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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 12/30/2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS’ filed 3/13/2023, 5/17/2024, 3/10/2025, 10/28/2025, and 1/8/2026 have been considered by examiner.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cheng et al. (US 2023/0121840, hereinafter "Cheng").
Regarding claim 1, Cheng teaches a lithium-rich oxide coated by a carbon layer used as an additive in a positive electrode [0059, “The carbon-coated lithium-rich oxide composite material may be used as the additives to provide the irreversible lithium consumed in the initial charge-discharge process of the positive electrode material”]. Since the carbon layer is coated onto the lithium-rich oxide, the carbon is inherently adsorbed onto a surface of the lithium-rich oxide. Cheng further discloses that the lithium-rich oxide may be Li6CoO4 (“lithium cobalt oxide”) [0059, The lithium-rich oxide is anti-fluorite structures Li5FeO4 or Li6CoO4”]. The lithium-rich oxide formula of Li6CoO4 is equivalent to the Chemical Formula 1 recited in claim 1 when p is 6 and q is 0.
Further regarding claim 2, Cheng teaches that the lithium-rich oxide is mixed with a carbon source to obtain the carbon-coated lithium-rich oxide composite material [0010]. Cheng discloses that the carbon source for the carbon coating may be one or more of conductive carbon black, Ketjen black, carbon nanotube, acetylene black, or graphene [0018]. Cheng also teaches a specific example of carbon-coated Li6CoO4, Example 6, wherein the carbon source is carbon black [0068].
Further regarding claim 6, Cheng teaches that based on the total weight of the lithium-rich oxide and the carbon source, the carbon source is 0.5-10 wt % [0019]. In other words, the ratio of the parts by weight of the carbon source to the parts by weight of the lithium-rich oxide is in a range of 0.5:99.5 to 10:90, which translates to 0.5 wt % to 11.1 wt % of the carbon source based on the total weight of the lithium-rich oxide, or 0.5 parts by weight of the carbon source to 11.1 parts by weight of the carbon source based on 100 parts by weight of the lithium-rich oxide, which is within the recited range of 0.1 to 20. Cheng also teaches a specific example of carbon-coated Li6CoO4, Example 6, wherein the carbon source is 2 wt % of the of the total weight of the carbon-coated Li6CoO4, or 2.04 parts by weight of the carbon source with respect to 100 parts by weight of the Li6CoO4 [0068].
Further regarding claim 8, Cheng teaches a specific example of carbon-coated Li6CoO4, Example 6, wherein the average particle size of Li6CoO4 is 5 µm, which is within the recited range of 0.1 to 10 µm [0068, “Li6CoO4 obtained by sintering is crushed until the average particle size is 5 μm”].
Further regarding claim 9, Cheng teaches that Li6CoO4 has an anti-fluorite structure [0059, “The lithium-rich oxide is anti-fluorite structures Li5FeO4 or Li6CoO4”]. Guo et al. (Bifunctional Li6CoO4 serving as prelithiation reagent and pseudocapacitive electrode for lithium ion capacitors, hereinafter “Guo”) describes the crystal structure of Li6CoO4. Li6CoO4 is tetragonal, with an anti-fluorite structure which belongs to the space group of P42/nmc [Guo, pg. 40, col. 1]. Therefore, the Li6CoO4 of the additive taught by Cheng must also have a tetragonal structure with a space group of P42/nmc, since, “if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present” [see MPEP 2112.01(II)].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US 2023/0121840) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ahn et al. (KR 20160107737, cited in applicant's IDS dated 3/13/2023, making reference to examiner-provided English translation thereof, hereinafter "Ahn").
Regarding claim 3, Cheng teaches the positive electrode additive of claim 1, as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. Cheng is silent regarding the carbon layer having a surface modified with a functional group.
Ahn teaches analogous art of a cathode (“positive electrode”) active material comprising a core particle including a compound capable of doping and dedoping lithium, and a coating layer positioned on the surface of the core particle, wherein the coating layer includes a surface-modified carbon particle having a reactive functional group introduced to the particle surface [0014]. Ahn teaches that the reactive functional groups may include one or more a hydroxyl group, a carboxyl group, and an amino group [0018].
Cheng teaches that lithium-rich oxides have insufficient conductivity, which is overcome with the carbon layer coated on the surface of the lithium-rich oxide [0006, “The insufficient conductivity of the lithium-rich oxide is overcome by the carbon-coated layer”]. Ahn teaches the surface-modified carbon particles have excellent electrical conductivity, which improves the electrical conductivity of the material [0042, “surface-modified carbon particles having excellent electrical conductivity on the surface of a core particle”, “thereby … improving electrical conductivity”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carbon layer of the positive electrode additive taught by Cheng to include surface-modified carbon particles having a functional group such as a hydroxyl group, a carboxyl group, and an amino group on their surface as taught by Ahn, in order to further improve the conductivity of the additive.
Regarding claim 4, Cheng teaches the positive electrode additive of claim 1, as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. Cheng is silent regarding the carbon layer having a surface containing a different compound.
