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
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Non-elected claims 8-18 are objected to because the claims filed 1/23/2026 have claims 8-18 missing, thus it is unknown as to whether claims 8-18 are intended to be canceled or withdrawn.
Misnumbered “New” claim 8 filed 1/23/2026 has been renumbered to claim 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “the lithium-deficient matrix material layer has a chemical formula of LicCo1-bMbO2, wherein M is one or more selected from the group consisting of Mg, Al, Ti, Zr, and W, 0.0 < c < 1.0, a < c, and 0.0 ≤ b ≤ 0.01” (emphasis added), rendering the claim unclear as to what “a” is intended to refer to in the chemical formula “LicCo1-bMbO2”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al (US 11,909,032) in view of Xu et al (US 2014/0106223) and Han et al (US 2016/0359166).
With respect to claims 1 and 3-4, Hong discloses a composite cathode active material comprising: a core of primary particles of a first lithium transition metal oxide (i.e. claimed “lithium-containing matrix”) (Abstract); and a shell comprising first and second layers (Abstract), wherein the first layer comprises a first composition of Formula 1 of LiaM1bOc, with M1 includes at least one of Co, Mg, Zr, Al, Mn, Si, Pd, Ti, Sn, Ir, Pt, Ru, Ce, B, Nb, V, Fe, and Zn, 0≤a≤3.1, 0.9≤b≤3.1, and 1.9≤c≤4.1, such as Co3O4, MgO, LixCoO2 (0<x≤1.5), and Li2ZrO3 (Abstract; col. 8, lines 10-18), and the second layer comprises a second composition of Formula 2 of LiaM2b(PO4)c with M2 includes at least one of Co, Mg, Zr, Al, Mn, Si, Pd, Ni, Ti, Sn, Mo, Ir, Pt, Ru, Ce, B, Nb, V, Fe, and Zn, 0≤a≤3.1, 0.9≤b≤3.1, and 0.9≤c≤2.1, such as Li.sub.3PO.sub.4, LiCoPO4, and Co.sub.3(PO4)2 (Abstract; col. 9, lines 1-9). Since the first layer of Formula 1 reads on the chemical formula of claim 3 of an “an inner lithium-deficient matrix material layer”, and the second layer of Formula 2 reads on the chemical formula of claim 4 of an “an intermediate lithium-deficient lithium cobalt phosphate (LCP) layer”, the first layer is the inner lithium-deficient matrix material layer and the second layer is the intermediate lithium-deficient LCP layer.
However Hong is limited in that a third layer comprising an outer cobalt phosphate layer is not suggested.
Xu teaches a cathode composite lithium transition metal oxide coated with an outer coating material (Abstract), similar to Hong. Xu further teaches the outer coating material is a metal phosphate of Co3(PO4)2 (Abstract; para 0018), which reads on the chemical formula of claim 1. Xu cites the advantage of the outer coating material comprising Co3(PO4)2 as providing “high reversible capacities” (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the outer coating material of Co3(PO4)2 taught by Xu as the outer coating material of Hong to gain the advantage of high reversible capacities.
However the combination of references Hong and Xu is further limited in that while Hong teaches the first lithium transition metal oxide (i.e. lithium-containing matrix) is generally made of a Ni-based lithium transition metal oxide with a layered structure (col. 4, lines 59-63; col. 5, lines 9-11 and 18-20), a specific formula for the lithium-containing matrix is not suggested.
Han teaches a core of primary particles Li(NiaCobAlc)O2 of a layered structure (i.e. lithium-containing matrix) (Abstract; para 0018 and 0058-0059), similar to the primary particles of the first lithium transition metal oxide (i.e. lithium-containing matrix) with the layered structure of Hong. Han further teaches the lithium-containing matrix comprising the Li(NiaCobAlc)O2 has 0<a<1, 0<b<1, 0<c<1 and a+b+c=1 (para 0018), which reads on the chemical formula of claim 1. Han cites the advantage of providing a compound capable of reversibly intercalating and deintercalating lithium (para 0007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the primary particles (i.e. lithium-containing matrix) of Han be the lithium-containing matrix of Hong to gain the advantage of providing a compound capable of reversibly intercalating and deintercalating lithium. In addition it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the lithium-containing matrix of Han as the lithium-containing matrix of Hong since Hong fails to specify a particular lithium-containing matrix formula, and one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation for success in making the modification since Han has shown success in using a specific formula that is similar to the general formula taught by Hong.
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Hong and Xu has: Hong teaching the intermediate lithium-deficient LCP layer (i.e. second layer) has thickness of less than 50 nm or about 10 nm (col. 6, lines 66-67; col. 5, lines 1-8), and Xu teaching the metal phosphate of thickness 1-200 nm (para 0019); it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I).
With respect to claim 7, Han suggests an average particle diameter D50 of 10-20 mm for the lithium-containing matrix (para 0045 and 0062), wherein the lithium-containing matrix is of the cathode composite material of the combination of references Hong, Xu, and Han.
With respect to claim 19, the limitation “the three-layer coating layer is formed by mixing cobalt phosphate with the lithium-containing matrix and heat-treating the mixture, such that a portion of the cobalt phosphate reacts with residual LiOH, Li2CO3, or LiHCO3 on a surface of the lithium-containing matrix” is a product-by-process limitation. As such, the product-by-process limitation has not been given patentable weight since “determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” (MPEP 2113, I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on p. 4-12 filed 1/23/2026 are addressed below.
112 Rejections
Claims 3-4 and 6-7 have been amended to provide antecedent basis; the previous 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
On p. 4, Applicant argues that the “a” in claim 3 for “a<c” refers to the “LiaCo1-bMbO2” of claim 1, and therefore claim 3 is unambiguous.
The Examiner respectfully disagree since the “LiaCo1-bMbO2” of claim 1 refers to a “layered lithium composite oxide”, whereas claim 3 recites the “inner lithium-deficient matrix material layer has a chemical formula of LicCo1-bMbO2” with “a<c”, thereby still rendering claim 3 ambiguous as to whether the “a” is intended to be with the “inner lithium-deficient matrix material layer” or with the “layered lithium composite oxide” since the “b” remains the same for both. The previous 112(b) rejection is maintained.
Claim 7 has been amended as supported by para 0014 of the Specification; the previous 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
103 Rejections
On p. 6, Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill would not have modified Hong with the outer coating material of Co3(PO4)2 taught by Xu.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees since the Abstract of Xu teaches the cathode composite lithium transition metal oxide that is similar to Hong. Also being similar to Hong, Xu teaches to have the cathode composite lithium transition metal oxide with an outer coating material, with the outer coating material being a metal phosphate of Co3(PO4)2 to provide high reversible capacities (Abstract; para 0018). Thus one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to incorporate the outer coating of Co3(PO4)2 taught by Xu as the outer coating of Hong to gain the benefit of high reversible capacities.
On p. 6, Applicant argues that Hong does not teach the lithium deficient layers (i.e. “inner lithium-deficient matrix material layer” and “intermediate lithium-deficient lithium cobalt phosphate”) as recited by amended claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees since Hong teaches the first layer comprises the first composition of Formula 1 of LiaM1bOc, with 0≤a≤3.1 (Abstract; col. 8, lines 10-18), and the second layer comprises the second composition of Formula 2 of LiaM2b(PO4)c with 0≤a≤3.1 (Abstract; col. 9, lines 1-9). Since the first layer of Formula 1 reads on the chemical formula of claim 3 of an “an inner lithium-deficient matrix material layer”, and the second layer of Formula 2 reads on the chemical formula of claim 4 of an “an intermediate lithium-deficient lithium cobalt phosphate (LCP) layer”, the first layer is the inner lithium-deficient matrix material layer and the second layer is the intermediate lithium-deficient LCP layer.
On p. 7, Applicant argues that Xu does not teach as recited by amended claim 1: 1) the coating is an outer layer; and 2) the claimed “Com(PO4)n, m/n=1.3/1.7”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding:
1) Xu teaches the cathode composite lithium transition metal oxide that is coated with a “coating material” such as a metal phosphate coating material (Abstract), and is silent as to any other coatings applied over the coating material. As such, the coating material of the metal phosphate coating material is then an outer coating; and
2) Xu teaches the “coating material” for the metal phosphate coating material is Co3(PO4)2 (para 0018), with 3/2 (i.e. claimed “m/n”)=1.5, which is between the claimed “1.3 to 1.7”.
Applicant’s arguments on p. 7-8 are similar to paragraph #11 above, which have been similarly addressed above under paragraph #11.
On p. 8-9, Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill would not have incorporated the specific formula for the lithium-containing matrix of Han as the general lithium-containing matrix of Hong.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees since Han teaches the core of primary particles Li(NiaCobAlc)O2 of a layered structure (i.e. lithium-containing matrix) (Abstract; para 0018 and 0058-0059), similar to the primary particles of the first lithium transition metal oxide (i.e. lithium-containing matrix) with the layered structure of Hong. Han suggests for the lithium-containing matrix comprising the Li(NiaCobAlc)O2 has 0<a<1, 0<b<1, 0<c<1 and a+b+c=1 in order to gain the advantage of providing a compound capable of reversibly intercalating and deintercalating lithium (para 0007 and 0018). Thus one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to incorporate the specific formula of the lithium-containing matrix of Han as the general formula of Hong to providing a compound capable of reversibly intercalating and deintercalating lithium. In addition one of ordinary skill would also have been motivated to incorporate the specific formula of the lithium-containing matrix of Han as the general formula of Hong since Hong fails to specify a particular lithium-containing matrix formula, and one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation for success in making the modification since Han has shown success in using a specific formula that is similar to the general formula taught by Hong.
All other arguments on p. 10 to claims 3-4, 6, and 7 are directed towards the subject matter addressed in the 103 Rejections above and therefore have been addressed accordingly.
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 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 MICHAEL A BAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm 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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/MICHAEL A BAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights