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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/24/2026 has been entered.
Summary
This is a continued examination non-final office action for application 17/882,936 in response to the amendments filed on 03/26/2026. Claims 1-4, 8-12, 15-16, 18-22 and 24 are under examination. Claims 16 and 18-20 are still withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Remarks
The remarks/amendments filed on 03/26/2026 in response to the Final Office Action dated 01/26/2026 are acknowledged and were found to be persuasive over the previously applied prior art rejections of record. However, in light of the amendments a new search was conducted and new prior art identified that renders the previous arguments moot. See claims 1-4, 8-12, 15, 21-22 and 24 rejections below.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS)s submitted on 07/14/2025, 03/02/2026 and 04/24/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 8-12 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (Multifunctional AlPO4 Coating for Improving Electrochemical Properties of Low-Cost Li[Li0.2Fe0.1Ni0.15Mn0.55]O2 Cathode Materials for Lithium-Ion Batteries, 28 January 2015, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces) and further in view of Kim et al. (Surface Modification of Ni-rich LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 with perovskite LaFeO3 for high voltage cathode materials, 18 June 2021, RCS Advances).
Regarding Claim 1, Wu discloses an electroactive material for an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions (see e.g. "Li-rich Fe and Mn-based cathode materials" in Introduction section paragraph beginning with "In this work" on page 3774), the electroactive material comprising:
a plurality of lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered electroactive material particles, the lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered electroactive material particles comprising an electroactive material (see e.g. "Li[Li0.2Fe0.1Ni0.15Mn0.55]O2" in Introduction section paragraph beginning with "In this work" on page 3774 and "The hierarchical spherical particles with 3−4 μm in diameter are composed of uniform nanoplates and nanoparticles" in Section 3.2 paragraph beginning with "Scanning electron" on page 3775) represented by:
Li[Li0.2Fe0.1Ni0.15Mn0.55]O2
Li[Li0.2Fe0.1Ni0.15Mn0.55]O2 is stoichiometrically the same as xLi2MnO3·(1 - x)LiMO2 with x = 0.5 and M = Fe0.25Ni0.375Mn0.375, as demonstrated below:
To compare the disclosed composition with the claimed expression, both expressions must be placed on the same oxygen basis. First, x is determined from the lithium to oxygen ratio. In the claimed expression xLi2MnO3·(1 − x)LiMO2, thus the Li2MnO3 component contributes 2x lithium and 3x oxygen, while the LiMO2 component contributes (1 − x) lithium and 2(1 − x) oxygen. The combined amounts are therefore:
Lithium: 2x + (1 − x) = 1 + x.
Oxygen: 3x + 2(1 − x) = 2 + x.
Expressing this composition on a basis of two oxygen atoms requires multiplying all elemental amounts by 2/(2 + x). The resulting lithium amount must equal the disclosed lithium amount of 1.2. Thus using the above lithium equation x can be solved for as follows:
2(1 + x)/(2 + x) = 1.2;
2 + 2x = 2.4 + 1.2x;
0.8x = 0.4; and
x = 0.5.
At x = 0.5, the claimed expression becomes 0.5Li2MnO3·0.5LiMO2. Its combined oxygen amount is 2.5. Thus, multiplication by 2/2.5, or 0.8, places the expression on the same basis of Wu with two oxygen atoms.
Next, the composition of M is determined. After multiplication by 0.8, the Li2MnO3 component contributes 0.4 manganese, and the LiMO2 component contributes 0.4 M. Wu’s composition contains 0.1 iron, 0.15 nickel, and 0.55 manganese. Subtracting the 0.4 manganese contributed by Li2MnO3 leaves 0.15 manganese attributable to M. The constituent fractions of M are therefore:
Iron: 0.1/0.4 = 0.2
Nickel: 0.15/0.4 = 0.375
Manganese: (0.55 − 0.4)/0.4 = 0.375
These fractions sum to 1, giving M = Fe0.25Ni0.375Mn0.375.
Therefore the two component expression disclosed by Wu is:
0.5Li2MnO3·0.5Li(Fe0.25Ni0.375Mn0.375)O2
Wu discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Wu further discloses that at least a portion of the lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered electroactive material particles of the plurality of lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered electroactive material particles having a coating comprising AlPO4 (see e.g. "AlPO4 coating was explored" in Introduction section paragraph beginning with "In this work" on page 3774).
Wu does not disclose that the coating comprises an oxygen storage material selected from the group consisting of: La(1-x)SrxMnO3 (where 0 < x ≤ 0.3 ), La(1-x)SrxFeO3 (where 0 ≤ x ≤ 0.3), La(1-x)CaxMnO3 (where 0 < x ≤ 0.3 ), La(1-x)BaxMnO3 (where 0 < x ≤ 0.3 ), LaFeO3, CeO2, CeO2-MnOx (where 2≤ x ≤ 3), ), CeO2-WO3, CeO2-MoO6, and combinations thereof.
Kim, however, in the same field of endeavor, surface modified lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered electroactive material particles, discloses electroactive material particles having a coating comprising an oxygen storage material LaFeO3 (see e.g. "LaFeO3-coated NCM811 electrode materials were fabricated" in Section 2.1 on page 21686 of Kim).
Kim further teaches that the LaFeO3 coating was advantageous because it could alleviate the side reactions between the electrolyte and electrode materials. Kim also teaches that the LaFeO3-coated NCM811 electrode materials exhibited excellent electrochemical rate capability and cycling performance compared to the bare NCM811 (see e.g. Conclusion Section on page 21692 of Kim). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the surface coating of Wu et al. such that it comprises the oxygen storage material LaFeO3 as taught by Kim et al. in order to have an LaFeO3 coated electroactive material that exhibits excellent electrochemical rate capability and cycling performance compared to a bare electroactive material as suggested by Kim.
Regarding Claim 2, Wu in view of Kim discloses the electroactive material of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Wu further discloses a coating that is a continuous coating disposed around a surface of the lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered electroactive material particles (see e.g. ", it can be seen that the coating layer is uniformly coated on the surface of the bulk material." in Section 3.2 "paragraph beginning with "To further" on page 3775).
Wu does not disclose that the coating comprises the oxygen storage material.
Kim, however, discloses a coating comprising the oxygen storage material that is a continuous coating disposed around a surface of the electroactive material particles (see e.g. "LaFeO3-coated NCM811 electrode materials were fabricated" in Section 2.1 on page 21686 and "In addition, it is found that the coated materials effectively cover the surface of the bare NCM811" in paragraph beginning with "The morphologies" on page 21689 of Kim).
Kim further teaches that the LaFeO3 coating is advantageous because it can alleviate the side reactions between the electrolyte and electrode materials. Kim also teaches that the LaFeO3-coated NCM811 electrode materials exhibited excellent electrochemical rate capability and cycling performance compared to the bare NCM811 (see e.g. Conclusion Section on page 21692 of Kim). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the surface coating of Wu et al. such that it comprises a continuous coating of the oxygen storage material LaFeO3 around a surface of electroactive material particles as taught by Kim et al. in order to have an LaFeO3 coated electroactive material that exhibits excellent electrochemical rate capability and cycling performance compared to a bare electroactive material as suggested by Kim.
Regarding Claim 3, Wu in view of Kim discloses the electroactive material of claim 2 (see e.g. claim 2 rejection above).
Wu further discloses that the lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered electroactive material particles of the plurality of lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered electroactive material particles have an average particle size of 3-4 micrometers (see e.g. "The hierarchical spherical particles with 3−4 μm in diameter" in Section 3.2 paragraph beginning with "Scanning electron" on page 3775).
Wu discloses a range that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Wu does not disclose that the continuous coating has an average thickness greater than or equal to about 10 nanometers to less than or equal to about 5 micrometers.
Kim, however, discloses that that continuous coating has an average thickness greater than or equal to about 10 nanometers to less than or equal to about 5 micrometers (see e.g. FIG. 4 a(iii) - c(iii) on page 21689 of Kim). While Kim does not explicitly disclose a value of the thickness of the continuous coating, Kim does provide FE-TEM images of the coating regions delineated by the dashed boundaries having widths comparable to or greater than the respective 50 nm scale bars, placing the illustrated thicknesses above about 10 nm and well below 5 micrometers. Kim further explains that these images demonstrate increasing coating thickness with increasing coating amount. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, that the coating disclosed by Kim falls within the claimed range.
Kim further teaches that the LaFeO3 coating is advantageous because it can alleviate the side reactions between the electrolyte and electrode materials. Kim also teaches that the LaFeO3-coated NCM811 electrode materials exhibited excellent electrochemical rate capability and cycling performance compared to the bare NCM811 (see e.g. Conclusion Section on page 21692 of Kim). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the surface coating of Wu et al. such that the continuous coating has an average thickness greater than or equal to about 10 nanometers to less than or equal to about 5 micrometers as taught by Kim et al. in order to have an LaFeO3 coated electroactive material that exhibits excellent electrochemical rate capability and cycling performance compared to a bare electroactive material as suggested by Kim.
Regarding Claim 8, Wu in view of Kim disclose the electroactive material of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Wu does not disclose that the electroactive material comprises greater than or equal to about 0.5 wt.% to less than or equal to about 10 wt.% of the oxygen storage material.
Kim, however, discloses that the electroactive material comprises 1.0 wt.% of the oxygen storage material (see e.g. "surface modification of NCM811 with 0.5 and 1.0 wt% LaFeO3" in paragraph beginning with "The morphologies" on page 21689 of Kim).
Kim discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Kim further teaches that the LaFeO3 coating is advantageous because it can alleviate the side reactions between the electrolyte and electrode materials. Kim also teaches that the LaFeO3-coated NCM811 electrode materials exhibited excellent electrochemical rate capability and cycling performance compared to the bare NCM811 (see e.g. Conclusion Section on page 21692 of Kim). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electroactive material of Wu et al. such that it comprises greater than or equal to about 0.5 wt.% to less than or equal to about 10 wt.% of the oxygen storage material as taught by Kim et al. in order to have an LaFeO3 coated electroactive material that exhibits excellent electrochemical rate capability and cycling performance compared to a bare electroactive material as suggested by Kim.
Regarding Claim 9, Wu discloses an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions (see e.g. "coin-cells (type CR 2025)" in Section 2.3 on page 3774), the electrochemical cell comprising:
a first electrode comprising a negative electroactive material (see e.g. "metallic lithium foil as the counter electrode" in Section 2.3 on page 3774);
a second electrode comprising a positive electroactive material (see e.g. " the as synthesized active material, acetylene black and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) at a weight percent ratio of 8:1:1 in the solvent of N-methyl 2-pyrrolidone (NMP). Then the slurry was cast on an aluminum foil and dried overnight in a vacuum oven at 80 °C. The electrode was further roll-pressed in order to promote adhesion to the current collector. " in Section 2.3 on page 3774),
the positive electroactive material comprising a plurality of lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered electroactive material particles, the lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered electroactive material particles comprising an electroactive material (see e.g. "Li[Li0.2Fe0.1Ni0.15Mn0.55]O2" in Introduction section paragraph beginning with "In this work" on page 3774 and "The hierarchical spherical particles with 3−4 μm in diameter are composed of uniform nanoplates and nanoparticles" in Section 3.2 paragraph beginning with "Scanning electron" on page 3775) represented by:
Li[Li0.2Fe0.1Ni0.15Mn0.55]O2
Li[Li0.2Fe0.1Ni0.15Mn0.55]O2 is stoichiometrically the same as xLi2MnO3·(1 - x)LiMO2 with x = 0.5 and M = Fe0.25Ni0.375Mn0.375, as demonstrated below:
To compare the disclosed composition with the claimed expression, both expressions must be placed on the same oxygen basis. First, x is determined from the lithium to oxygen ratio. In the claimed expression xLi2MnO3·(1 − x)LiMO2, thus the Li2MnO3 component contributes 2x lithium and 3x oxygen, while the LiMO2 component contributes (1 − x) lithium and 2(1 − x) oxygen. The combined amounts are therefore:
Lithium: 2x + (1 − x) = 1 + x.
Oxygen: 3x + 2(1 − x) = 2 + x.
Expressing this composition on a basis of two oxygen atoms requires multiplying all elemental amounts by 2/(2 + x). The resulting lithium amount must equal the disclosed lithium amount of 1.2. Thus using the above lithium equation x can be solved for as follows:
2(1 + x)/(2 + x) = 1.2;
2 + 2x = 2.4 + 1.2x;
0.8x = 0.4; and
x = 0.5.
At x = 0.5, the claimed expression becomes 0.5Li2MnO3·0.5LiMO2. Its combined oxygen amount is 2.5. Thus, multiplication by 2/2.5, or 0.8, places the expression on the same basis of Wu with two oxygen atoms.
Next, the composition of M is determined. After multiplication by 0.8, the Li2MnO3 component contributes 0.4 manganese, and the LiMO2 component contributes 0.4 M. Wu’s composition contains 0.1 iron, 0.15 nickel, and 0.55 manganese. Subtracting the 0.4 manganese contributed by Li2MnO3 leaves 0.15 manganese attributable to M. The constituent fractions of M are therefore:
Iron: 0.1/0.4 = 0.2
Nickel: 0.15/0.4 = 0.375
Manganese: (0.55 − 0.4)/0.4 = 0.375
These fractions sum to 1, giving M = Fe0.25Ni0.375Mn0.375.
Therefore the two component expression disclosed by Wu is:
0.5Li2MnO3·0.5Li(Fe0.25Ni0.375Mn0.375)O2
Wu discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Wu further discloses that at least a portion of the lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered electroactive material particles of the plurality of lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered electroactive material particles having a coating comprising AlPO4 (see e.g. "AlPO4 coating was explored" in Introduction section paragraph beginning with "In this work" on page 3774), and
a separating layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (see e.g. "a Celgard 2400 membrane as the separator." in Section 2.3 on page 3774).
Wu does not disclose that the coating comprises an oxygen storage material selected from the group consisting of: La(1-x)SrxMnO3 (where 0 < x ≤ 0.3 ), La(1-x)SrxFeO3 (where 0 ≤ x ≤ 0.3), La(1-x)CaxMnO3 (where 0 < x ≤ 0.3 ), La(1-x)BaxMnO3 (where 0 < x ≤ 0.3 ), LaFeO3, CeO2, CeO2-MnOx (where 2≤ x ≤ 3), ), CeO2-WO3, CeO2-MoO6, and combinations thereof.
Kim, however, in the same field of endeavor, surface modified lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered electroactive material particles, discloses electroactive material particles having a coating comprising an oxygen storage material LaFeO3 (see e.g. "LaFeO3-coated NCM811 electrode materials were fabricated" in Section 2.1 on page 21686 of Kim).
Kim further teaches that the LaFeO3 coating was advantageous because it could alleviate the side reactions between the electrolyte and electrode materials. Kim also teaches that the LaFeO3-coated NCM811 electrode materials exhibited excellent electrochemical rate capability and cycling performance compared to the bare NCM811 (see e.g. Conclusion Section on page 21692 of Kim). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the surface coating of Wu et al. such that it comprises the oxygen storage material LaFeO3 as taught by Kim et al. in order to have an LaFeO3 coated electroactive material that exhibits excellent electrochemical rate capability and cycling performance compared to a bare electroactive material as suggested by Kim.
Regarding Claim 10, Wu in view of Kim discloses the electrochemical cell of claim 9 (see e.g. claim 9 rejection above).
Wu further discloses a coating that is a continuous coating disposed around a surface of the lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered electroactive material particles (see e.g. ", it can be seen that the coating layer is uniformly coated on the surface of the bulk material." in Section 3.2 "paragraph beginning with "To further" on page 3775).
Wu does not disclose that the coating comprises the oxygen storage material.
Kim, however, discloses a coating comprising the oxygen storage material that is a continuous coating disposed around a surface of the electroactive material particles (see e.g. "LaFeO3-coated NCM811 electrode materials were fabricated" in Section 2.1 on page 21686 and "In addition, it is found that the coated materials effectively cover the surface of the bare NCM811" in paragraph beginning with "The morphologies" on page 21689 of Kim).
Kim further teaches that the LaFeO3 coating is advantageous because it can alleviate the side reactions between the electrolyte and electrode materials. Kim also teaches that the LaFeO3-coated NCM811 electrode materials exhibited excellent electrochemical rate capability and cycling performance compared to the bare NCM811 (see e.g. Conclusion Section on page 21692 of Kim). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the surface coating of Wu et al. such that it comprises a continuous coating of the oxygen storage material LaFeO3 around a surface of electroactive material particles as taught by Kim et al. in order to have an LaFeO3 coated electroactive material that exhibits excellent electrochemical rate capability and cycling performance compared to a bare electroactive material as suggested by Kim.
Regarding Claim 11, Wu in view of Kim disclose the electrochemical cell of claim 9 (see e.g. claim 9 rejection above).
Wu further discloses that the lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered electroactive material particles of the plurality of lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered electroactive material particles have an average particle size of 3-4 micrometers (see e.g. "The hierarchical spherical particles with 3−4 μm in diameter" in Section 3.2 paragraph beginning with "Scanning electron" on page 3775).
Wu discloses a range that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Wu does not disclose that the continuous coating has an average thickness greater than or equal to about 10 nanometers to less than or equal to about 5 micrometers.
Kim, however, discloses that that continuous coating has an average thickness greater than or equal to about 10 nanometers to less than or equal to about 5 micrometers (see e.g. FIG. 4 a(iii) - c(iii) on page 21689 of Kim). While Kim does not explicitly disclose a value of the thickness of the continuous coating, Kim does provide FE-TEM images of the coating regions delineated by the dashed boundaries having widths comparable to or greater than the respective 50 nm scale bars, placing the illustrated thicknesses above about 10 nm and well below 5 micrometers. Kim further explains that these images demonstrate increasing coating thickness with increasing coating amount. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, that the coating disclosed by Kim falls within the claimed range.
Kim further teaches that the LaFeO3 coating is advantageous because it can alleviate the side reactions between the electrolyte and electrode materials. Kim also teaches that the LaFeO3-coated NCM811 electrode materials exhibited excellent electrochemical rate capability and cycling performance compared to the bare NCM811 (see e.g. Conclusion Section on page 21692 of Kim). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the surface coating of Wu et al. such that the continuous coating has an average thickness greater than or equal to about 10 nanometers to less than or equal to about 5 micrometers as taught by Kim et al. in order to have an LaFeO3 coated electroactive material that exhibits excellent electrochemical rate capability and cycling performance compared to a bare electroactive material as suggested by Kim.
Regarding Claim 12, Wu in view of Kim disclose the electrochemical cell of claim 9 (see e.g. claim 9 rejection above).
Wu further discloses that the second electrode comprises 80 wt.% of the positive electroactive material (see e.g. "The working electrode for electrochemical measurements was prepared by dispersing the as synthesized active material, acetylene black and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) at a weight percent ratio of 8:1:1 in the solvent of N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP)." in Section 2.3 on page 3774).
Wu discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Wu does not disclose that the electroactive material comprises greater than or equal to about 0.5 wt.% to less than or equal to about 10 wt.% of the oxygen storage material.
Kim, however, discloses that the electroactive material comprises 1.0 wt.% of the oxygen storage material (see e.g. "surface modification of NCM811 with 0.5 and 1.0 wt% LaFeO3" in paragraph beginning with "The morphologies" on page 21689 of Kim).
Kim discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Kim further teaches that the LaFeO3 coating is advantageous because it can alleviate the side reactions between the electrolyte and electrode materials. Kim also teaches that the LaFeO3-coated NCM811 electrode materials exhibited excellent electrochemical rate capability and cycling performance compared to the bare NCM811 (see e.g. Conclusion Section on page 21692 of Kim). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electroactive material of Wu et al. such that it comprises greater than or equal to about 0.5 wt.% to less than or equal to about 10 wt.% of the oxygen storage material as taught by Kim et al. in order to have an LaFeO3 coated electroactive material that exhibits excellent electrochemical rate capability and cycling performance compared to a bare electroactive material as suggested by Kim.
Regarding Claim 22, Wu in view of Kim disclose the electroactive material of claim 2 (see e.g. claim 2 rejection above).
Wu does not disclose that the continuous coating has an average thickness greater than or equal to about 10 nanometers to less than or equal to about 5 micrometers.
Kim, however, discloses that that continuous coating has an average thickness greater than or equal to about 10 nanometers to less than or equal to about 5 micrometers (see e.g. FIG. 4 a(iii) - c(iii) on page 21689 of Kim). While Kim does not explicitly disclose a value of the thickness of the continuous coating, Kim does provide FE-TEM images of the coating regions delineated by the dashed boundaries having widths comparable to or greater than the respective 50 nm scale bars, placing the illustrated thicknesses above about 10 nm and well below 5 micrometers. Kim further explains that these images demonstrate increasing coating thickness with increasing coating amount. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, that the coating disclosed by Kim falls within the claimed range.
Kim further teaches that the LaFeO3 coating is advantageous because it can alleviate the side reactions between the electrolyte and electrode materials. Kim also teaches that the LaFeO3-coated NCM811 electrode materials exhibited excellent electrochemical rate capability and cycling performance compared to the bare NCM811 (see e.g. Conclusion Section on page 21692 of Kim). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the surface coating of Wu et al. such that the continuous coating has an average thickness greater than or equal to about 10 nanometers to less than or equal to about 5 micrometers as taught by Kim et al. in order to have an LaFeO3 coated electroactive material that exhibits excellent electrochemical rate capability and cycling performance compared to a bare electroactive material as suggested by Kim.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (Multifunctional AlPO4 Coating for Improving Electrochemical Properties of Low-Cost Li[Li0.2Fe0.1Ni0.15Mn0.55]O2 Cathode Materials for Lithium-Ion Batteries, 28 January 2015, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces) in view of Kim et al. (Surface Modification of Ni-rich LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 with perovskite LaFeO3 for high voltage cathode materials, 18 June 2021, RCS Advances) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zheng et al. (CN-111115713-A).
Regarding Claim 4, Wu in view of Kim disclose the electroactive material of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Wu in view of Kim further disclose that the oxygen storage material is a first oxygen storage material (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Wu in view of Kim does not disclose the coating further comprises a second oxygen storage material comprising LaMnO3.
Zheng, however, in the same field of endeavor, coated electroactive materials, discloses a plurality of lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered electroactive material particles (see e.g. “The coating lithium-rich manganese-rich based cathode material” in paragraph [3] on page 2 and FIG. 1 of Zheng), at least a portion of the lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered electroactive material particles of the plurality having a coating comprising an oxygen storage material LaMnO3 (see e.g. “(1-x)Li2MnO3·xLi(NiaCobMnc)O2@yLaMnO3” in paragraph [3] on page 2 of Zheng).
It would have be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that Wu in view of Kim, in combination with Zheng, would include a lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered electroactive material particle having a dual-layer coating, with a first oxygen storage material LaFeO3 coated as the outer layer as disclosed by Wu in view of Kim and a second oxygen storage material comprising LaMnO3 as disclosed by Zheng.
Zheng also teaches that including LaMnO3 in the coating layer leads to a positive electrode material with good multiplying power and good cyclicity (see e.g. paragraph [43] of Zheng). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oxygen storage material of Wu et al. in view of Kim et al. such that he coating further comprises a second oxygen storage material comprising LaMnO3 as taught by Zheng et al. in order to have an electroactive material with good multiplying power and good cyclicity as suggested by Zheng.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (Multifunctional AlPO4 Coating for Improving Electrochemical Properties of Low-Cost Li[Li0.2Fe0.1Ni0.15Mn0.55]O2 Cathode Materials for Lithium-Ion Batteries, 28 January 2015, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces) in view of Kim et al. (Surface Modification of Ni-rich LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 with perovskite LaFeO3 for high voltage cathode materials, 18 June 2021, RCS Advances) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kapylou et al. (US-20160190555-A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Wu in view of Kim disclose the electrochemical cell of claim 9 (see e.g. claim 9 rejection above).
Wu in view of Kim does not disclose that the positive electroactive material is a first positive electroactive material, and the second electrode further comprises a second positive electroactive material selected from the group consisting of: a layered oxide represented by LiMeO2, an olivine-type oxide represented by LiMePO4, a monoclinic-type oxide represented by Li3Me2(PO4)3, a spinel-type oxide, a tavorite represented by LiMeSO4F, a tavorite represented by LiMePO4F, and combinations thereof, wherein Me is a transition metal selected from the group consisting of: cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), aluminum (Al), vanadium (V), or combinations thereof.
Kapylou, however, in the same field of endeavor, lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered electroactive material particles, discloses a first positive electroactive material that is 0.40Li2MnO3-0.60LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 (see e.g. "0.40Li2MnO3-0.60LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 " in paragraph [0120] of Kapylou). Kapylou further discloses that the positive electrode comprises a second positive electroactive material is LiCoO2 or LiMnO2 (see e.g. "Examples of the second positive active material may be LiCoO2, LiMnxO2x (x=1, 2)" in paragraph [0093] of Kapylou).
Kapylou further teaches that the disclosed positive electroactive material improves lifetime characteristics of a lithium battery during high voltage operation (see e.g. paragraph [0137] of Kapylou). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electrochemical cell which includes the positive electroactive material of Wu et al. in view of Kim et al. to include a second positive electroactive material which is LiCoO2 or LiMnO2 as taught by Kapylou in order to material improve lifetime characteristics of a lithium battery during high voltage operation as suggested by Kapylou.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (Multifunctional AlPO4 Coating for Improving Electrochemical Properties of Low-Cost Li[Li0.2Fe0.1Ni0.15Mn0.55]O2 Cathode Materials for Lithium-Ion Batteries, 28 January 2015, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces) in view of Kim et al. (Surface Modification of Ni-rich LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 with perovskite LaFeO3 for high voltage cathode materials, 18 June 2021, RCS Advances) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Shin et al. (US-20200112024-A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Wu in view of Kim disclose the electroactive material of claim 2 (see e.g. claim 2 rejection above).
Wu in view of Kim does not disclose that the lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered electroactive material particles of the plurality of lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered electroactive material particles have an average particle size greater than or equal to about 500 nanometers to less than or equal to about 1 micrometers.
Shin, however, in the same field of endeavor, composite cathode active materials discloses, a lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered electroactive material particles of the plurality of lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered electroactive material particles (see e.g. paragraphs [0105]-[0107] of Shin) having an average particle size of about 50 nm to about 500 nm (see e.g. "The average particle diameter of primary particles of the composite cathode active material may be, for example, in the range of about 50 nm to about 500 nm" in paragraph [0086] of Shin).
Shin discloses a range that overlaps at the endpoint of the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the end point of the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Shin also teaches that a lithium battery including this cathode active material may provide improved cyclic characteristics and thermal stability (see e.g. paragraph [0085] of Shin). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered electroactive material particles of the plurality of lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered electroactive material particles of Wu et al. in view of Kim et al. such that they have an average particle size of about 50 nm to about 500 nm as taught by Shin et al. in order to improve the cyclic characteristics and thermal stability of a lithium battery that includes this active material as suggested by Shin.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (Multifunctional AlPO4 Coating for Improving Electrochemical Properties of Low-Cost Li[Li0.2Fe0.1Ni0.15Mn0.55]O2 Cathode Materials for Lithium-Ion Batteries, 28 January 2015, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces) in view of Kim et al. (Surface Modification of Ni-rich LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 with perovskite LaFeO3 for high voltage cathode materials, 18 June 2021, RCS Advances) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cui et al. (Novel LaFeO3 Coating Modification for a LiFePO4 Cathode, 19 May 2020, ACS Energy & Fuels).
Regarding Claim 24, Wu in view of Kim disclose the electroactive material of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Wu in view of Kim does not disclose that the electroactive material comprises greater than or equal to about 3 wt.% to less than or equal to about 10 wt.% of the oxygen storage material.
Cui, however, in the same field of endeavor, coated electroactive materials, discloses an electroactive material (see e.g. "LiFePO4" in Section 2.1 on page 7601 of Cui) comprising 4 wt.% of an oxygen storage material (see e.g. "LaFeO3-coated LFP@C' and "LFP@C-LFO-x, where x is the mass ratio of LaFeO3 to LFP (x = 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 wt % LFO)" in Section 2.1 on page 7601 of Cui).
Cui discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Cui also teaches that the coated electroactive materials have excellent electrochemistry properties and effectively prevent electrolyte damage to the active electrode material (see e.g. Section 4 Conclusions on page 7604 of Cui). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the amount of the oxygen storage material on the electroactive material of Wu et al. in view of Kim et al. such that it comprises greater than or equal to about 3 wt.% to less than or equal to about 10 wt.% of the oxygen storage material as taught by Cui et al. in order to have a coated electroactive material with excellent electrochemistry properties and protects the electrode active material from electrolyte damage as suggested by Cui.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSE EFYMOW whose telephone number is (571)270-0795. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10:30 am - 8:30 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MATTHEW MARTIN can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/J.J.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights