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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 3-13 are currently pending;
Claims 9-13 are withdrawn;
Claims 1, 4, and 9 are amended;
Claim 2 is canceled.
Status of Rejections and Objections Pending Since the Office Action of 06/16/2025
The claim objection of claim of claim 1 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment;
The 112(b) rejection of claim 4 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment;
The 102 rejections of claims 1 and 3 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and replaced with the previously presented 103 rejection;
The 103 rejections of claims 4-8 are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, in this case both Mo and B in combination (see Remarks, pg. 7, lines 2-5) the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Tonggelage does suggest that both Mo and B can be combined as the coating on the surface of the active material powder in “the M element is one or more of B, Mg,….or Mo” (Tonggelage [0012]).
It has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art. Further, Tonggelage teaches that improvements and modifications can be made to the embodiments (see [0068]). Tonggelage teaches that both boron and molybdenum are suitable for the intended purpose of coating the positive electrode active material powder (Tonggelage [0012]). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, claim 1. Claim 1 already includes the limitation that “the coating layer comprises…a lithium boron compound” in lines 6-7. Claim 7 limits that “the coating layer further comprises boron” in line 2. The limitation of claim 7 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonggelage (CN-107768657-A), as cited and translated in the IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Tonggelage teaches a positive electrode active material ([0008] lithium ion battery positive electrode material), comprising: a positive electrode active material powder (see [0009] core structure); and a coating layer (see [0009] shell structure material I), wherein the coating layer is disposed on a surface of the positive electrode active material powder for a lithium secondary battery (see [0009] core and shell structure), and wherein the coating layer comprises a lithium molybdenum compound (see [0047]-[0048] example 8 MoO3 and Li2MoO4 shell structure material).
In example 8, Tonggelage does not teach that the coating layer further comprises a lithium boron compound. However, Tonggelage teaches that one or more M elements, including both Mo and B, can be included in the shell structure material (I) (see [0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the shell structure material of the embodiment of example 8 of Tonggelage (see [0048]) by adding a boron-containing compound as taught by Tonggelage because Tonggelage teaches that the shell material can be formed from Mo and B (see [0012]), and it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art. Further, Tonggelage teaches that improvements and modifications can be made to the embodiments (see [0068]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Tonggelage teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Tonggelage also teaches that the lithium molybdenum compound is a lithium molybdenum oxide
(see [0047]-[0048] example 8 MoO3 and Li2MoO4 shell structure material).
Regarding claim 4, modified Tonggelage teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Example 8 of Tonggelage fails to specifically teach that the lithium molybdenum compound, when measured by time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry (ToF-SIMS), has a ratio of the peak intensity of LiMoO4- to the peak intensity of LiMoO4H2- of 1:0.2 to 1:0.8.
With the obvious inclusion of boron in Tonggelage’s example 8 (see claim 1 above), it is the Examiner’s position that the prior art teaches forming the claimed compound in a similar method as the claimed invention (Tonggelage [0011]-[0020]), such that the compounds would have the same or overlapping properties. Therefore, it is prima facie obvious that the lithium molybdenum compound of Tonggelage, when measured by time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry (ToF-SIMS), has a ratio of the peak intensity of LiMoO4- to the peak intensity of LiMoO4H2- of 1:0.2 to 1:0.8.
Regarding claim 5, modified Tonggelage teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Tonggelage fails to specifically teach that the lithium molybdenum compound, when measured by time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry (ToF-SIMS), has a ratio of peak intensity of LiMoO4- to peak intensity of LiMoO13- of 1:0.03 to 1:0.3.
With the obvious inclusion of boron in Tonggelage’s example 8 (see claim 1 above), it is the Examiner’s position that the prior art teaches forming the claimed compound in a similar method as the claimed invention (Tonggelage [0011]-[0020]), such that the compounds would have the same or overlapping properties. Therefore, it is prima facie obvious that the lithium molybdenum compound, when measured by time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry (ToF-SIMS), has a ratio of peak intensity of LiMoO4- to peak intensity of LiMoO13- of 1:0.03 to 1:0.3.
Regarding claim 6, modified Tonggelage teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Tonggelage fails to specifically teach that the lithium molybdenum compound, when measured by time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry (ToF-SIMS), has a ratio of peak intensity of LiMoO13- to peak intensity of LiMoO13H- to peak intensity of LiMoO13H2- to peak intensity of LiMoO13H3- to peak intensity of LiMoO13H4- of 1:0.5:0.5:0.1:0.3 to 1:0.9:0.9:0.5:0.7.
With the obvious inclusion of boron in Tonggelage’s example 8 (see claim 1 above), it is the Examiner’s position that the prior art teaches forming the claimed compound in a similar method as the claimed invention (Tonggelage [0011]-[0020]), such that the compounds would have the same or overlapping properties. Therefore, it is prima facie obvious that the lithium molybdenum compound, when measured by time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry (ToF-SIMS), has a ratio of peak intensity of LiMoO4- to peak intensity of LiMoO13- of 1:0.03 to 1:0.3.
Regarding claim 7, modified Tonggelage teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Tonggelage also teaches that the coating layer further comprises boron (see claim 1 above).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonggelage (CN-107768657-A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baek et al. (US-20200083524-A1), hereinafter Baek.
Regarding claim 8, modified Tonggelage teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Tonggelage fails to teach that the positive electrode active material powder comprises a first positive electrode active material powder and a second positive electrode active material powder, wherein the first positive electrode active material powder having a larger average particle size, and present in a larger amount, than the second positive electrode active material powder.
Baek is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of positive electrode active materials. Baek teaches that the positive electrode active material powder comprises a first positive electrode active material powder (see [0028] lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt based positive electrode active material) and a second positive electrode active material powder (see [0028] spinel-structured lithium manganese-based positive electrode active material), wherein the first positive electrode active material powder having a larger average particle size (see [0028]), and present in a larger amount (see [0086]), than the second positive electrode active material powder.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the positive active material of Tonggelage with the positive electrode active material with a bimodal particle size distribution of Baek for allowing characteristics of high-temperature stability and high capacity (Baek [0015]). Further, Tonggelage teaches that improvements and modifications can be made to the embodiments (see [0068]).
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 MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM ET.
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.
/M.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722