DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a final office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on January 2, 2026. Claims 1, 3, 5 and 6 are currently amended. Claims 1, 3-7 and 13 are pending review in this action. The previous objections to the Specification and the claims are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s corresponding amendments. The previous 35 U.S.C 112 rejection is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s corresponding amendment.
New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments are presented below.
Response to Amendment
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed on January 5, 2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1, 3-7 and 13 based upon U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0243970 (Choi) as set forth in the last Office action as detailed below.
The declaration provides additional experimental data.
Specifically, the declaration augments Table 1 of the specification to include Additive Comparative Example 1 with a composition of 0.5 g of ammonium sulfate and 100 g of distilled water and Additive Comparative Example 2 with a composition of 20 g of ammonium sulfate and 100 g of distilled water. These additive comparative examples do not appear to have any bearing on the rejection in view of Choi, because Choi’s example used in the current and prior office actions does not have the composition of either of the Additive Comparative Examples. (Instead, Choi uses 1 part by weight of an ammonium sulfate and 100 parts by weight of distilled water).
The declaration further augments Table 2 of the specification to include the previously unreported value A for Exemplary Embodiments 5-7 and Reference Examples 1 and 2 and also to report the corresponding measurements for the new Additive Comparative Examples 1 and 2. This additional information also does not successfully challenge the rejection in view of Choi. If anything, it strengthens it, because it reports a value A, which meets the requirements of claim 3 for Exemplary Embodiment 7 and Reference Example 2, both of which include the composition reported by Choi (1 part by weight of an ammonium sulfate and 100 part by weight of distilled water) and the heat treatment temperature reported by Choi (600°C or 700°C).
Finally, the declaration provides Additional Table 2 reporting the FT-IR measurements relevant to instant claim 1 for all experimental examples in the specification and the new Additive Comparative Examples 1 and 2. As above, this additional information also does not successfully challenge the rejection in view of Choi. Again, it appears to strengthen it, because it reports average transmittances within the ranges required by claim 1 for Exemplary Embodiment 7 and Reference Example 2, both of which include the composition reported by Choi (1 part by weight of an ammonium sulfate and 100 part by weight of distilled water) and the heat treatment temperature reported by Choi (600°C or 700°C).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1, 3-7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0243970, hereinafter Choi.
Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches a positive electrode active material (abstract). The positive electrode active material includes a lithium metal oxide (11) and a coating layer (13) on the surface of the lithium metal oxide (paragraphs [0051, 0065] and figure 1). The coating layer (13) includes an ammonium sulfate at a concentration of 0.01 parts by weight to 10 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of the lithium metal oxide (paragraphs [0086, 0091, 0094]).
The ammonium sulfate is coated on the lithium metal oxide through a washing step followed by sintering. In a specific example, 1 part by weight sulfate compound, 100 parts by weight lithium metal oxide and 100 parts by weight water are used in the washing step (paragraph [0128]).
A peak in the range 1580 cm-1 to 1600 cm-1 is indicative of an N-H bond bend. The observed peak in the instant application is the result of the presence of an ammonium sulfate coated onto the lithium metal oxide through a washing step followed by sintering. 1 part by weight or 5 parts by weight of the ammonium sulfate, 100 parts by weight of the lithium metal oxide and 100 parts by weight water are used in the washing step (p. 14, lines 16-20; p. 16, lines 4-7; p.17, lines 1-4 and figure 1).
It is thus expected that an FT-IR spectrum of Choi’s compound would include a peak in the range 1580 cm-1 to 1600 cm-1 due to the presence of N-H bonds in the ammonium and that the transmittance would be in the range 0.990 to 0.998 due to the concentration.
A peak in the range 1070 cm-1 to 1120 cm-1 is indicative of the presence of a S=O bond. An analogous analysis to that described with respect to claim 1, suggests that due to the presence of the sulfate ion, an FT-IR spectrum of Choi’s compound would be expected to include a peak in the range 1070 cm-1 to 1120 cm-1 with a transmittance in the range 0.985 to 0.993 due to the concentration.
Regarding claim 3, an analogous analysis to that described with respect to claim 1 suggests that Choi’s material would satisfy the instantly claimed absorbance average range.
Regarding claim 4, it is expected that due to the similarity of preparation methods, a C-N bond would be formed in the coating layer of Choi’s material as it is formed in the instantly taught material.
Regarding claim 5, the sulfate ion contains SO bonds.
Regarding claim 6, Choi reports a peak in the range 165 eV to 168 eV in an XPS spectrum (abstract, paragraph [0084]).
Regarding claim 7, Choi teaches that the lithium metal oxide contains Ni in the range greater than or equal to 80 mol% (paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 13, Choi teaches a lithium secondary battery (30). The lithium secondary battery (30) comprises a positive electrode (23) including the positive active material of claim 1. The lithium secondary battery (30) further comprises a negative electrode (22) comprising a negative active material. An electrolyte is positioned between the positive electrode (23) and the negative electrode (22) (paragraph [0123] and figure 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on January 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the sulfate ion in Choi’s coating additive includes an aliphatic hydrocarbon group, which is not present in the sulfate ion of the instantly disclosed coating additive. Applicant argues that the presence of carbon in the sulfate does not permit for the same level of high temperature cycle life improvement of the present invention.
It is noted that the instant claims do not exclude the presence of an aliphatic hydrocarbon group and are not directed to any level of high-temperature cycle life improvement.
Applicant argues that Choi teaches a difference in coating additive content. Specifically, applicant argues that Choi teaches 1 part by weight coating additive added to 5 parts by weight water and concludes that the additive content is 20 wt% rather than the instantly taught 1-10 wt%.
It is true that in Choi’s method, 1 part by weight of the coating additive is preliminarily dissolved in 5 parts by weight of water. However, this solution is then added to 100 parts by weight of lithium metal oxide dispersed in 95 parts by weight distilled water to coat the surface of the lithium metal oxide (paragraph [0128]). Thus, the ratio of coating additive to water is exactly 1 wt% (1 part by weight additive to 100 parts by weight water).
This is effectively the same as applicant’s reported quantities of 1 g additive, 100 g of distilled water and 100 g of lithium metal oxide (Specification, p. 14, lines 16-20).
On this basis, the argument that Choi’s material is expected to have the claimed transmittance (in view of the same content of the additive) is maintained.
Applicant argues that Choi’s coating heat treatment is 5 hours rather than 3 hours and alleges that the average transmittance would therefore differ.
It is noted that the instant specification teaches that an appropriate coating heat treatment is at a temperature range of 300°C to 700°C for 3 to 10 hours in air (p. 9, lines 14-17).
Choi teaches a coating heat treatment of about 600°C to 700°C for 5 hours in air (paragraph [0128]).
As such, it appears that Choi’s heat treatment precisely meets the teachings of the instant specification and thus Choi’s material is expected to have the claimed average transmittances.
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 LILIA V NEDIALKOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-1538. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 - 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
LILIA V. NEDIALKOVA
Examiner
Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights