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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 2/19/2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The rejection of claims 1-4, 7 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 is maintained.
The rejection of claims 5-6 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Yonekawa does not require the use of a linear alkyl group within the phosphorus based coating or even a phosphorus based coating at all and that these materials are favored for surface coverage leading to improved performance. However, Yonekawa does describe a specific examples containing the phosphorus coating with linear alkyl groups as discussed in the previous office action in the rejection of claim 1. Furthermore, evidence of secondary considerations, such as unexpected results or commercial success, is irrelevant to 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections and thus cannot overcome a rejection so based. In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 543, 179 USPQ 421, 425 (CCPA 1973).
Applicant also argues the reference, Ho, is silent as to a coating layer on the claimed cathode material and there is no motivation to combine Ho with Yonekawa. However, the rejection of claims 8 and 10 in the previous office action outline the obviousness of replacing the active material of Yonekawa with the active material of Ho as taught by Ho as an obvious substitution of one active material for another.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yonekawa (JP2006139945, reference made to attached English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Yonekawa discloses a coated cathode active material comprising a cathode active material and a coating layer(¶[0007]); wherein the coating layer of the coated cathode active material is derived from a phosphorus-containing compound, wherein the phosphorus-containing compound has a chemical structure that satisfies general formula (1),wherein R1 is alkyl (methyl, ethyl, isopropyl, see Table 2 examples 1-8 MAP, EAP and PAP), and R2 is H; wherein each aforementioned alkyl group has a linear configuration and not a branched nor a ring configuration; wherein the coating layer is a monolayer of the phosphorus-containing compound(¶[0023], see surface is sufficiently coated); and wherein the cathode active material has a specific surface area of 0.72 m2/g (Table 2, examples 1-8).
PNG
media_image1.png
101
131
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(1)
Regarding claim 2, Yonekawa discloses a coated cathode active material according to claim 1, wherein R1 is alkyl (methyl, ethyl, isopropyl, see Table 2), and R2 is H; wherein each of the alkyl is optionally substituted where methyl and ethyl are not substituted and in the case of isopropyl(PAP) the linear chain is ethyl and there is a methyl substitution.
Regarding claim 3 and 4, Yonekawa discloses a coated cathode active material according to claim 1, R1 is C1-C10 alkyl(methyl, ethyl, isopropyl, see Table 2), and wherein R2 is H.
Regarding claim 7, Yonekawa discloses a coated cathode active material according to claim 1, wherein the cathode active material is LiMnO2 (¶[0059]).
Regarding claim 20, Yonekawa discloses a cathode for a secondary battery, comprising the coated cathode active material according to claim 1(¶[0067]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonekawa (JP2006139945, reference made to attached English translation).
Regarding claim 5, Yonekawa discloses a coated cathode active material according to claim 1 and further discloses the surface area may be 0.1-10 m2/g (¶[0015]) and the coating amount may be 0.1-15% by weight(¶[0023]) leading to materials wherein the amount of phosphorus-containing compound coated per unit surface area of cathode active material particles is from about 0.1 µmol/m2 to about 30 µmol/m2.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Yonekawa discloses a coated cathode active material according to claim 1 and also discloses the coating layer must sufficiently coat the active material to provide the modifying effects(¶[0023]) such as suppressing gas generation and improving storage characteristics(¶[0055]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized optimizing the weight% of the coating layer would modify the thickness of the coating layer and thereby provide improved gas generation and storage characteristics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have optimized the weight/thickness of the coating layer to improve gas generation and storage characteristics.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonekawa (JP2006139945, reference made to attached English translation). as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ho (US20190157681).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Yonekawa discloses a coated cathode active material according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the cathode active material comprises or is a core-shell composite having a core and shell structure.
Ho, related to cathode materials, teaches a cathode active material may be LiMnO2 or may comprise a core shell structure where the shell may be LiCoO2, LiNiO2, LiV2O5, LiTiS2, LiMoS2, LiMnO2, LiCrO2, LiMn2O4 or may also be Fe2O3, MnO2, Al2O3, MgO, ZnO, TiO2, La2O3, CeO2, SnO2, ZrO2, RuO2, and combinations thereof (¶[0049]).
It would have been obvious to substitute the cathode active material of Yonekawa with the core-shell type active cathode material of Ho because Ho teaches the use of active materials with core-shell structures as an alternative to active material similar to those used by Yonekawa.
The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding claim 10, Yonekawa discloses a coated cathode active material according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the cathode active material is doped with a dopant selected from the group consisting of Co, Cr, V, Mo, Nb, Pd, F, Na, Fe, Ni, Mn, Al, Mg, Zn, Ti, La, Ce, Sn, Zr, Ru, Si, Ge, and combinations thereof.
Ho, related to cathode materials, teaches a cathode active material may be doped with Fe, Ni, Mn, Al, Mg, Zn, Ti, La, Ce, Sn, Zr, Ru, Si, Ge, and combinations thereof.
It would have been obvious to substitute the cathode active material of Yonekawa with the doped active cathode material of Ho because Ho teaches the use of active materials with doped structures as an alternative to active material similar to those used by Yonekawa.
The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
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 KAREN J. ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am-6 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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.J.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 21 April 2026
Prosecution Insights