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 .
Claim Status
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on July 21st, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently claim 1 is amended, claims 4-5, 8, and 14-15 are cancelled, and claims 16-17 are new, resulting in claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-13, and 16-17 pending for examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on July 21st, 2026 have been entered into the file.
Applicant’s arguments, as indicated below, have facilitated the withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-8, 10, and 12-15 as being unpatentable over Toma in view of Takahashi set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed April 21st, 2026.
As a result, the subsequent dependent claims 6, 9, and 11 as unpatentable over Toma in view of Takahashi and further in view of Aoki, Kim, and Li, respectively, as withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-13, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “at least one element A selected from the group consisting of Ca and Sr is present on surfaces of the primary particles in an amount of 0.01 mol% or more and 1 mol% or less based on the total number of moles of the metal elements excluding Li”, and the claim also recites “the content of the element A is 0.1 mol% or more and 0.8 mol% or less based on the total number of moles of the metal elements excluding Li” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 1 also recites the broad recitation “at least one element B selected from the group consisting of B, Zr, Al, Nb, Mo, and Ti is present on surfaces of the secondary particles in an amount of 0.05 mol% or more and 2 mol% or less based on a total number of moles of Ni in the composite oxide”, and the claim also recites “the content of the element B is 0.05 mol% or more and 1.2 mol% or less based on the total number of moles of Ni in the composite oxide” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claims 2-3, 6-7, 9-13, and 16-17, the instant claims are rejected based on their dependence on a previously rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 10, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toma (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210363027 A1) in view of Soon (Korean Patent Publication No. 20150013077 A).
Regarding claim 1, Toma teaches a positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Paragraph 0001), including a lithium-transition metal composite oxide (Paragraph 0014).
In the third embodiment of the invention, Toma teaches the Formula (4) for the lithium-metal composite oxide represented by Li1+aNi1-x-yCoxMnyMzO2+β where
-0.05 ≤ a ≤ 0.50
0.02 ≤ x ≤ 0.30
0.02 ≤ y ≤ 0.30
0 ≤ z ≤ 0.05
-0.5 ≤ β ≤ 0.5
and M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Mg, Ca, Al, Si, Fe, Cr,
V, Mo, W, Nb, Ti, and Zr) (Paragraph 0020).
To determine the mole percentage of nickel based on the total number of moles of metal elements excluding Li according to the instant claimed limitations, when each element is set to the lower limit of the ranges taught by Toma, the general formula is as follows: Li0.95Ni0.96Co0.02Mn0.02M0O1.5. Accordingly, the mole percentage of nickel with respect to total number of moles of metal elements excluding Li is:
m
o
l
%
N
i
=
0.96
0.96
+
0.02
+
0.02
=
96
%
When each element is set to the upper limit of the ranges taught by Toma, the general formula is as follows: Li1.5Ni0.40Co0.30Mn0.30M0.05O2.5. Accordingly, the mole percentage of nickel with respect to total number of moles of metal elements excluding Li is:
m
o
l
%
N
i
=
0.40
0.4
+
0.30
+
0.30
+
0.05
=
38
%
Thus, the range of mole percentage of Nickel in the lithium-transition metal composite oxide with respect to the total number of moles of metal elements excluding Li is represented by 38-96% as calculated above. The range of mole percentage of Ni of Toma substantially overlaps the claimed range of 80% or more in the instant claim. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Toma because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Toma teaches that the lithium-transition metal composite oxide according to the third embodiment may contain Co and Mn, and that M may be substituted with at least one selected from Al, Ti, Nb, Fe. Therefore, the Formula (4) of Toma will have at least one selected from the group consisting of Co, Mn, Al, Ti, Nb, and Fe, as limited by the instant claim.
Using the Formula (4) defined above at the maximum and minimum quantities of the variables, the Co content in the lithium-transition metal oxide based on the total number of moles of metal elements excluding Li is determined to be:
Li0.95Ni0.96Co0.02Mn0.02M0O1.5 :
m
o
l
%
C
o
=
0.02
0.96
+
0.02
+
0.02
=
2
%
Li1.5Ni0.40Co0.30Mn0.30M0.05O2.5:
m
o
l
%
C
o
=
0.30
0.40
+
0.30
+
0.30
+
0.05
=
29
%
The range of mole percentage of cobalt of Toma substantially overlaps the claimed ranges of the mole percentage of cobalt of 5 mol% or less in the instant claim. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Toma because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Toma teaches the lithium-transition metal composite oxide includes secondary particles each formed by aggregation of primary particles (Paragraph 0035).
Toma teaches in the third embodiment a particle having a core portion inside the particle and a shell portion formed around the core (Paragraph 0020).
Toma teaches the composition of the shell portion in the third particle is represented by general formula (6): Li1+a2Ni1-x2-y2Cox2Mny2Mz2O2+β2 where
-0.05 ≤ a2 ≤ 0.50
0 < 1-x2-y2 ≤ 0.6
0 ≤ z2 ≤ 0.05
-0.5 ≤ β2 ≤ 0.5
(Paragraph 00020) and M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Mg, Ca, Al, Si, Fe, Cr, V, Mo, W, Nb, Ti, and Zr) as M is represented by the same element as the general formula (3) (Paragraph 0156) which is similar to M of general formula 1 (Paragraph 0067).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select Ca from the finite lists of possible combinations for M to arrive at the lithium-transition metal oxide of the instant claim since the combination of components would have yielded predictable results as a surface coating for primary particles, absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
When each element is set to the lower limit of the ranges taught by Toma, z2=0 and the presence of A (Ca) on the surface of the primary particles is 0%.
When each element is set to the upper limit of the ranges taught by Toma, the general formula is as follows: Li1.5Ni0.5999Co0.2Mn0.2M0.05O2.5. The upper limit of 1-x2-y2 must be less than 0.6, and is estimated to be 0.5999. Further, x2 + y2 must = 0.4 at the upper limit. x2 and y2 are variables which represent quantities of non-lithium metals. Thus, x2 + y2 appears in the denominator in the calculations below. Accordingly, the mole percentage of element A on the surface of the primary particles with respect to total number of moles of metal elements excluding Li is:
m
o
l
%
A
=
0.05
0.5999
+
0.2
+
0.2
+
0.05
=
4.8
%
The range of the mole percentage of element A on the surface of the primary particles with respect to total number of moles of metal elements excluding Li of Toma (0 to 4.8%) overlaps the claimed ranges of the percentage of element A on the surface of the primary particles with respect to total number of moles of metal elements excluding Li in the instant claim (0.01 to 1 mol %). It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Toma because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
As discussed above, Toma teaches the composition of the shell portion of the particle including the element A, Ca. Because the element A is formed as a coating layer on the surface of the primary particles, it is considered to not form a solid solution with Ni, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
The range of the mole percentage of element A on the surface of the primary particles with respect to total number of moles of metal elements excluding Li of Toma (0 to 4.8%) overlaps the claimed ranges of the percentage of element A on the surface of the primary particles with respect to total number of moles of metal elements excluding Li in the instant claim (0.1 to 0.8 mol %). Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Toma does not teach an element B selected from the group consisting of B, Zr, W, Al, Nb, Mo, and Ti is present on surfaces of the secondary particles.
Soon discloses a positive electrode active material containing a boron-containing coating, and an embodiment as illustrated in Figure 1 in which the boron-containing coating layer is included on the surface of polycrystalline lithium manganese oxide particles (Paragraphs 0001, 0025) (Figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
417
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Soon
Soon teaches the positive electrode active material comprising manganese and aluminum in additional to lithium and oxygen (Paragraphs 0032-0036), which overlaps the materials comprising the composition of the positive electrode active material of the instant claim. Soon teaches the polycrystal having a structure that is a secondary particle formed by a plurality of aggregated primary particles (Paragraph 0037), which overlaps the structure of the positive electrode active material of the instant claim. Soon teaches the advantage of the boron-containing coating to prevent direct contact between the lithium metal oxide and the electrolyte, in order to suppress side reactions between the positive electrode active material and the electrolyte (Paragraph 0020).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the secondary particles of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide of Toma to incorporate the teachings of Soon in which a boron-containing layer is present on the surface of the secondary particles. Doing so would result in the prevention of contact between the electrolyte and the positive electrode material, as recognized by Soon.
Toma does not teach the element B present on surfaces of the secondary particles in an amount of 0.05 mol% or more and 2 mol% or less based on a total number of moles of Ni in the composite oxide.
Soon, as discussed above, discloses a positive electrode active material containing a boron-containing coating on the surface of polycrystalline lithium manganese oxide particles. Soon teaches the thickness of the coating layer formed on the surface of the secondary particles may be in the range of 1 nm to 500 nm (Paragraph 0043). Soon teaches that when the thickness of the coating layer is less than 1 nm, the coating layer formed on the surface of the polycrystalline lithium manganese oxide is too thin so that the effect of suppressing side reactions between the positive electrode active material and the electrolyte during charging and discharging may be insignificant,. Soon teaches when the thickness of the coating layer exceeds 500 nm, it is too thick and can cause electrochemical degradation due to increased resistance (Paragraph 0044).
Thus, Soon teaches the thickness of the coating layer as able to be tuned in order to achieve a balance between maximizing the ability to suppress side reactions between the positive electrode active material while also keeping resistance low. The ordinary artisan would recognize that by adjusting the thickness of the boron-containing coating layer on the polycrystalline secondary particles, the amount of boron present on the surface of the secondary particles based on the total number of moles of nickel present in the composite oxide would also be adjusted.
Therefore, absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the coating thickness of boron on the secondary particles of positive electrode active material (and therefore the quantity of boron present on the surfaces of the secondary particles based on the total number of moles of Ni in the composite oxide) since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. In the present invention one would have been motivated to optimize the thickness of the boron coating layer on the secondary polycrystalline particles to obtain a quantity of boron present on the surfaces of the secondary particles based on the total number of moles of Ni in the composite oxide within the claimed ranges in order to achieve a favorable balance between suppressing side reactions between positive electrode material and electrolyte while also minimizing electrochemical degradation and resistance, as recognized Soon.
Toma does not teach the content of the element B is 0.05 mol% or more and 1.2 mol% or less based on a total number of moles of Ni in the composite oxide.
However, as presented by the Examiner above, absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the coating thickness of boron on the secondary particles of positive electrode active material (and therefore the quantity of boron present on the surfaces of the secondary particles based on the total number of moles of Ni in the composite oxide) since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. In the present invention one would have been motivated to optimize the thickness of the boron coating layer on the secondary polycrystalline particles to obtain a quantity of boron present on the surfaces of the secondary particles based on the total number of moles of Ni in the composite oxide within the claimed ranges in order to achieve a favorable balance between suppressing side reactions between positive electrode material and electrolyte while also minimizing electrochemical degradation and resistance, as recognized Soon.
Toma does not explicitly teach a ratio of a content of the element B to a content of the element A is 0.05 or more and 200 or less.
However, as discussed above, absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the coating thickness of boron on the secondary particles of positive electrode active material (and therefore the quantity of boron present on the surfaces of the secondary particles based on the total number of moles of Ni in the composite oxide) since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
The ordinary artisan would recognize that by adjusting the thickness of the boron-containing coating layer on the polycrystalline secondary particles, the ratio of a content of the element B to the content of the element A would also be adjusted. In the present invention one would have been motivated to optimize the thickness of the boron coating layer on the secondary polycrystalline particles to obtain a ratio of a content of the element B to the content of the element A within the claimed ranges in order to achieve a favorable balance between suppressing side reactions between positive electrode material and electrolyte while also minimizing electrochemical degradation and resistance, as recognized by Soon.
Regarding claim 2, modified Toma teaches a positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery as discussed above with respect to claim 1, wherein the element B is present outside the element A on the surfaces of the secondary particles.
As seen in the embodiment exemplified by Figure 1 of Soon, the secondary particles (polycrystalline lithium manganese oxide) are formed by the aggregation of primary particles (Paragraph 0037) and the coating layer comprising boron is formed on the outside of the secondary particles. According to the modification of Toma by Soon, the primary particles including the core and the shell of Toma would be inside the coating comprising boron on the secondary particles, as illustrated below.
PNG
media_image1.png
417
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Soon
Regarding claim 3, modified Toma teaches a positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery as discussed above with respect to claim 2.
As discussed above, Soon teaches the embodiment as illustrated in Figure 1 in which the boron-containing compound is included in the coating layer on the surface of the secondary particles. Also discussed above, Soon teaches the coating layer on the surface of the secondary particles in order to reduce contact between the lithium manganese oxide positive electrode material and the electrolyte to mitigate side reactions.
Soon is silent as to the element B is absent inside the secondary particles and present only on the surfaces of the secondary particles. However, it is reasonable to presume that this feature is inherent to Soon. Support for said presumption is found in that the coating of the element B on the lithium metal oxide secondary particles taught by Soon is similar to that of the instant disclosure (fourth step). The instant disclosure provides that the composite oxide in the fourth step is mixed with a compound including the element B is added in powder or aqueous state and the mixture is heat treated in order to include the element B on the surface of the secondary particles (Paragraph 0050). The instant disclosure provides examples of the compound including the element B such as B2O3 and a temperature of the heat treatment is between 150ºC and 300ºC (Paragraph 0051).
In the method of forming the boron-containing coating layer on the secondary particles of Soon, the surface of the secondary (polycrystalline) particle precursor in step (i) is coated with a boron-containing compound by mixing and heat treat the polycrystalline manganese precursor and the boron precursor (Paragraph 0064). Soon teaches the polycrystalline material being comprised of two or more primary particles which agglomerate to form a secondary particle (Paragraphs 0074-0075). Soon teaches the boron compound such as B2O3 added by dissolving it in polar solvent (Paragraph 0068-0070). Soon teaches that when the boron-containing compound is uniformly coated on the surface of the secondary particle (polycrystalline material), it is possible to minimize friction between particles and provide good crystallinity (Paragraphs 0071-0072). Soon further teaches that the boron-containing compound is formed on the surface of the secondary particles by heat treatment at a temperature range of 120ºC and 300ºC Paragraph 0070).
Thus, Soon teaches in the method of coating the polycrystalline material with boron which the boron-containing compound is the same material (B2O3) applied in the same form (dissolved in polar solvent) and at an overlapping temperature range as the instant disclosure. Further, Soon teaches the coating applied to the secondary particles in the method which are formed by the agglomeration of a plurality of primary particles, in order to achieve the desired crystallinity and reduce friction between particles. Additionally, Soon teaches the coating layer as the exterior layer on the polycrystalline particles so as to reduce the side reactions between the positive electrode active material and the electrolyte. Therefore, the ordinary artisan would expect the coating layer of the polycrystalline material of Soon which modified Toma above to remain on the surface of the secondary particles, as the boron coating layer taught by Soon is applied to the aggregated secondary structure in a similar manner as the instant disclosure.
Regarding claim 6, modified Toma teaches a positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Toma does not explicitly teach that the full width at half maximum n of a diffraction peak of a (208) plane in an X-ray diffraction pattern of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide is 0.30º< n < 0.55º.
It is reasonable to presume that the n of the diffraction peak of a (208) plane is inherent to Toma. Support for said presumption is found in that the lithium-transition metal composite oxide of Toma, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, comprises 80 mol% or more of Ni based on a total number of moles of metal elements excluding Li, a Co content of less than 5 mol% based on a total number of moles of metal elements excluding Li, and an element Ca present on the surfaces of the primary particles in an amount of 0.01 mol% or more and 1 mol% or less based on the total number of moles of the metal elements excluding Li. Further, Toma teaches the lithium composite oxide secondary particles formed by the aggregation of primary particles. The modification of Toma by Soon resulted in a coated layer of tungsten on the exterior of the secondary particles.
Further, Toma teaches in the process of forming the lithium transition metal composite oxide a mixing step wherein proportion of the precursor and the lithium compound is adjusted so that the ratio (Li/Me) of the sum (Me) of the metal atoms other than lithium to the number of atoms of lithium (Li) in the lithium mixture is 0.95 or more and 1.5 or less, preferably 1.0 or more and 1.2 or less, more preferably 1.0 or more and 1.1 or less. (Paragraph 0179). The instant application discloses the mixing ratio of the composite oxide obtained in the first step and the Li compound to be preferably within the range of 1:0.98 to 1:1.1 (Paragraph 0048). The mixing ratios of Toma overlap those of the instant application, suggesting inherent similarities in the process of forming the lithium metal composite oxide.
Toma teaches a calcination process which may be performed after the mixing process, which occurs between 1 and 10 hours in an oxidizing atmosphere (Paragraph 0202) at a temperature between 350 oC and 800oC in order to diffuse lithium into the precursor material and obtain uniform particles (Paragraph 0201). The instant application discloses the calcination of the mixture obtained in the second step which occurs in an oxygen atmosphere for 1 to 10 hours at a temperature of 450 oC and 850oC. The time, temperature, and oxygen presence in the calcination process of Toma overlap those of the instant application, suggesting inherent similarities in the process of forming the lithium metal composite oxide.
Toma modified by Soon teaches a lithium transition metal composite oxide having a layered structure and formed by the aggregation of primary particles to form secondary particles, and a coating on the surface of the secondary particles including boron
Further, Toma teaches a process of forming the layered primary particles including the mixing ratios and calcination step conditions which align with those of the instant application. It is therefore reasonable to presume that the crystallinity of the lithium metal composite oxide taught by Toma in view of Soon would result in an X-ray diffraction pattern where the full width at half max of the (208) plane is as claimed. Support for said presumption is also found in that Toma uses the same material for element A (calcium sulfate) (Paragraph 0110) to form an equivalent lithium metal composite oxide as the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, modified Toma teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising a positive electrode including the positive electrode active material according to claim 1, a negative electrode, and a non-aqueous electrolyte (Paragraph 0024).
Regarding claim 10, modified Toma teaches the positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1.
Toma does not explicitly teach the content of the element B is 0.1 mol% or more and 1 mol% or less based on the total number of moles of Ni in the composite oxide.
As discussed above, absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the coating thickness of boron on the secondary particles of positive electrode active material (and therefore the quantity of boron present on the surfaces of the secondary particles based on the total number of moles of Ni in the composite oxide) since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
In the present invention one would have been motivated to optimize the thickness of the boron coating layer on the secondary polycrystalline particles to obtain a quantity of boron present on the surfaces of the secondary particles based on the total number of moles of Ni in the composite oxide to be within the claimed ranges in order to achieve a favorable balance between suppressing side reactions between positive electrode material and electrolyte while also minimizing electrochemical degradation and resistance, as recognized by Soon.
Regarding claim 12, modified Toma teaches the positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 11.
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, Toma teaches the Formula (4) for the lithium-metal composite oxide represented by Li1+aNi1-x-yCoxMnyMzO2+β where -0.05 ≤ a ≤ 0.50, 0.02 ≤ x ≤ 0.30, 0.02 ≤ y ≤ 0.30, 0 ≤ z ≤ 0.05, and -0.5 ≤ β ≤ 0.5, where M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Mg, Ca, Al, Si, Fe, Cr, V, Mo, W, Nb, Ti, and Zr (Paragraph 0020).
Further calculated in the rejection of claim 1 was the mole percentage of nickel based on the total number of moles of metal elements excluding Li. When each element in the formula of Toma was set to the lower limit of the ranges taught by Toma, the general formula is as follows: Li0.95Ni0.96Co0.02Mn0.02M0O1.5. Accordingly, the mole percentage of nickel with respect to total number of moles of metal elements excluding Li is:
m
o
l
%
N
i
=
0.96
0.96
+
0.02
+
0.02
=
96
%
When each element is set to the upper limit of the ranges taught by Toma, the general formula is as follows: Li1.5Ni0.40Co0.30Mn0.30M0.05O2.5. Accordingly, the mole percentage of nickel with respect to total number of moles of metal elements excluding Li is:
m
o
l
%
N
i
=
0.40
0.40
+
0.30
+
0.30
+
0.05
=
38
%
Thus, the range of mole percentage of Nickel in the lithium-transition metal composite oxide with respect to the total number of moles of metal elements excluding Li is represented by 38-96% as calculated above. The range of mole percentage of Ni of Toma substantially overlaps the claimed range of 90% or more in the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
The Formula (4) of Toma teaches Mn present in the lithium-metal composite oxide with subscript y, 0.02 ≤ y ≤ 0.30 and M with subscript z, 0 ≤ z ≤ 0.05. Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select Al from the finite lists of possible combinations for M in the Formula for the metal oxide of Takahashi to arrive at the positive electrode active material of the instant claim since the combination of components would have yielded predictable results in a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
When each element in the formula of Toma was set to the lower limit of the ranges taught by Toma, the general formula is as follows: Li0.95Ni0.96Co0.02Mn0.02Al0O1.5. Accordingly, the mole percentage of Mn and Al with respect to total number of moles of metal elements excluding Li is:
m
o
l
%
M
n
+
A
l
=
0.02
+
0
0.96
+
0.02
+
0.02
=
2
%
When each element is set to the upper limit of the ranges taught by Toma, the general formula is as follows: Li1.5Ni0.40Co0.30Mn0.30Al0.05O2.5. Accordingly, the mole percentage of Mn and Al with respect to total number of moles of metal elements excluding Li is:
m
o
l
%
M
n
+
A
l
=
0.30
+
0.05
0.4
+
0.30
+
0.30
+
0.05
=
33
%
Thus, the range of mole percentage of Mn and Al in the lithium-transition metal composite oxide with respect to the total number of moles of metal elements excluding Li is represented by 2-33% as calculated above. The range of mole percentage of Mn and Al of Toma substantially overlaps the claimed range of 1 mol% to 5 mol% in the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 13, modified Toma teaches the positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the element B is B.
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, Toma in view of Soon teaches a coating layer comprising boron present on the surface of the secondary particles, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Claim 6 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toma in view of Soon as applied to claims 1-3, 6-7, 10, 12-13 above, further in view of Aoki (W.O. 2019131234 A1) (machine translation relied upon).
Further regarding claim 6, modified Toma teaches a positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Toma modified by Takahashi does not explicitly teach that the full width at half maximum n of a diffraction peak of a (208) plane in an X-ray diffraction pattern of the lithium-transition metal composite oxide is 0.30º< n < 0.55º.
Aoki discloses a lithium transition metal oxide for use in a positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Paragraph 0008). Aoki teaches the lithium transition metal oxide has a layered structure, wherein the ratio of Ni in the lithium transition metal oxide is 91 mol % to 99 mol % with respect to the total number of moles of metal elements excluding Li, a transition metal present in the layered structure from 1 mol % to 2.5 mol % relative to the total molar amount of the transition metal in the Ni-containing lithium transition metal oxide. Further, Aoki teaches that the X-ray diffraction pattern of this compound is characterized by a half-value width n of the diffraction peak of (208) plane to be 0.30° ≤ n ≤ 0.50° (Paragraph 0009). At these quantities, Aoki teaches the high capacity of the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery can be achieved as well as increase of the charge/discharge cycle characteristics (Paragraph 0011).
As discussed above with respect to claim 1, the lithium composite oxide of Toma modified by Takahashi contains a range of nickel with respect to the total number of moles of metal elements excluding Li calculated to be 38 to 96 mol%, which overlaps the range of Ni in the lithium transition metal oxide of Aoki. Further discussed in claim 1 is the presence of a transition metal (cobalt) present in the range of 2 to 29 mol% with respect to the total moles of metal elements excluding Li in the lithium metal composite oxide, which overlaps the molar percentage range of the transition metal of Aoki. Toma also teaches the core and shell portion of the primary particles which make up a layered structure of the lithium metal composite oxide. Thus, these similarities suggest that the lithium composite oxide of Toma modified by Takahashi is open to modification of Aoki.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the X-ray diffraction pattern of the lithium metal composite oxide of Toma modified by Takahashi to incorporate the teachings of Aoki in which the half-value width n of the diffraction peak of (208) plane to be 0.30° ≤ n ≤ 0.50°. Doing so would result in the suppression of the decrease of the charge/discharge cycle characteristics, as recognized by Aoki.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toma in view of Soon as applied to claims 1-3, 6-7, 10, 12-13 above, further of Kim (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20170358796 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Toma teaches the positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1.
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, Toma teaches the composition of the shell portion of the positive electrode material particles includes calcium (when M=Ca, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above).
Toma is silent as to the element A present on the surface of the primary particles is present as Sr.
However, Kim discloses a positive active material for a lithium ion secondary battery (Paragraph 0001). Kim teaches the positive electrode active material particles made of a lithium metal oxide composition (Formula 1) including metals such as nickel and cobalt in addition to lithium and oxygen (Paragraphs 00038-0039). Kim teaches the lithium metal oxide represented by Formula 1 may be in the form of secondary particles resulting from the agglomeration of primary particles (Paragraph 0042). Thus, Kim teaches a positive electrode active material which shares a similar structure and composition as that of the instant disclosure.
Further, Kim teaches a lithium-containing compound of Formula 2 in the form of a layer which may be disposed on the surface of the primary particles (Paragraph 0042). Kim teaches Formula 2 of the form Li2-xM’O3-y, where M’ is at least one element selected from Mg, Al, Ca, Ti, V, Cr, Fe, Cu, Zn, Ga, Sr, Y, Zr, Nb, Mo, Ru, and F; 0≦x≦1; and 0≦y≦3. As discussed above, Toma teaches the general formula 6 to represent the shell portion of the positive electrode material, comprising lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese, oxygen, and at least one element selected from Mg, Ca, Al, Si, Fe, Cr, V, Mo, W, Nb, Ti, and Zr. Thus, Kim teaches a coating for the secondary particles of positive electrode active material which shares a similar structure and composition as that of the instant disclosure.
Therefore, given the general teachings of Kim it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute strontium in the primary particle coating of Kim for calcium in the shell portion of Toma, because Kim teaches the coating for the primary particles may suitably be selected as strontium or calcium. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified composition would be useful as a coating/shell for the primary particles of Toma and possess the benefits of improved battery performance, initial efficiency, and rate and lifetime characteristics taught by Kim (Paragraph 0014). See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toma in view of Soon as applied to claims 1-3, 6-7, 10, 12-13, further in view of Li (Non-Patent Literature, “Is Cobalt Needed in Ni-Rich Positive Electrode Materials for Lithium Ion Batteries?”).
Regarding claim 11, modified Toma teaches the positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1.
Modified Toma does not teach the lithium-transition metal composite oxide is free of Co and contains Mn and Al.
However, Li discloses that NCA materials with formula LiNi1-x-yCoxAlyO2 widely used in the electric vehicle industry are traditionally believed to have enhanced properties due to cobalt and aluminum in these materials. Li studies the roles of different cation substituents in materials represented by LiNi1-nMnO2, where M=Al, Mn, Mg, or Co. Li teaches that cobalt brings little or no value at all to NCA-type materials with high nickel content (> 90% Ni), with materials such as LiNi0.95M0.05O2 (M= Al, Mn, or Mg) performing superior to NCA materials with 5% cobalt content (Abstract). Li also teaches the high price of cobalt as motivation for finding alternative NCA materials with minimal cobalt (Page A429, Column 1, Paragraph 1).
In particular, Li finds that Co content up to 5% does not effectively suppress phase transitions during charge and discharge, while 5% Mn, 5% Mg, and 5% Al materials represented by LiNi1-nMnO2, where M=Al, Mn, or Mg showed an effective suppression of phase transitions (Page A431, Column 2, Paragraph 3). Further, Li teaches that Co included in electrode active materials does not contribute to structural stabilization (Page A435, Column 2, Paragraph 2) or thermal stability (Page A436, Column 2, Paragraph 2) while cation substitution with Mn, Al, or Mg were able to lower the reactivity of the positive electrode material with the electrolyte (Page A436, Column 2, Paragraph 2).
As discussed above, Toma teaches the Formula (4) for the lithium-metal composite oxide represented by Li1+aNi1-x-yCoxMnyMzO2+β. The material for the positive electrode active material of Toma may be considered high nickel content according to Li, as the mole percentage of nickel in the lithium-transition metal composite oxide was calculated to be 38-96%, overlapping the > 90% nickel content set forth by Li.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lithium-metal composite oxide of Toma to incorporate the teachings of Li in which the cobalt is removed and replaced with substituted cations Al or Mn. As seen in the Formula 4 of Toma, the addition of Mn cations to replace Co in the formula would increase the subscript of Mn, (y), while the addition of Al cations would necessitate the ordinary artisan selecting Al from the finite list of possible combinations for the placeholder element M in the formula (4) of Toma and increasing the subscript of M, (z). Doing so would advantageously remove the expensive cobalt in the positive electrode active material without negatively impacting and even providing superior suppression of phase transitions, structural and thermal stability, and lower reactivity of the positive electrode material with the electrolyte, as recognized by Li.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toma in view of Soon as applied to claims 1-3, 6-7, 10, 12-13 above, further in view of Bergner (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220212950 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Toma teaches the positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1.
Toma is silent as to the element B is Nb.
As discussed above, Toma teaches the lithium-transition metal composite oxide includes secondary particles each formed by the aggregation of primary particles (Paragraph 0035). The modification of Toma in view of Soon taught a boron-containing coating layer present on the surface of the secondary lithium oxide particles in order to prevent direct contact between the lithium metal oxide and the electrolyte in order to suppress side reactions.
Further, Soon teaches that the boron-containing coating layer may include boron oxide (Paragraph 0038), and more specifically may include B2O3 (Paragraph 0040).
Bergner discloses a high-nickel content lithium transition metal oxide (Paragraphs 0001-0005) implemented as electrode active material in a positive electrode (Paragraphs 0103-0112). In an embodiment, Bergner teaches the material is comprised of secondary particles that are agglomerates of primary particles (Paragraph 0022). Bergner teaches in a specific embodiment of the present invention, the secondary particles are coated with a metal oxide, which may be suitably LiBO2, B2O3, Al2O3 , Y2O3, LiAlO2, TiO2, ZrO2, Li2ZrO3, Nb2O5, LiNbO3, Ta2O5, or LiTaO3 (Paragraph 0040).
Therefore, given the general teachings of Bergner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute niobium pentoxide (Nb2O5) secondary particle coating of Bergner for the boron trioxide (B2O3) secondary particle coating of Toma in view of Soon because Murakami teaches the coating applied to the surface of secondary particles formed by the agglomeration of primary particles may suitably be selected as B2O3 or Nb2O5. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the metal oxide would be useful as a coating applied to the surface of the secondary particles of the electrode active material of Toma. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
The result of the aforementioned modification is a niobium pentoxide (Nb2O5) coating on the secondary particles of lithium transition-metal oxide, thus meeting the instant claimed limitations of the element B is Nb.
Regarding claim 17, Toma teaches the positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 16.
Toma is silent as to the Nb is present as at least Nb2O5.
However, as discussed above in the modification of Toma by Bergner, the resulting structure is a niobium pentoxide (Nb2O5) coating on the secondary particles of lithium transition-metal oxide, thus meeting the instant claimed limitations of the Nb present as at least Nb2O5.
Response to Arguments
Response to Arguments: 35 USC § 103
In the remarks filed July 21st, 2026, applicant argues that Toma neither discloses nor suggests nor could have been modified such that element A would be present on the surfaces of the primary particles in a state in which it does not form a solid solution. Applicant argues that the shell portion containing Ca of Toma has a compositional gradient structure and forms part of the metal composite oxide represented by the general formula (6), thus Ca is incorporated into the crystal structure together with a transition metal such as Ni and forms a solid solution with Ni.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that applicant has not indicated the evidence of record which supports the conclusion that the shell portion of Toma comprising Ca has Ca incorporated into the crystal structure with Ni and thus forms a solid solution with Ni. Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See MPEP 716.01(c)(II).
While the Examiner acknowledges that Toma teaches the shell portion of the primary particles made of a composition comprising nickel and calcium (as exemplified in Formula 6), this is not sufficient grounds for the conclusion that the element A (Ca) forms a solid solution with Ni. Toma is silent as to the crystal structure, particularly the crystal lattice, of the shell portion of the invention of the disclosure.
Further, the Examiner presents that solid solutions require very specific structural arrangements. The applicant argues that because there is calcium and nickel present in the composition of the primary particle coat, the calcium is part of the crystal structure while contains transition metals such as nickel and forms a solid solution with Ni. The Examiner asserts that calcium forming a solid solution with nickel is not the only conclusion to draw when applying applicant’s logic of calcium present in the crystal structure with nickel, as there are additional transition metals are part of the composition of the shell portion.
In the remarks filed July 21st, 2026, applicant argues that the two-layer coating structure in which one element A and element B is disposed outside of the other, further distinguishes the claimed subject matter from the cited references, as Toma teaches a core-shell structure and therefore not a coating layer on the surfaces of the secondary particles. Applicant argues that Toma cannot be modified to include the element B disposed on the surfaces of the secondary particles, as this would impermissibly change its principle of operation.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that while applicant has alleged that the Toma does not teach a coating layer on the surfaces of the secondary particles and the modification with the secondary references would change the principle of operation, there is no explanation as to how such a modification would render the principle operation of Toma changed.
Further, the Examiner alleges further that Toma is in fact open to such a modification, as Toma teaches an embodiment in which the surface of the metal composite hydroxide (secondary particle) is coated with an element M after the second crystallization process (Paragraph 0127).
Applicant argues Takahashi describes only a single-layer coating containing W on the surfaces of the secondary particles and does not teach or suggest the element A on the surfaces of the primary particle. Applicant further argues Murakami is limited to only a uniform single-layer coating containing Al. Accordingly, applicant argues that none of the cited references disclose or suggest the two-layer structure in which a non-solid solution coating containing element A is disposed on the surfaces of the primary particles and a coating containing element B is disposed on the surfaces of the secondary particles.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents the in the rejection of record Toma disclosed a secondary particle structure formed from an aggregation of a plurality of primary particles, however the teachings of Takahashi/Murakami (and in the alternate rejection, Soon) were included to read on the instant claimed limitation of the coating layer on the surfaces of the secondary particles.
The Examiner presents that while applicant appears to be arguing that the references individually do not teach all of the claimed features, the Examiner presents that the rejection of the instant claimed limitations of record was made based on the combination of the teachings of the prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103. While Toma teaches the secondary particle structure formed from an aggregation of a plurality of primary particles, Soon was relied upon to teach a boron coating layer on the surface of the secondary particles in order to suppress side reactions between the lithium metal oxide and the electrolyte. Therefore, a proper obviousness was set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed April 21st, 2026 as the prior art of record renders obviousness and teaches each required component of the instant claims.
In the remarks filed July 21st, 2026, applicant argues the claimed ratio of the content of the element B to the content of the element A further distinguishes the claimed subject matter from the cited references, as the W/M ratio of Takahashi is different from the instant claimed ratio in that W/M ratio referenced by the Examiner is a ratio between elements contained within the surface layer and differs from the ratio between the elements A and B located in different layers of the instant claim.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Thus, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-8, 10, and 12-15 as being unpatentable over Toma in view of Takahashi set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed April 21st, 2026 has been withdrawn.
In the remarks filed July 21st, 2026, applicant argues that none of the cited references provide motivation or suggestion to control the ratio of the content of the element B to the content of the element A, as the content of the element A and the element B are independently selected parameters. Applicant argues that the cited references do not provide any recognition of the importance of this parameter.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that as described above, Toma teaches a quantity of the element A which is within the instant claimed range. As discussed above in the modification of Toma by Soon, the Examiner noted that Soon provides the motivation to tune the quantity of the thickness of the boron-coating layer on the secondary particles. It is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill to recognize that by tuning the thickness of the coating layer, the quantity of the element B, and therefore also the ratio of element B to A can also be optimized to within the claimed ranged. Appropriate motivation was provided by Soon in this rejection in order to strike a balance between suppressing side reactions between positive electrode material an electrolyte while also minimizing electrochemical degradation and resistance. Thus, the Examiner provides that a proper obviousness-type rejection was set forth with appropriate motivation provided in order to make such a modification to Toma to incorporate the teachings of Soon and control the thickness (and therefore quantity of element B) in the coating layer so it is not too thin or too thick (Paragraph 0044).
In the remarks filed July 21st, 2026, applicant argues the present claims offer advantages and have unexpected results that would be sufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner notes that it is the burden of Applicant to provide evidence that establishes that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. See MPEP 716.02(b)(I). Applicants have the burden of explaining proffered data. See MPEP 716.02(b)(II). It is further noted that in order to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, Applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. See MPEP 716.02(d) II. Additionally, the claims must be commensurate in scope with the proffered data to provide a nexus between the claims and the data establishing evidence of unexpected results. See MPEP 716.02(d).
The Examiner presents that while applicant provides the results are commensurate in scope with the instant claims, the Examples of the instant disclosure (1-36) provide specific values of the molar ratio between Ni, Co, and Al and incorporates additional materials comprising some subset of the transition metals of the instant claim. As such, the content of nickel and the content of cobalt in the lithium-transition metal composition oxide based on a total number of moles of metal elements excluding Li is certainly narrower than the broad ranges supported by the instant claims. Additionally, given that the additional metal elements excluding Li (Mn, Al, Ti, Nb, Fe, and Zn) may be included in any combination, the instant claim is certainly broader in scope than what is supported by the exemplary examples of the specification.
In the remarks filed July 21st, 2026, applicant argues that the essential teachings of Toma require a Co content as high as mol %, which is higher than the instant invention which low in order to obtain technical advantages. Applicant argues that although the claim Co content of less than 5 mol%, when viewed alone, might appear to overlap the lower limit of the range disclosed in Toma, the structural requirements of Toma (compositional gradient), presupposed the presence of a sufficient amount of Co.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that applicant’s arguments are not founded, as the range of cobalt taught by Toma overlaps with the range of the instant claim, irrespective of a compositional gradient. Further, the Examiner presents that the compositional gradient is not a requirement of Toma, just an example of an embodiment, as Toma teaches that the composition may be uniform throughout the shell portion (Paragraph 0068).
As applicant pointed out, Toma provides the overall composition of the lithium-metal composite oxide in the general formula (4), which includes the core and the shell structure. As cobalt in this formula is present in a range which overlaps that of the instant claimed range, the instant claimed limitation are met.
In the remarks filed July 21st, 2026, applicant argues that in high-Ni materials having a low Co content, Toma’s compositional gradient design could not provide its intended functions. Specifically, even if Toma were combined with the disclosures of the other cited references, a person skilled in the art would not have been able to reasonably predict the advantageous effect of inhibiting an increase in the DCR achieved by the present claims.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that Toma’s compositional gradient design could not perform its intended functions, there is no explanation as to the proposed modification being referred to nor how such a modification would render intended purposed of Toma unsatisfactory.
However, additionally, the Examiner presents that it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by the applicant. See MPEP § 2144 IV.
Cited Art Not Relied Upon
Baek (W.O. 2019088806 A1) discloses a lithium transition metal composite oxide for use as a positive electrode material in a lithium secondary battery (Paragraph 4), the lithium metal composite oxide comprising a coating layer which may include elements including strontium (Paragraph 45). More specifically, Baek teaches the presence of strontium in the form of strontium oxide on the surface of the lithium metal composite oxide particles to assist in the capture and decomposition of HF formed by the reaction with the electrolyte (Paragraph 69).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 OLIVIA A JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/O.A.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights