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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 23rd, 2025, has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on December 23rd, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 & 18 have been amended. Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are pending, with claims 9-17, 19, and 20 having been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 18 are examined herein.
All previous rejections are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Lu et al. “Effect of carbon blacks on electrical conduction and conductive binder domain of next-generation lithium-ion batteries”.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mane et al., US 2019/0341618 A1 (hereinafter “Mane”) in view of Mao et al., CN 104617303 A (hereinafter “Mao”) and Lu, X. et al. “Effect of carbon blacks on electrical conduction and conductive binder domain of next-generation lithium-ion batteries”. NPL reference Cava, R. J. Spinel (hereinafter “Cava”) as captured on 8 Nov. 2010 by the Wayback Machine is relied upon as an evidentiary reference. An English translation of Mao is provided with this Action; any quotations from and references to Mao refer to this provided translation.
Regarding claim 1, Mane discloses a cobalt-free positive electrode active material (i.e. cathode active material) [Mane claim 8] comprising:
a core (i.e., electrode core) [¶ 0013]; and
a shell coating the core (i.e., composite bilayer disposed on an electrode core) [¶ 0012];
wherein the core is a cobalt-free positive electrode material and has a chemical formula of LiNixMnyO2 wherein 0.55 ≤ x ≤ 0.95 and 0.05 ≤ y ≤ 0.45 (i.e., LiNi0.8Mn0.1Ni0.1O2) [Mane claim 5; ¶¶ 0020, 0037]. Mane further discloses that the shell comprises a coating agent (i.e., first layer of the conformally coated electrode core, which may include a metal oxide) [¶ 0005].
Mane is silent regarding the inclusion of carbon in the shell and the content of the coating agent and carbon with reference to the total weight of the core.
In the same field of endeavor, Mao discloses an active material comprising a core material coated with a composite coating layer [¶ 0009], said composite coating layer comprising a metal oxide and carbon [Id.] Mao and Mane are analogous art because both are drawn to cathode materials with metal oxide coatings. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added carbon to the coating material of Mane with the expectation to produce a coated active material. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do this because the coating layer comprising a metal oxide and carbon is shown to increase the cycle performance and safety [see Mao at ¶ 0005].
Mao further discloses that the mass ratio of the metal oxide to carbon in the coating layer is 1:1-10 [¶ 0010] (this is equivalent to 50 to 9.09 mass% of metal oxide in the coating layer). The instant claim presents the percentages of metal oxide and coating agent relative to the mass of the core. Mao discloses that the mass ratio of the coating layer to the core active material can be 0.005 to 0.03 [Mao 0011], this accounts for a range of 0.04545% metal oxide (minimum, 0.005 × 9.09%) to 1.5% metal oxide (maximum, 0.03 × 50%) in the particle. In addition, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the active material of Mane via routine experimentation with the metal oxide:carbon mass ratio within the range disclosed by Mao to optimize the active material for the device. Therefore, the skilled artisan would have arrived at an optimal value within the claimed range while performing routine experimentation with the metal oxide:carbon mass ratio of the material of Mane within the range disclosed by Mao in order to optimize the active material for the device. See MPEP §§ 2144.05 (I) – (II).
Further, modified Mane discloses that the carbon in the coating layer is carbon black or super-conductive carbon black [Mao 0010], both of which are conductive substances. However, modified Mane is silent as to the specific surface area of the carbon.
Lu discloses that carbon black is an advantageous conductive agent to be used in batteries [Abstract]. Lu discloses that carbon black with a surface area of 130-200m2/g exhibits improved ionic conductivity [Abstract, Page 13 Left Column Par. 3].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to use the carbon black as suggested by Lu as the conductive agent in the coating of modified Mane for the benefit of improved ionic conductivity.
Thus, modified Mane discloses that the carbon is formed by a conductive substance (for example, carbon black) with a specific surface area of 130 m2/g to 200 m2/g, which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, modified Mane teaches the active material of claim 1. Mane is silent regarding a mass ratio of the core to shell material. However, Mao discloses a mass ratio of 0.005 to 0.03:1 (0.5 to 3%) [Mao 0011]. It therefore would have been obvious to a skilled artisan, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the active material of Mane via routine experimentation with the core:shell mass ratio within the range disclosed by Mao to optimize the active material for the device. Therefore, the skilled artisan would have arrived at an optimal value within the claimed range while performing routine experimentation with the core:shell mass ratio of the material of Mane within the range disclosed by Mao in order to optimize the active material for the device. See MPEP §§ 2144.05 (I) – (II).
Regarding claim 4, modified Mane teaches the active material of claim 1. Mane further discloses the use of Al2O3 or ZrO2 as the metal oxide material [Mane claim 3].
Regarding claim 6, modified Mane teaches the active material of claim 1. Mane further discloses that the active material adopts a layered-layered-spinel (LLS) structure [Mane claim 5]; spinel is a type of single crystal in which anions form a ccp lattice with cations occupying octahedral and tetrahedral interstitial sites (see evidentiary reference Cava)
Regarding claims 7-8, modified Mane teaches the active material of claim 1. Mao further discloses that the particle size (i.e., D50) of the core material is 5 to 25 µm [¶ 0019]. It therefore would have been obvious to a skilled artisan, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the active material of Mane via routine experimentation with the core size within the range disclosed by Mao to optimize the active material for the device. Therefore, the skilled artisan would have arrived at an optimal value within the claimed range while performing routine experimentation with the core size of the material of Mane within the range disclosed by Mao in order to optimize the active material for the device. See MPEP §§ 2144.05 (I) – (II).
Regarding claim 18, modified Mane teaches the positive electrode active material as mentioned in Claim 1. In regards to the limitation “prepared by…” in lines 3-8 of Claim 18, the Examiner is treating it as a product by process claim, specifically regarding the phrase “prepared by…”. It has been shown that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, 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). Thus, no particular weight was given to the process limitation of claim 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 23rd, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Mane and Mao both fail to disclose the limitations of amended Claim 1, more specifically that the carbon is formed by a conductive substance having a specific surface area within the claimed range. Examiner respectfully points out, as stated in the rejection above, that Mao discloses that the carbon in the coating layer/shell can be carbon black, among others, thus Mao discloses that the carbon is formed by a conductive substance (carbon black). Additionally, as disclosed by Lu, carbon black with a specific surface area of 130-200 m2/g is an advantageous conductive agent in batteries for the benefit of improved ionic conductivity. Thus, Mane, as modified by the carbon black of Mao and Lu, discloses that the carbon is formed by a conductive substance (carbon black) having a specific surface area that overlaps with the claimed range.
Applicant argues that Mane provides no teachings of the core material LiMnxNiyO2 as claimed. Examiner respectfully points out that Mane does disclose the core material LiMnxNiyO2 in Claim 5. Thus, the selection of this material is obvious given Mane’s disclosure. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant further argues that the Mao reference teaches cobalt and aluminum within the coated active material, in contrast to Mane, and therefore Mao lacks an obvious combination basis with Mane. As previously pointed out in the previous response to arguments, this is not persuasive because Mao teaches an advantage to a carbon/metal oxide coating over a pure metal oxide (such as used by Mane) for transition metal oxide active materials (Mao [0005]), specifically improved cycle performance and safety performance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this advantage to be applicable to the related material of Mane. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA E GOULD whose telephone number is (571)270-1088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/A.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1726 /DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726