DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the September 5th, 2025 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”). The
text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior
Office 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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received on September 5th, 2025:
Claims 1, 4-10, 12-14, 16-17 and 19-24 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 4-7, 13-14, 17, and 19 are amended. Claims 2-3, 11, 15, and 18 are canceled. Claims 21-24 are newly added.
Claims 1, 4-6, 13-14, 17, and 19 are amended to further limit the compounds present in the lithium transition metal phosphorus oxide.
Claim 7 is amended to adjust dependency from Claim 6 to Claim 1 and to specify the coating as a lithium transition metal phosphorus oxide.
Claim 14 is further amended to adjust dependency from Claim 1 to Claim 13.
Claims 21-22 are newly added to be dependent on Claim 13 and further limit the materials of a first coating material and second coating material.
Claims 23-24 are newly added to be dependent on Claim 17 and further limit the lithium transition metal phosphorus oxide.
Applicant’s amendment finds support in the disclosure including the originally filed claims and specification. No new matter has been added.
The new grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 103 as described below:
Claims 1-10 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170179484 A1). The rejections are withdrawn based on applicant’s amendment to Claims 1, 4-7, 17, and 19; and the cancellation of Claims 2-3 and 18.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170179484 A1) as further evident by Cherkashinin et al. (Cherkashinin, Gennady et al. Olivine-LiNiPO4 Thin Films: Chemical Compatibility with Liquid Electrolyte and Interface Stability at High Potential, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, Vol 165, No. 4, January 2018 [online], [retrieved on 2025-06-20], Retrieved from the Internet: <DOI: 10.1149/2.0211804jes>). The rejections are withdrawn based on applicant’s amendment to Claim 1 and the cancellation of Claim 11.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170179484 A1) as further evidenced by Yanagihara et al. (W.O. Patent. No. 2016017077 A1). The rejection is withdrawn based on applicant’s amendment to Claims 1 and 13.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170179484 A1) as further evident by Yanagihara et al. (W.O. Patent. No. 2016017077 A1). The rejection is withdrawn based on applicant’s amendment to Claims 13 and 14.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170179484 A1) as further evident by Cherkashinin et al. (Cherkashinin, Gennady et al. Olivine-LiNiPO4 Thin Films: Chemical Compatibility with Liquid Electrolyte and Interface Stability at High Potential, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, Vol 165, No. 4, January 2018 [online], [retrieved on 2025-06-20], Retrieved from the Internet: <DOI: 10.1149/2.0211804jes>) and Snydacker et al. (Snydacker, David et al., Olivine-LiNiPO4 Thin Films: Transition-Metal Mixing and Redox Potentials. The Journal of Physical Chemistry, Vol 120, Issue 11, March 2016 [online], [retrieved on 2025-06-20]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jpcc.6b00575>). The rejection is withdrawn based on the cancellation of Claim 15.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170179484 A1) as further evident by Bini et al. (Bini, Marcella et al. Silicon-doped LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 as a high-voltage cathode for Li-ion batteries, ScienceDirect, Vol 320, pgs. 1-6, July 2018 [online], [retrieved on 2025-06-20]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssi.2018.02.026>). The rejection is withdrawn based on applicant’s amendment to Claim 1.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170179484 A1) as further evident by Matsuoka et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 103190027 A). The rejection is withdrawn based on applicant’s amendment to Claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed September 5th, 2025 have been fully considered as further described below:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1, 11-17, and 20 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.
Cited Prior Art
Previously Cited Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170179484 A1). (“Park et al.”)
Previously Cited Cherkashinin et al. (Cherkashinin, Gennady et al. Olivine-LiNiPO4 Thin Films: Chemical Compatibility with Liquid Electrolyte and Interface Stability at High Potential, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, Vol 165, No. 4, January 2018 [online], [retrieved on 2025-06-20], Retrieved from the Internet: <DOI: 10.1149/2.0211804jes>) (“Cherkashinin et al.”)
Previously Cited Yanagihara et al. (W.O. Patent. No. 2016017077 A1) (“Yanagihara et al.”)
Previously Cited Snydacker et al. (Snydacker, David et al., Olivine-LiNiPO4 Thin Films: Transition-Metal Mixing and Redox Potentials. The Journal of Physical Chemistry, Vol 120, Issue 11, March 2016 [online], [retrieved on 2025-06-20]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jpcc.6b00575>) (“Snydacker et al.”)
Previously Cited Bini et al. (Bini, Marcella et al. Silicon-doped LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 as a high-voltage cathode for Li-ion batteries, ScienceDirect, Vol 320, pgs. 1-6, July 2018 [online], [retrieved on 2025-06-20]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssi.2018.02.026>) (“Bini et al.”)
Previously Cited Matsuoka et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 103190027 A) (“Matsuoka et al.”)
Miara et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190140265 A1) (“Miara et al.”)
Choi et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 20050011386 A) (“Choi et al.”)
Xiao et al. (Yihan Xiao, Lincoln J. Miara, Yan Wang, Gerbrand Ceder, Computational Screening of Cathode Coatings for Solid-State Batteries, Joule, Volume 3, Issue 5, 2019, Pages 1252-1275, ISSN 2542-4351, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2019.02.006. (Year: 2019)) (“Xiao et al.”)
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.
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:
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-10, 17, 19, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170179484 A1) in view of Miara et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190140265 A1) as further evidenced by Xiao et al. (Yihan Xiao, Lincoln J. Miara, Yan Wang, Gerbrand Ceder, Computational Screening of Cathode Coatings for Solid-State Batteries, Joule, Volume 3, Issue 5, 2019, Pages 1252-1275, ISSN 2542-4351, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2019.02.006. (Year: 2019)) (“Xiao et al.”).
Regarding Claim 1, Park et al. teaches a cathode (electrode) composition comprising a cathode active material (para. 84) with a coating layer including a phosphate compound (para. 13) represented by Formula 2 (Li1-y(M1)PO4 where 0≦y≦1 and M1 is Fe, Co, V, Mn, Ni, Zr, or Zn) (para. 55-56), equivalent to a lithium transition metal phosphorous oxide. The lithium transition metal phosphorous oxide coating layer is formed on the surface of the cathode active material. Further, the cathode active material has a layered-type structure (para. 152). Particulate bulk is interpreted as a mass of many small particles. One of ordinary skill in the art would consider the structure of the cathode active material to meet the description of a particulate bulk material. Therefore, “cathode active material” can equivalently be substituted by “bulk particulate cathode active material” of Park et al. hereinafter. The applicant’s disclosure does not suggest a more specific definition of bulk particulate that would further limit its interpretation.
Park et al. does not teach the lithium transition metal phosphorous oxide coating comprising LiCrP2O7, LiCo(PO3)3, LiSnPO4, or a mixture of any two or more thereof.
Miara et al. teaches an electrode composition comprising a positive electrode coating comprising a compound represented by LimM1nXp wherein M1 can include Cr, X can include P2O7, and subscripts m, n, and p can be represented by a range in which includes 1 (para. 98). Therefore, Miara et al. teaches a coating represented by LiCrP2O7 in which is equivalent to a lithium transition metal phosphorous oxide and can be used as an electrode coating (para. 98). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select Cr and P2O7 from the list of materials based on its suitability for use in a positive electrode coating as described by Miara et al. As further evident by Xiao et al., polyanionic oxides, such as pyrophosphates with a P2O74- space group, exhibit high oxidation limits and can be suitable for cathode coatings (Xiao et al., Table 3, para. 2 of pg. 1264-1265). Further, Miara et al. describes coatings formed on positive electrode active materials as described can mitigate effects of undesirable reactions that can impede the normal operation of the battery (para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium transition metal phosphorous oxide coating of Park et al. to include a compound represented by LiCrP2O7 as taught by Miara et al. to prevent undesirable reactions that can impede the normal operation of the battery; and to provide a polyanionic oxide with a high oxidation limit and can be suitable for cathode coatings as further evident by Xiao et al.
Regarding Claim 4, Park et al. is modified by Miara et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, the lithium transition metal phosphorous oxide coating of Park et al. is modified by Miara et al. to include a compound represented by LiCrP2O7 as further evidenced by Xiao et al. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 5, Park et al. is modified by Miara et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Park et al. does not teach the lithium transition metal phosphorous oxide coating comprising LiSnPO4.
Miara et al. teaches an electrode composition comprising a positive electrode coating comprising a compound represented by LimM1nXp wherein M1 can include Sn, X can include PO4 and subscripts m, n, and p can be represented by a range in which includes 1 (para. 98). Therefore, Miara et al. teaches a coating represented by LiSnPO4 in which is equivalent to a lithium transition metal phosphorous oxide and can be used as an electrode coating (para. 98). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select Sn and PO4 from the list of materials based on its suitability for use in a positive electrode coating as described by Miara et al. Further, Miara et al. describes coatings formed on positive electrode active materials as described can mitigate effects of undesirable reactions that can impede the normal operation of the battery (para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium transition metal phosphorous oxide coating of Park et al. to include a compound represented by LiSnPO4 as taught by Miara et al. to provide a coating in which prevents undesirable reactions that can impede the normal operation of the battery.
Regarding Claim 7, Park et al. is modified by Miara et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Park et al. teaches the coating including at least one compound represented by Formula 2 above, implicating that more than one compound can be included in the coating (para. 55-56). “‘[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968)’” (see MPEP 2144.01). Therefore, the coating can further include LiFePO4 (also represented by Formula 2), meeting the limitations of the claim.
Regarding Claim 8, Park et al. is modified by Miara et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. The cathode active material can be represented by Formula 5 (Lia1Nib1(M4)c1O2 where a1 , b1, and c1 may satisfy 0.8<a1<1.3, 0.5≦b1<1.0, and 0<c1≦0.5; and M4 may be at least one metal element selected from Mn, V, Cr, Fe, Co, Zr, Re, Al, B, Mg, Ga, Ge, Nb, Zn, Cd, Ti, V, Ca, Si, Cu, Sn, Sr, Sc, W, and Y) (Park et al., para. 78-79). Park et al. further specifies that b1 can more specifically satisfy 0.7≦b1<1.0 in which the cathode active material can be considered a nickel-rich cathode active material having greater than 70 wt.% nickel (para. 80). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 9, Park et al. is modified by Miara et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. The cathode active material can be Li1.03Ni0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 (para. 140), a lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 10, Park et al. is modified by Miara et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. The cathode active material can be represented by Formula 5 (Lia1Nib1(M4)c1O2 where a1 , b1, and c1 may satisfy 0.8<a1<1.3, 0.5≦b1<1.0, and 0<c1≦0.5; and M4 may be at least one metal element selected from Mn, V, Cr, Fe, Co, Zr, Re, Al, B, Mg, Ga, Ge, Nb, Zn, Cd, Ti, V, Ca, Si, Cu, Sn, Sr, Sc, W, and Y) (Park et al., para. 78-79). Further, Park et al. specifies that Cobalt and Manganese can be used as the transition metal elements meeting the limitations of Li(NiaMnbCoc)O2 (para. 140). Considering the example formulation provided by Park et al. of Li1.03Ni0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2, the formula also satisfies the conditions for a, b, and c, where a + b + c = 1. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 17, Park et al. teaches a lithium secondary battery in which can be a lithium-ion battery comprising a cathode (para. 116) comprising a particulate bulk cathode active material and a current collector (para. 88) where the particulate bulk cathode active material can be coated (para. 92) with a lithium transition metal phosphorous oxide (para. 55-56).
Park et al. does not teach the lithium transition metal phosphorous oxide coating comprising LiCrP2O7, LiCo(PO3)3, LiSnPO4, or a mixture of any two or more thereof.
Miara et al. teaches an electrode composition comprising a positive electrode coating comprising a compound represented by LimM1nXp wherein M1 can include Cr, X can include P2O7, and subscripts m, n, and p can be represented by a range in which includes 1 (para. 98). Therefore, Miara et al. teaches a coating represented by LiCrP2O7 in which is equivalent to a lithium transition metal phosphorous oxide and can be used as an electrode coating (para. 98). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select Cr and P2O7 from the list of materials based on its suitability for use in a positive electrode coating as described by Miara et al. As further evident by Xiao et al., polyanionic oxides, such as pyrophosphates with a P2O74- space group, exhibit high oxidation limits and can be suitable for cathode coatings (Xiao et al., Table 3, para. 2 of pg. 1264-1265). Further, Miara et al. describes coatings formed on positive electrode active materials as described can mitigate effects of undesirable reactions that can impede the normal operation of the battery (para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium transition metal phosphorous oxide coating of Park et al. to include a compound represented by LiCrP2O7 as taught by Miara et al. to provide a cathode coating in which can prevent undesirable reactions that can impede the normal operation of the battery; and to provide a polyanionic oxide with a high oxidation limit and can be suitable for cathode coatings as further evident by Xiao et al.
Regarding Claim 19, Park et al. is modified by Miara et al. teachings all claim limitations as applied to Claim 17 above. Park et al. teaches the lithium transition metal phosphorous oxide represented by Formula 2 (Li1-y-(M1)PO4 where 0≦y≦1 and M1 is Fe, Co, V, Mn, Ni, Zr, or Zn) such as LiMnPO4. As applied to Claim 17, the lithium transition metal phosphorous oxide coating of Park et al. is modified by Miara et al. to include a compound represented by LiCrP2O7 as further evidenced by Xiao et al. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 24, Park et al. is modified by Miara et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 17 above.
Park et al. does not teach the lithium transition metal phosphorous oxide coating comprising LiSnPO4.
Miara et al. teaches an electrode composition comprising a positive electrode coating comprising a compound represented by LimM1nXp wherein M1 can include Sn, X can include PO4 and subscripts m, n, and p can be represented by a range in which includes 1 (para. 98). Therefore, Miara et al. teaches a coating represented by LiSnPO4 in which is equivalent to a lithium transition metal phosphorous oxide and can be used as an electrode coating (para. 98). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select Sn and PO4 from the list of materials based on its suitability for use in a positive electrode coating as described by Miara et al. Further, Miara et al. describes coatings formed on positive electrode active materials as described can mitigate effects of undesirable reactions that can impede the normal operation of the battery (para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium transition metal phosphorous oxide coating of Park et al. to include a compound represented by LiSnPO4 as taught by Miara et al. to provide a coating in which prevents undesirable reactions that can impede the normal operation of the battery.
Claim 6 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170179484 A1) in view of Miara et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190140265 A1) as further evidenced by Xiao et al. (Yihan Xiao, Lincoln J. Miara, Yan Wang, Gerbrand Ceder, Computational Screening of Cathode Coatings for Solid-State Batteries, Joule, Volume 3, Issue 5, 2019, Pages 1252-1275, ISSN 2542-4351, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2019.02.006. (Year: 2019)) (“Xiao et al.”) as applied to Claim 1 or 17 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 20050011386 A).
Regarding Claims 6 and 23, Claim 6 is dependent on Claim 1 and Claim 23 is dependent on Claim 17. Park et al. is modified by Miara et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 and 17 above, respectively.
Park et al. does not teach the lithium transition metal phosphorous oxide coating comprising LiCo(PO3)3 as required by Claims 6 and 23.
Choi et al. teaches an electrode composition comprising lithium cobalt metaphosphate LiCo(PO3)3 in replace of electrode active materials such as LiCoO2, LiNiO2, LiCoPO4, LiMn2O4 -in which the manufacturing method is inexpensive in production cost (para. 17) and to enhance battery capacity (para. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the lithium transition metal phosphorous oxide coating of Park et al. to include a compound represented by LiCo(PO3)3 as taught by Choi et al. to reduce production costs during manufacturing and enhance battery capacity.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170179484 A1) in view of Miara et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190140265 A1) as further evidenced by Xiao et al. (Yihan Xiao, Lincoln J. Miara, Yan Wang, Gerbrand Ceder, Computational Screening of Cathode Coatings for Solid-State Batteries, Joule, Volume 3, Issue 5, 2019, Pages 1252-1275, ISSN 2542-4351, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2019.02.006. (Year: 2019)) (“Xiao et al.”) as applied to Claim 1 above, as further evidenced by Cherkashinin et al. (Cherkashinin, Gennady et al. Olivine-LiNiPO4 Thin Films: Chemical Compatibility with Liquid Electrolyte and Interface Stability at High Potential, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, Vol 165, No. 4, January 2018 [online], [retrieved on 2025-06-20], Retrieved from the Internet: <DOI: 10.1149/2.0211804jes>).
Regarding Claim 12, Park et al. is modified by Miara et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Park et al. teaches the lithium transition metal phosphorous oxide including LiNiPO4 (para. 55-56). As known to one of ordinary skill in the art, LiNiPO4 is a competitive positive electrode active material providing a high redox voltage greater than 5 V vs Li/Li+- due to its stable olivine type structure as further evident by Cherkashinin et al. (Cherkashinin et al., 2018, “Supplementary data”). Therefore, Park et al. teaches the lithium transition metal phosphorous oxide including LiNiPO4 in which has an olivine type structure as required by Claim 12. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select an alternative compound with an olivine type structure based on the stability and favorable electronic configuration of olivine compounds as described by Cherkashinin et al. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Claims 13-14 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170179484 A1) in view of Miara et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190140265 A1) as further evidenced by Xiao et al. (Yihan Xiao, Lincoln J. Miara, Yan Wang, Gerbrand Ceder, Computational Screening of Cathode Coatings for Solid-State Batteries, Joule, Volume 3, Issue 5, 2019, Pages 1252-1275, ISSN 2542-4351, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2019.02.006. (Year: 2019)) (“Xiao et al.”) as applied to Claims 1 and 13 and further applied below, and further evidenced by Yanagihara et al. (W.O. Patent. No. 2016017077 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Park et al. is modified by Miara et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Park et al. teaches the coating layer or material (2) being a multi-layered structure formed on the surface of the core (1) (particulate bulk cathode active material) (Fig. 1, para. 72). A multi-layered structure implies a first coating layer or material on the surface of the cathode active material with a second coating layer or material overcoating the first layer as further evident by Yanagihara et al. (para. 37). Therefore, it is within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art to consider Park et al. to teach a first coating material on the surface of the particulate bulk cathode active material and a second coating material overcoating the first coating material.
As applied to Claim 1, the coating layer can comprise one or more lithium transition metal phosphorous oxides (para. 40). Therefore, the coating layer in which can be a multilayer structure (forming a first coating material and second coating material) can comprise a lithium transition metal phosphorous oxide (para. 55-56). Further, as applied to Claim 1, the lithium transition metal phosphorous oxide coating of Park et al. is modified by Miara et al. to include a compound represented by LiCrP2O7 as further evidenced by Xiao et al. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 14, Park et al. is modified by Miara et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 13 above. As Park et al. specifies the coating layer being a multilayered structure comprising one or more lithium transitional metal phosphorous oxides (para. 40), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a lithium transition metal phosphorous oxide represented by Formulas 1-3 of Park et al. such as LiFePO4 and a second coating layer comprising LiCrP2O7 as modified by Miara et al. As further evident by Xiao et al., polyanionic oxides, such as pyrophosphates with a P2O74- space group, exhibit high oxidation limits and can be suitable for cathode coatings (Table 3, para. 2 of pg. 1264-1265). 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. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select LiCrP2O7 based on its suitability for use in a positive electrode coating as described by Miara et al. and to provide a cathode coating material exhibiting high oxidation limits as described by Xiao et al.
