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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/02/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
2. Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 03/30/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-12 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Claims 8-12 have been withdrawn.
The amendments and remarks filed are sufficient to cure the previous 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections set forth in the Non-Final office action mailed on 01/07/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (Pub. No. JP 2015201388 A) in view of Du et al. (Pub. No. US 20210126242 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshida teaches a positive electrode active material (positive electrode active material, see [0014]) for an all-solid-state battery (all solid secondary battery, see [0051] wherein the positive electrode active material is used in an all solid secondary battery), the positive electrode active material comprising (positive electrode active material, see [0014]): a core (core particle, see [0014]) containing a lithium metal oxide (lithium transition metal complex oxide, see [0014]); and a shell (covering layer, see [0014], the examiner would like to mention covering and coating layer in this application are one in the same for reference purposes) adsorbed onto a surface (surface of the core particle, see [0014] the covering layer is present on the surface not inside the material, therefore it is adsorbed) of the core (core particle, see [0014]) and containing niobium (Nb) (niobium, see [0014], see [0038] a specific example is coated in a niobium compound) and tungsten (W) (tungsten, see [0014], see [0037] gives specific example of coating with tungsten): but fails to teach wherein the lithium metal oxide is represented by the following Chemical Formula 1: Li.sub.x[Ni.sub.yCo.sub.zMn.sub.wM.sup.1.sub.v]O.sub.u [Chemical Formula 1] in Chemical Formula 1, M.sup.1 is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of W, Cu, Fe, V, Cr, Ti, Zr, Zn, Al, In, Ta, Y, La, Sr, Ga, Sc, Gd, Sm, Ca, Ce, Nb, Mg, B, and Mo, and x, y, z, w, v, and u satisfy 1.0≤x≤1.30, 0.7≤y≤0.95, z≤0.07, 0.01<w≤0.3, 0≤v≤0.1, and 1.5≤u≤4.5.
However, Du teaches wherein a lithium metal oxide (lithium-nickel transition metal oxide, see [0036]) is represented by the following Chemical Formula 1: Li.sub.x[Ni.sub.yCo.sub.zMn.sub.wM.sup.1.sub.v]O.sub.u (LiNi.sub.0.9Co.sub.0.05Mn.sub.0.05O.sub.2, see [0036] where the lithium-nickel transition metal oxide is LiNi.sub.0.9Co.sub.0.05Mn.sub.0.05O.sub.2) [Chemical Formula 1] in Chemical Formula 1, M.sup.1 (see below where v can be equal to zero, therefore M.sup.1 goes to zero) is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of W, Cu, Fe, V, Cr, Ti, Zr, Zn, Al, In, Ta, Y, La, Sr, Ga, Sc, Gd, Sm, Ca, Ce, Nb, Mg, B, and Mo, and x, y, z, w, v, and u satisfy 1.0≤x≤1.30 (1, see [0036]), 0.7≤y≤0.95 (0.9, see [0036]), z≤0.07 (0.05, see [0036]), 0.01<w≤0.3 (0.05, see [0036]), 0≤v≤0.1 (0, see [0036]), and 1.5≤u≤4.5 (2, see [0036]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yoshida to substitute the lithium transition metal complex oxide as taught by Yoshida for the lithium-nickel transition metal oxide represented by formula LiNi.sub.0.9Co.sub.0.05Mn.sub.0.05O.sub.2 as taught by Du as an art effective equivalent lithium transition metal complex oxide to improve energy density of the battery (see [0036] of Du). Further Yoshida teaches that the core particle may be a known lithium transition metal complex oxide (see [0019]).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshida in view of Du teaches wherein niobium (Nb) (niobium, see [0014], see [0038] a specific example is coated in a niobium compound) and tungsten (W) (tungsten, see [0014], see [0037] gives specific example of coating with tungsten) are in the form of a mixture (see [0027] wherein the first material is coated, see [0032] wherein the niobium is coated after creating a layered mixture) of niobium oxide particles (niobium oxide, see [0038] where an example shows niobium oxide was used) and tungsten oxide particles (tungsten oxide (VI), see [0028] wherein the element M can be an oxide form, see [0037] gives a specific example where tungsten oxide (VI) was used) or in the form of niobium tungsten oxide particles.
Regarding claim 3, Yoshida in view of Du teaches wherein the niobium (Nb) (niobium, see [0014], see [0038] a specific example is coated in a niobium compound) and tungsten (W) (tungsten, see [0014], see [0037] gives specific example of coating with tungsten) are contained in an amount of 0.01 to 5 wt % (2.77%, see math below) with respect to the total weight (100.2, see math below) of the positive electrode active material (positive electrode active material, see [0014]).
Math Calculations: Assuming 1 mol of core particle material, (see [0037] Tungsten is 0.5 mol%), (see [0038] niobium is 2 mol%), Nb = Niobium, W = Tungsten
Niobium/Tungsten Wt% = (wt of W + wt of Nb)/Total Weight *100 = (1.858+0.919)/100.2 *100 = 2.7%
Wt of W = mm of W*mol percent = 183.84*0.005 = 0.919 g
Wt of Nb = mm of Nb*mol percent = 92.906*0.02 = 1.858 g
Total Weight = Wt of Nb + Wt of W + Wt of Core = 1.858 + 0.919 + 97.455
Wt of Core = (molar ratio of each component)*(each components respective molar mass) = (1*mm of Li) + (0.9 * mm of Ni) + (0.05 * mm of Co) + (0.05 * mm of Mn) + (2 * mm of O) = 97.455 g/mol (assumed 1 mol so Wt of Core = 97.455 g).
