CTFR 18/044,164 CTFR 88657 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO’882 (WO 2020/069882) in view of Murakami et al. (US 2020/0266440) . Regarding claims 9 and 13-14, 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: Al 2 O 3 ) and lithium aluminate. WO’882 does not specify the lithium aluminate is Li 5 AlO 4 . 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 LiAlO 2 , Li 5 AlO 4 , and LiAl 5 O 8 for suitable materials for lithium ion conductivity [0080]-[0083]. Providing Li 5 AlO 4 , LiAlO 2 , and/or LiAl 5 O 8 ( 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 LiAlO 2 , Li 5 AlO 4 , and LiAl 5 O 8 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 LiAlO 2 , Li 5 AlO 4 , and LiAl 5 O 8 individually and the combination thereof are suitable “lithium aluminate”, explicitly expressed by WO’882, which coats positive (cathode) active particulates. Page 9 of WO’882 discloses the coating is non-homogenous which satisfies the claimed limitation “thickness and/or the total coverage of the respective particle varies”. However, WO’882 does not disclose the amount of particles which are coated and how much of the surface of each particle is coated. Murakami et al. discloses for lithium ion conductivity, the entire surface of the lithium composite metal compound is covered with the coating layer (i.e. 100% of the particles are coated and 100% of the surface particle is coated). Murakami also recognizes the surface of the lithium-containing composite metal compound may not be entirely covered with the coating layer and uncoated region may be present on the surface [0081]. The claimed coating structure in WO’882 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since WO’882 discloses the coating is non-homogenous and Murakami et al. teaches complete coating and partial coating of lithium aluminate each yield suitable lithium ion conductivity. Regarding claim 10, see page 3-4 and 9-10 of WO’882. Regarding claim 12, Na 5 AlO 4 is not required because the independent claim recites Na 5 AlO 4 is optional . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 04/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 6 of the arguments, Applicant asserts WO’882 specifically identifies only a single species of applicable lithium aluminate LiAlO 2 . In response, this argument is not persuasive because WO’882 recites “lithium aluminate, for example LiAlO 2 ” (page 9, lines 15-16) and recites “lithium aluminate such as LiAlO 2 ” (page 9 line 20). WO’882’s lithium aluminate is not limited to LiAlO 2 . On page 6 of the arguments, Applicant argues Murakami is directed to an “entirely different technical problem”. In response, this argument is unpersuasive because WO’882 and Murakami both relate to the same field of endeavor of positive active materials having a coating layer including a metal composite oxide including lithium and aluminum (i.e. lithium aluminate) used in lithium ion secondary batteries. Murakami et al. teaches the coating layer of lithium aluminate is selected from the group consisting of LiAlO 2 , Li 5 AlO 4 , and LiAl 5 O 8 for lithium ion conductivity [0080]-[0083]. Using known materials (lithium aluminate) for the same component (a coating of a cathode active material) of the same type of battery (lithium ion batteries) yield predictable results (lithium ion conductivity). On page 7 of the arguments, Applicant argues although Murakami address partial coatings in paragraph [0081], it provides a critical pre-condition and the office has not established that these conditions are met in WO’882 and so a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to make further modification. In response, WO’882 discloses the coating is non-homogenous . The rejection of record does not rely on modifying WO’882 with Murakami’s invention as suggested by the Applicant. More properly, the rejection of record relies on Murakami et al.’s teaching of a positive electrode active material having a coating layer consisting of at least one of LiAlO 2 , Li 5 AlO 4 , and LiAl 5 O 8 for lithium ion conductivity wherein configurations of the coverage of the coating layer includes full coverage or partial coverage. In fair reading of Murakami et al., full coverage or approaching full coverage is optimal for lithium ion conductivity. One of ordinary skill in the art when considering the teachings related to the coating layer made of lithium aluminate, as a whole , (WO’882 and Murakami et al. considered together ) would reasonably understand an operable “a non-homogenous coating of lithium aluminate” as disclosed by WO’882 includes significant partial coverage that inherently has varying thickness OR full coverage with varying thickness. Both configurations would satisfy the last three lines of claim 9. Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 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 Application/Control Number: 18/044,164 Page 2 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/044,164 Page 3 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/044,164 Page 4 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/044,164 Page 5 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/044,164 Page 6 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/044,164 Page 7 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/044,164 Page 8 Art Unit: 1749
Prosecution Insights