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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/07/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted November 28, 2025 and December 12, 2025 have been received and considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 11/07/2025:
Claims 1 and 3-4 are pending in the current application. Claims 1 and 4 have been amended and Claims 2 and 5-6 have been canceled.
The 112 rejection of Claim 4 has been overcome in light of the amendment.
The cores of the previous prior art-based rejections have been maintained in light of the amendment. All changes made to the rejection were necessitated by the amendment, with new prior art applied to amended Claim 4.
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 with respect to the claims have been fully considered.
Arguments directed at Claim 1
Applicant argues that the productivity of the of the spraying and drying method disclosed by the prior art is low compared with the instant invention and therefore the prior art does not render the instant invention obvious.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claim language. Disintegration does occur in the process disclosed by Uchiyama, as it is comparable to a tumbling fluidized bed coating method. The instant specification discloses the disintegrating force in a fluidized bed coating method may be weak (see paragraph [0006] of instant application), but weak disintegration still would meet the claim limitation of “disintegrating the slurry while drying the slurry in an air flow.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aiki et al. US-20190097216-A1 (hereinafter “Aiki”) in view of Uchiyama US-20170077489-A1 (hereinafter “Uchiyama”) and Liu et al. US-20170214039-A1 (“Liu”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 3, Aiki discloses a method for producing a coated active material (see abstract and paragraphs [0018], [0027]-[0037], [0053], and [0112]), the method comprising:
mixing an electrode active material and a coating solution containing Li and an element M (the active material is coated with a solution containing lithium and niobium complex and/or titanium complex via a publicly-known method such as a method for spraying a solution on an active material, a method for immersing an active material in a solution to dry it, and a method for dispersing an active material in an organic solvent and adding the solution thereinto, all of which would mix the active material particles with the coating solution) (see abstract and paragraphs [0018], [0033], [0038], [0053], and [0095]-[0097]); and
drying the slurry in the air (dried in the air at 100° C for 6 hours) and thereby causing a Li-containing oxide to adhere to at least a portion of a surface of the electrode active material, to obtain a coated active material (lithium niobate (LiNbO3), which a skilled artisan would recognize is a Li-containing oxide, formed on the surface of the positive electrode active material) (see abstract and paragraphs [0018], [0096], and [0111]-[0112]), and
where the element M is Nb (see abstract and paragraphs [0018], [0095], [0106]-[0107], and [0109]) (also meeting Claim 3).
Aiki further discloses mixing a coating solution containing hydrogen peroxide water, pure water, niobic acid, ammonia, and lithium hydroxide monohydrate in various amounts (see paragraphs [0106] and [0109] and Table 1). Aiki discloses an appropriate molar ratio between Li and Nb in the coating solution is preferably 0.8 to 2 moles of lithium to 1 mole of niobium or titanium (see paragraphs [0063]-[0066]). Aiki also discloses when the amount of lithium is a lower limit value or more with respect to the amount of niobium and/or titanium, lithium conductivity of lithium niobate and/or lithium titanate obtained from the metal complex can be maintained at an appropriate value and when the amount of lithium is an upper limit value or less with respect to the amount of niobium and/or titanium, this is appropriate because it is unnecessary to have excessive lithium not involved in lithium conductivity (see paragraphs [0063]-[0066]). As such, the molar ratio of Li to Nb is 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.). Optimizing the molar ratio of Li to Nb would necessarily also result in optimizing the mass% of the Li and Nb in the coating solution.
Aiki also discloses it is necessary to charge 2 moles or more of ammonia with respect to 1 mole of niobium atoms in order to obtain a stable complex in the course of its formation but excessive ammonia in the solution causes chemical damage to the active material, which causes deterioration of battery characteristics as a result and suggests including ammonia in an amount of 1 mass% or less in the coating solution (see paragraphs [0019]-[0021] and [0027]). As such, the ratio between the moles of ammonia and moles of Nb is 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.). Optimizing the molar ratio of ammonia to Nb would necessarily also result in optimizing the mass% of the ammonia and Nb in the coating solution.
Aiki further discloses it is necessary to add 10 moles or more of hydrogen peroxide to 1 mole of niobium atoms in order to stably obtain the complex in the course of its formation but large amounts of hydrogen peroxide cause handling and corrosion problems and suggests including hydrogen peroxide in amounts of 1 mass% or less in the coating solution (see paragraphs [0022]-[0024], [0032], [0060], [0074], and [0081]-[0084]). As such, the ratio between the moles of hydrogen peroxide and moles of Nb is 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.). Optimizing the molar ratio of hydrogen peroxide to Nb would necessarily also result in optimizing the mass% of the hydrogen peroxide and Nb in the coating solution.
Aiki also discloses the hydrogen peroxide decomposition may be promoted by too much ammonia, but ammonia is necessary to obtain a stable complex with the niobium (see paragraphs [0019]-[0021], [0059], and [0074]). As such, the ratio between the moles of hydrogen peroxide, ammonia, and Nb is 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.). Optimizing the molar ratio of hydrogen peroxide to ammonia to Nb would necessarily also result in optimizing the mass% of the hydrogen peroxide, ammonia, and Nb in the coating solution.
Additionally, Aiki discloses the appropriate amount of water is necessary to properly dissolve and mix all the components of the coating solution and it is important for the components to be soluble (see paragraphs [0055]-[0056], [0059], and [0089]).
Overall, all the components of the coating solution interact with each other in ways that affect the stability and efficacy of the coating solution. So, a skilled artisan would therefore be motivated to optimize the ratios between all the components of the coating solution.
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 and as such is capable of arriving at the optimal mass% of all the components in the coating solution with the coating solution containing Li in an amount of 0.48 mass% or more and 5.0 mass% or less, the element M in an amount of 5 mass% or more and 35 mass% or less, water in an amount of 60 mass% or more and 98.4 mass% or less in order to optimize the stability and efficacy of the coating solution.
Aiki is silent on drying the slurry in an air flow.
However, in the same field of endeavor of coatings an active materials (see abstract) Uchiyama discloses a method for producing a coated active material (see paragraphs [0024]-[0026]), the method comprising: mixing an electrode active material and a coating solution containing Li and an element M (spraying a solution of lithium and peroxo complex of niobium over active material in tumbling fluidized coating machine, thereby mixing it) (see abstract and paragraphs [0008] and [0058]). Uchiyama further discloses drying the slurry in an air flow and thereby causing a Li-containing oxide to adhere to at least a portion of a surface of the electrode active material (the result is lithium niobate (LiNbO3) attached to at least part of the active material and a skilled artisan would recognize lithium niobate is a Li-containing oxide (see paragraph [0001])), to obtain a coated active material (see abstract and paragraphs [0001], [0008], [0024]-[0026], and [0058]), where the element M is Nb (see abstract and paragraphs [0001] and [0057]). This method is comparable to a tumbling fluidized bed coating method, which the instant application discloses has a disintegrating force (see paragraph [0006] of instant application). As such, the method of Uchiyama would include disintegrating the slurry while drying the slurry in an air flow.
A skilled artisan would recognize drying the slurry in an air flow as disclosed by Uchiyama is an appropriate method to achieve a coated active material, and Aiki discloses any appropriate coating/drying method known in the art can be used (see paragraph [0096]).
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 method disclosed by Aiki where the slurry is dried in an air flow, as disclosed by Uchiyama, as an appropriate method known in art to achieve a coated active material. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Aiki and Uchiyama are silent on the method having a surface energy of 72 mN/m or less in advance to prepare a slurry when mixing the electrode active material and coating solution containing Li and an element M.
However, in the same field of endeavor of coatings on electrode active materials (see abstract and paragraphs [0011]-[0015]), Liu discloses maintaining a lower surface energy when mixing in advance of drying allows for better dispersibility and uniformity in Fig. 1 (see paragraphs [0026]-[0029]).
Liu is not specific on the surface energy being 72 mN/m or less. However, this is seen as a result effective variable as Liu discloses this directly affects the dispersibility and uniformity when mixing and that the value should be low (see paragraph [0026]). As such, it is within ambit of a person having ordinary skill in the art to discover the optimum value. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (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 method for producing a coated active material as disclosed by Aiki and Uchiyama by ensuring the surface energy is 72 mN/m or less in advance when preparing a slurry when mixing the electrode active material and coating solution containing Li and an element M, as disclosed by Liu as a matter of routine optimization to achieve better dispersibility and uniformity.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aiki in view of Uchiyama and Liu, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. US-20190074512-A1 (hereinafter “Choi”).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Aiki discloses method for producing a coated active material according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Aiki, Uchiyama, and Liu are silent on the element M being P.
However, in the same field of endeavor of coated active materials (see abstract), Choi discloses coating a lithium transition metal oxide active material with a lithium phosphorus oxide (see paragraphs [0014], [0021], [0055], [0064]-[0065], and [0082]-[0084]).
Choi additionally discloses including the lithium phosphorus oxide coating results in inhibiting the oxidative decomposition caused by the reaction with the electrolyte at high voltage and increases the diffusion of Li ions in the positive active material, thereby improving the movement of Li ions and contributing to improvement of battery characteristics (see paragraphs [0055]-[0056]).
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 method disclosed by Aiki, Uchiyama, and Liu wherein the element M is P, as disclosed by Choi, in order to achieve improved battery characteristics.
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