Ahn teaches analogous art of a cathode (“positive electrode”) active material comprising a core particle including a compound capable of doping and dedoping lithium, and a coating layer positioned on the surface of the core particle, wherein the coating layer includes a surface-modified carbon particle having a reactive functional group introduced to the particle surface [0014]. Ahn teaches that the carbon particles may be surface-modified by impregnating the carbon particles with an amine compound [0095, “Specifically, the surface-modified carbon particles can be manufactured … by impregnating carbon particles with an amine compound”, 0097, “in the case of surface-modifying the carbon particles by impregnating them with an amine compound”]. Ahn teaches that the amine compound may include tetraethylenetetramine [0098, “the amine compound may specifically include diethylenetetramine (DETA) or tetraethylenetetramine (TETA)”].
Cheng teaches that lithium-rich oxides have insufficient conductivity, which is overcome with the carbon layer coated on the surface of the lithium-rich oxide [0006, “The insufficient conductivity of the lithium-rich oxide is overcome by the carbon-coated layer”]. Ahn teaches the surface-modified carbon particles have excellent electrical conductivity, which improves the electrical conductivity of the material [0042, “surface-modified carbon particles having excellent electrical conductivity on the surface of a core particle”, “thereby … improving electrical conductivity”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carbon layer of the positive electrode additive taught by Cheng to include surface-modified carbon particles impregnate with an amine such as tetraethylenetetramine as taught by Ahn, in order to further improve the conductivity of the additive.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US 2023/0121840) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yasuda et al. (WO 2015011883, cited in applicant's IDS dated 3/13/2023, making reference to examiner-provided English translation thereof, hereinafter "Yasuda").
Regarding claim 5, Cheng teaches the positive electrode additive of claim 1, as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. Cheng is silent regarding how much of the surface of the Li6CoO4 the carbon layer is coated on.
Yasuda teaches analogous art of a pre-dopant for a positive electrode (“positive electrode additive”) comprising a lithium manganese-based oxide and a carbon material [pg. 4, “the pre-dopant comprises a lithium manganese-based oxide having a basic composition of Li6MnO4 and a carbon material”, “a positive electrode material containing a positive electrode active material and the above-described pre-dopant”]. Yasuda teaches the pre-dopant preferably comprises a lithium manganese-based oxide core and a coating having the carbon material covering the core [pg. 12, “the pre-dopant preferably comprises a core portion having the lithium manganese-based oxide and a coating having a carbon material and covering the core portion”]. Yasuda teaches that the entire surface, or 100% of the surface, of the core can be covered with the carbon material coating [pg. 12, “the entire core portion can be reliably covered with the coating”, pg. 15, “by covering the entire surface of the core portion”].
Yasuda teaches that it is preferable to cover the entire surface of the core with the carbon material coating in order to prevent moisture from the atmosphere entering the core and causing a decomposition reaction of the core material, reducing the amount of Li [pg. 13, “the entire portion will not be covered with the coating, and when the battery is not in use, moisture from the atmosphere may enter the core portion, causing a decomposition reaction of the lithium manganese oxide … resulting in a decrease in the amount of Li”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carbon layer of the positive electrode additive taught by Cheng to cover the entire surface of the lithium-rich oxide as taught by Yasuda, in order to prevent a decomposition reaction of the lithium-rich oxide and a loss of Li.
Regarding claim 7, Cheng teaches the positive electrode additive of claim 1, as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. Cheng is silent regarding the average thickness of the carbon layer.
Yasuda teaches analogous art of a pre-dopant for a positive electrode (“positive electrode additive”) comprising a lithium manganese-based oxide and a carbon material [pg. 4, “the pre-dopant comprises a lithium manganese-based oxide having a basic composition of Li6MnO4 and a carbon material”, “a positive electrode material containing a positive electrode active material and the above-described pre-dopant”]. Yasuda teaches the pre-dopant preferably comprises a lithium manganese-based oxide core and a coating having the carbon material covering the core [pg. 12, “the pre-dopant preferably comprises a core portion having the lithium manganese-based oxide and a coating having a carbon material and covering the core portion”]. Yasuda teaches that the thickness of the coating is preferably 5 nm or more and 300 nm or less, which encompasses the recited range of 10 nm to 200 nm [pg. 12, “the thickness of the coating is … more preferably 5 nm or more and 300 nm or less”]. 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), see MPEP 2144.05(I)].
Yasuda teaches that within the disclosed thickness range, the entire core is reliably covered and the intrusion of air is prevented from entering the core [pg. 12-13, “In this case, the entire core portion can be reliably covered with the coating, and the intrusion of air into the core portion can be reliably prevented”]. Yasuda discloses that if the coating is too thin, the entire surface of the core is not covered with the carbon material coating and moisture from the atmosphere enters the core, causing a decomposition reaction of the core material and reducing the amount of Li [pg. 13, “the entire portion will not be covered with the coating, and when the battery is not in use, moisture from the atmosphere may enter the core portion, causing a decomposition reaction of the lithium manganese oxide … resulting in a decrease in the amount of Li”]. Yasuda further discloses that if the coating is too thick, the amount of lithium manganese-based oxide in the core may be reduced, resulting in a decrease of Li released [pg. 13, “if the coating is too thick, the amount of lithium manganese oxide may be relatively reduced, resulting in a decrease in the amount of Li released”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carbon layer of the positive electrode additive taught by Cheng to have a thickness within the range taught by Yasuda, in order to prevent a decrease in the amount of Li.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA F OROZCO whose telephone number is (571)272-0172. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.F.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729