DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/26/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
This Office action is responsive to amendments and remarks filed on 5/26/2026.
Claims 1, and 2 have been amended.
Claims 4-6 have been cancelled.
Claim 7 is newly added.
Claims 1-3, and 7 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that SATOW discloses "a mixture of two types of particles: a surface-modified lithium cobaltate having a compound containing zirconium and fluorine adhered to part of the surface". SATOW [0012] discloses "the compound containing fluorine and at least one selected from zirconium, magnesium" thereby anticipating the presence of both zirconium and magnesium on the surface of the particles. The claim does not necessitate the restriction of only one type of particle in the claim. Other particles that are adhered to the surface of the larger particle reads on the limitation of the claim as written. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, or show features not claimed, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., being free of fluorine, and the zirconium being a separate particle on the surface of the larger particle) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims are silent as to the presence of fluorine or that only zirconium alone must present.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, and 7 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a plurality of projections” This limitation is indefinite because it is not clear if these projections ore superficial or if it is necessitated that these projections originate from the interior of the particle. For examination purposes the claim will be interpreted as adhering to and projecting away from the surface of the particles.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "A vehicle according to claim 1" in the preamble of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. For examination purposes the claim will be interpreted to be dependent on claim 3 which claims a vehicle comprising the secondary battery according to claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20160013478 A1, SATOW et al. with Zirconium oxide and the crystallinity hallows by Roberto NISTICÒ used as a reference for physical properties.
Regarding claim 1. [0010] A secondary battery comprising:
[0011] a positive electrode; and
[0012] a negative electrode, wherein
the positive electrode comprises
a positive electrode active material particle comprising lithium cobalt oxide, called lithium cobaltate, nickel, magnesium, and aluminum, wherein
[0074-0075] discloses a concentration of magnesium in a surface (adhered) portion of the positive electrode active material particle is higher than a concentration of magnesium in an inner portion of the positive electrode active material particle, [0011] also envisions “a compound adhered to part of a surface thereof, the compound containing fluorine and at least one selected from zirconium, magnesium…” (The presence of fluorine in SATOW is still within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.) wherein
[0054] the positive electrode active material particle comprises a plurality of projections comprising zirconium oxide, and wherein
SATOW does not explicitly disclose the zirconium oxide has crystallinity,
However, when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § § 2112- 2112.02.
SATOW does not explicitly disclose the crystallinity of the zirconium oxide as claimed in the instant application, however because SATOW [0124] uses zirconium oxide along with a heat treatment of 500 °C it would be reasonable to conclude that the properties of the instantly claimed invention e.g. the crystallinity of the coating would also be the same.
NISTICÒ figure 3 shows support that ZrO2 is monoclinic (i.e. crystalline) at temperatures between 300 - 1000 degrees C.
Regarding claim 2. The secondary battery according to claim 1,
[0012] wherein the positive active material particle comprises fluorine, and
[0020] wherein a concentration of fluorine in a surface portion of the positive electrode active material particle is higher than a concentration of fluorine in the inner portion of the positive electrode active material particle SATOW discloses 0.558% fluorine.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160013478 A1, SATOW et al. in view of US 20040108840 A1, MORRISSETTE.
Regarding claims 3 and 7. SATOW does not disclose a vehicle comprising the secondary battery disclosed by SATOW according to claim 1.
a control circuit portion electrically connected to the secondary battery, wherein
the control circuit portion comprises a memory circuit comprising
a transistor, and wherein
the transistor comprises an oxide semiconductor.
MORRISSETTE [title] discloses A Voltage Regulator Having Enhanced Regulation Over Vehicle Charging System where
MORRISSETTE [abstract] discloses a vehicle using a secondary battery thereby meeting the limitations of claim 3 and also discloses,
[0006] a control circuit portion, called a microcontroller electrically connected to the secondary battery, wherein
[0017-0019] the control circuit portion comprises a memory circuit, that is achieved by a voltage regulator comprising
a transistor, and wherein the transistor comprises an oxide semiconductor called a metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor (MOSFET) to set the output voltage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have uses the microcontroller disclosed by MORRISSETTE in this vehicle that would use the battery disclosed by SATOW.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE LA RAIA III whose telephone number is (703)756-5441. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 6:00am-4:00pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571) 272-1330. 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.
LAWRENCE LA RAIA III
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights