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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 16, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2019-175830 A, of which a complete copy of the Japanese document with a machine translation was provided with the Information Disclosure Statement dated October 14, 2022.
Regarding independent claim 1 and claim 2, JP ‘830 discloses a positive electrode material of a lithium ion secondary battery (see abstract; and pages 1-5 of translation), in which the positive electrode material includes the following components:
a positive electrode active material;
a solid electrolyte; and
a coating material for coating the positive electrode active material,
wherein the coating material is denoted by composition formula (1): LiaAbXc
in which each of a, b, and c is a positive real number, A is at least one selected from the group consisting of N, P, and S (in this instance, consisting of P), and X consists of both O and F (in the form of Li2PO3F and LiPO2F2 – see the last full paragraph on page 4 of translation).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, JP ‘830 discloses that the coating material contains a POxFy group, wherein the coating material contains Li, P, O, and F (see the last full paragraph on page 4 of translation).
Regarding claim 9, JP ‘830 discloses that the coating material includes LiPO2F2 (see the last full paragraph on page 4 of translation).
Regarding claim 16, JP ‘830 discloses that the positive electrode active material contains a lithium-containing transition metal oxide (see abstract and the last full paragraph on page 4 of translation).
Regarding claim 17, JP ‘830 discloses a lithium-ion battery that includes a positive electrode containing the positive electrode active material according to claim 1, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte layer disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (see abstract and the last full paragraph on page 4 of translation).
Regarding new claim 21, JP ‘830 discloses that the coating material includes Li2PO3F and LiPO2F2 (see the last full paragraph on page 4 of translation).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 3-5, 10-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019-175830 A.
Regarding claims 3-5, JP ‘830 discloses the coating material LiaAbXc (including Li2PO3F and LiPO2F2) of the positive electrode material of independent claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose that the coating material contains a SOxFy group (claim 3), contains Li, N, S, O, and F (claim 4), and contains Li, S, O, and F (claim 5). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modification of the coating material disclosed by JP ‘830 would be readily selected to be within similar groups/periods of elements within the periodic table, in which similar/related elements within the periodic table to be substituted within the coating material LiaAbXc would be obvious to try since it would include a limited number of predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation for success, such that the elements of chemical compounds within the coating material would be readily modified by routine experimentation to optimize performance of the battery by improving high temperature cycle life (see the 1st full paragraph on page 2 of translation). With regard to the types of materials that are suitable for use, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 10-12, JP ‘830 discloses the positive electrode material of independent claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose that a ratio of a mass of the coating material to a total mass of the positive electrode active material and the coating material is greater than 0% by mass and is less than or equal to 10% by mass (claim 10), less than or equal to 5% by mass (claim 11), and less than or equal to 3% by mass (claim 12). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that selection of the ranges of % by mass to be within the claimed ranges would be readily adjusted by routine experimentation to optimize performance of the battery by improving high temperature cycle life (see the 1st full paragraph on page 2 of translation). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claim 13, although JP ‘830 discloses the positive electrode material of independent claim 1, JP ‘830 does not explicitly disclose that a peak is present in the range of 685 ± 7 eV in an XPS spectrum of the coating material measured using an Al Kα ray. However, since one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that all of the components of claim 1 are present (including composition formula LiaAbXc that includes Li2PO3F and LiPO2F2 – see the last full paragraph on page 4 of translation), that a peak present in the range of 685 ± 7 eV in an XPS spectrum of the coating material measured using an Al Kα ray would inherently be present since a peak corresponding to a coating material of Li2PO3F and LiPO2F2 would be within the claimed range. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claim 14, although JP ‘830 discloses the positive electrode material of independent claim 1, JP ‘830 does not explicitly disclose that a layer thickness of the coating material is greater than or equal to 1 nm and is less than or equal to 100 nm. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that selection of a value in the range of the layer thickness of the coating material to be within the claimed range would be readily adjusted by routine experimentation to optimize performance of the battery by improving high temperature cycle life (see the 1st full paragraph on page 2 of translation). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claims 15 and 18, although JP ‘830 discloses the positive electrode material of independent claim 1 and the battery of claim 17, JP ‘830 does not explicitly disclose that the solid electrolyte comprising an electrolyte layer contains at least one selected from the group consisting of a halide solid electrolyte (claim 15), an oxyhalide solid electrolyte (claim 15), and a sulfide solid electrolyte (claims 15 and 18). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modification of the solid electrolyte comprising an electrolyte layer disclosed by JP ‘830 would be readily selected to be within similar groups/periods of elements (including a halide, S, and O) within the periodic table, in which similar/related elements within the periodic table to be substituted within the solid electrolyte of the electrolyte layer would be obvious to try since it would include a limited number of predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation for success, such that the elements of chemical compounds within the solid electrolyte of the electrolyte layer would be readily modified by routine experimentation to optimize performance of the battery by improving high temperature cycle life (see paragraph [0004]).
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges the applicants’ amendment received by the USPTO on November 17, 2025. Also, an Information Disclosure Statement dated November 4, 2025 has been considered and initialed, and a copy is provided with this Office Action. The amendments overcome the prior objection to the specification and the prior 35 USC 112(b) rejections. Although the amendments to independent claim 1 overcome the prior 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 103 rejections in view of CN 107910500 A, a newly provided reference (JP 2019-175830 A) is now applied in new 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 103 rejections. The applicants have cancelled claim 8, and have added new claim 21. Claims 19 and 20 remain withdrawn from consideration as drawn to a non-elected invention. Claims 1-7, 9-18, and 21 are currently under consideration in the application.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 9-18, and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection includes a new reference to JP 2019-175830 A (in the above 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 103 rejections), and thus does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicants' 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 KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 January 10, 2026