Regarding claim 5, Yoshida in view of Du teaches wherein a content ratio (Nb/W) of the niobium (Nb) (niobium, see [0014], see [0038] a specific example is coated in a niobium compound) to the tungsten (W) (tungsten, see [0014], see [0037] gives specific example of coating with tungsten) is 0.1 to 3.0 (2.02, Wt of Nb/Wt of W = content ratio = 1.858 g/0.919 g = 2.02, see [0037] Tungsten is 0.5 mol%, see [0038] niobium is 2 mol%, calculating for 1 mol of core material: Wt of W = mm of W*mol percent = 183.84*0.005 = 0.919 g, Wt of Nb = mm of Nb*mol percent = 92.906*0.02 = 1.858 g).
Regarding claim 7, Yoshida in view of Du teaches wherein the shell (covering layer, see [0014]) is adsorbed onto 60% or more (100%, see [0027] 1st coating material covers whole surface, see [0032] covers whole surface of 1st coating material) of the total surface area (whole surface, see [0027] and [0032]) of the core (core particle, see [0014]). See 112 rejection above for interpretation.
5. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (Pub. No. JP 2015201388 A) in view of Du et al. (Pub. No. US 20210126242 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (Pub. No. WO 2021125869 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshida in view of Du teaches wherein the niobium (Nb) (niobium, see [0014], see [0038] a specific example is coated in a niobium compound) is contained at 2,500 ppm or more (18583 ppm, see calculations below) with respect to the total positive electrode active material (positive electrode active material, see [0014]), but fails to teach the tungsten (W) is contained at 6,000 ppm or less with respect to the total positive electrode active material.
Calculations: Assuming 1 mol of core particle material, (see [0037] Tungsten is 0.5 mol%), (see [0038] niobium is 2 mol%), Nb = Niobium, W = Tungsten
PPM of Nb = mass percent of Nb*1,000,000 = 0.018538*1000000 = 18528 ppm
Mass percent of Nb = Wt of Nb/Total Active Material Weight = 1.858/100.2 = 0.018583
Wt of W = mm of W*mol percent = 183.84*0.005 = 0.919 g
Wt of Nb = mm of Nb*mol percent = 92.906*0.02 = 1.858 g
Total Weight = Wt of Nb + Wt of W + Wt of Core = 1.858 + 0.919 + 97.455
Wt of Core = (molar ratio of each component)*(each components respective molar mass) = (1*mm of Li) + (0.9 * mm of Ni) + (0.05 * mm of Co) + (0.05 * mm of Mn) + (2 * mm of O) = 97.455 g/mol (assumed 1 mol so Wt of Core = 97.455 g).
However, Choi teaches the tungsten (W) (tungsten, see [0037]) is contained at 6,000 ppm or less (1000 ppm to 4000 ppm, see [0034]) with respect to the total positive electrode active material (entire cathode active material, see [0034]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yoshida in view of Du such that tungsten is contained in 1000 to 4000 ppm with respect to the total positive electrode active material as Choi to reduce the initial resistance and improve high temperature lifespan characteristics.
6. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (Pub. No. JP 2015201388 A) in view of Du et al. (Pub. No. US 20210126242 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakayama et al. (Pub. No. US 20210288307 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Yoshida in view of Du fails to teach wherein the positive electrode active material has an average particle size of 0.5 μm to 10 μm.
However, Nakayama teaches wherein the positive electrode active material (positive electrode active material, see [0038]) has an average particle size of 0.5 μm to 10 μm (1 μm to 10 μm, see [0038]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yoshida in view of Du such that the average particle size is between 1 μm and 10 μm as taught by Nakayama to ensure good contact with solid electrolyte, ensure utilization of lithium ions in active material, and prevent slurry viscosity increasing (see [0038] of Nakayama).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that the proposed combination of Yoshida and Du lacks proper motivation and would render Yoshida’s system inoperable for its intended purpose because Yoshida’s coating system was specifically designed for core particles having cobalt content in the range of 10-35 mol%. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as first although the specific embodiment the applicant if referring to in paragraphs [0020] of Yoshida is the preferred embodiment, it is not required for functionality of the invention suggested by Yoshida as seen in paragraph [0019] Yoshida states the core particle may be a known lithium transition metal complex oxide, including specific examples such as Lithium Nickelate which does not include any amount of cobalt, and lithium cobaltate which does not include any amount of nickel. Further it has been held that “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments” in MPEP 2123.
Regarding the aforementioned lack of proper motivation, not only does Yoshida teach the core particle may be a known lithium transition metal complex oxide in paragraph [0019], but paragraph [0036] of Du teaches an art effective equivalent lithium transition metal complex oxide, which would be a known lithium transition metal complex oxide, and a benefit of using such oxide of improving energy density.
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 DOUGLAS CALEB MARROQUIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00 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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/DOUGLAS C MARROQUIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights