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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 05/18/26, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1, 7, and 8 is/are amended; claim(s) 2–6, 9, and 10 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; and claim(s) 11–17 remain(s) withdrawn; no new matter has been added. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection have been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection under 103 below. Additionally, the provisional, non-statutory double-patenting rejections over co-pending 18/289279 and 18/284234 have been maintained and altered as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1–7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (US 20180175440 A1, from 03/29/23 IDS) (Kwon) in view of Mun et al. (US 20130071745 A1) (Mun).
Regarding claims 1–5, Kwon discloses a positive electrode active material for a lithium-ion secondary battery (Title), comprising a lithium transition metal oxide (LiCoO2 core, e.g., ¶ 0036), and an iodine-containing material at least partially covering the lithium transition metal oxide (iodine as part of LiI coating, ¶ 0039).
As noted above, Kwon exemplifies a core of LiCoO2 (¶ 0031), yet, while disclosing that the core is not limited to such and may be another material generally used as a positive active material (¶ 0031), Kwon fails to explicitly disclose that the core comprises nickel.
Mun teaches an analogous positive active material including a core and a metal-halide coating (Abstract, ¶ 0038), where the core may be, e.g., LixCo1–yMyO2–aXa (formula 4) or LixCo1–y–zNiyMzO2–aXa (formula 5), where M is at least one of Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Ti, Zr, Nb, Mo, W, Zn, Al, Si, Ni, Mn, Cr, Fe, Mg, Sr, V, and rare-earth elements; X is O, F, S, or P; 0.90 ≤ x ≤ 1.1, 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.9, 0 ≤ z ≤ 0.5, 1–y–z > 0, and 0 ≤ a ≤ 2. As seen above, formula 4 encompasses LiCoO2, and formula 5 encompasses Ni-doped LiCoO2.
As Mun recognizes LiCoO2 and Ni-doped LiCoO2 as equivalent cores, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely substitute Kwon’s LiCoO2 for Mun’s Ni-doped LiCoO2 with the reasonable expectation of achieving a successful core active material, as taught by Mun.
Further, though Kwon is silent to the iodine’s oxidation state, Kwon discloses mixing LiI with a lithium-based active material precursor, followed by heating at 300~600°C for 10 h (¶ 0038–0041; see also Samples 1-1 and 1-2, which were fired at 300°C and 450°C, respectively, ¶ 0052). Importantly, the instant specification notes that the iodine with the recited oxidation-number range forms after firing (e.g., ¶ 0062; see also XPS analysis of Ex. 1-1 vs. Comp. Ex. 1-1, (¶ 0158), where periodate (IO4-), i.e., 7+ iodine, was detected), where firing occurs at preferably 200–450°C (¶ 0085) for preferably 2–5 h (¶ 0086). Thus, although Kwon does not mix the materials in the solid state before firing, absent demonstrated criticality to this step, as Kwon discloses a substantially similar starting material (LiI, ¶ 0072) that is mixed with and fired alongside a lithium metal oxide under firing conditions substantially similar to the instant disclosure (e.g., ¶ 0085/0086 and examples), it is submitted that Kwon’s iodine would necessarily oxidize to a periodate and, thus, assume a +7 oxidation state (MPEP 2112.01 (I)), satisfying +3 to +7 (claim 1), +5 to +7 (claim 2), and +7 (claim 3).
Assuming, arguendo, that Kwon’s iodine would not necessarily assume the above oxidation state, based on the above rationale, the skilled artisan, before the claimed invention’s effective filing date, would have reasonably expected Kwon’s iodine to oxidize to a periodate and, thus, assume a +7 oxidation state, absent additional evidence (MPEP 2112.01 (I)).
Examiner submits that the above disclosure further reads on claims 4 and 5 because, by the iodine’s seemingly at least partially oxidizing to a periodate of IO4-, such would further read on claim 4’s periodate ion and claim 5’s metaperiodate (IO4-).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kwon discloses the positive electrode active material for a lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1 but is silent to evaluating the material via XPS and, thus, is silent to the recited peak.
However, based on claim 1’s rationale, the skilled artisan, before the claimed invention’s effective filing date, would have reasonably expected Kwon’s material to display a I 3d5/2 peak at a binding energy falling within or at least overlapping the instant 622–626 eV (MPEP 2112.01 (I)) such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of achieving a successfully coated active material with suitable physical properties and iodine content (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kwon discloses the positive electrode active material for a lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1 but appears to fail to disclose the iodine material’s wt% in the above Samples 1-1 or 1-2 and, thus, 0.001–10.0 wt% based on the total weight of the active material.
Kwon generally discloses, however, that the coating layer (including LiI and Li3BO3, ¶ 0019) is preferably present at 0.05~0.1 wt% of the core + coating (¶ 0017, 0018), and the molar ratio of Li3BO3:LiI in the coating is 8~9:1~2 (¶ 0019). Per the below calculations, such appears capable of satisfying the recited range.
PNG
media_image1.png
348
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
More importantly, however, Kwon discloses that when the amount of coating layer is lower than the above range, there is little to no improvement of ion conductivity or flexibility, whereas when the amount of coating is greater than the above range, the electrode layer’s performance deteriorates due to excessively small amount of active core material (¶ 0033). Similarly, Kwon discloses that when the Li3BO3:LiI ratio is lower than the above range, the amount of I is too low, reducing ion conductivity and flexibility, whereas when the ratio is above the range, battery capacity deteriorates (¶ 0032). To balance all these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the I-containing material’s wt% (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Claim(s) 8–10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (US 20180175440 A1) (Kwon) in view of Mun et al. (US 20130071745 A1) (Mun), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Allie et al. (US 20170179472 A1) (Allie).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kwon discloses the positive electrode active material of claim 1.
Kwon further discloses that the positive active layer (positive electrode layer 10) includes the active material as well as a conductive material, a solid electrolyte, and a binder (¶ 0044). However, in being unconcerned with the manner in which this layer is fabricated, Kwon fails to explicitly articulate a positive electrode active material slurry for a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising the positive electrode active material.
Allie, in teaching an analogous battery with a composite electrode containing active material, solid electrolyte, and binder (Abstract), teaches that the electrode may be produced as an active-material slurry coated atop a current collector (¶ 0062–0064).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Kwon's active layer must necessarily be produced in some manner, and, as demonstrated by Allie, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to use slurry casting—and, thus, obtain a positive electrode active material slurry comprising the active material—with the reasonable expectation of achieving a successful electrode, as taught by Allie.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, modified Kwon discloses a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material layer (e.g., ¶ 0042–0047), containing the positive electrode active material of claim 1 (¶ 0042).
As seen above in ¶ 0042, Kwon discloses the active layer as positive electrode layer 10, but, in being unconcerned with the rest of the battery’s structure, Kwon fails to explicitly disclose that the active layer is atop a current collector.
Allie, in teaching an analogous composite electrode structure for a similar battery (Title, Abstract), teaches providing an active layer atop a current collector for electrical contact (e.g., ¶ 0048, ¶ 0062–0064).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Allie’s current collector below Kwon’s active layer with the reasonable expectation of predictably achieving successful current collection and electrical contact, as suggested by Allie.
Double Patenting
The text forming the basis for the double-patenting rejection may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1–3 and 6–10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–4, 6, 7, and 9 of copending Application No. 18/284234 (reference application, published as US 20240162422 A1) in view of Mun et al. (US 20130071745 A1) (Mun).
Ref. claims 1 and 2 together encompass instant claims 1 and 2 besides specifying a Ni-comprising core.
Mun teaches an analogous positive electrode active material with a core coated with a metal halide (Abstract, ¶ 0038), where the core may be, e.g., LixCo1–y–zNiyMzO2–aXa (formula 5), where M is at least one of Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Ti, Zr, Nb, Mo, W, Zn, Al, Si, Ni, Mn, Cr, Fe, Mg, Sr, V, and rare-earth elements; X is O, F, S, or P; 0.90 ≤ x ≤ 1.1, 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.9, 0 ≤ z ≤ 0.5, 1–y–z > 0, and 0 ≤ a ≤ 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that the ref.'s core must necessarily assume some identity, and, as demonstrated by Mun, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to incorporate a Ni-comprising core with a reasonable expectation of achieving a successful active material.
Further, ref. claim 2’s 5+ to 7+ overlaps instant claim 3’s 7+ such that the skilled artisan could have selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of producing a successful iodine coating (MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Further, ref. claim 3 reads on instant claim 6. Ref. claim 4’s wt% range encompasses instant claim 7’s range such that the skilled artisan could have selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of producing a successful iodine coating (MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Ref. claims 6, 7, and 9 read on claims 8–10, respectively.
Claims 1–3 and 7–10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5–7, and 9–11 of copending Application No. 18/289279 (reference application, published as US 20250300168 A1) in view of Mun et al. (US 20130071745 A1) (Mun).
Ref. claims 1, 5, 6, and 8 together encompass instant claims 1 and 2 besides specifying a Ni-comprising core.
Mun teaches an analogous positive electrode active material with a core coated with a metal halide (Abstract, ¶ 0038), where the core may be, e.g., LixCo1–y–zNiyMzO2–aXa (formula 5), where M is at least one of Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Ti, Zr, Nb, Mo, W, Zn, Al, Si, Ni, Mn, Cr, Fe, Mg, Sr, V, and rare-earth elements; X is O, F, S, or P; 0.90 ≤ x ≤ 1.1, 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.9, 0 ≤ z ≤ 0.5, 1–y–z > 0, and 0 ≤ a ≤ 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that the ref.'s core must necessarily assume some identity, and, as demonstrated by Mun, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to incorporate a Ni-comprising core with a reasonable expectation of achieving a successful active material.
Further, ref. claim 2’s 5+ to 7+ overlaps instant claim 3’s 7+ such that the skilled artisan could have selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of producing a successful iodine coating (MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Ref. claim 7’s wt% range encompasses instant claim 7’s range such that the skilled artisan could have selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of producing a successful iodine coating (MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Ref. claims 9–11 read on claims 8–10, respectively.
The above are provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments against the pending 103 and double-patenting rejections have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that there is no motivation to substitute Kwon’s LiCoO2 (LCO) core with a Ni-containing one given Kwon’s production process involving aqueous mixing, which, per spec.’s ¶ 0037, is known to cause Li elution with increasing Ni content, which the instant iodine coating solves (spec., ¶ 0038). Examiner respectfully disagrees as follows:
Claim 1 is a product, the patentability of which is not tied to the production method (MPEP 2113). Although Kwon exemplifies an aqueous solvent in the manufacturing example of ¶ 0038, Kwon discloses that the solvent may be non-aqueous solvents such as THF or methanol (¶ 0037). In fact, Kwon allows other coating methods such as dry milling (¶ 0039), which would avoid any alleged degradation. It is within the skilled artisan’s ambit to routinely select processing parameters such as mixing environment or solvent type when determining optimal processing conditions.
Mun teaches a similar production method, where the core is wet-mixed with the metal halide, and equally teaches that the solvent may be aqueous or non-aqueous (¶ 0074). As Mun further recognizes the equivalence of LCO and Ni-doped LCO cores, it is unclear that Ni-doped LCO would necessarily degrade upon contacting water, particularly at doping concentrations marginally > 0 wt%. Examiner further notes that claim 1 allows any non-zero Ni content, and Mun’s formula 5 encompasses Ni content barely > 0%.
Mun further recognizes that the metal-halide coating is known to prevent electrolytic side reactions and transitional-metal eruption from the core (¶ 0026), meaning such stabilization (as in spec.’s ¶ 0038 from iodine coating) seems at least somewhat expected from the prior art as a whole.
There are no comparative tests of record isolating inferior performance to 1) non-nickel-comprising cores—specifically LCO—or 2) mixing an uncoated, Ni-comprising core in an aqueous solvent, so it appears indeterminable that any poorer performance is solely attributable to one of these factors.
Applicant’s assertion that “incorporating nickel … fundamentally changes the material system introduces … increased surface reactivity, cation mixing, thermal instability,” and the like is unsupported by the specification, meaning such appears speculative without additional evidence.
For these reasons, Examiner respectfully submits that the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in substituting LCO for Ni-comprising LCO, making this argument unpersuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s final argument that Kwon’s mixing method would not necessarily assume a value within the recited oxidation-state range, as explained above, the step appearing to afford the instant oxidation state is the firing (spec. at ¶ 0062), which occurs in Kwon’s process under substantially similar conditions (e.g., ¶ 0052) and, like the instant process, would be dry firing because the solvent is evaporated beforehand (¶ 0041). Thus, absent additional evidence proving some other step(s) absent from Kwon critical to achieving the instant oxidation state, this argument is unpersuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s request to hold the double-patenting rejections in abeyance, such rejections should not be held in abeyance, per MPEP 804.01 (I)(B)(1). However, Applicant’s amendment has been treated as a bona fide response to patentably distinguish the claims over the co-pending applications, and, thus, the reply otherwise appears complete. The same rationale as above applies to these rejections.
Conclusion
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 JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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, Jonathan Leong, can be reached on 571-270-192. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 8/13/2026
Prosecution Insights