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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 18, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received March 18, 2026:
Claims 32, 34-36 and 38-43 are pending. Claims 1-31, 33 and 37 have been cancelled as per applicant’s request.
The core of the previous rejection is maintained with slight changes made in light of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 32, 36, 38-41 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. ("Long-Life Nickel-Rich Layered Oxide Cathodes with a Uniform Li2ZrO3 Surface Coating for Lithium-Ion Batteries”, 2017) in view of Song et al. (US 2015/0340689), referred to hereinafter as “Song (2)”
Regarding Claim 32, Song et al. teaches a Li-2ZrO3-coated LiNi0.7Co0.15Mn0.15-O2 cathode material (pg. 9719, col. 1, lines 14-23) (i.e. a composition comprising a cathode active material, wherein the cathode material is selected from LiNixMnyCozO2, x+y+z=1 and 0≤x≤1, 0≤y≤1,and 0≤z≤1 and a first coating in contact with the cathode active material) wherein a TEM image reveals the Li2ZrO3 coating has a highly crystallized domain which is fully wrapped by an amorphous region (pg. 9721, col. 2, lines 20-23) (i.e. the first coating comprises crystalline domains and amorphous domains based on transmission electron microscopy analysis, the crystalline domains are in contact with the cathode active material), wherein x-ray spectroscopy examines particle morphology (pg. 9720, col. 1, lines 25-32) and agrees with the TEM crystallographic information (pg. 9721, col .1 line 14 – col. 2, line 5) (i.e. the first coating is amorphous based on x-ray diffraction pattern analysis) and ZrO2 is formed in the coating layer (pg. 9720, col. 1, line 58 – col. 2, line 10) (i.e. the first coating comprises LixZryOz wherein x = 0, y = 1 and z = 2).
Song et al. does not teach a second coating in contact with the first coating, wherein the second coating comprises LixCyOz wherein 0.4 ≤ x ≤ 1.8, 0.1 ≤ y ≤ 1, 1 ≤ z ≤ 1.8.
However, Song (2) teaches a composite cathode active material (Para. [0035]) comprising a core of a lithium-transition metal oxide (Para. [0043]), a first coating layer and a second coating layer formed between the core and first coating layer (i.e. a second coating layer in contact with a first coating layer) wherein the second coating layer is formed of Li2CO3 (Para. [0039]) (i.e. wherein the second coating comprises a chemical formula of the ratio LiC0.5O1.5 reading on the claimed LixCyOz wherein 0.4 ≤ x ≤ 1.8, 0.1 ≤ y ≤ 1, 1 ≤ z ≤ 1.8.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composition of Song et al, to incorporate the teaching of a second coating contacting a first layer comprising Li2CO3 as taught by Song (2), as such a coating inhibits side reactions with electrolyte, thereby reducing generation of gas (Para. [0040]) which increases lifespan and electrochemical stability (Para. [0008]).
Regarding Claim 36, Song et al. as modified by Song (2) teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 32 as explained above.
Song et al. further teaches lattice mismatch between crystalline Ni-rich oxide and Li2ZrO3 as seen in the TEM data (pg. 9721, line 29-38) (i.e. wherein the first coating crystalline domains do not lattice match crystalline domains of the cathode active material, as determined by TEM analysis).
Regarding Claim 38, Song et al. as modified by Song (2) teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 32 as explained above.
Song et al. does not teach a second coating that is amorphous as determined by TEM analysis.
However, Song (2) further teaches the coating layer compounds are amorphous (Para. [0070]) (i.e. wherein the second coating is amorphous). See the rejection to claim 32 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Song (2) cited herein. Regarding “as determined by TEM analysis” this is a method of measuring the claimed property that does not affect the underlying property itself, which is a product of the structure of the second coating. As an amorphous coating layer is taught by Song et al. as modified by Song (2), the structure of the instant claim has been met.
Regarding Claim 39, Song et al. as modified by Song (2) teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 32 as explained above.
Song et al. does not teach a second coating that is amorphous as determined by TEM analysis.
However, Song (2) further teaches the coating layer compounds are crystalline (Para. [0070]) (i.e. wherein the second coating is crystalline). See the rejection to claim 32 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Song (2) cited herein. Regarding “as determined by TEM analysis” this is a method of measuring the claimed property that does not affect the underlying property itself, which is a product of the structure of the second coating. As an amorphous coating layer is taught by Song et al. as modified by Song (2), the structure of the instant claim has been met.
Regarding Claim 40, Song et al. as modified by Song (2) teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 32 as explained above.
Song et al. does not teach a second coating in contact with the first coating wherein the second coating is Li2CO3.
However, Song (2) teaches the second coating layer is formed of Li2CO3 (Para. [0039]). See the rejection to claim 32 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Song (2) cited herein.
Regarding Claim 41, Song et al. as modified by Song (2) teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 32 as explained above.
Song et al. further teaches Li-2ZrO3-coated LiNi0.7Co0.15Mn0.15-O2 cathode material (pg. 9719, col. 1, lines 14-23) ZrO2 is formed in the coating layer (pg. 9720, col. 1, line 58 – col. 2, line 10) (i.e. the first coating further comprises Li-2ZrO3, ZrO2)
Regarding Claim 43, Song et al. as modified by Song (2) teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 32 as explained above.
Song et al. further teaches a cathode is prepared by applying a slurry onto a current collector and drying (pg. 9720, col. 1, line 34-41) (i.e. a solid-state cathode comprising the coated cathode active material of claim 32). Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also, limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. See In re Zletz, 893F.2d 319, 321-22,13 USPQ2d, 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See also MPEP 2111.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. ("Long-Life Nickel-Rich Layered Oxide Cathodes with a Uniform Li2ZrO3 Surface Coating for Lithium-Ion Batteries”, 2017) in view of Song et al. (US 2015/0340689) (referred to hereinafter as “Song (2)”), as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2020/0403241).
Regarding Claim 34, Song et al. as modified by Song (2) teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 32 as explained above.
Song et al. does not teach wherein the amorphous domains are not in contact with the cathode active material.
However, Watanabe et al. teaches a lithium nickeltate which may be a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide as a core particle X (Para. [0036]) as a positive electrode active substance wherein a coating compound Y may be present on the lithium nickeltate (Para. [0032]) such as Li2ZrO3 (Para. [0039]) wherein a crystal phase having a layered rock salt structure (i.e. crystallite domain) is present in the form of a layer between the core particle X and the coating compound Y (Para. [0032]) (i.e. wherein the amorphous domains are not in contact with the cathode active material).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Song et al. to incorporate the teaching of Watanabe et al., a such a crystal phase therebetween can ensure stabilization and be improved in repeated charge/discharge characteristics (Para. [0040]).
Claims 35 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. ("Long-Life Nickel-Rich Layered Oxide Cathodes with a Uniform Li2ZrO3 Surface Coating for Lithium-Ion Batteries”, 2017) in view of Song et al. (US 2015/0340689) (referred to hereinafter as “Song (2)”)as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Zhan et al. (“Influence of annealing atmosphere on Li2ZrO3-coated LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 and its high-voltage cycling performance”, 2019).
Regarding Claim 35, Song et al. as modified by Song (2) teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 32 as explained above.
Song et al. does not teach a first coating has a thickness of that is 1 nm ≤ T ≤ 20 nm; or wherein T is about 1 nm, about 5 nm or about 10 nm.
However, Zhan et al. teaches a Li2ZrO3 coated lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (abstract) wherein the surface layer (i.e. coating layer) that is about 20 to 40 nanometers, overlapping with the claimed range, determined by TEM (pg. 39, col. 1, lines 19-28 and Fig. 3, d-f).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coating layer of Song et al. to incorporate the teaching of the thickness of the coating layer as taught by Zhan et al., as such a layer would facilitate Li-ion transport providing a high lithium diffusion coefficient (pg. 39, col. 1, lines 36-38 and Table 3) thus, having such a thickness would provide efficient lithium diffusion speed. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 42, Song et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 32 as explained above.
Song et al. does not teach herein the cathode active material is LiNixMnyCozO2, x is 0.8, y is 0.1, and z is 0.1; wherein the cathode active material is LiNixMnyCozO2, x is 0.6, y is 0.2, and z is 0.2; wherein the cathode active material is LiNixMnyCozO2, x is 0.5, y is 0.3, and z is 0.2; wherein the cathode active material is LiNixMnyCozO2, x is 1/3, y is 1/3, and z is 1/3; or wherein the cathode active material is selected from LiMn2O4, LiCoO2, Li(NiCoMn)O2, and Li(NiCoAl)O2.
However, Zhan et al. teaches the cathode active material is LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 (abstract) (i.e. wherein the cathode active material is LiNixMnyCozO2, x is 0.6, y is 0.2, and z is 0.2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide of Song et al. to incorporate the teaching of the lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 as taught by Zhan et al., as such a cathode active material with a Li2ZrO-3 coating provides enhances lithium-ion diffusion exhibit improved high-voltage cycle stability and high-rate performance and the nickel content can provide reduced structural instability brought by higher Ni content (pg. 36, lines 15-17).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Song et al. does not teach the crystalline domains are in contact with cathode active material as crystallized domains of the coating are fully wrapped (or fully surrounded) by amorphous domains and thus the references do not teach or suggest amended claim 32.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim language is broader than Applicant is interpreting. Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also, limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. See In re Zletz, 893F.2d 319, 321-22,13 USPQ2d, 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See also MPEP 2111. The amended claim 32 recites the crystalline domains are in contact with the cathode active material. As the crystalline domains are in contact with the cathode active material via the amorphous domains in Song et al., this reads on the crystalline domains are in contact with the cathode active material. Thus, the argument is not persuasive and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant argues the statement that Song et al. does not teach a composition wherein the amorphous domains are not in contact with the cathode active material appears to contradict the statement that Song describes a coating wherein the crystalline domains are in contact with the cathode active material; and the methods described in Watanabe provide properties that are incompatible with the properties of Song as Watanabe’s coating would forgo the purported benefit of the amorphous and crystalline coating of Song and for this reason claim 34 is inventive over the cited references.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, the claim language is broader than Applicant is interpreting and the statements do not contradict each other. Furthermore, the proposed modification does not render the prior art invention unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of functioning as a cathode active material. As recognized by the courts, ‘[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine’" (in Allied Erecting v. Genesis Attachments, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381, 119 USPQ2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016) quoting Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165, 77 USPQ2d 1865, 1870 (Fed Cir. 2006). Watanabe teaches the modification would provide stabilization and improvement in charge/discharge characteristics (Para. [0040]). Nothing in the prior art teaches the proposed modification would have resulted in an inoperable cathode active material or a cathode active material with undesirable properties. See also MPEP 2143.01(V). Furthermore, Watanabe also teaches the coating compound Y may also be in an amorphous state (Para. [0039]) (i.e. an amorphous and crystalline coating). Therefore, the argument is not persuasive and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant argues Zhan Is silent with regard to the structure of the coating that is in contact with the cathode active material and because Zhan does not teach a composition wherein the crystalline domains are in contact with the cathode active material, claims 35 and 42 are inventive.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim language is broader than Applicant is interpreting. Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also, limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. See In re Zletz, 893F.2d 319, 321-22,13 USPQ2d, 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See also MPEP 2111. Furthermore, Zhan is not relied upon for teaching a composition wherein the crystalline domains are in contact with the cathode active material. As the crystalline domains are in contact with the cathode active material via the amorphous domains in Song et al., this reads on the crystalline domains are in contact with the cathode active material. As Zhan does teach an active material with a surface layer thereon and that the surface layer is amorphous with several nano-crystals surrounded by the amorphous region on page 39, col. 1, lines 26-29, this would also read on crystalline domains are in contact with the cathode active material. Thus, the argument is not persuasive and the rejection of record is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights