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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 10/23/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/23/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the axis labels in Figures 9A and 9B are blurry and hard to distinguish, particularly the subscripted text. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Won et al. (US 2015/0228973 A1) (disclosed by Applicant on IDS dated 03/08/2024).
Regarding Claim 1, Won discloses a cathode material (positive active material, 10), comprising: a core (11) formed by a ternary material (lithium nickel composite oxide) and a coating layer (island-type discontinuous coating layer, 12) covering the core (11) (Figure 1, [0051]). Won further discloses in Example 1 that the ternary material (lithium nickel composite oxide) may specifically be Li(Ni0.85Co0.1Mn0.05)O2 [0056-0057, 0121], which reads on the claimed composition of Li(NixCoyMnz)O2, wherein x+y+z=1, 0.8<x<1, 0<y<0.2, and 0<z<0.2. Won further discloses that the coating layer (island-type discontinuous coating layer, 12) is formed by an iron-phosphate compound (olivine-type phosphate compound) material which may be LiFePO4 (Figure 1, [0050, 0062]). Won further discloses that the iron-phosphate compound (olivine-type phosphate compound) is coated to the core (11) as a plurality of first particles (nanoparticles) which aggregate together to collaboratively form the coating layer (island-type discontinuous coating layer, 12) (Figure 1, [0075, 0080]). Thus, the limitations of Claim 1 are met.
Regarding Claim 2, Won further discloses that the core (11) has an average particle diameter of 6 µm (Figure 1, [0065, 0121]). Thus, all of the limitations for Claim 2 are met.
Regarding Claim 3, Won further discloses that the iron-phosphate compound (olivine-type phosphate compound) material comprises lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) [0050, 0062]. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 3 are met.
Regarding Claim 4, Won further discloses that the plurality of first particles (LiFePO4 nanoparticles) have an average particle diameter of 0.2 µm (200 nm) [0126]. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 4 are met.
Regarding Claim 6, Won further discloses in Example 1 that the cathode material (positive active material, 10) may comprise the core (11) in an amount of 100 parts by weight and the coating layer (island-type discontinuous coating layer, 12) in an amount of 0.5 parts by weight (Figure 1, [0126]). As such, the core (11) has a weight percentage of 99.5 wt% (100 parts by weight (core)/100.5 parts by weight (total)*100) based on the total weight of the cathode material (positive active material, 10). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 6 are met.
Regarding Claim 7, Won further discloses in Example 1 that the cathode material (positive active material, 10) may comprise the core (11) in an amount of 100 parts by weight and the coating layer (island-type discontinuous coating layer, 12) in an amount of 0.5 parts by weight (Figure 1, [0126]). As such, the coating layer (island-type discontinuous coating layer, 12) has a weight percentage of ~0.5 wt% (0.5 parts by weight (coating)/100.5 parts by weight (total)*100) based on the total weight of the cathode material (positive active material, 10). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 7 are met.
Regarding Claim 8, as detailed above in the rejection of Claim 7, Won discloses that the coating layer (island-type discontinuous coating layer, 12) has a weight percentage of ~0.5 wt% (0.5 parts by weight (coating)/100.5 parts by weight (total)*100) based on the total weight of the cathode material (positive active material, 10). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 8 are met.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won et al. (US 2015/0228973 A1) (disclosed by Applicant on IDS dated 03/08/2024), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Hara et al. (US 2019/0288275 A1).
In Regards to Claim 5 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Won discloses the cathode material of Claim 1 as set forth above. Won further discloses that the coating layer (island-type discontinuous coating layer, 12) is formed as an island-type discontinuous coating layer rather than a continuous coating layer as the island-type discontinuous coating layer has better electrical conductivity between active materials [0156]. Won further discloses that the cathode material (positive active material, 10) may be used in a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (lithium battery, 30) (Figure 2, [0105, 0114, 0142]).
Won is deficient in disclosing a carbon-coating layer coated on the first particles, wherein the carbon-coating layer has a thickness ranged from 3 nm to 10 nm.
Hara discloses a positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (30) [0076], the positive electrode active material comprising lithium-iron phosphate (LiFePO4) particles (positive electrode active material particles, 6) (Figures 3 and 4, [0055, 0069, 0089]). Hara further discloses that the lithium-iron phosphate (LiFePO4) particles (positive electrode active material particles, 6) are coated with carbon-coating layer (carbonaceous coating film, 8) (Figure 3, [0055, 0089]). Hara further discloses that the carbon-coating layer (carbonaceous coating film, 8) has a thickness of 4 nm [0128]. Hara further discloses that the carbon-coating layer (carbonaceous coating film, 8) serves as an electronic conduction path and enables rapid electron transfer for the electrode reaction, thus improving battery characteristics [0019].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the first particles of Won to include as a coating, a carbon-coating layer having a thickness of 4 nm, as it is known in the art that lithium-iron phosphate particles having a carbon-coating layer are suitable for use in a positive electrode material for a non-aqueous secondary battery, as taught by Hara. By doing so, the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing a first particle which has improved conductivity and enhanced battery characteristics, as taught by Hara. Furthermore, the skilled artisan would be motivated to make such a modification as Won discloses that the type of coating layer (island-type discontinuous coating layer, 12) is selected for improved conductivity, thus improved conductivity is clearly desired by Won. By doing so, all of the limitations of Claim 5 are met.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY E FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1498. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)-270-5256. 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.
/EMILY ELIZABETH FREEMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1724