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 .
Remarks
Claims 1, 11, 19, 22 are presently amended, claims 13-14 are canceled, claims 4-9, 12, 20-21,23-26 are as previously presented, claims 27-29 are newly presented. Claims 1, 4-9, 11-12, 19-29 are presently presented.
Status of objections and rejections
The rejection below has been modified as necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
Claim objection
Claim 19 lines 5-6 recite: “wherein the lithium-ion battery cathode material, wherein the lithium-ion battery cathode material comprises…”. The first “wherein the lithium-ion battery cathode material” should be removed.
Claim Interpretation
Each independent claim recites “the defect layer is parallel to a 003 crystal plane of the layered cathode material matrix”. This is recited in the instant specification, for instance, [0014], [0016], [0069], [0092], [0099]. There is no clear definition for “parallel to a 003 crystal plane” as such if any defect is parallel to any 003 crystal plane, then the limitation is met.
The examiner notes that there is nothing that recites the relative positions between the parallel defect layer and the 003 crystal plane. As such the two layers in question may be spaced apart by any distance and may be parallel either along the surface of the active material, within the active material itself, or a combination of the two.
Claim 1 line 6, claim 19 line 10, claim 22 line 8 recited the limitation “the layered cathode material matrix is a single-crystal or quasi-single-crystal structure. Neither the claims nor instant specification define a single or quasi single crystal structure for the layered cathode material matrix. As such, any material with a “layered cathode material matrix” that has a crystal structure that is continuous or unbroken will read on a “single-crystal”. If the “layered cathode material matrix” is highly ordered but not perfectly periodic then it will read on a “quasi-single-crystal”
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(s) 1, 4-9, 11-14, 19-24, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (WO 2018207049 A1) in view of Hong (KR20190024680A) and as evidenced by US2020176770A1 and Karino (Ionics, 2016, 22, 991-995).
Regarding claim 1, 19, and 22, Takahashi disclose a lithium-ion battery cathode material [0008-0009, Takahashi], wherein the lithium-ion battery cathode material comprises a layered cathode material matrix and a defect layer [0046-0053, fig. 1, Takashi. The examiner is interpreting crystal defect (105) and grain boundaries (103) to both be considered as a defect layer]; the layered cathode material matrix comprises body layers and lithium layers [0050-0056, Takahashi discloses a composite oxide having a layered rock salt type crystal structure, including but not limited to LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3O2, which are known to comprise a body layer (anion, transition metal oxides) and a lithium layer (cation, lithium) as can be seen in US2020176770A1 [0092-0093, fig. 3] or Karino [fig. 1]], and the body layer comprises a transition metal layer and an oxygen layer [0050-0056, Takahashi discloses a composite oxide having a layered rock salt type crystal structure, such as LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3O2 which are known to have a body layer comprised of transition metals and oxygen see Karino [fig. 1]]; the layered cathode material matrix is a single-crystal or quasi-single-crystal structure [0314, fig. 23, Takahashi], a first element in the defect layer fills a gap between the body layers [fig. 2, fig. 31, fig. 37, Takahashi discloses that the first element (magnesium) is found in the gaps between the body layers], and when a periodic arrangement of atoms comprised in the defect layer is different from that of atoms comprised in the matrix [0036, 0048, 0050-0056, 0077-0093, 0097, Takahashi discloses that the grain boundary layer (defect layer) comprises magnesium and fluorine as such this would give a different periodic arrangement of atoms compared to the atoms listed in the cathode active material], the defect layer and the layered cathode material matrix have different interlayer spacings (This claim language holds little meaning as different solid materials/crystals would have different interlayer spacings. For instance, a solid comprised of lithium, nickel, manganese, cobalt, and oxygen would have different interlayer spacings than a solid comprised of magnesium and fluorine); or when an element comprised in the defect layer is different from an element comprised in the matrix [0036, 0048, 0050-0056, 0077-0093, 0097, Takahashi discloses that grain boundary (defect layer) comprises magnesium and fluorine while the active material comprises elements other than magnesium and fluorine], the defect layer comprises a first element or a second element [0097, Takahashi discloses the grain boundary (defect layer) comprises magnesium and fluorine], content of the first element or the second element in the defect layer is greater than or equal to that in the layered cathode material matrix [0033-0034, fig. 2, Takahashi discloses crystal defects and grain boundaries have higher concentrations of magnesium and fluorine], and the first element is different from the second element [0097, Takahashi, the first element is magnesium and the second is fluorine],
In regards to the claim limitation of “the defect layer is parallel to a 003 crystal plane of the layered cathode material matrix” the examiner notes the following.
The instant specification starts with sintering and cooling of the cathode material to form an intermediate having a defect layer which is then ground down into smaller pieces [0073-0074], followed by second a second sintering with the first and second element to introduce them into the crystal layer followed by grinding to obtain the final product [0075-0076]. During the first step a lithium source and a transition metal (hydr)oxide are placed in a furnace and heated to 800-1100oC for 8-20 hours followed by cooling to room temp obtain the intermediate cathode material with defects [0073-0074, 0080-0083, 0090]. The first and second element are then added to the intermediate product which is then heated at a temperature ranging from 600-1000oC for 6-12 hours.
Takashi notes that a lithium source, transition metal source (e.g. cobalt (tetr)oxide, cobalt hydroxide, aluminum metal) [0080, 0094, Takashi; 0080, 0089-0090, instant spec] along with a magnesium and fluorine source (e.g. magnesium fluoride) [0093, Takashi; 0086, instant spec]. The materials are then mixed and heated at a range of 800-1050oC for 2-20 hours [0104, Takashi], followed by cooling to room temp and crushed [0106, Takashi]. Doing so produces a composite oxide containing lithium and transition metals in the crystal grains and wherein magnesium and fluorine are in a state of being solid-dissolved in the composite oxide [0105, ]. Next the crushed intermediate material is heated to 700-1000oC for 2-35 hours [0107, Takashi]. Doing so allows for the magnesium and fluorine (first and second element) into the material grain boundary.
Both the instant invention and Takashi produce a layered rock salt type crystal with a first and second element in or near a grain boundary by first making the lithium transition metal oxide via heating at high temperatures at ranging from 800oC to ~1100oC for 20 hours or less followed by cooling to room temp and crushing the intermediate product [0082, 0090, instant; 0104, 0106, Takashi]. Next a second heating at high temperatures (~900oC) [0084, instant; 0107, Takashi] allows for the first and second materials to be incorporated into the grain boundary [0066, instant; 0108, Takashi].
As such, the first and second element of Takashi would inherently be in a defect layer parallel to the 003 crystal plane, see MPEP 2112.
"[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. "There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977).
Takahashi further discloses that the width of the crystal grain boundaries are 1-10 nm [0326, Takahashi].
Takahashi is silent to the length of the crystal defects (105) and grain boundary (103).
However, Hong discloses a cathode material, wherein the longer dimensions of the filling layer is 10 nm to 2000 nm [0087, Hong discloses a grain boundary length of 50-1000 nm which reads on the claimed range] in at least another direction.
The work of Takahashi and Hong are analogous as they both relate to a positive electrode active material for a lithium ion secondary battery. Wherein both Takahashi [citations for Takahashi can be found throughout the office action] and Hong [0023, 0140 Hong] fill in a grain boundary (defect layer) with a material other than the active material.
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would be motivated to modify Takahashi’s grain boundary size to be that of the grain boundary size disclosed by Hong as it is possible to provide further improved charge/discharge characteristics within the range of this grain boundary length and thickness [0087, Hong].
In regards to claim 19, in addition to the rejected limitations above, Takashi also discloses a lithium-ion battery [0008-0009, fig. 5 Takahashi], wherein the lithium-ion battery comprises a cathode plate [0173, fig. 5b (304), Takahashi], an anode plate [0173, fig. 5b (307), Takahashi], an electrolyte [0155, Takahashi], and an isolation film disposed between the cathode and anode plates [0165-0170, 0176, fig. 5b (310), Takahashi discloses the use of a separator, which the examiner is interpreting to be equivalent to an isolation film], wherein the cathode plate comprises a cathode current collector (305) and a cathode active material (306) layer distributed on the cathode current collector [0173, fig. 5b], and the cathode active material layer is the lithium-ion battery cathode material [0119-0120, Takahashi].
In regards to claim 22, in addition to the rejected limitations above, Takashi discloses the cathode material containing at least one of lithium cobalt oxide or ternary material (nickel-manganese-cobalt) [0052-0053, Takashi].
Regarding claim 4, modified Takahashi discloses the cathode material, wherein an ionic radius of the first element ranges from 0.04 nm to 0.08 nm [0092, 0097, Takahashi, the first element is magnesium which Takahashi discloses can come from a number of sources that are not elemental magnesium. As such, magnesium is present as an ion and its atomic radii would be 0.079 nm which reads on the claimed range].
Regarding claim 5, modified Takahashi discloses the cathode material, wherein the first element comprises at least one of Mg, Al, Ni, Mn, Ca, Fe, Ga, Ti, Mo, W, Zn, B, or Sn [0031-0034, 0048, 0097, Takahashi].
Regarding claim 6, modified Takahashi discloses the cathode material, wherein the defect layer further comprises the second element [0033-0034, 0048, 0097, Takahashi], and content of the second element in the defect layer is greater than or equal to that in the layered cathode material matrix [0033-0034, fig. 2, Takahashi discloses crystal defects and grain boundaries have higher concentrations of fluorine (the second element)]; and the second element in the defect layer fills the gap between the body layers [fig. 2, fig. 31, fig. 37, Takahashi discloses that the second element (fluorine) is found in the gaps between the body layers], or ions formed by the second element in the defect layer replace anions in the layered cathode material matrix.
Regarding claim 7, modified Takahashi discloses the cathode material, wherein the second element is at least one of F, Cl, C, S, or P [0033-0034, 0048, 0097, Takahashi discloses that the use of fluorine].
Regarding claim 8, modified Takahashi discloses the cathode material, wherein electronegativity of the second element is higher than electronegativity of the oxygen element [0033-0034, 0048, 0097, Takahashi. Oxygen is the second most electronegative element and fluorine is the most electronegative element].
Regarding claim 9, modified Takahashi discloses the cathode material, wherein bond energy of an ionic bond formed between the first element and the second element is greater than bond energy of an ionic bond formed between the transition metal and the oxygen in the layered cathode material matrix [0052, 0092-0093, Takahashi discloses that the layered rock-salt type crystal structure may be represented by LiMO2, where M is a combination of Co, Ni, Al, or Mn. As such, one could have the structure LiCo0.99-Al0.01O2 and using MgF2 as the first and second element would provide the same example as in embodiment 1 of the instant specification. As such, MgF2 would inherently have a greater bond energy or ionic bond formation than the bond energy between the transition metal and the oxygen in the layered cathode structure, see MPEP 2112].
Regarding claim 11, modified Takahashi discloses the cathode material, wherein the defect layer comprises the second element[0033-0034, 0048, 0097, Takahashi], and content of the second element in the defect layer is greater than or equal to that in the layered cathode material matrix [0033-0034, fig. 2, Takahashi discloses crystal defects and grain boundaries have higher concentrations of fluorine (the second element)]; and the second element in the defect layer fills the gap between the body layers [fig. 2, fig. 31, fig. 37, Takahashi discloses that the second element (fluorine) is found in the gaps between the body layers], wherein electronegativity of the second element is higher than electronegativity of the oxygen element [0033-0034, 0048, 0097, Takahashi. Oxygen is the second most electronegative element and fluorine is the most electronegative element], wherein the defect layer comprises the first element [fig. 2, fig. 31, fig. 37, Takahashi discloses that the first element (magnesium) is found in the gaps between the body layers], and the first element in the defect layer fills the gap between the body layers [fig. 2, fig. 31, fig. 37, Takahashi discloses that the first element (magnesium) is found in the gaps between the body layers].
In regards to the limitation “and content of the first element in the defect layer is greater than or equal to that in the layered cathode material matrix”. The examiner notes that the defect layer contains a first element (magnesium) and the layered cathode material matrix contains lithium, nickel, manganese, cobalt, and oxygen. Neither of these are magnesium, as such the limitation is met.
Regarding claim 12, modified Takahashi discloses the cathode material, wherein the second element comprises at least one of F, Cl, C, S, or P [0033-0034, 0048, 0097, Takahashi discloses that the use of fluorine].
Regarding claim 13, modified Takahashi discloses the cathode material, wherein electronegativity of the second element is higher than electronegativity of the oxygen element [0033-0034, 0048, 0097, Takahashi. Oxygen is the second most electronegative element and fluorine is the most electronegative element].
Regarding claim 14, modified Takahashi discloses the cathode material, wherein the defect layer comprises the first element [0097, Takahashi discloses the grain boundary (defect layer) comprises magnesium and fluorine], and content of the first element in the defect layer is greater than or equal to that in the layered cathode material matrix [0033-0034, fig. 2, Takahashi discloses crystal defects and grain boundaries have higher concentrations of magnesium]; and the first element in the defect layer fills the gap between the body layers [fig. 2, fig. 31, fig. 37, Takahashi discloses that the first element (magnesium) is found in the gaps between the body layers], or ions formed by the first element in the defect layer replace cations in the layered cathode material matrix.
Regarding claim 20, modified Takahashi discloses a mobile terminal [0256, fig. 19, Takahashi], comprising a housing [0256, fig. 19 (7401), Takahashi], a working circuit [0256, fig. 19, Takahashi discloses the use of operation buttons which the examiner is interpreting to mean that there are working circuits, otherwise the operation buttons would not be operational], and a charging port installed on the housing [0256, fig. 19 (7407), Takahashi], wherein the mobile terminal comprises the lithium-ion battery [0256, fig. 1, 2, and 19 (7407) Takahashi], and the lithium-ion battery is configured to supply electric energy to the working circuit and is charged by using the charging port [0256, Takahashi discloses that the mobile phone has a secondary battery. The function of a secondary battery is to discharge to power electronics and be recharged. As such, the examiner is interpreting this to mean that the secondary battery (7407) would be used to supply electric energy to the working circuit and can be charged by the charging port (7404)].
Regarding claim 21, modified Takahashi discloses the cathode material according to claim 1, wherein the layered cathode material matrix has a general formula of LiMO2, wherein M refers to one or any combination of Co, Ni, and Mn [0052, Takahashi].
Regarding claim 23, modified Takahashi discloses the cathode material, wherein the layered cathode material matrix comprises a lithium cobalt oxide having a general formula Li1+xCo1-yJyO2where 0≤x≤0.1, 0≤y≤0.1 [0052, Takahashi discloses using LiCoO2 which reads on the applicants claimed range when x = y= 0].
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 24, modified Takahashi discloses the cathode material, wherein the layered cathode material matrix comprises a lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide ternary material having a general formula of Li1+nNixCoyE1-x-yO2, where E = Mn and 0≤n<0.1, 0.3≤x<1, 0.1≤y<1 and 0 < x+y < 1 [0053, Takahashi discloses using LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2. This reads on the applicant’s claimed range when n=0, x = 1/3 and y = 1/3].
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 26 and 27, modified Takahashi is explicitly silent to 1) wherein the battery has a voltage range of 3.0 V to 4.5 V under a condition of 45°C±5°C, after charging and discharging the battery for 300 cycles at a charge/discharge rate of 2C/0.7C (claim 26). 2) wherein the lithium-ion battery has a capacity retention rate of at least 84% after charging and discharging the lithium-ion battery for 300 cycles at a charge/discharge rate of 2C/0.7C in a voltage range of 3.0 V to 4.5 V under a condition of 45°C±5°C (claim 27).
However, as noted above in the rejection of claim 19 (as well as claim 1 and claim 22) Both the instant invention and Takashi produce a layered rock salt type crystal with a first and second element in or near a grain boundary by first making the lithium transition metal oxide via heating at high temperatures at ranging from 800oC to ~1100oC for 20 hours or less followed by cooling to room temp and crushing the intermediate product [0082, 0090, instant; 0104, 0106, Takashi]. Next a second heating at high temperatures (~900oC) [0084, instant; 0107, Takashi] allows for the first and second materials to be incorporated into the grain boundary [0066, instant; 0108, Takashi].
As such, the first and second element of Takashi would inherently possess the same properties as the claimed invention, see MPEP 2112.
"[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. "There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 28, modified Takahashi discloses the cathode material, wherein the first element comprises Mg [0031-0034, 0048, 0097 Takahashi].
Regarding claim 29, modified Takahashi discloses the second element comprising F [0031-0034, 0048, 0097 Takahashi].
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Takahashi as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Oh (US 20110311869 A1).
Regarding claim 25, modified Takahashi is silent to the layered cathode material matrix comprises a lithium-rich manganese-based material having a general formula of nLi2MnO3∙(1-n)LiGO2, where 0 < n < 1, LiGO2 is LiCoxNiyMnzO2, 0 < x < 1, 0 < y < 1, 0 <z<1,andx+y+z=1.
However, Oh discloses a cathode material matrix with the following general formula aLi2MnO3∙ (1-a )LiMO2 wherein M may be two or more of Al, Mg, Mn, Ni, Co, Cr, V, Fe, Cu, Zn, Ti, and B [0021, 0062 Oh].
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim (see MPEP 2144.05).
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Takahashi such that the active material was 0.5Li2MnO3∙0.5Li(Mn0.33Ni0.33Co0.33)O2. Doing so would provide a positive electrode potential where the lithium manganese oxide having a layered structure generates oxygen while having a potential plateau range in the vicinity of 4.45 V to 4.8 V [0063, Oh].
For clarity of the record Takahashi is modified from LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3O2 to 0.5Li2MnO3∙0.5Li(Mn0.33Ni0.33Co0.33)O2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/02/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for additional details.
Applicant argues that Takahashi discloses a polycrystalline particle and not a single-crystal or quasi-single crystal matrix. Applicant’s arguments focus on the presence of a grain boundary as evidence that Takahashi’s crystals do not read on the claimed limitation.
However, the examiner notes that claim 1 calls to a cathode material comprised of a layered cathode material matrix and a defect layer where the layered cathode material matrix comprises body layers and lithium layers, and the body layer comprises a transition metal layer and an oxygen layer.
The layered cathode material matrix is a single-crystal or quasi-single-crystal structure.
The limitations of claim 1 are met if the layered cathode material matrix comprised of body layers and lithium layers, and the body layer comprises a transition metal layer and an oxygen layer, are a single or quasi-single crystal.
The examiner would also like to point out, that given the breath of claim 1, the limitation is met so long as a single cathode material (e.g. particle, crystal, etc.) meets the claimed limitations.
Takahashi notes that the Mg and F fill in the spaces of the grain boundary and defect layers [fig. 2], and that the crystal (“layered cathode material matrix”) may be of a rock salt type crystal structure (e.g. NMC) [0052-0053]. Takahashi then provides TEM images of one of their samples and notes that in areas of uniform brightness are considered to be single crystal [0314]. In the TEM image provided one can see where there is at least a single crystal (“layered cathode material matrix”) with uniform brightness (single-crystal structure) [fig. 23]. Along with at least a single crystal (“layered cathode material matrix”) with areas of varying brightness density (likely due to Mg and F) within the structure (quasi-single-crystal) [fig. 23].
As such, the examiner maintains that the “layered cathode material matrix” of Takahashi possess a single-crystal or quasi-single-crystal structure.
Applicant then argues the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
93
731
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As noted by both the examiner and applicant, the grain boundaries of Takahashi contain magnesium and fluorine. As such, the crystal of Takahashi do not interface with another differently-oriented crystal grain of the same material. Rather they interface with a different material (Mg and F). As such, the examiner maintains the Takahashi’s crystals read on the claimed limitation.
Applicant then argues that Takahshi’s intercrystalline grain boundary cannot be present in such a matrix. The examiner respectfully disagrees as this argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim set. Applicant’s arguments to point the “cathode material” of Takahashi not the “layered cathode material matrix” of Takahashi. The examiner notes that in independent claim 19, applicant distinguishes these two by claiming: a cathode with a cathode active material layer comprised of a cathode material that is comprised of a layered cathode material matrix and a defect layer. In a cathode active material layer, one would have a plurality of cathode materials that would naturally be in contact with one another. This physical contact would still read on a “grain boundary”. If absolutely no grain boundary can exist a 112 rejection may be appropriate for claim 19.
Applicant than argues the presence of a defect layer in Takahashi that is parallel to the 003 crystal plane. The examiner is not persuaded by the applicant’s arguments. As noted in prior office actions, Zhang teaches of rock-salt type structure naturally forming cracking (defect) layers parallel to the 003 plane. The examiner maintains that the rock-salt NMC materials of Takahashi would also naturally form cracking (defect) layers parallel to the 003 plane. The examiner has outlined why Takahashi would inherently possess a defect layer parallel to the 003 plane in the rejection of claim 1 given the shared features between the manufacturing process of Takahashi and the instant application (see rejection of claim 1).
Applicant then argues that they have data to show that defects do not inherently form parallel to the 003 plane. However, their data is not commensurate with the scope of the claim as they only point to a single material (MgF2●LiCo0.99Al0.01O2). The breath of claim 1 is not reflected in the argued data set. Additionally, the sample argued differs from that of Takahashi as presented in the rejection of claim 1.
Given the nature of rock-salt type structures to naturally form defects (cracks) parallel to the 003 plane and given the same manufacturing procedures (listed in rejection of claim 1), the applicant has not shown why a defect layer would not appear parallel to the 003 plane.
Finally, the examiner notes that the claimed limitation is met if even a single defect is parallel to the 003 plane.
As such the applicants arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant then argues Hong and Oh do not reading on the amended limitation. The examiner does not rely on Hong or Oh to teach this limitation.
Applicant then alleges that Oh does not read on claim 25 due to a single specific disclosed embodiment containing Cu. The examiner apologists for this mistake, they misread Cu for Co. Claim 25, has been updated to better reflect that of claim 25 and the broader teachings of Oh. However, given the broader teachings of Oh that were previously cited the examiner maintains the modification of Takahashi in view of Oh.
Newly added claims 27-29 are presently rejected.
The examiner maintains their rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhang (ACS Energy Lett, 2017, 2, 2607) teaches that rock-salt like crystals, such as those present in the instant invention and prior art used in the office action, experience defect layers along the 003 crystal plane. Cited in office action filed 01/31/2025.
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 QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached on 5712705256. 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.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights