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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/20/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1, 3, 5, 7, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US20170170480A1) and in view of Maeda (WO2012133143A1), Chang (US20110062378A1), and Won (US20150228973A1).
Regarding claim 1 and 16, Jang discloses a positive electrode material comprising: a positive electrode active material [0002, 0012-0014, Jang]; and a coating layer formed on a surface of the positive electrode active material [0002, 0012-0014, Jang], wherein the positive electrode active material is represented by Formula 1 [0049-0051, Jang discloses a general formula and provides a specific example of LiNi0.6 Mn0.2 Co0.2 O2 which reads on the claimed formula when x=1; y=0.6; z=0.2; w=0.2; v=0; p=0].
Jang discloses a coating layer with a conductive nanoparticle and polyimide [0016, Jang]. Additionally Jang discloses a known art technique in which a metal oxide coating layer may be formed on a positive active material by forming a finely dispersed nano-sized particle coating layer.
Jang is explicitly silent to: 1) a coating layer where the polyimide is discrete locations (instant claim 1: islands). 2) the surface area coverage of the coating layer (instant claim 1). 3) the size of the polyimide islands used in the coating layer being 1-800nm (instant claim 1). 4) the coating layer wherein the polyimide is discrete locations spaced apart from one another as nano-sized polyimide powder particles (instant claim 16).
In regards to 1) and 4), Maeda discloses a composite film comprised of polyimide resin fine particles (0.05 µm – 1.5 µm) and inorganic particles being mixed with a cellulose-based dispersant and coated onto a positive active material [page 8 lines 1-10, page 12 lines 1-5; Maeda].
The examiner notes, that because the polyimide fine particles (and inorganic materials) are uniformly dispersed in the cellulose-based dispersant [page 30 line 1-10, page 34 line 1-10, Maeda] this would produce a coating layer with polyimide being arranged in a plurality of discrete locations spaced apart from one another as nano-sized (2.5um or less reads on BRI of nanosized) polyimide powder particles which reads on island shape.
Jang and Maeda are analogous as both discloses a polyimide “coating layer” utilized to suppress contact/reactions between the electrode and electrolyte ([0033], Jang; [page 11 line 1-7], Maeda).
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Jang such that in the coating layer at least the polyimide was used as fine particles dispersed in a dispersing agent and coated on the surface of the positive active material. Doing so can 1) produce an active material with the durability and heat resistance of polyimide while simultaneously accommodate volume changes [page 34 line 11-15, Maeda]. 3) produce a film that exhibits high strength, excellent adhesion, and the ability to suppress reactions between the electrolyte and the electrode [page 11 line 1-7, Maeda].
In regards to 2), Chang discloses a lithium transition metal oxide active material (similar to the materials of Park and Song) [0027-0030, Chang] with a formation area of the coating layer is in a range of 2% to 80% based on a total surface area of the positive electrode active material [0043,]. Chang teaches that the coverage area is an art recognized result effective variable where too large an area reduces lithium ion mobility and too small limits the desirable effects ([0043]).
Therefore it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date, to use the 20-80% taught by Chang in modified Jang in order to optimize ion mobility and desirable effects of the coating layer as taught by Chang ([0043]).
In regards to 3), Won teaches of a positive active material core (11) comprising a coating layer (12) in the form of discontinuous islands [0016, 0034, fig. 1, Won]. Wherein the size of the island particles on the coating layer are less than 1 µm [0066, Won].
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].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would be motivated to modify Jang such that the size of the island coating layer was in the same range as disclosed by Won as this can allow for it to form on the surface of the core material as an island-type coating layer and may help prevent side reactions between the core and electrolyte [0066, 0068, Won]. Furthermore, barring any criticality or unexpected results the size of the islands is a matter of mere change in size/proportion, see MPEP 2144.04.IV.
Regarding claim 5, modified Jang discloses the coating layer further comprising Sb, Al, and Zn [0016, Jang].
Regarding claim 7, Jang as modified above discloses a lithium nickel metal oxide wherein, in Formula 1, y=0.6; z=0.2; w=0.2 [0050, 0097, Jang].
Regarding claim 14, Jang as modified above discloses a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery [0014, Jang].
Regarding claim 15, Jang as modified above discloses a lithium secondary battery [0117-0118, Jang].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi (WO2015053446A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Jang is silent to the wt% of the polyimide coating layer.
However, Choi discloses coating a lithium ion battery with an active material with composite oxide of lithium with a coating layer in the shape of an island included in an amount of 0.03 wt% to 3 wt% based on a total weight of the positive electrode material [0022-0023, claim 4, Choi discloses using a coating layer in 0.3-3.0 wt% with respect to the total amount of the positive electrode active material which reads on the applicant’s claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would be motivated to modify Jang such that the amount of the coating layer was applied within the range as disclosed by Choi. The amount of lithium remaining in the positive electrode active material can be reduced by 50 to 100% by weight compared to the amount of lithium remaining in a compound capable of reversible intercalation and deintercalation of lithium that does not include the coating layer [0024, Choi].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/20 /2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for additional details.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Jang’874 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Won (cited in the prior office action) is used to teach the limitation of the previous claim 3.
In regards to claim 16, applicant argues the teachings of Maeda are not equivalent to the claimed coating layer arranged in discrete location apart from one another. The examiner does not find the applicant’s arguments to be persuasive as Maeda teaches of polyimide particles that the polyimide fine particles are uniformly dispersed in the cellulose-based dispersant [page 30 line 1-10, page 34 line 1-10, Maeda] this would produce a coating layer with polyimide being arranged in a plurality of discrete locations spaced apart from one another. Applicant’s arguments in regards to the “film” are not persuasive as they are not commensurate with the scope of claim 16. Namely the present of a cellulose based material used to disperse the polyimide nanoparticles within the film is not prohibited rather only the polyimide must be arranged in discrete locations.
No further arguments were presented, the examiner maintains their rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cho (US20190067682A1) discloses a carbon active material with a (discontinuous) polyimide coating layer. Inoue (US20150194669A1) of a negative electrode active material with a polyimide coated in a discontinuous fashion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached on 5712705256. 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.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724 /MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights