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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/15/2026 has been entered.
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 12 and 17 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.
Claims 12 and 17 are indefinite because each claim recites subject matter that is inconsistent with claim 9, the independent claim. Claim 9 recites that Na5AlO4, Na2TiO3, Na2Ti3O7, and Na2ZrO3 are optional whereas claims 12 and 17 require at least one of the listed materials.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 9-10, 13-14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO’882 (WO 2020/069882) in view of WO’702 (WO 2019/154702) and Murakami et al. (US 2020/0266440).
Regarding claims 9, 13-14, and 18, WO’882 teaches partially coated electrode active materials (title).
Page 10, line 40 to page 11, line 5 discloses the invention of WO’882 relates to a cathode active material. Page 2, lines 20-30 discloses the claimed general formula wherein TM comprises Ni wherein Ni is preferably at least 75 mol-% and x is -0.05 to 0.2. Page 9, lines 10+ teaches the outer surface of the electrode active material in particulate form is coated with alumina (chemical formula: Al2O3) and lithium aluminate. Moreover, the coating is non-homogenous, for example in an island structure. WO’882 describes non-homogenous means there are non-coated parts of electrode active material that do not display any alumina nor lithium aluminate, which satisfies the claimed limitation “thickness and/or the total coverage of the respective particle varies”.
WO’882 does not disclose the amount of particles which are coated and how much of the surface of each particle is coated. However, in the same field of endeavor of partially coated electrode active materials (abstract), page 2 of WO’702 discloses partially coated refers to at least 80% of the particles of a batch of particulate material being coated and to at least 75% of the surface of each particle being coated, for example 75 to 99.99% to obtain an operable cathode active material. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the partially coated electrode active material of WO’882 with at least 80% of the particles of a batch of particulate material being coated and 75 to 99.99% (80-90%, claim 18) of the surface of each particle being coated because WO’702 teaches a partially coated electrode active material having at least 80% of the particles of a batch of particulate material being coated and to at least 75% of the surface of each particle being coated (e.g. 75 to 99.99%) predictably yields an operable cathode active material.
WO’882 does not specify the lithium aluminate is Li5AlO4. However, in the same field of endeavor of positive (cathode) active materials having a coating layer including a metal composite oxide including lithium and aluminum (i.e. lithium aluminate), Murakami et al. teaches a coating layer of metal composite oxide of lithium and aluminum is selected from the group consisting of LiAlO2, Li5AlO4, and LiAl5O8 for suitable materials for lithium ion conductivity [0080]-[0083]. Providing Li5AlO4, LiAlO2, and/or LiAl5O8 (claims 9 and 13-14) as the lithium aluminate of WO’882 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Murakami et al. teaches a coating layer for cathode active materials includes LiAlO2, Li5AlO4, and LiAl5O8 for predicable results of lithium ion conductivity. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious in view of Murakami et al.’s teaching that LiAlO2, Li5AlO4, and LiAl5O8 individually and the combination thereof are suitable “lithium aluminate”, explicitly expressed by WO’882, which coats positive (cathode) active particulates.
Regarding claim 10, see page 3-4 and 9-10 of WO’882.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In other words, in claim 9 line 6, DELETE “,optionally,” and CANCEL claim 17. Alternatively, in claim 9 line 6, DELETE “,optionally,” and include the subject matter of claim 12 and CANCEL claims 12 and claim 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are moot in view of the new ground of rejection applied in this office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENDRA LY whose telephone number is (571)270-7060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-5:00PM.
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, Katelyn B Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/KENDRA LY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
