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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action regarding Application No. 17/741,665 to Kim et al. filed 05/11/2022; assigned to Rivian IP Holdings, LLC, California, USA, published as U.S. Publication 2023/0369585, published on 11/16/2023, is in response to applicant's arguments/remarks and claims amendments filed 09/18/2025.
Status of the Claims
In the response filed on 09/18/2025 applicant has amended claim 12 by incorporation of the chemical formulas of the coating ternary lithium transition metal oxide material and the ternary lithium transition metal phosphate material previously recited in claim 13, 14 and 15 into claim 12 and new claims 21-23. Claims13-15 have been canceled. New claims 21-23 have been added.
The status of the claims stands as follows:
Withdrawn 1-11, 16-20
Currently amended 12
Canceled 13-14
New 21-23
Claims 1-12, 16-23 are currently pending in this application. Claims 1-11, 16-20 have been withdrawn from consideration for being non-elected claims. Claims 12, 21-23 are under full consideration.
Withdrawal of Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
The rejection of Claims 12, 13, 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2020/0006802) has been overcome by the amendment of claim 12 and the cancelation of claim 13-15. The rejection has therefore, been withdrawn. Similarly, the rejection of Claims 12, 14, 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fan et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2012/0052299) has also been overcome by the amendment of claim 12 and the cancelation of claim 14, 15. Therefore, the rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Upon further consideration and search a new ground of rejection under 102 and 103 are made and presented in this Office action as follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this section can be found in the prior Office Action.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maxwell et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2022/0020977)
Regarding claim 12 Maxwell discloses a cathode and a cathode material including a lithiated compound core and a surface coating (Maxwell paragraph 0034), the surface coating may coat the core and may include sacrificial lithium source particles (Maxwell paragraph 0035). The coating material may be a ternary compound that includes a lithium, oxygen and a transition metal, an example of which include Li6CoO4 (Maxwell paragraph 0183) recited among the claimed ternary compounds.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maxwell et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2022/0020977) as applied to claim 12, in view of Cho et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2013/0171524)
Regarding claim 21 Maxwell discloses a cathode and a cathode material including a lithiated compound core and a surface coating (Maxwell paragraph 0034), the surface coating may coat the core and may include sacrificial lithium source particles (Maxwell paragraph 0035). The coating material may be a ternary compound that includes a lithium, oxygen and a transition metal, an example of which include Li6CoO4 (Maxwell paragraph 0183) but Maxwell is silent about the coating material comprise any of the ternary lithium metal oxide recited in claim 21.
Cho discloses a positive electrode active material capable of providing lithium used for initial irreversible capacity (Cho paragraph 0019), and rechargeable lithium battery including the positive material (Cho paragraph 0020) which includes a metal oxide (Cho paragraph 0021) an example of which is Li6FeO4 (Cho paragraph 0024), recited in claim 12 and 21. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used Li6FeO4 of Cho in the coating layer of Maxwell since it is substituting one electrode active material with another active material, and according to the MPEP such a modification is considered simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I B).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maxwell et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2022/0020977) as applied to claim 12, in view of Fan et al (U.S. PG Publication 2012/0052299)
Regarding claim 22 Maxwell discloses a cathode and a cathode material including a lithiated compound core and a surface coating (Maxwell paragraph 0034), the surface coating may coat the core and may include sacrificial lithium source particles (Maxwell paragraph 0035). The coating material may be a ternary compound that includes a lithium, oxygen and a transition metal, an example of which include Li6CoO4 (Maxwell paragraph 0183) but Maxwell is silent about the coating material comprise LiVPO4.
Fan discloses an electrode (Fan paragraph 0007, 0184) comprising an electroactive material (Fan paragraph 0007), and the electroactive material comprises two electroactive materials, a first and second electroactive material (Fan paragraph 0005), wherein the second electroactive material is embedded in the first electrode active material (Fan paragraph 0005). The embedded material is interpreted to be the coated material; thus, the second electroactive material, which is imbedded in the first electroactive material, is coated by the first electroactive material. The second electroactive material is considered equivalent to the electrode active material, and the first electroactive material equivalent to the coating. Fan discloses the first electroactive material is LiVPO4 (Fan claim 17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used LiVPO4 of Fan in the coating layer of Maxwell since it is substituting one electrode active material with another active, and according to the MPEP such a modification is considered simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I B).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maxwell et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2022/0020977) as applied to claim 12, in view of Furuya et al. (U.S. PG Publication 20240178391)
Regarding claim 23 Maxwell discloses a cathode and a cathode material including a lithiated compound core and a surface coating (Maxwell paragraph 0034), the surface coating may coat the core and may include sacrificial lithium source particles (Maxwell paragraph 0035). The coating material may be a ternary compound that includes a lithium, oxygen and a transition metal, an example of which include Li6CoO4 (Maxwell paragraph 0183), but Maxwell is silent about the coating material comprise LiCrPO4.
Furuya discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery including a positive electrode, a negative electrode and a separator (Furuya paragraph 0021); the positive electrode include polyanionic positive electrode material, an example of which is LiCrPO4 disclosed among other compounds (Furuya paragraph 0031). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have used the LiCrPO4 disclosed by Furuya in the positive electrode of Maxwell since such a modification constituting the use of one active material in place since it is substituting one electrode active material with a another active and according to the MPEP such a modification is considered simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I B).
Response to Argument
As noted above in this Office action the amendment of independent claim 12 has overcome the previous presented rejection of the claim under 102(a)(1) over Xu and the rejection under Fan in the non-final rejection dated 07/17/2025. Therefore, the rejections of the claims have been withdrawn. Upon further consideration and search new ground of rejections under 102 and 103 are made and presented above in this Office action. This Office action is made final.
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 OMAR M KEKIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5918. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00 pm,.
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, NIKI BAKHTIARI can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/OMAR M KEKIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722