of Claim 11 above).
It would have been obvious to try every combination of the fluorine based powder coating material within the limits of Sun in view of Kong, Fujiki, and Hong, including case wherein the coating material comprises 100% MgF2 and accounts for 10% by weight of the mass of the cathode active material (this would represent the maximum magnesium to M ratio, wherein M is represented by the Co of LiCoO2).
The skilled artisan would recognize that 10% mass MgF2: 90% mass LiCoO2 corresponds to 200 g MgF2: 1,800 g LiCoO2, which corresponds to 3.21 mol MgF2: 18.39 mol LiCoO2, which corresponds to 1.93x1024 atoms MgF2: 1.11x1025 atoms LiCoO2, which corresponds to 1.93x1024 atoms Mg: 1.11x1025 atoms Co wherein Co is M. And therefore, Sun in view of Kong, Fujiki, and Hong discloses wherein in the second mixture, a number of atoms of magnesium contained in the magnesium fluoride is at most 0.17 times (which encompasses the claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.005 times and less than or equal to 0.05 times)1 a number of atoms of the metal M contained in the metal oxide.
1 In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claim 14, Sun in view of Kong, Fujiki, and Hong teaches the instantly claimed method of manufacturing a positive electrode active material of Claim 11.
While Sun in view of Kong, Fujiki, and Hong does not explicitly teach wherein in the first mixture, a number of atoms of aluminum contained in the aluminum fluoride is greater than or equal to 0.0005 times and less than or equal to 0.02 times a sum of a number of atoms of the metal M contained in the metal oxide and a number of atoms of the aluminum contained in the aluminum fluoride, Sun does disclose that the fluorine based powder coating element, comprising aluminum fluoride, is within 0.1 to 10% by weight of the mass of the cathode active material (comprising the metal oxide) ([0052]).
Further, Sun exemplifies the use of 2 kg of the coated LiCoO2 (Example 7 [0091]), in which the second mixture would therefore comprise between 0.002 and 0.2 kg of the fluorine based powder coating material (which comprises the claimed magnesium fluoride (MgF2), lithium fluoride (LiF), a nickel compound, and aluminum fluoride (AlF3) as defined in the rejection of Claim 11 above).
It would have been obvious to try every combination of the fluorine based powder coating material within the limits of Sun in view of Kong, Fujiki, and Hong, including case wherein the coating material comprises 100% AlF3 and accounts for 10% by weight of the mass of the cathode active material (this would represent the maximum magnesium to M ratio, wherein M is represented by the Co of LiCoO2).
The skilled artisan would recognize that 10% mass AlF3: 90% mass LiCoO2 corresponds to 200 g AlF3: 1,800 g LiCoO2, which corresponds to 2.38 mol AlF3: 18.39 mol LiCoO2, which corresponds to 1.43x1024 atoms AlF3: 1.11x1025 atoms LiCoO2, which corresponds to 1.43x1024 atoms Al: 1.11x1025 atoms Co wherein Co is M. And therefore, Sun in view of Kong, Fujiki, and Hong discloses wherein in the first mixture, a number of atoms of aluminum contained in the magnesium fluoride is at most 0.11 times (which encompasses the claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.0005 times and less than or equal to 0.02 times)1 a sum of a number of atoms of the metal M contained in the metal oxide and a number of atoms of the aluminum contained in the aluminum fluoride.
1 In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claim 15, Sun in view of Kong, Fujiki, and Hong teaches the instantly claimed method of manufacturing a positive electrode active material of Claim 11, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 11) Sun in view of Kong, Fujiki, and Hong discloses wherein an average particle diameter of the positive electrode active material is between 11 and 13 µm (which falls within, and therefore anticipates, the claimed range of greater than or equal to 1 µm and less than or equal to 100 µm) (Fujiki Tables 1-3).
Regarding Claims 16-17, Sun in view of Kong, Fujiki, and Hong teaches the instantly claimed method of manufacturing a positive electrode active material of Claim 11.
Sun discloses wherein the metal oxide is lithium cobalt oxide (see Example 1 [0060]). The skilled artisan would recognize that lithium cobalt oxide has a structure represented by a space group R-3m, as disclosed by Applicant’s own PG Publication [0024].
Alternatively, Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong US PG Publication 2015/0287984 in view of Hong US PG Publication 2001/0012586 and Sun US PG Publication 2009/0087362.
Regarding Claim 11, Kong discloses a method for manufacturing a cathode (which meets the instantly claimed limitation of a positive electrode) active material (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon), the method comprising the steps of:
forming a first mixture of raw material by a wet mixing process ([0055]);
wet grinding (pulverizing) the first mixture after forming the first mixture ([0057]);
forming a second mixture by mixing the pulverized first mixture with powder of a coating material by a dry process such as a solid phase reaction ([0059]-[0060]), and
heating the second mixture at a temperature based on the composition of the materials being used ([0058]-[0060]).
Kong fails to disclose wherein the first mixture comprises magnesium fluoride, lithium fluoride, nickel hydroxide, and aluminum fluoride; and wherein the second mixture comprises a powder of a metal oxide, the metal oxide comprises a metal M, the metal M is one or more selected from cobalt, manganese, nickel, and iron3.
However, Hong discloses a method for making a positive electrode (Abstract, [0005]). Hong teaches the use of a nickel hydroxide powder within the positive electrode active material in conjunction with other metal compounds (including magnesium fluoride MgF2, lithium fluoride LiF, and aluminum fluoride AlF3) based on the ability of the nickel hydroxide to mix homogeneously with other active material additives before or during electrode preparation ([0015], [0043]-[0044]) and such that the combination of the metal compounds and nickel hydroxide can improve high temperature performance ([0044]). Further, Hong teaches that the inclusion on a composite metal oxide such as nickel oxide as an additive improves the performance of the positive electrode at high temperatures (Abstract, [0006], [0015]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Kong such that the raw materials include magnesium fluoride MgF2, lithium fluoride LiF, nickel hydroxide and aluminum fluoride AlF3 in order to form the first mixture and such that the combination of the materials within the first mixture can improve high temperature performance, as taught by Hong. And it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Kong such that the powder mixed in the second mixture is nickel oxide (which reads on the instant claim limitations of a metal oxide, wherein the metal oxide comprises a metal M (Ni), and wherein the metal M is nickel) in order to improve the performance of the positive electrode at high temperatures, as taught by Hong.
Kong in view of Hong fails to disclose heating the second mixture at a temperature higher than or equal to 735oC and lower than or equal to 1050oC.
However, Sun discloses a method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material ([0008]). Sun teaches annealing a coated cathode active material between 150 and 900oC in order to remove any remaining impurities from the mixture and enhancing the binding between the active material and the coating ([0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Kong in view of Hong such that the heating of the second mixture occurs at a temperature between 150 and 900oC (which overlaps the claimed range of higher than or equal to 735oC and lower than or equal to 1050oC)1 in order to remove any remaining impurities from the mixture and enhancing the binding between the active material and the coating, as taught by Sun.
1 In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
3 The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA MASON MELFI whose telephone number is (703)756-4652. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-6pm EST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached on (571)272-1481. 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.
/O.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights