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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/28/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 8/28/2025:
Claims 1, 4-20, and 23 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 4-7, 11, 13, and 18-20 have been amended, Claims 2-3 and 21-22 have been canceled, and Claim 23 is newly added.
The rejection of Claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112b has been overcome in light of the amendment.
The cores of the previous prior art base rejections have been overcome in light of the amendment. All changes made to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 28, 2025 have been fully considered. The arguments are found to be persuasive in view of the amendment and the previous rejections are accordingly withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 8, 16, 18-19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mun et al. US-20130071745-A1 (hereinafter referred to as Mun).
Regarding Claims 1 and 23, Mun discloses a cathode composition comprising a particulate bulk cathode active material (core) comprising a coating on a surface of the particulate bulk cathode active material, the coating comprising Li3FeF6, which a skilled artisan would recognize is a lithium metal fluoride (see paragraphs [0025]-[0026], [0029], and [0084]). It will be shown that the coating disclosed by Mun would inherently have a greater LiFePO4 stability score when normalized to that of AlF3 at 100%.
In the specification of the instant application, it is disclosed that a coating comprising Li3FeF6 has a greater LiFePO4 stability score when normalized to that of AlF3 at 100% (see paragraph [0064] and Table 2 of the published instant application). The applicant further discloses the cathode can contain other additives (see paragraphs [0035]-[0036] of the published instant application) i.e., it is the presence of Li3FeF6 that imparts these properties. Furthermore, products of identical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties (see MPEP 2112.01, II).
As such, the coating of Mun comprising Li3FeF6 would inherently have a greater LiFePO4 stability score when normalized to that of AlF3 at 100%.
Regarding Claim 8, Mun discloses the cathode composition of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Mun further discloses the cathode composition comprises larger than 1 to 5 wt% of the lithium metal fluoride, with a specific example of the Li3FeF6 being included in an amount of about 3 wt% (see paragraphs [0029]-[0030], [0081], and [0084]). This range and value both fall within and therefore anticipate the claimed range of the cathode composition comprising about 0.1 wt% to about 5 wt% of the metal fluoride, the lithium metal fluoride, or both the metal fluoride and the lithium metal fluoride.
Regarding Claim 16, Mun discloses the cathode composition of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Mun further discloses the particulate bulk cathode active material is a lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt oxide ("NMC") cathode material (Li1.1Ni0.35Mn0.41Co0.14O2) (see paragraphs [0080]-[0081] and [0084]).
Regarding Claims 18 and 19, Mun discloses a lithium ion battery 1 in Fig. 4 (see abstract and paragraph [0067]) comprising:
a cathode 3 comprising a particulate bulk cathode active material and optionally a current collector in Fig. 4 (see paragraphs [0053], [0067]-[0068], and [0097]); and
optionally a housing (case) 5 in Fig. 4 (see paragraphs [0067]-[0068]);
wherein: the particulate bulk cathode active material is at least partially coated with a cathode composition comprising a particulate bulk cathode active material (core) comprising a coating on a surface of the particulate bulk cathode active material, the coating comprising Li3FeF6 (see paragraphs [0025]-[0026], [0029], and [0084]). A skilled artisan would recognize that Li3FeF6 is a lithium metal fluoride. It will be shown that the coating disclosed by Mun would inherently have a greater LiFePO4 stability score when normalized to that of AlF3 at 100%.
In the specification of the instant application, it is disclosed that a coating comprising Li3FeF6 has a greater LiFePO4 stability score when normalized to that of AlF3 at 100% (see paragraph [0064] and Table 2 of the published instant application). The applicant further discloses the cathode can contain other additives (see paragraphs [0035]-[0036] of the published instant application) i.e., it is the presence of Li3FeF6 that imparts these properties. Furthermore, products of identical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties (see MPEP 2112.01, II).
As such, the coating of Mun comprising Li3FeF6 would inherently have a greater LiFePO4 stability score when normalized to that of AlF3 at 100%.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mun in view of Tsunozaki et al. US-20140113194-A1 (hereinafter referred to as Tsunozaki).
Regarding Claim 4, Mun discloses the cathode composition of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Mun further discloses the coating on the cathode material may be a metal halide coating (see paragraph [0028]).
However, in the same field of endeavor of cathode coatings (see abstract), Tsunozaki discloses a cathode composition comprising a coating on a surface of the cathode active material, the coating comprising MoF3, which a skilled artisan would recognize is a metal fluoride (see paragraphs [0011], [0015], and [0068]). It will be shown that the coating disclosed by Tsunozaki would inherently have a greater LiFePO4 stability score when normalized to that of AlF3 at 100%.
In the specification of the instant application, it is disclosed that a coating comprising MoF3 has a greater LiFePO4 stability score when normalized to that of AlF3 at 100% (see paragraph [0064] and Table 2 of the published instant application). The applicant further discloses the cathode can contain other additives (see paragraphs [0035]-[0036] of the published instant application) i.e., it is the presence of MoF3 that imparts these properties. Furthermore, products of identical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties (see MPEP 2112.01, II).
As such, the coating of Tsunozaki comprising MoF3 would inherently have a greater LiFePO4 stability score when normalized to that of AlF3 at 100%.
Tsunozaki additionally discloses a cathode with the aforementioned coating results in a lithium ion secondary battery with excellent cycle characteristics even when charging is carried out at a high voltage (see paragraph [0014]), and as such would be an appropriate composite metal halide coating in the cathode composition of Mun. Further, 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the cathode composition of Mun wherein the coating comprises MOF3, as disclosed by Tsunozaki, in order to achieve a lithium ion secondary battery with excellent cycle characteristics even when charging is carried out at a high voltage.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mun in view of Kuwata et al. US-20220255119-A1 (hereinafter referred to as Kuwata).
Regarding Claim 5, Mun discloses the cathode composition of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Mun further discloses the coating on the cathode material may be a metal halide coating (see paragraph [0028]).
Mun is silent on the coating comprising Li3ScF6.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cathode coatings (see abstract), Kuwata discloses a cathode composition comprising a coating on a surface of the cathode active material, the coating comprising Li3ScF6, which a skilled artisan would recognize is a lithium metal fluoride (see paragraphs [0004] and [0013]-[0014] and Table 1). It will be shown that the coating disclosed by Kuwata would inherently have a greater LiFePO4 stability score when normalized to that of AlF3 at 100%.
In the specification of the instant application, it is disclosed that a coating comprising Li3ScF6 has a greater LiFePO4 stability score when normalized to that of AlF3 at 100% (see paragraph [0064] and Table 2 of the published instant application). The applicant further discloses the cathode can contain other additives (see paragraphs [0035]-[0036] of the published instant application) i.e., it is the presence of Li3ScF6 that imparts these properties. Furthermore, products of identical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties (see MPEP 2112.01, II).
As such, the coating of Kuwata comprising Li3ScF6 would inherently have a greater LiFePO4 stability score when normalized to that of AlF3 at 100%.
Kuwata additionally discloses Li3ScF6 has a low lithium ion migration barrier and as such results in the cathode active material performing better (see paragraphs [0013]-[0014], [0025]-[0026], and [0029] and Table 1), and as such would be an appropriate composite metal halide coating in the cathode composition of Mun. Further, 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the cathode composition of Mun wherein the coating comprises Li3ScF6, as disclosed by Kuwata, in order to achieve a better performing cathode active material.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mun in view of Zhang "Fabrication of Li2NiF4-PEDOT nanocomposites as conversion cathodes for lithium-ion batteries," 2017, Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 723, Pages 139-145 (hereinafter referred to as Zhang).
Regarding Claim 6, Mun discloses the cathode composition of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Mun further discloses the coating on the cathode material may be a metal halide coating (see paragraph [0028]).
Mun is silent on the coating comprising Li2NiF4.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cathode materials (see abstract), Zhang discloses a cathode composition comprising Li2NiF4 (see abstract and Introduction), which a skilled artisan would recognize is a lithium metal fluoride. It will be shown that the coating disclosed by Zhang would inherently have a greater LiFePO4 stability score when normalized to that of AlF3 at 100%.
In the specification of the instant application, it is disclosed that a coating comprising Li2NiF4 has a greater LiFePO4 stability score when normalized to that of AlF3 at 100% (see paragraph [0064] and Table 2 of the published instant application). The applicant further discloses the cathode can contain other additives (see paragraphs [0035]-[0036] of the published instant application) i.e., it is the presence of Li2NiF4 that imparts these properties. Furthermore, products of identical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties (see MPEP 2112.01, II).
As such, the coating of Zhang comprising Li2NiF4 would inherently have a greater LiFePO4 stability score when normalized to that of AlF3 at 100%.
Zhang additionally discloses Li2NiF4 displays good rate performance during charge/discharge cycles (see Conclusions), and as such would be an appropriate composite metal halide coating in the cathode composition of Mun. Further, 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the cathode composition of Mun wherein the coating comprises Li2NiF4, as disclosed by Zhang, in order to achieve good rate performance during charge/discharge cycles.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mun in view of Wang et al. "Computational design of double-layer cathode coatings in all-solid-state batteries," 2021, J. Mater. Chem. A., 9, Pages 23206-23213 (hereinafter referred to as Wang).
Regarding Claim 7, Mun discloses the cathode composition of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Mun further discloses the coating on the cathode material may be a metal halide coating (see paragraph [0028]).
Mun is silent on the coating comprising LiCeF5.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cathode coatings (see abstract), Wang discloses a cathode composition comprising LiCeF5 as a coating (see abstract and Table 2), which a skilled artisan would recognize is a lithium metal fluoride. It will be shown that the coating disclosed by Wang would inherently have a greater LiFePO4 stability score when normalized to that of AlF3 at 100%.
In the specification of the instant application, it is disclosed that a coating comprising LiCeF5 has a greater LiFePO4 stability score when normalized to that of AlF3 at 100% (see paragraph [0064] and Table 2 of the published instant application). The applicant further discloses the cathode can contain other additives (see paragraphs [0035]-[0036] of the published instant application) i.e., it is the presence of LiCeF5 that imparts these properties. Furthermore, products of identical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties (see MPEP 2112.01, II).
As such, the coating of Wang comprising LiCeF5 would inherently have a greater LiFePO4 stability score when normalized to that of AlF3 at 100%.
Wang additionally discloses LiCeF5 is a coating material that has a sufficiently high Li-ion conductivity and electrochemical stability (see Results and Discussion paragraphs 1 and 3, Fig. 2, and Table 2), and as such would be an appropriate composite metal halide coating in the cathode composition of Mun. Further, 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the cathode composition of Mun wherein the coating comprises LiCeF5, as disclosed by Wang, in order to achieve a sufficiently high Li-ion conductivity and electrochemical stability.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mun.
Regarding Claim 9, Mun discloses the cathode composition of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Mun further discloses the coating comprises an average thickness on the bulk cathode active material of about 2 nm to about 15 nm (see paragraph [0036]). This range substantially overlaps with and therefore renders obvious the claimed range of the coating comprising an average thickness on the bulk cathode active material of about 5 nm to about 2 µm (which a skilled artisan would understand is equivalent to 2,000 nm).
Mun further discloses a lithium battery of an enhanced performance may be provided from the ranges of thickness of the coating layer (see paragraph [0036]). As such, the thickness of the coating layer is viewed as a result effective variable and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the cathode composition of Mun wherein the coating comprises an average thickness on the bulk cathode active material of about 5 nm to about 2 µm to achieve the optimum coating thickness and achieve a lithium battery of an enhanced performance.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mun in view of Yushin et al. US-20130344391-A1 (hereinafter referred to as Yushin).
Regarding Claim 10, Mun discloses the cathode composition of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). As previously mentioned, Mun discloses a coating comprising Li3FeF6, which a skilled artisan would recognize is a lithium metal fluoride.
Mun is silent on a coating comprising a first coating material on the surface of the particulate bulk cathode active material and a second coating material overcoating the first coating material.
However, in the same field of endeavor of batteries comprising core-shell composites and metal fluorides, Yushin discloses a battery electrode composition with an active material layer (first coating) 102 around the core (particulate bulk cathode active material) 104 with a shell (second coating) 106 overcoating the first coating 102 in Fig. 1 (see paragraphs [0030]-[0034], [0044], and [0075]). Yushin further discloses multiple coatings (layers) provide multiple benefits for the battery such as protection of the surface from undesirable reactions and volume expansion/contraction accommodations (see paragraph [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to integrate the coating comprising Li3FeF6 disclosed Mun as the second coating in the structure disclosed by Yushin wherein the coating comprises a first coating material on the surface of the particulate bulk cathode active material and a second coating material overcoating the first coating material in order to provide multiple benefits for the battery such as protection of the surface from undesirable reactions and volume expansion/contraction accommodations.
Regarding Claims 11 and 12, modified Mun discloses the cathode composition of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above). As previously mentioned, Mun discloses a coating comprising Li3FeF6, which a skilled artisan would recognize is a lithium metal fluoride.
Mun is silent on the first coating material comprising a carbon coating.
However, Yushin discloses using conductive carbon as a coating between the second coating 106 and the filler 608 in Fig. 5 (see paragraph [0039]), which would make the conductive carbon the first coating 102 and the lithium metal fluoride coating disclosed by Mun the second coating 106. Yushin further discloses that using conductive carbon improves electrical conductivity (see paragraph [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to integrate the cathode composition comprising a lithium metal fluoride coating disclosed Mun as the second coating in the structure disclosed by Yushin wherein the first coating comprises a carbon coating in order to improve the electrical conductivity.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mun in view of Yushin, as applied to Claim 10 above, and further in view of Song, G., et al., “Influence of AlF3 coating on the electrochemical properties of LiFePO4/graphite Li-ion batteries”, Journal of Alloy Compounds, 487, 2009, 214-217 (hereinafter referred to as Song).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Mun discloses the cathode composition of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above). As previously mentioned, Mun discloses a coating comprising Li3FeF6, which a skilled artisan would recognize is a lithium metal fluoride.
Mun and Yushin are silent on the first coating material comprising AlF3.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cathode compositions with coatings comprising a metal fluoride/lithium metal fluoride, Song discloses using AlF3 as a coating on a lithium-ion battery directly on the particulate bulk cathode active material (see pg. 214, Abstract), making it the first coating. Song further discloses the inclusion of the AlF3 improves the capacity and acts as a protective layer (see pg. 214, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the cathode composition disclosed by Mun and Yushin by including a coating of AlF3, as disclosed by Song, in order to improve the capacity and act as a protective layer.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mun in view of Song.
Regarding Claims 14 and 15, Mun discloses the cathode composition of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Mun is silent on the particulate bulk cathode active material comprising one or more olivine-type cathode active materials, a nickel-rich cathode active material, or one or more olivine-type cathode active materials and a nickel-rich cathode active material and more specifically the particulate bulk cathode active material comprising an olivine-type LiFePO4, an olivine-type LiMn1-xFePO4 where 0 < x <1, or both an olivine-type LiFePO4 and an olivine-type LiMn1-xFePO4 where 0 < x <1.
However, Song discloses using olivine-type LiFePO4 as the particulate bulk cathode active material (see pg. 214, Introduction). Song further discloses olivine-type LiFePO4 has high theoretical capacity, good environmental acceptability, and low cost (see pg. 214, Introduction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the cathode composition disclosed by Mun by including olivine-type LiFePO4 as the particulate bulk cathode active material, as disclosed by Song, in order to provide high theoretical capacity, good environmental acceptability, and low cost.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mun in view of Paulsen et al. US-20060071198-A1 (hereinafter referred to as Paulsen).
Regarding Claim 17, Mun discloses the cathode composition of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Mun is silent on the particulate bulk cathode active material being LiCoO2, Li(NiaMnbCoc)O2, Li1+x(NiaMnbCoc)1-x02, or Li(MnαNiβ)204, wherein 0 < a <1, 0<b<1, 0<c<1, a+b+c=1, 0<a<1, 0<3<1, and α+β=1.
However, in the same field of endeavor of cathode active materials with coatings (see abstract), Paulsen discloses using LiCoO2 as a particulate bulk cathode active material (see paragraphs [0033] and [0053]).
Paulsen further discloses LiCoO2 has preferable benefits, such as an increased operating voltage leading to an increased capacity (see paragraphs [0002] and [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use LiCoO2 as the particulate bulk cathode active material, as disclosed by Paulsen, in the cathode material disclosed by Mun in order to achieve an increased capacity.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mun in view of Zhou US-20200091519-A1 (hereinafter referred to as Zhou).
Regarding Claim 20, Mun discloses a cathode composition comprising a particulate bulk cathode active material (core) comprising a coating on a surface of the particulate bulk cathode active material, the coating comprising Li3FeF6 which a skilled artisan would recognize is a lithium metal fluoride (see paragraphs [0025]-[0026], [0029], and [0084]). It will be shown that the coating disclosed by Mun would inherently have a greater LiFePO4 stability score when normalized to that of AlF3 at 100%.
In the specification of the instant application, it is disclosed that a coating comprising Li3FeF6 has a greater LiFePO4 stability score when normalized to that of AlF3 at 100% (see paragraph [0064] and Table 2 of the published instant application). The applicant further discloses the cathode can contain other additives (see paragraphs [0035]-[0036] of the published instant application) i.e., it is the presence of Li3FeF6 that imparts these properties. Furthermore, products of identical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties (see MPEP 2112.01, II).
As such, the coating of Mun comprising Li3FeF6 would inherently have a greater LiFePO4 stability score when normalized to that of AlF3 at 100%.
Mun is silent on a process of manufacturing a cathode for a lithium-ion battery, the process comprising: mixing a particulate bulk cathode active material with conductive carbon and a binder in a solvent to form a slurry, coating the slurry onto a cathode current collector, and removing the solvent.
However, in the same field of endeavor of processes of manufacturing cathode compositions, Zhou discloses a process of manufacturing a cathode for a lithium-ion battery, the process comprising:
mixing a particulate bulk cathode active material (lithium iron phosphate) with
conductive carbon and a binder (PVDF) in a solvent (NMP) to form a slurry,
coating the slurry onto a cathode current collector, and
removing the solvent (via drying) (see paragraph [0074]). A skilled artisan would recognize this as an obvious method to manufacture a functioning cathode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the known cathode manufacturing process disclosed by Mun to manufacture a cathode comprising a surface coating comprising a metal fluoride and a greater LiFePO4 stability score when normalized to that of AlF3 at 100%, as disclosed by Zheng, as the combination of familiar elements by known methods is obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143, A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY L KLINE whose telephone number is (703)756-1729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-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, 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.
/S.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729