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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/05/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/26/2026 and has been entered. Claims 2-3, 8-11 and 13 are canceled, Claims 14-15 are newly added and Claims 1, 4-7, 12 and 14-15 are pending.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horikawa et al. (US 20210005887 A1), hereinafter “Horikawa” in view of Shin et al. (US 20210126256 A1), hereinafter “Shin”. Horikawa and Shin et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely active material coatings.
In regard to Claims 1 and 4, Horikawa et al. discloses a coated active material comprising: wherein the active material is a lithium transition metal composite oxide comprising Ni, a coating layer configured to coat at least a part of a surface of the active material, and a NiO layer is formed between the active material and the coating layer (Horikawa, Abstract, Claims 1 and 3, Examples 12-13). Horikawa et al. also discloses the NiO layer thickness can be adjusted by the skilled artisan (Horikawa, [0055]) and therefore the thickness is a deliberately controllable parameter and a result effective variable to be optimized by the skilled artisan. Further, Horikawa et al. discloses two beneficial examples wherein the average thickness of the NiO layer is 0.4nm and 0.5nm (Horikawa, Examples 12-13), which anticipates the claimed range.
Horikawa discloses a maximum distance from an interface between the NiO layer and the positive electrode active material and the outer surface of the NiO layer is determined from, for example, observations using an electron microscope and then uses a series of those measurements to calculate the average thickness (Horikawa, [0044]). This demonstrates the skilled artisan is in possession of the maximum thickness of the NiO layer which may reasonably range from 0.7 nm to 0.9 nm in Examples 12 and 13 and could be optimized and adjusted to fall within that range as evidenced by Shin et al. which discloses a coated active material comprising a lithium transition metal composite oxide including Ni (Shin, Abstract, [0014]), and further comprises a coating layer configured to coat at least a part of a surface of the active material wherein an NiO layer is formed between the active material and the coating layer (Shin, [0009, 0019]). Shin et al. also discloses the NiO layer acts as a resistive element and that reducing its thickness reduces cathode resistance and improves capacity and cycling wherein the layer has a thickness of 1nm or less (Shin, [0067]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the NiO layers of Horikawa with an average thickness of 0.4 or 0.5nm and ensure a maximum thickness of 1nm or less as taught in Shin et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the lower resistance taught in Shin and as doing so would amount to nothing more than optimizing a result effective variable without undue experimentation.
In regard to Claims 5-6, Horikawa in view of Shin et al. discloses the coated active material according to claim 1. Horikawa et al. also discloses an active material comprising a lithium transition metal composite oxide including Ni wherein a content of Ni in the active material is 50 mol% or more with respect to a total of metal elements, excluding Li, included in the active material and wherein the active material anticipates the claimed formula (Horikawa, Example 31, [0028]).
In regard to Claim 12, Horikawa in view of Shin et al. discloses the coated active material according to claim 1. Horikawa et al. also discloses the coating may be partially coated on the NiO layer which would reasonably provide gaps in the coating (Horikawa, [0054], Figure 1).
In regard to Claim 15, Horikawa in view of Shin et al. discloses the coated active material according to claim 1. Horikawa et al. also discloses a battery comprising: a cathode layer, an anode layer, and a solid electrolyte layer placed between the cathode layer and the anode layer, wherein the cathode layer includes the coated active material according to claim 1 (Horikawa, [0075]).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horikawa et al. (US 20210005887 A1), hereinafter “Horikawa” in view of Shin et al. (US 20210126256 A1), hereinafter “Shin” as applied to claim 1 above in view of Mitsumoto et al. (US 20200194788 A1), hereinafter “Mitsumoto”. Horikawa, Shin and Mitsumoto are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely active material coatings.
In regard to Claims 7 and 14, Horikawa in view of Shin et al. discloses the coated active material according to claim 1. Horikawa et al. also discloses wherein the coating layer includes a lithium oxide in an outer lithium titanium oxide coating over an NiO layer and considers doping with Nb (Horikawa, [0032, 0047]) however, it is silent as to the coating comprising Nb. The skilled artisan would be well aware of coating layers comprising lithium oxides and Nb as taught in Mitsumoto et al. which discloses a beneficial coating comprising lithium oxide, Nb and Ti or a combination thereof and that such coatings have the benefit of reducing contact resistance between active material and electrolyte while improving lithium-ion conductivity, rate performance and cycle performance (Mitsumoto, Abstract, [0016-0017]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Nb in the lithium titanium oxide coating of Horikawa as taught in Mitsumoto as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Mitsumoto and as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on a primary reference Horikawa et al. (US 20210005887 A1) which was not applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument in combination with a secondary reference.
Conclusion
Applicant's 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yang et al. (Interfacial Regulation of Ni-Rich Cathode Materials with an Ion-Conductive and Pillaring Layer by Infusing Gradient Boron for Improved Cycle Stability, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 12, 10240−10251), which discloses Ni rich cathodes with nanoscale NiO layers and second coating layers over the NiO layer (Yang, Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights