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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 5, 7-15 and 18 are currently pending;
Claims 1-4, 6, and 16-17 are currently canceled;
Claims 5 and 18 are currently amended.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending Since the Office Action of 07/24/2025
The claim objections of claims 5 and 18 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment;
The 112(b) rejections of claims 16-17 are moot in view of Applicant’s amendment canceling the claims;
The 103 rejections of claims 5, 7-15, and 18 are replaced with new 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in regards to the argument concerning a separate lithium source followed by forming an admixture with the active material (see Remarks, pgs. 5-6). While Applicant points out a distinct 3-step process in the Remarks on page 5, instant claim 5 itself does not include any language denoting a stepwise process. The instant claim requires a lithium component and a phosphorous component to be dissolved in an organic solvent and to be formed into an admixture with a positive electrode active material. There is no language requiring the lithium component to be completely separate from the active material. As such, the current rejection wherein Myung uses the free lithium on the surface of the positive electrode active material as the lithium component, the lithium component and the phosphorous component are dissolved in an organic solvent and form an admixture with the positive electrode active material reads on all of the limitations of lines 2-4 of currently amended instant claim 5.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (see argument concerning Yokoyama disclosing the polyphosphoric acid, Remarks pg. 6), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In regards to Applicant’s argument regarding the criticality of the 0.01-0.05 wt% of the coating layer based on a total weight of the composite positive electrode active material over Han, pointing towards fig. 6 for criticality, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Fig. 6 compares the Example to comparative examples 1 and 2. The Example uses a coating layer of 0.03 wt% (pg. 10, lines 1-15). However, Comparative Example 1 differs in that a coating layer was not formed at all (pg. 10, lines 17-19) and Comparative Example 2 differs in that a different phosphorous component and solvent was used (pg. 10, lines 21-24). There is no comparison of different coating weight percentages to show unexpected results or criticality of the 0.01 – 0.05 wt% range. 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. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
In regards to Applicant’s argument concerning Myung teaching away from the claimed the 0.01-0.05 wt% of the coating layer based on a total weight of the composite positive electrode active material, the Examiner agrees. Claims 5, 7-9, 11, 13-15, and 18 are now rejected over Han in view of Yokoyama, claim 10 is rejected over Han in view of Yokoyama and Myung, and claim 12 is rejected over Han in view of Yokoyama and Choi.
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, 7-9, 11, 13-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (KR-20160052170-A), hereinafter Han, in view of Yokoyama (US-20200388886-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Han teaches a method of preparing a composite positive electrode active material comprising: preparing a coating composition by dissolving a lithium component (pg. 6, paragraph 3 LiOH) and a phosphorous component (pg. 6, paragraph 4-6) in an organic solvent (pg. 7, paragraph 9 beginning with “The coating liquid may be prepared”; ethanol); forming an admixture by adding a positive electrode active material to the coating composition and performing stirring (pg. 7 paragraph 10 stirring); and heat treating the admixture to form the composite positive electrode active material comprising a core and a coating layer coated on the surface of the core (pg. 8, paragraphs 4-5), wherein a core comprises the positive electrode active material, and a coating layer including the coating composition is formed on the surface of the positive electrode active material (pg. 5 paragraph 7 beginning with “according to one embodiment, LiF and/or…”; Li3PO4 coating on a cathode active material), wherein the composite positive electrode active material comprises the coating layer in an amount of about 0.01 wt% to 0.05 wt% based on a total weight of the composite positive electrode active material (pg. 5; paragraph 8, beginning with “The content of the coating layer”; 0.01 to 10 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the core).
Han fails to teach wherein the phosphorous component comprises polyphosphoric acid. Instead, Han teaches that the phosphorous compound can be a combination of different phosphorous compounds such as H3PO4, (pg. 6, paragraph 8).
Yokoyama is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of composite positive electrode active materials. Yokoyama teaches wherein the phosphorous component comprises polyphosphoric acid ([0046]; [0042]; the phosphorous component can comprise polyphosphoric acid or phosphoric acid).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used polyphosphoric acid as the phosphorous component in replacement of or in addition to the H3PO4 of Han as they are art recognized equivalents that both react with lithium components such as LiOH to produce a Li3PO4 coating on a NMC cathode active material (Yokoyama [0042];[0045]-[0046] and Han, pg. 5 paragraph 7 beginning with “according to one embodiment, LiF and/or…”; Li3PO4 coating on a cathode active material).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used polyphosphoric acid of Yokoyama as the phosphorous component in addition to the H3PO4 of Han. Yokoyama teaches that the phosphoric acid concentrate containing the polyphosphoric acid can be used in addition to orthophosphoric acid (H3PO4). Doing so allows for a lower cost (Yokoyama [0015]) while still producing the Li3PO4 coated positive electrode active material (Yokoyama [0046]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Han teaches all of the limitations of claim 5. Han also teaches wherein the lithium component comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of lithium ethoxide, Li2CoO3, and LiOH (pg. 6, paragraph 3 LiOH).
Regarding claim 8, modified Han teaches all of the limitations of claim 5. Han also teaches wherein the organic solvent comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of an alcohol, a carbonate-based solvent, an ether-based solvent, and dimethyl sulfoxide (pg. 7, paragraph 9 beginning with “The coating liquid may be prepared”; ethanol).
Regarding claim 9, modified Han teaches all of the limitations of claim 5. Han also teaches that the positive electrode active material comprises Lia[NixCoyMnzM1-x-y-z]O2 (wherein, 1.0≤a≤1.2, 0.0≤x≤1.0, 0.1≤y≤1.0, 0.0≤z≤1.0, 0.0≤1-x-y-z≤0.3) (top of pg. 5 formula 2 of Lia(NixCoyMnz)O2 wherein 0.8 < a ≤ 1.2, 0.6 ≤ x ≤ 1, 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.4, 0 ≤ z ≤ 0.4; in terms of the instant claim language, the 1-x-y-z would be 0). 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).
Regarding claim 11, modified Han teaches all of the limitations of claim 5. Han also teaches drying the admixture before heat treating the admixture (pg. 7, paragraph 10 dried after stirring).
Regarding claim 12, modified Han teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 Han also teaches wherein the heat treating the admixture is performed at a temperature of about 300 °C to 500 °C (pg. 8, paragraph 5; 700°C or lower) 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).
Han fails to teach that the heat treating is performed in an oxygen atmosphere#####
Regarding claim 13, modified Han teaches all of the limitations of claim 5. Han also teaches wherein the coating layer comprises Li3PO4 (pg. 5 paragraph 7 beginning with “according to one embodiment, LiF and/or…”; Li3PO4 coating on a cathode active material).
Regarding claim 14, modified Han teaches all of the limitations of claim 5. Han is silent as to a thickness of the coating layer, including wherein the coating layer has a thickness of about 0.5 nm to 50 nm.
Yokoyama is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of composite positive electrode active materials. Yokoyama teaches wherein the coating layer has a thickness of about 0.5 nm to 50 nm ([0046]). 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Myung to incorporate a coating layer has a thickness of about 1 nm to 2 nm. Doing so results in favorable lithium ion conductivity (Yokoyama [0046]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Han teaches all of the limitations of claim 5. Han is silent as to a thickness of the coating layer, including wherein the coating layer has a thickness of about 1 nm to 2 nm
Yokoyama is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of composite positive electrode active materials. Yokoyama teaches that that the coating layer has a thickness of about 1 nm to 2 nm ([0046]). 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Myung to incorporate a coating layer has a thickness of about 1 nm to 2 nm. Doing so results in favorable lithium ion conductivity (Yokoyama [0046]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Han teaches all of the limitations of claim 5. Han also teaches an all-solid-state secondary battery comprising a composite positive electrode active material prepared by the method of claim 5 (pg. 10 paragraphs 6 and 8 organic solid electrolyte; pg. 11, paragraph 5 lithium battery).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Yokoyama as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Myung et al. (US-20160197346-A1), hereinafter Myung.
Regarding claim 10, modified Han teaches all of the limitations of claim 5. Han does not specific wherein the stirring is performed at a temperature of about -10°C to +10°C of the boiling point of the organic solvent.
Myung is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of Li3PO4 coatings for active materials ([0060]). Myung teaches wherein the stirring is performed at a temperature of about -10°C to +10°C of the boiling point of the organic solvent ([0043] the solvent may be evaporated at 60°C to 200°C; the solvent is ethanol [0013];[0060]; [0060] while the temperature was increased until the solvent was completely evaporated, the resultant solution was stirred continuously). 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).
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Han such that the stirring is performed at a temperature of about -10°C to +10°C of the boiling point of the organic solvent. Doing so helps evaporate the ethanol solvent while the components can continuously react (Myung [0060] and by-products can be evaporated (Myung [0043]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Yokoyama as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US-20180090782-A1), hereinafter Choi.
Regarding claim 12, modified Han teaches all of the limitations of claim 5. Han also teaches that the heat treating the admixture is performed at a temperature of about 300°C to 500°C (pg. 8, paragraph 5; 700°C or lower). 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).
Han fails to specify that the heat treating is performed in an oxygen atmosphere.
Choi is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of composite positive electrode active materials ([0027]). Choi teaches that the heat treating is performed in an oxygen atmosphere ([0100]).
Han and Choi are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of composite positive electrode active materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Han to incorporate the oxygen atmosphere in the heat treating step. Doing so ensures that the lithium metal phosphate particles having an amorphous state are transformed into a crystalline state (Choi [0099]), therefore producing a positive electrode active material with increased structural stability and prevented side reactions of an electrolyte and a positive electrode active material (Choi [0027]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
JP- 2016508115-A teaches that when forming a lithium phosphate coating on an active material, the coating may be formed from excessive lithium and phosphorous precursor material or from additional lithium and phosphorous compounds while still forming the coating layer ([0051]).
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 MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM ET.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/M.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722