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
In view of the amendment on claim 1 the rejection under U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-10 is withdrawn.
New analysis follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 and its dependent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 07/17/26 is sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-10 based upon a lack of However, upon further search and consideration, new analysis follows.
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, 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et. al. (KR20190093453A, as cited in IDS dated 3/10/23, reference made to attached English translation) in view of Isao et. al. (CNCN103606671A, reference made to English translation)
Regarding claim 1, 3, and 6-10, Lee discloses a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery of the formula Li(Ni0.8Co0.1Mn0.1)O2, comprising:
secondary particles, wherein each secondary particle comprises an agglomerate of primary macro particles, wherein an average particle size (D50) of the primary macro particles is 2 μm and the crystallite size is 260 nm and an average particle size (D50) of the secondary particles is 6 μm (¶[0121])
but does not disclose wherein a part of a surface of each secondary particle is coated with a cobalt compound and an aluminum compound.
Isao, related to positive electrode materials, teaches a lithium nickel transition metal-based oxide with a surface coating containing Co and Al(¶[0016]) and are LiAlO2 and LiCoO2(¶[0017]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized adding the Co and Al coating layer to the positive electrode material of Lee would have reduced occurrence of side reactions and improved cycle performance and safety (¶[0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have added the coating layer of Isao to the positive electrode material of Lee to reduce occurrence of side reactions and improve cycle performance and safety.
Regarding claim 4, modified Lee teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 1 and Isao further teaches the cobalt coating may be Co3O4(¶[0017]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lee teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 1 and Isao further teaches the aluminum coating component may be Al2O3(¶[0017]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Lee teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 1 and Lee further teaches a positive electrode comprising the positive electrode active material of claim 1(¶[0145]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Lee teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 1 and Lee further teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising the positive electrode active material of claim 1(¶[0147]).
Claim 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et. al. (KR20190093453A, as cited in IDS dated 3/10/23, reference made to attached English translation) in view of Isao et. al. (CNCN103606671A, reference made to English translation) and further in view of Baek et. al. (WO2019088806 as previously cited, reference made to US20200083524 as English translation).
Regarding claim 2, modified Lee teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 1 but does not disclose wherein the cobalt compound and the aluminum compound are in a dot pattern.
Baek, related to positive electrode materials, teaches a lithium nickel cobalt manganese based oxide(¶[0071]) with a surface coating containing Co and Al(¶[0072]) and further teaches the Co and Al coating may be partially formed on the surface covering 5% up to <100% of the surface which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize these sections of coverage as dots(¶[0074]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized using the coverage of the coating layer as taught by Baek in the positive electrode material of Lee would achieve suppression of the occurrence of a side reactions, thereby improving life characteristics when used in a battery (¶[0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used the coverage of the coating layer of Baek in the positive electrode material of Lee to provide a system where the coating on the surface of the active material suppresses the occurrence of side reactions thereby improving life characteristics when used in a battery.
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 /RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
