DETAILED ACTION
Introductory Notes
Any paragraph citation of the instant is in reference to the U.S. published patent application.
The amendment to the specification of 12/30/2025 regarding the abstract is accepted.
The Double Patenting rejection of the previous office action is currently withdrawn due to amendments to the compounds and materials in the instant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 5, 6, and 17 are 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 5 recites the limitation “lithium cobalt oxide” in line 4 and then states “lithium cobalt oxide contains magnesium” in line 6. It is unclear how lithium cobalt oxide, or LiCoO2 as defined both in common usage and in instant paragraph [0185], may contain magnesium, or any other elements beside Li, Co, and O, outside of impurity levels.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “lithium cobalt oxide contains fluorine”. It is similarly unclear how LiCoO2 may contain F.
The remaining claims are rejected due to dependency.
Claim Interpretation
For the purposes of examination, and in order to satisfy the inclusion of magnesium (as required by claim 5) and fluoride (as required by claim 6), lithium cobalt oxide of claim 5 is being interpreted as a cobalt-containing material as used in the claim set of 6/25/2025.
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.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOI (US 20160276658 A1, supplied with an IDS).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, CHOI discloses a method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material (“a method of preparing a cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery” [0001]), comprising:
a first step of mixing titanium oxide (Example 1 with “TiO2” [0096]), lithium oxide (“lithium source may be … lithium oxide” [0056]), and lithium cobalt oxide (as noted above this is being interpreted as a cobalt-containing material; Example 1 with “LiCoO2” [0096] combined with “MgCO3” [0096] wherein the MgCO3 was dry-mixed with the LiCoO2 thus reading on cobalt-containing material as a combination because the homogenous powder mixture comprises the starting components and material is defined as: the elements, constituents, or substances of which something is composed or can be made (appears no special definition of material given in instant specification); notably the cobalt-containing material is a material and not a compound as used in regards to the titanium compound and the lithium compound; furthermore as it relates to claim 6 and containing fluorine, “LiF” [0096] was also mixed with the LiCoO2 and MgCO3 and therefore similarly reads on being a component of the cobalt-containing material; although dry-mixed simultaneously with TiO2 and LiOH, the combination of LiCoO2 with MgCO3 and LiF disclosed in CHOI is within the metes and bounds of “a cobalt-containing material” as claimed) to form a first mixture (“dry-mixed in a mixer to prepare a mixture” [0096]);
and a second step of heating the first mixture (“the mixture was heat-treated” [0096]), wherein the cobalt-containing material contains magnesium (“LiCoO2 … MgCO3” [0096] therefore the cobalt-containing material as a whole contains both magnesium and oxygen),
and wherein a heating temperature in the second step is higher than or equal to 860 °C and lower than or equal to 1150 °C (“heat-treatment temperature may be 650 to 950° C” [0055] as well as Example 1 with “800 °C” [0096]; wherein given a range of 650-950 and an example at 800, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily envision temperatures overlapping with the claimed range).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOI in view of JO (US 20190148711 A1, supplied with an IDS).
Regarding claim 17, CHOI does not expressly teach the heating temperature in the second step is higher than or equal to 1030 °C and lower than or equal to 1150 °C.
JO is directed to positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery including a lithium cobalt oxide, like CHOI. JO discloses “calcination for obtaining the lithium cobalt-doped oxide of the core is performed at a temperature of 850° C. to 1100° C” [0069] with the preparation example at 1050 °C [0095]. JO teaches at too low of a temperature “there is a possibility that the lithium source does not sufficiently permeate and the positive electrode active material may not be stably formed” and at too high of a temperature “the physical and chemical properties of the doped lithium cobalt-based oxide can be changed to induce a deterioration of performance” [0070].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to alter the temperature of CHOI to that of JO in order to fall within a window that allows for stable formation without deterioration of performance.
Therefore, modified CHOI discloses the heating temperature in the second step is higher than or equal to 1030 °C and lower than or equal to 1150 °C (as taught by JO).
Response to Arguments
Regarding art-based rejections, applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any interpretation applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (previously cited):
OCHIAI (US 20220115637 A1) directed to a positive electrode active material containing lithium, cobalt, magnesium, fluorine, and titanium.
OCHIAI (US 20220190313 A1) directed to a positive electrode active material containing lithium, cobalt, magnesium, fluorine, and titanium.
KOMATSU (US20230052499A1) directed to a positive electrode active material containing lithium, cobalt, magnesium, fluorine, and titanium.
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 TRAVIS L MARTIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7am-4pm CT.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached on (303)297-4684. 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.
/T.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721