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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/21/2026 and has been entered. Claim 2 is canceled, Claims 8-13, are newly added and Claims 1 and 3-13 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 Shin et al. (US 20210126256 A1), hereinafter “Shin”. Shin is 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 4-5, Shin et al. discloses a coated active material comprising: as active material which is a lithium transition metal composite oxide including Ni (Shin, Abstract, [0014]), 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 (Shin, [0064]) 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 wherein an average thickness of the NiO layer is 2.5 nm or less (Shin, [0067]), which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference, as overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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.
In regard to Claim 6, Shin et al. discloses the coated active material according to claim 1. Shin et al. also discloses wherein the lithium transition metal oxide active material may be represented by Formula 3 Li.sub.aNi.sub.bCo.sub.c′Mn.sub.c″O.sub.2 wherein in Formula 3, 0.9≤a≤1.1, 0.7≤b<1.0, 0<c′≤0.3, 0<c″≤0.3, 0<c′+c″≤0.3, and b+c′+c″=1 are satisfied (Shin, [0062-0063]), which anticipates the claimed formula.
In regard to Claim 12, Shin et al. discloses the coated active material according to claim 1. Shin et al. also discloses when a coating is provided pores of the material is increased (Shin, [0046]), which would reasonably lead to a coating layer comprising holes, cavities, voids, or gaps.
Claims 3, 8-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US 20210126256 A1), hereinafter “Shin”. Shin is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely active material coatings.
In regard to Claim 3 and 8-9, Shin et al. discloses a coated active material comprising: as active material which is a lithium transition metal composite oxide including Ni (Shin, Abstract, [0014]), 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 (Shin, [0064]) 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 wherein a maximum thickness of the NiO layer is 2.5 nm or less (Shin, [0067]), which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference, as overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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.
In regard to Claim 10, Shin et al. discloses the coated active material according to claim 1. Shin et al. also discloses wherein the lithium transition metal oxide active material may be represented by Formula 3 Li.sub.aNi.sub.bCo.sub.c′Mn.sub.c″O.sub.2 wherein in Formula 3, 0.9≤a≤1.1, 0.7≤b<1.0, 0<c′≤0.3, 0<c″≤0.3, 0<c′+c″≤0.3, and b+c′+c″=1 are satisfied (Shin, [0062-0063]), which anticipates the claimed formula.
In regard to Claim 13, Shin et al. discloses the coated active material according to claim 1. Shin et al. also discloses when a coating is provided pores of the material is increased (Shin, [0046]), which would reasonably lead to a coating layer comprising holes, cavities, voids, or gaps.
Claim 7, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US 20210126256 A1), hereinafter “Shin” as applied to claim 1 above in view of Campbell et al. (US 20200373560 A1), hereinafter “Campbell. Shin and Campbell are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely active material coatings.
In regard to Claim 7, Shin et al. discloses the coated active material according to claim 1. While Shin et al. discloses doping the cathode active material with Nb (Shin, [0059, 0061]), it is silent as to the coating layer comprising Nb. Campbell et al. discloses a similar nickel rich layered cathode comprising a beneficial coating comprising LiNbo3 which provides a passivation later which prevents degradation particularly when using a liquid-based electrolyte such as ethylene carbonate (EC):diethylene carbonate (DEC) 1:1 and decreases the space-charge resistance when using a solid-state electrolyte. (Campbell, [0039]). 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 a coating comprising Nb as taught in Campbell et al. to the cathode material of Shin et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Shin 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.
Claim 11, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US 20210126256 A1), hereinafter “Shin” as applied to claim 3 above in view of Campbell et al. (US 20200373560 A1), hereinafter “Campbell. Shin and Campbell are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely active material coatings.
In regard to Claim 11, Shin et al. discloses the coated active material according to claim 3. While Shin et al. discloses doping the cathode active material with Nb (Shin, [0059, 0061]), it is silent as to the coating layer comprising Nb. Campbell et al. discloses a similar nickel rich layered cathode comprising a beneficial coating comprising LiNbo3 which provides a passivation later which prevents degradation particularly when using a liquid-based electrolyte such as ethylene carbonate (EC):diethylene carbonate (DEC) 1:1 and decreases the space-charge resistance when using a solid-state electrolyte. (Campbell, [0039]). 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 a coating comprising Nb as taught in Campbell et al. to the cathode material of Shin et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Shin 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 claims 1 and 3 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 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