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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although Blangero teaches the mixture of the lithium material doped with aluminum and the mixture with cobalt material which is subsequently heat treated, it does not teach the core particle having two regions one which is a layered and the other which is spinel and the formula is as specified in subsequent claims 9 and 10. Further search and consideration yield no similar results or combination which would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (US-20140212759-A1), hereinafter referred to as ‘Blangero’, as evidenced by ‘Growth of ultrathin cobalt oxide films on Pd(100): Refined structural model’ hereinafter referred to as, ‘Schmidt’
Regarding Claim 1,
Blangero teaches a method of producing a positive electrode active material for a lithium rechargeable battery (Blangero, “The invention relates to high voltage stable and high density lithium metal oxide…Also a method to manufacture these materials is disclosed”, see [0001]), comprising: mixing a core particle comprising lithium cobalt oxide doped with Al (Blangero, “the core material having a layered crystal structure consisting of the elements Li, a metal M and oxygen, wherein the Li content is stoichiometrically controlled, wherein the metal M has the formula M=Co1-a M′a, with 0≦a≦0.05, preferably 0≦a≦0.01, wherein M′ is either one or more metals of the group consisting of Al, Ga and B;”, see [0027]) and a cobalt raw material comprising tricobalt tetraoxide (Co3O4), cobalt (II) hydroxide (Co(OH)2), or a mixture thereof (Blangero, “providing a first mixture of a first Co- or Co and M′-comprising and a first Li-comprising precursor powder,”. See [0027]) (Blangero, “possible forms, but not limited to, are LiMO2, MgO, CoO, Co1-φMgφO with φ≦1, Co3O4”, see [0062]); and calcining the mixture of the cobalt raw material and the core particle (Blangero, “sintering this mixture in an oxygen comprising atmosphere at a temperature T1 of at least 600° C.”, see [0068])
Blangero teaches wherein:in the mixing of the cobalt raw material with the core particle, a weight ratio (core particle:cobalt raw material) of the core particle to the cobalt raw material is 1,000:0.2 to 1,000:10 (Blangero, “Preparation of Example 2 (noted Ex2): 94 mol % of LCO-1 and 6 mol % of 0.25 mol % Ti and 0.5 mol % Mg doped Co(OH)2;”, see [0111]).(The examiner notes LCO molar mass is 97.82 g/mol an example sample and cobalt hydroxide molar mass is 92.948 g/mol sample; this would lead to a ratio of 1,000:5, which is within the range)
Regarding Claim 2,
Blangero teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: in the calcining of the mixture of the cobalt raw material and the core particle, a phase of the cobalt raw material is changed into a cobalt-based compound having a rock salt crystal structure (Blangero, “In another embodiment the core material has hexagonal layered crystal structure described as an ordered rock salt-type crystal structure with space group R-3m”, see [0060] )and a surface of the core particle is coated with the cobalt-based compound having a rock salt crystal structure (Blangero, “possible forms, but not limited to, are LiMO2, MgO, CoO, Co1-φMgφO with φ≦1, Co3O4”, see [0062]) (The examiner notes that cobalt oxide is a rock salt structure, as evidenced by Schmidt (Schmidt, “Cobalt is a multivalent element, which forms oxides in the CoO rock salt”, Introduction)).
Regarding Claim 6,
Blangero teaches The method of claim 1, wherein:the positive electrode active material comprises: the core particle comprising lithium cobalt oxide doped with aluminum (Al) Al (Blangero, “the core material having a layered crystal structure consisting of the elements Li, a metal M and oxygen, wherein the Li content is stoichiometrically controlled, wherein the metal M has the formula M=Co1-a M′a, with 0≦a≦0.05, preferably 0≦a≦0.01, wherein M′ is either one or more metals of the group consisting of Al, Ga and B;”, see [0027]); and
a coating layer on a surface of the core particle, wherein the coating layer comprises a cobalt-based compound having a rock salt crystal structure (Blangero, “Preparation of Example 2 (noted Ex2): 94 mol % of LCO-1 and 6 mol % of 0.25 mol % Ti and 0.5 mol % Mg doped Co(OH)”, see [0111]) ]) (Blangero, “possible forms, but not limited to, are LiMO2, MgO, CoO, Co1-φMgφO with φ≦1, Co3O4”, see [0062]).
Regarding Claim 7,
Blangero teaches the method of claim 6, wherein :the cobalt-based compound having the rock salt crystal structure is cobalt(II) oxide. (Blangero, “possible forms, but not limited to, are LiMO2, MgO, CoO, Co1-φMgφO with φ≦1, Co3O4”, see [0062]) (The examiner notes that cobalt oxide is a rock salt structure) (The examiner notes that cobalt oxide is a rock salt structure, as evidenced by Schmidt (Schmidt, “Cobalt is a multivalent element, which forms oxides in the CoO rock salt”, Introduction)).
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.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by (US-20140212759-A1), hereinafter referred to as ‘Blangero’.
Regarding Claim 4,
Blangero teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: in the calcining of the mixture of the cobalt raw material and the core particle, a calcination temperature is 800 to 1,200° C (Blangero, “T1 of at least 600° C.”, see [0032]).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of at least 600 broadly overlaps the claimed range of 800 to 1,200. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 5,
Blangero teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: in the calcining of the mixture of the cobalt raw material and the core particle, a calcination time is 2 to 10 hours (Blangero, “The method according to claim 52, wherein each of the sintering step at T1 and the sintering step at T2 is performed during a time between 6 and 24 hours.”, see Clm. 52).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of at least 6 to 24 hours broadly overlaps the claimed range of 2 to 10 hours. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
7. Arguments filed on 09/02/2025 have been entered. Arguments are fully considered.
9. On pg. 5. The applicant argues:
“Blangero fails to teach or suggest a weight ratio (core particle: cobalt raw material) of the core particle to the cobalt raw material is 1,000:0.2 to 1,000:10.”
The examiner, after further search and consideration, finds that the Blangero reference still appears to teach the given range. The examiner has added further details as to the calculation performed in order to provide the best clarity of record. The core material as mapped as LCO, and the cobalt raw material is cobalt II hydroxide (Blangero, “Preparation of Example 2 (noted Ex2): 94 mol % of LCO-1 and 6 mol % of 0.25 mol % Ti and 0.5 mol % Mg doped Co(OH)2;”, see [0111]). If we convert each to a fraction to be compared to the claim language, we get 0.5 mol%/94.0 mol%= 0.005319 cobalt hydroxide to 1 core particle. However, the claim language states 1,000:02 to 1,000:10. Therefore, if we scale this ratio upward to fit the scale of the range we get 1,000 core particle to 5.32 cobalt hydroxide.Alternatively, If we scale this ratio by mass, we calculate using the molar mass multiplied by the mol%, and we get 97,970 grams/494.6= 197, which would mean that there are 197.9 grams of core particle for every one gram of cobalt hydroxide. Then if we express this ratio as 1000 LCO to x Co(OH)-2 , we would get 1000/197.9, which would give us x=5.05 which would be 1000 g LCO to 5.05 g Co(OH)-2 , which is within the claimed range.
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 SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am to 5pm.
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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/S.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights