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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/09/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/27/2026 has been entered. Claim 1 is amended, Claim 26 is newly added and Claims 1-7 and 26 are pending.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 26 are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Uezono et al. (JP5708526B2 - Machine Translation), hereinafter "Uezono" in view of Todoriki et al. (US 20120308891 A1), hereinafter “Todoriki”. Uezono and Todoriki et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely doping of solid electrolytes.
In regard to Claim 1 and 26, Uezono et al. discloses a method for forming a secondary battery, comprising: a first step of mixing graphene, carbon black, and a binder to obtain a first mixture, a second step of mixing the first mixture with a positive electrode active material to obtain a second mixture and a third step of mixing the second mixture with a dispersion medium to obtain an electrode slurry (Uezono, [8-9]). Uezono et al. also discloses a fourth step of applying the electrode slurry to a positive electrode current collector, a fifth step of drying the electrode slurry to form a positive electrode and a sixth step of overlapping the positive electrode and a negative electrode to form a secondary battery (Uezono, [19, 21]). Further, Uezono et al. discloses wherein a weight of the carbon black is 2 times a weight of the graphene in the mixing in the first step (Uezono, [9]), which anticipates the claimed range.
While Uezono et al. discloses the preference for graphite (multilayered graphene), it is silent as to the specific type of graphene selected. Todoriki et al. discloses a beneficial electrode layer comprising a positive electrode active material, carbon black, a binder and a reduced graphene oxide with 1-100 graphene layers (Todoriki, Abstract, [0033, 0060], Example 2) wherein the benefit of providing graphene oxide is that it is more likely to touch active material particles or another conduction auxiliary agent, thereby increasing the conductivity and the bonding strength between active material particles and results in an increased conductivity and electric capacity of the electrode (Todoriki, Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a reduced graphene oxide with 1-100 layers as taught in Todoriki as the graphene selected in Uezono et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Todoriki and as doing so would amount to nothing more than providing a known variation of graphene and a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
In regard to Claims 3-5, Uezono in view of Todoriki et al. discloses the method for forming a secondary battery according to claim 1. Uezono et al. also discloses a lithium-cobalt-nickel-manganese composite oxide (specifically, LiCo.sub.1/3 Ni .sub.1/3 Mn .sub.1/3 O .sub.2 ) is used as the positive electrode active material (Uezono, [8]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uezono et al. (JP5708526B2 - Machine Translation), hereinafter "Uezono" in view of Todoriki et al. (US 20120308891 A1), hereinafter “Todoriki” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujino et al. (WO 2019225437 A1 - US 20210202984 A1 referenced for citations), hereinafter “Fujino”. Uezono, Todoriki and Fujino et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrode materials and manufacture.
In regard to Claim 2, Uezono in view of Todoriki et al. discloses the method for forming a secondary battery according to claim 1. Uezono et al. also discloses wherein pressing is performed by a pressing roll after the fifth step (Uezono, [19]), however, Uezono is silent as to the pressure in kN/m chosen by the skilled artisan to perform the pressing.
Fujino et al. discloses a positive electrode mixture applied to a current collector, then dried (step 5) and then pressed with a roll press at 1 t/cm which is equivalent to 981 kN/m (Fujino, [0126]), which anticipates the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to select the pressure for roll pressing as taught in Fujino et al. as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of pressure for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uezono et al. (JP5708526B2 - Machine Translation), hereinafter "Uezono" in view of Todoriki et al. (US 20120308891 A1), hereinafter “Todoriki” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sun et al. (AlF3-Coating to Improve High Voltage Cycling Performance of Li[Ni1/3Co1/3Mn1/3]O2 Cathode Materials for Lithium Secondary Batteries, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 154 (3) A168-A172 2007), hereinafter "Sun". Uezono, Todoriki and Sun et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrode materials and manufacture.
In regard to Claims 6-7, Uezono in view of Todoriki et al. discloses the method for forming a secondary battery according to Claims 3-4. Uezono et al. also discloses an Li[Ni1/3 Co1/3 Mn1/3]O2 cathode active material (Uezono, [8]), but is silent as to the active material containing Al or fluorine in a surface portion.
Sun et al. discloses an Li[Ni1/3 Co1/3 Mn1/3]O2 cathode active material provided with an AlF3 coating, which is a beneficial coating that improved cycle performance and rate capability under a high cutoff voltage (Sun, Abstract). The AlF3 coating thus provides a positive electrode active material comprising Li, Co, Ni, Mn, Al and Fluorine in a surface portion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide an ALF3 surface coating to the Li[Ni1/3 Co1/3 Mn1/3]O2 cathode active material as taught in Sun to the Li[Ni1/3 Co1/3 Mn1/3]O2 cathode active material as disclosed in Uezono et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Sun and as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection has been changed from a 35 U.S.C 102 (a)(1) rejection to a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection and relies on a secondary reference Todoriki et al. (US 20120308891 A1), not previously applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument and wherein the combination teaches all of the limitations of amended claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights