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 .
Examiner’s Comments
Applicants’ response filed on 9/26/2025 has been fully considered. Claims 1-6 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fauteux et al (US 2001/0055717 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fauteux discloses an active material (surface modified active material; paragraph [0029]) comprising:
a compound A containing elemental lithium (Li), an element M, and elemental oxygen (O) (lithium transition metal oxide such as LiMnO4, LiCoO2 or LiNiO2; paragraph [0026]), where the element M represents one or more elements selected from elemental nickel (Ni), elemental cobalt (Co), and elemental manganese (Mn) (lithium transition metal oxide such as LiMnO4, LiCoO2 or LiNiO2; paragraph [0026]); and
a compound B containing elemental lithium (Li), elemental niobium (Nb), and elemental oxygen (O) (surface modifying component fabricated from lithium niobate such as Li5MO5 where M is Nb; paragraph [0028]); and
wherein: the compound B is represented by LixNbOy wherein x > 1 and 3 ≤ y ≤ 8 (surface modifying component fabricated from lithium niobate such as Li5MO5 where M is Nb; paragraph [0028]);
In regard to the limitation of a ratio between SPA and SPB, SPB/ SPA, satisfies 0 < SPB/ SPA <1.2, since the active material of electrode 114 comprises a lithium transition metal oxide such as LiMnO4, LiCoO2 or LiNiO2, which is the same as Applicant’s material for compound A, having a surface modifying component fabricated from lithium niobate such as Li5MO5 where M is Nb on at least a portion of the active material, which is the same as Applicant’s material for compound B; the surface modified active material of Fauteux would inherently have a ratio between SPA and SPB in a Raman spectrum obtained by Raman spectroscopy on the active material satisfying 0 < SPA/SPB < 1.2 where SPA represents an area of a peak assigned to the compound A in a range of 540 to 650 cm-1, and SPB represents an area of a peak assigned to the compound B and wherein the peaks observed in the range of 540 to 650 cm-1 include: a first peak on a lower wavenumber side assigned to vibrations between a transition element and elemental oxygen, in a one-to-one relationship, in the compound A; and a second peak on a higher wavenumber side assigned to overall vibrations between the transition element and all the elemental oxygen atoms located around the transition element.
Regarding claim 4, Fauteux discloses the active material of claim 1 as noted above and Fauteux discloses the active material comprising the compound B present on at least a portion of a surface of a core containing the compound A (surface modifying component on at least a portion of the active material where the active material is a lithium transition metal oxide such as LiMnO4, LiCoO2 or LiNiO2 and the surface modifying component is fabricated from lithium niobate such as Li5MO5 where M is Nb; paragraphs [0026] and [0028]-[0029]).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fauteux et al (US 2001/0055717 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Fauteux discloses the active material of claim 1 as noted above.
Fauteux does not disclose the active material comprising elemental niobium in an amount from 0.1 to 20 mass% of the total mass of the compound B.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of niobium in the lithium niobate of Li5NbO5 to be in an amount from 0.1 to 20 mass% of the total mass of the lithium niobate Li5NbO5 because doing so would provide a surface modifying component that provides increased compatibility of the electrode with the electrolyte (paragraph [0028]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fauteux et al (US 2001/0055717 A1) in view of Aihara et al US 2016/0156021 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Fauteux discloses the active material of claim 1 as noted above.
Fauteux does not disclose the active material comprising compound A being a layered rock salt complex oxide.
However, Aihara discloses an active material (positive electrode active material; paragraph [0057]) comprising compound A being a layered rock salt complex oxide (lithium salt of transition metal oxide having a layered rock salt structure comprising LiNixCoyMnzO2; paragraph [0061]-[0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the active material of Fauteux to substitute the lithium transition metal oxide of Fauteux for the lithium salt of transition metal oxide having a layered rock salt structure comprising LiNixCoyMnzO2 of Aihara because having a lithium salt of transition metal oxide having a layered rock salt structure provides the lithium secondary battery improved energy density and improved thermal stability (paragraph [0063] of Aihara).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makino et al (US 2019/0088994 A1) in view of Fauteux et al (US 2001/0055717 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Makino discloses an electrode material mixture (paragraph [0210]) comprising a positive electrode active material layer (Fig. 1 #4; paragraph [0210]) comprising a positive electrode active material (paragraph [0210]) and a solid electrolyte (inorganic solid electrolyte; paragraph [0210]).
Makino does not disclose the electrode material mixture comprising the active material as claimed in claim 1.
However, Fauteux discloses the active material (surface modified active material; paragraph [0029]) of claim 1 as noted above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Makino and Fauteux before him or her, to modify the electrode material mixture of Makino to substitute the positive electrode active material of Makino for the surface-modified active material of Fauteux because having the required surface modified active material provides increased compatibility of the electrode with the electrolyte (paragraph [0028] of Fauteux).
Regarding claim 6, Makino disclose a battery (an all solid-state secondary battery; paragraph [0203]) comprising a positive electrode active material (positive electrode active material layer comprising a positive electrode active material; Fig. 1 #4; paragraphs [0038] and [0210]), a negative electrode layer containing a negative electrode active material (a negative electrode active material layer; Fig. 1 #2; paragraphs [0038] and [0210]) and a solid electrolyte layer containing a solid electrolyte (solid electrolyte layer comprises an inorganic solid electrolyte; Fig. 1 #3; paragraph [0038] and [0209]).
Makino does not disclose the all solid-state secondary battery comprising the active material as claimed in claim 1.
However, Fauteux discloses the active material (surface modified active material; paragraph [0029]) of claim 1 as noted above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Makino and Fauteux before him or her, to modify the battery of Makino to substitute the positive electrode active material of Makino for the surface-modified active material of Fauteux because having the required surface modified active material provides increased compatibility of the electrode with the electrolyte (paragraph [0028] of Fauteux).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 9/26/2025, with respect to the 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicants argue that Kashimura fails to disclose compound B represented by LixNbOy where x > 1 and 3 ≤ y ≤ 8 and points out disadvantages of coating lithium niobate onto the surface of active material particles.
This argument is moot as Kashimura does not teach or suggest compound B represented by LixNbOy where x > 1 and 3 ≤ y ≤ 8. Therefore, the previous rejections have been withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection have been noted above.
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 SATHAVARAM I REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 PM EST.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)-272-1291. 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.
/SATHAVARAM I REDDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1785