Miara et al. describes coatings formed on positive electrode active materials as described can mitigate effects of undesirable reactions that can impede the normal operation of the battery (Miara et al. para. 2). Further, the metal oxide compound in which can be a lithium transition metal phosphate oxide structurally stabilizes the core (cathode active material) and may suppress side reactions which may occur with an electrolyte and improve lifespan characteristics of a battery (Park et al. para. 41-42). Further, it is well known in the field of endeavor to include a lithium composite oxide in a first coating layer and a second coating layer of a cathode active material in which can be different compound as further evident by Yanagihara (para. 37).
Regarding Claim 22, Park et al. is modified by Miara et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 13 above.
Park et al. does not teach the lithium transition metal phosphorous oxide coating comprising LiSnPO4.
Miara et al. teaches an electrode composition comprising a positive electrode coating comprising a compound represented by LimM1nXp wherein M1 can include Sn and X can include PO4 and subscripts m, n, and p can be represented by a range in which includes 1 (para. 98). Therefore, Miara et al. teaches a coating represented by LiSnPO4 in which is equivalent to a lithium transition metal phosphorous oxide and can be used as an electrode coating (para. 98). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select Sn and PO4 from the list of materials provided by Miara et al. based on its suitability for use in a positive electrode coating as described by Miara et al. Further, Miara et al. describes coatings formed on positive electrode active materials as described can mitigate effects of undesirable reactions that can impede the normal operation of the battery (para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium transition metal phosphorous oxide coating of Park et al. to include a compound represented by LiSnPO4 as taught by Miara et al. to provide a coating in which prevents undesirable reactions that can impede the normal operation of the battery. As Park et al. specifies the coating layer being a multilayered structure comprising one or more lithium transitional metal phosphorous oxides (para. 40), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a lithium transition metal phosphorous oxide represented by Formulas 1-3 of Park et al. such as LiFePO4 and a second coating layer comprising LiSnPO4 as modified by Miara et al. 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. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select LiSnPO4 as modified by Miara et al. as a second coating layer based on its suitability for use in a positive electrode coating as described by Miara et al.
Further, the metal oxide compound in which can be a lithium transition metal phosphate oxide structurally stabilizes the core (cathode active material) and may suppress side reaction which may occur with an electrolyte and improve lifespan characteristics of a battery (Park et al., para. 41-42). Further, it is well known in the field of endeavor to include a lithium composite oxide in a first coating layer and a second coating layer of a cathode active material in which can be different compounds as further evident by Yanagihara (para. 37).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170179484 A1) in view of Miara et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190140265 A1) as further evidenced by Xiao et al. (Yihan Xiao, Lincoln J. Miara, Yan Wang, Gerbrand Ceder, Computational Screening of Cathode Coatings for Solid-State Batteries, Joule, Volume 3, Issue 5, 2019, Pages 1252-1275, ISSN 2542-4351, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2019.02.006. (Year: 2019)) (“Xiao et al.”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and as further evident by Bini et al. (Bini, Marcella et al. Silicon-doped LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 as a high-voltage cathode for Li-ion batteries, ScienceDirect, Vol 320, pgs. 1-6, July 2018 [online], [retrieved on 2025-06-20]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssi.2018.02.026>).
Regarding Claim 16, Park et al. is modified by Miara et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Park et al. teaches a lithium transition metal phosphorous oxide coating (para. 55-56) comprising a coating element such as aluminum and silicon. A dopant is defined as an impurity added usually in minute amounts to a pure substance to alter its properties (such as conductivity) (Merriam-Webster). As known in the field of endeavor, Silicon doped cathode materials are used to improve electrochemical performance of high voltage cathodes for lithium-ion batteries providing capacity improvement as further evident by Bini et al. (Bini et al., 2018, “Introduction”). Therefore, the silicon coating element meets the definition of a dopant to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Although Park et al. appears to be silent to the function of the dopant, the applicant specifies suitable dopants including silicon and aluminum (Specification, para. 27). Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the coating element of Park et al. to provide the functional characteristics of the claim limitation wherein the dopant increases a de-lithiation voltage of the coating relative to the coating without the dopant.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170179484 A1) in view of Miara et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190140265 A1) as further evidenced by Xiao et al. (Yihan Xiao, Lincoln J. Miara, Yan Wang, Gerbrand Ceder, Computational Screening of Cathode Coatings for Solid-State Batteries, Joule, Volume 3, Issue 5, 2019, Pages 1252-1275, ISSN 2542-4351, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2019.02.006. (Year: 2019)) (“Xiao et al.”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and as further evident by Matsuoka et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 103190027 A).
Regarding Claim 20, Park et al. is modified by Miara et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Park et al. teaches a process of manufacturing a cathode for a lithium-ion battery comprising mixing a cathode active material (electrode composition) with a conductive agent such as carbon black (para. 93) (conductive carbon) and a binder in solvent to form a slurry (para. 88) and coating the slurry on a cathode current collector (para. 88). Park et al. teaches vacuum drying the mixture (para. 160), a step well known in the field of endeavor used to remove the solvent as further evident by Matsuoka et al. (Matsuoka et al., para. 194).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170179484 A1) in view of Miara et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190140265 A1) as further evidenced by Xiao et al. (Yihan Xiao, Lincoln J. Miara, Yan Wang, Gerbrand Ceder, Computational Screening of Cathode Coatings for Solid-State Batteries, Joule, Volume 3, Issue 5, 2019, Pages 1252-1275, ISSN 2542-4351, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2019.02.006. (Year: 2019)) (“Xiao et al.”) as applied to Claim 13 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 20050011386 A) as further evident by Yanagihara et al. (W.O. Patent. No. 2016017077 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Park et al. is modified by Miara et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 13 above.
Park et al. does not teach the lithium transition metal phosphorous oxide coating comprising LiCo(PO3)3.
Choi et al. teaches an electrode composition comprising lithium cobalt metaphosphate LiCo(PO3)3 in replace of electrode active materials such as LiCoO2, LiNiO2, LiCoPO4, LiMn2O4 -in which the manufacturing method is inexpensive in production cost (para. 17) and to enhance battery capacity (para. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the lithium transition metal phosphorous oxide coating of Park et al. to include a compound represented by LiCo(PO3)3 as taught by Choi et al. to reduce production costs during manufacturing and enhance battery capacity. As Park et al. specifies the coating layer being a multilayered structure comprising one or more lithium transitional metal phosphorous oxides (para. 40), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a lithium transition metal phosphorous oxide represented by Formulas 1-3 of Park et al. such as LiFePO4 and a second coating layer comprising LiCo(PO3)3 as modified by Choi et al. 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. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select LiCo(PO3)3 provided by Choi et al. as a second coating layer based on its suitability for use in a positive electrode composition as described by Choi et al.
Further, the metal oxide compound in which can be a lithium transition metal phosphate oxide structurally stabilizes the core (cathode active material) and may suppress side reaction which may occur within an electrolyte and improve lifespan characteristics of a battery (Park et al., para. 41-42). Further, it is well known in the field of endeavor to include a lithium composite oxide in a first coating layer and a second coating layer of a cathode active material in which can be different compounds as further evident by Yanagihara (para. 37).
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 CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 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, ULA RUDDOCK can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729