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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 20 July 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-12, 14-19, and 21-24 are currently pending
Claim 1 is amended
Claims 13 and 20 have been cancelled
Claims 11-12 and 14-18 have been previously withdrawn
New claims 21-24 have been added
Status of Amendments
The amendment filed 20 July 2026 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Status of Objections and Rejections of the Office Action from 12 May 2026
The 103 rejections over Kim in view of Park and Lee, further in view of Du and Park ‘221, respectively, are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment. However, a new grounds of rejection over Kim in view of Park and Wu, further in view of Du, Park ‘221, and Cho, respectively, has been set forth, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0050] of the specification teaches the boron-containing compound being selected from more than one of multiple compounds, including C5H6B(OH)2. However, this compound is improbable. In order for this compound to be made, one would need to combine a boronic acid functional group with a complete molecule, in this case an alkene comprising three double bonds among the five carbons or, more likely, cyclopentadiene, which would not be possible. In order for this joining to occur, the formula would instead need to be C5H5B(OH)2 to account for the hydrogen that is being replaced by the boronic acid group. Examiner believes this may be a typo with the intended compound being C6H5B(OH)2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 22 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 22 and 24 claim the boron-containing compound being selected from more than one of multiple compounds, including C5H6B(OH)2. As discussed above, this compound is improbable. In order for this compound to be made, one would need to combine a boronic acid functional group with a complete molecule, in this case an alkene comprising three double bonds among the five carbons or, more likely, cyclopentadiene, which would not be possible. In order for this joining to occur, the formula would instead need to be C5H5B(OH)2 to account for the hydrogen that is being replaced by the boronic acid group.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 3-6, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20200343553 A1), hereinafter Kim, in view of Park et al. (KR 20190116063 A, using US 20210005874 A1 as the English translation), further in view of Cho et al. (US 20060281005 A1), hereinafter Cho.
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a positive-electrode active material [0009], comprising:
a positive-electrode active material matrix, in this case a lithium complex transition metal oxide [0019]; and
a coating layer, in this case a composite coating portion [0019]; wherein:
the coating layer coats a surface of the positive-electrode active material matrix [0019], and
the positive-electrode active material matrix is LipNi1-(x1+y1+z1)Cox1May1Mbz1Mcq1O2 [Formula 1], wherein 0.9≤p≤1.5, 0<x1≤0.2, 0<y1≤0.2, 0≤z≤0.1, 0≤q≤0.1, and 0<x1+y1+z1≤0.35, Ma can be Mn, Mb can be Mg, Ce, Ti, Zr, or Al, and Mc can be Mg, Ti, Zr, or Al [0022], which overlaps with the claimed formula of Li1+a[NixCoyMnzMb]O2, wherein 0<x<1, 0≤y<0.3, 0≤z<0.3, 0<a<0.2, 0<b<0.2, x+y+z+b=1,and M is selected from more than one of Mg, Ca, Sb, Ce, Ti, Zr, Al, Zn, and B. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select a positive-electrode active material matrix with variables lying with the claimed positive-electrode active material matrix variable ranges. 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).
Kim further teaches the coating layer containing a cobalt-containing compound, an aluminum-containing compound, and a boron-containing compound [0010].
Kim is silent as to a weight ratio of an element aluminum and an element boron in the coating layer being 0.5-1.2:1. However, Park teaches a coating raw material that may include B as a first coating element and Al as a second coating element [0065] in a weight ratio of 30:70-70:30 [0066]. This equates to a weight ratio of 0.43-2.33:1. 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).
Kim and Park are both considered to be equivalent to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lithium composite transition metal oxide coating elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the weight ratio of an element aluminum and an element boron in the coating of Kim to be 0.43-2.33:1, as taught by Park. Doing so would have improved the ability of the coating to protect the surface and improve structural stability of the active material [Park 0066].
Kim is further silent as to a thickness of the coating layer being 1.1 µm-2 µm. However, Cho teaches a lithium nickel oxide active material [0065] coated with a surface treatment layer [0054] comprising Co, B, and Al [0055] at a thickness of 0.01 to 2 µm [0057], which overlaps with the claimed range. 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).
Kim and Cho are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lithium nickel oxide cathode active materials coated with Co, B, and Al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the composite coating portion of Kim with the thickness of Cho. Doing so would have ensured the effect of the coating may be realized [Cho 0057], including excellent structural stability and high average discharge voltages both at high and low rates, excellent cycle life characteristics, and good capacity [Cho 0149], without deteriorating the capacity of the battery [Cho 0057].
Regarding claims 3-6, modified Kim teaches the positive-electrode active material according to claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein:
with respect to the total weight of the positive-electrode active material matrix, a weight proportion of a coating amount of the element cobalt in the coating layer is 1,000-8,000 ppm [0032] or specifically 5,000 ppm in example 3 [0080], which lies within the 1,000-20,000 ppm as required by claim 4, a weight proportion coating amount of the element boron in the coating layer is 50-700 ppm [0033] or specifically 200 ppm in example 3 [0080], which lies within the 100-2,000 ppm as required by claim 6, a weight proportion of a coating amount of the element aluminum in the coating layer is 1,000-8,000 ppm [0034], which overlaps with the 100-3,000 ppm as required by claim 5, and a weight proportion of a total coating amount of element cobalt, element aluminum, and element boron in the coating layer are 2,050-16,700 ppm [0032-0034], when adding up all the ranges, or specifically 10,200 ppm in example 3 [0080], which lies within the 1,000-22,000 ppm as required by claim 3. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select a weight proportion of a coating amount of the element cobalt, a weight proportion of a coating amount of the element boron, and a weight proportion of a coating amount of the element aluminum in the coating layer, as well as a weight proportion of a total coating amount of element cobalt, element aluminum, and element boron in the coating layer within the claimed ranges. 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).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kim teaches the positive-electrode active material according to claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein:
the cobalt-containing compound is selected from more than one of cobalt oxide, cobalt salt, cobalt hydroxide, and cobalt oxyhydroxide [0041]; or
the aluminum-containing compound is selected from more than one of aluminum oxide, aluminum hydroxide, aluminum salt, and aluminum halide [0043]; or
the boron-containing compound is selected from more than one of boron oxide, boron halide, boric acid, borate, and organoboron compound [0042].
Regarding claim 19, modified Kim teaches the positive-electrode material according to claim 1. Kim further teaches a secondary battery, comprising the positive-electrode material according to claim 1 [0019].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Park further in view of Cho, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Park et al. (US 20170222221 A1), hereinafter Park ‘221.
Modified Kim teaches the positive-electrode active material according to claim 1. Modified Kim is silent as to the particles in the positive-electrode active material being secondary particles formed by agglomeration of primary particles. However, Park ‘221 teaches a positive-electrode active material similar to Kim [Park ‘221 Formula 1, 0031] wherein the particles in the positive-electrode active material are secondary particles formed by agglomeration of primary particles [0018]. Park ‘221 further teaches an average particle size of the primary particles in the secondary particles being 0.01-5 µm [0098], which overlaps with the claimed 100-1000 nm, and a median particle size by volume D50 of the positive-electrode active material is 0.2-10 µm [0098], which overlaps with the claimed 2-15 µm. 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).
Kim and Park ‘221 are both considered to be equivalent to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lithium complex metal oxide positive-electrode active materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive-electrode active material of Kim with the active material taught by Park ‘221. Doing so would have produced a secondary battery with excellent discharge capacity, output property, and capacity retention rate [Park ‘221 0184].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Park further in view of Cho, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Du et al. (WO 2020135767 A1, using US 20220077464 A1 as the English translation), hereinafter Du.
Modified Kim teaches the positive-electrode active material according to claim 1. Modified Kim is silent as to the particles in the positive-electrode active material being monocrystalline particles. However, Du teaches a positive-electrode active material similar to Kim [Du 0006] wherein the particles in the positive-electrode active material are single crystal particles [0006]. Du further teaches the positive-electrode active material having a median particle size by volume D50 of 1-6 µm [0052], which lies within the claimed 1-8 µm, and a specific surface area of 0.5-1.5 m2/g [0051], which lies within the claimed 0.4 -2 m2/g.
Kim and Du are both considered to be equivalent to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lithium complex metal oxide positive-electrode active materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive-electrode active material of Kim with the active material taught by Du. Doing so would have accelerated a migration rate of lithium ions during the charging and discharging process and prevented the deterioration of the cycle performance and rate performance of the electrochemical energy storage apparatus [0035].
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Park further in view of Cho, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Wu et al. (US 20200028169 A1), hereinafter Wu.
Regarding claim 21, modified Kim teaches the positive-electrode active material according to claim 1. Kim is silent as to M comprising B in the formula for the positive-electrode active material matrix. However, Wu teaches a positive active material comprising a coating layer comprising an N element selected from one or more of Al and B [0006] and a compound comprising an M element dopant selected from one or more of Al and B [0006] represented by the formula Li1+a[NixCoyMnzAdMbNc]O2-eXe [Formula 1], wherein d and e may be 0, 0<x≤1, 0≤y<0.3, 0≤z<0.3, 0<a<0.2, 0<b<0.2, 0<c<0.1, x+y+z+b+c=1, and M and N may each be Al and/or B. This compound and variable ranges overlap with the claimed positive-electrode active material matrix. 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).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive-electrode active material matrix of Kim with the positive-electrode active material matrix of Wu or with the boron dopant teaching of Wu. Doing so would have improved the structural stability and the high and low temperature cycle performance of the positive active material, as well as the capacity, energy density, and safety performance of the lithium-ion secondary battery [Wu 0025].
Regarding claim 22, modified Kim teaches the positive-electrode active material according to claim 1. Kim further teaches the boron-containing compound containing at least one selected the group consisting of C6H5B(OH)2, B4C, B2O3, BF3, H3BO3, (C3H7O)3B, (C6H5O)3B, C13H19O3, and B2F4 [0042]. Kim is silent as to the boron containing compound being selected from more than one of BCl3, BBr3, BI3, BN, H2BO5P, C5H6B(OH)2, C3H9B3O6, and (C2H5O)3B. However, Wu teaches the source of the coating layer N element, which may be B, being one or more of a chloride, a sulfate, a nitrate, an oxide, a hydroxide, a fluoride, a carbonate, a phosphate, a dihydrogen phosphate, and an organic compound containing an N element [0058]. Wu further teaches a boron-containing compound being selected from one or more of BCl3, B2(SO4)3, B(NO3)3, BN, B2O3, BF3, BBr3, BI3, H2BO5P, H3BO3, C5H6B(OH)2, C3H9B3O6, (C2H5O)3B, and (C3H7O)3B [0063]. Examiner notes that the latter list is taught with regards to washing the active material in a solution to reduce the amount of residual lithium in the material [0065]. However, the list includes B in the form of a chloride, a sulfate, a nitrate, an oxide, a hydroxide, a fluoride, a carbonate, a phosphate, a dihydrogen phosphate, and an organic compound containing an N element, as also taught for the source of the coating layer element N. Therefore, B4C, (C6H5O)3B, C13H19O3, B2F4, BCl3, B2(SO4)3, B(NO3)3, BN, B2O3, BF3, BBr3, BI3, H2BO5P, H3BO3, C5H6B(OH)2, C3H9B3O6, (C2H5O)3B, and (C3H7O)3B are considered to be functional equivalents.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the boron-containing compound of Kim with the teachings of Wu to contain more than one of BCl3, BBr3, BI3, BN, H2BO5P, C6H5B(OH)2, C3H9B3O6, and (C2H5O)3B. The selection of a known material, in this case BCl3, BBr3, BI3, BN, H2BO5P, C6H5B(OH)2, C3H9B3O6, and (C2H5O)3B, based on its suitability for its intended use, in this case as a boron-containing compound, supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Park further in view of Cho and further in view of Wu et al. (US 20200028169 A1), hereinafter Wu.
Regarding claim 23, Kim teaches a positive-electrode active material [0009], comprising:
a positive-electrode active material matrix, in this case a lithium complex transition metal oxide [0019]; and
a coating layer, in this case a composite coating portion [0019]; wherein:
the coating layer coats a surface of the positive-electrode active material matrix [0019], and
the coating layer contains a cobalt-containing compound, an aluminum-containing compound, and a boron-containing compound [0010].
Kim is silent as to the positive-electrode active material matrix being Li1+a[NixCoyMnzMb]O2, wherein 0<x<1, 0≤y<0.3, 0≤z<0.3, 0<a<0.2, 0<b<0.2, x+y+z+b=1, and M comprises B. However, Wu teaches a positive active material comprising a coating layer comprising an N element selected from one or more of Al and B [0006] and a compound comprising an M element dopant selected from one or more of Al and B [0006] represented by the formula Li1+a[NixCoyMnzAdMbNc]O2-eXe [Formula 1], wherein d and e may be 0, 0<x≤1, 0≤y<0.3, 0≤z<0.3, 0<a<0.2, 0<b<0.2, 0<c<0.1, x+y+z+b+c=1, and M and N may each be Al and/or B. This compound and variable ranges overlap with the claimed positive-electrode active material matrix. 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).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive-electrode active material matrix of Kim with the positive-electrode active material matrix of Wu or with the boron dopant teaching of Wu. Doing so would have improved the structural stability and the high and low temperature cycle performance of the positive active material, as well as the capacity, energy density, and safety performance of the lithium-ion secondary battery [Wu 0025].
Kim is silent as to a weight ratio of an element aluminum and an element boron in the coating layer being 0.5-1.2:1. However, Park teaches a coating raw material that may include B as a first coating element and Al as a second coating element [0065] in a weight ratio of 30:70-70:30 [0066]. This equates to a weight ratio of 0.43-2.33:1. 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).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the weight ratio of an element aluminum and an element boron in the coating of Kim to be 0.43-2.33:1, as taught by Park. Doing so would have improved the ability of the coating to protect the surface and improve structural stability of the active material [Park 0066].
Kim is silent as to a thickness of the coating layer being 0.6 µm-2 µm. However, Cho teaches a lithium nickel oxide active material [0065] coated with a surface treatment layer [0054] comprising Co, B, and Al [0055] at a thickness of 0.01 to 2 µm [0057], which overlaps with the claimed range. 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).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the composite coating portion of Kim with the thickness of Cho. Doing so would have ensured the effect of the coating may be realized [Cho 0057], including excellent structural stability and high average discharge voltages both at high and low rates, excellent cycle life characteristics, and good capacity [Cho 0149], without deteriorating the capacity of the battery [Cho 0057].
Regarding claim 24, Kim teaches a positive-electrode active material [0009], comprising:
a positive-electrode active material matrix, in this case a lithium complex transition metal oxide [0019]; and
a coating layer, in this case a composite coating portion [0019]; wherein:
the coating layer coats a surface of the positive-electrode active material matrix [0019], and
the positive-electrode active material matrix is LipNi1-(x1+y1+z1)Cox1May1Mbz1Mcq1O2 [Formula 1], wherein 0.9≤p≤1.5, 0<x1≤0.2, 0<y1≤0.2, 0≤z≤0.1, 0≤q≤0.1, and 0<x1+y1+z1≤0.35, Ma can be Mn, Mb can be Mg, Ce, Ti, Zr, or Al, and Mc can be Mg, Ti, Zr, or Al [0022], which overlaps with the claimed formula of Li1+a[NixCoyMnzMb]O2, wherein 0<x<1, 0≤y<0.3, 0≤z<0.3, 0<a<0.2, 0<b<0.2, x+y+z+b=1,and M is selected from more than one of Mg, Ca, Sb, Ce, Ti, Zr, Al, Zn, and B. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select a positive-electrode active material matrix with variables lying with the claimed positive-electrode active material matrix variable ranges. 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).
Kim further teaches the coating layer containing a cobalt-containing compound, an aluminum-containing compound, and a boron-containing compound [0010].
Kim is silent as to a weight ratio of an element aluminum and an element boron in the coating layer being 0.5-1.2:1. However, Park teaches a coating raw material that may include B as a first coating element and Al as a second coating element [0065] in a weight ratio of 30:70-70:30 [0066]. This equates to a weight ratio of 0.43-2.33:1. 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).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the weight ratio of an element aluminum and an element boron in the coating of Kim to be 0.43-2.33:1, as taught by Park. Doing so would have improved the ability of the coating to protect the surface and improve structural stability of the active material [Park 0066].
Kim is silent as to a thickness of the coating layer being 0.6 µm-2 µm. However, Cho teaches a lithium nickel oxide active material [0065] coated with a surface treatment layer [0054] comprising Co, B, and Al [0055] at a thickness of 0.01 to 2 µm [0057], which overlaps with the claimed range. 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).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the composite coating portion of Kim with the thickness of Cho. Doing so would have ensured the effect of the coating may be realized [Cho 0057], including excellent structural stability and high average discharge voltages both at high and low rates, excellent cycle life characteristics, and good capacity [Cho 0149], without deteriorating the capacity of the battery [Cho 0057].
Kim further teaches the boron-containing compound containing at least one selected the group consisting of C6H5B(OH)2, B4C, B2O3, BF3, H3BO3, (C3H7O)3B, (C6H5O)3B, C13H19O3, and B2F4 [0042]. Kim is silent as to the boron containing compound being selected from more than one of BCl3, BBr3, BI3, BN, H2BO5P, C5H6B(OH)2, C3H9B3O6, and (C2H5O)3B. However, Wu teaches the source of the coating layer N element, which may be B, being one or more of a chloride, a sulfate, a nitrate, an oxide, a hydroxide, a fluoride, a carbonate, a phosphate, a dihydrogen phosphate, and an organic compound containing an N element [0058]. Wu further teaches a boron-containing compound being selected from one or more of BCl3, B2(SO4)3, B(NO3)3, BN, B2O3, BF3, BBr3, BI3, H2BO5P, H3BO3, C5H6B(OH)2, C3H9B3O6, (C2H5O)3B, and (C3H7O)3B [0063]. Examiner notes that the latter list is taught with regards to washing the active material in a solution to reduce the amount of residual lithium in the material [0065]. However, the list includes B in the form of a chloride, a sulfate, a nitrate, an oxide, a hydroxide, a fluoride, a carbonate, a phosphate, a dihydrogen phosphate, and an organic compound containing an N element, as also taught for the source of the coating layer element N. Therefore, B4C, (C6H5O)3B, C13H19O3, B2F4, BCl3, B2(SO4)3, B(NO3)3, BN, B2O3, BF3, BBr3, BI3, H2BO5P, H3BO3, C5H6B(OH)2, C3H9B3O6, (C2H5O)3B, and (C3H7O)3B are considered to be functional equivalents.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the boron-containing compound of Kim with the teachings of Wu to contain more than one of BCl3, BBr3, BI3, BN, H2BO5P, C6H5B(OH)2, C3H9B3O6, and (C2H5O)3B. The selection of a known material, in this case BCl3, BBr3, BI3, BN, H2BO5P, C6H5B(OH)2, C3H9B3O6, and (C2H5O)3B, based on its suitability for its intended use, in this case as a boron-containing compound, supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN KENWOOD VAN KIRK whose telephone number is (703)756-4717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/DUSTIN VAN KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights