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 .
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application TW112120622 filed in Taiwan on June 2, 2023.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)- (d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed August 3, 2026.
Claim 1 has been amended
Claims 5-6 and 15-16 have been canceled.
Claims 1-4, 7-14, and 17-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Sun et al. (US 20220216507 A1) in view of Yu et al. (US 20220255073A1) and Xu et al. (US 20230032851 A1) on claims 1-4, 7-14, and 17-20 are maintained. The rejections are stated below.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 1-4, 7-14, and 17-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US 20220216507 A1) in view of Yu et al. (US 20220255073A1) and Xu et al. (US 20230032851 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 2: Sun et al. teaches a positive electrode (cathode) material, coated with indium-based halide solid electrolyte material, and a method of making wherein the required raw materials are mixed together in a liquid phase and heat-treated to form the desired positive electrode material with a solid electrolyte (abstract). Sun discloses a cathode material (para. 0034), a core layer comprising a lithium metal oxide material (para. 0034). Additionally, Sun discloses wherein the solid electrolyte is formed by a reaction of a first material on the core layer and has a composition of Li3InClxFy, x+y=6, 0<x<6, and 0<y<6 (para. 0038), and the precursor is heat-treated to form the cathode material (para. 0050 - 0054), wherein the first material comprises lithium, indium, chlorine, and fluorine (para. 0038), and the lithium metal oxide material and the solid electrolyte have a weight ratio ranged from 1:0.3 to 1:0.6 (para. 0109, weight ratio of positive electrode to solid electrolyte material is 70:30 which is mathematically equivalent to a ratio of 1:0.43).
However, Sun et al. does not teach a specific composition of NMC wherein the lithium metal oxide material has a composition of wherein the lithium metal oxide material has a composition of Li[NiaCobMncAld]O2, wherein a+b+c+d=1, 0.8<a<1, 0<b<1, 0≤c<1, and 0≤d<1.
Additionally, Yu teaches a particle structure of a cathode material and a preparation method thereof where a lithium metal oxide precursor is mixed with salts before a heat-treatment to form the desired particle with a core layer and coating layers (abstract). Yu discloses a cathode material comprising a plurality of particles, wherein each of the plurality of particles comprises: a core layer comprising a lithium metal oxide material, wherein the lithium metal oxide material has a composition of Li[NiaCobMncAld]O2, wherein a+b+c+d=1, 0.8<a<1, 0<b<1, 0≤c<1, and 0≤d<1 (para. 0042). Additionally, Yu discloses wherein 0.9<a<1 (para. 0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the cathode and solid electrolyte of Sun with the specific NMC cathode material utilize by Yu, because the oxide by Yu and the oxide by Sun are considered as functionally equivalent oxides in a core/shell structure of the cathode.
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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
The combination of Sun et al. and Yu et al. discloses the cathode material of claim 1 as described above in Paragraph 3. However, Sun and Yu fail to teach wherein each of the plurality of particles has a particle size, and the coating layer has a thickness, wherein the particle size and the thickness have a ratio ranged from 6:1 to 40:1.
Additionally, Xu et al. teaches a composite positive electrode material comprising a positive electrode material core and a halide coating layer that is coated on the surface of the positive electrode material core (abstract). Xu discloses wherein each of the plurality of particles has a particle size, and the coating layer has a thickness, wherein the particle size and the thickness have a ratio ranged from 6:1 to 40:1 (para. 0021-0023). Additionally, Xu discloses wherein the particle size is ranged from 5 µm to 20 µm (para. 0021), and the thickness is ranged from 0.5 µm to 3 µm (para. 0023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cathode material particle of Sun et al. and Yu. et al. to include the claimed ratio of Xu et al. because Xu teaches that in such ranges, a good cladding layer can be formed on the surface of the cladded matrix material (para. 0025).
When a composition with a touching or overlapping range is found in the prior art, this is considered sufficient to support a holding of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 3: Sun et al. further teaches the cathode material according to claim 1, wherein 4≤x≤5.5, and 0.5≤y≤2 (para. 0038).
Regarding claim 4: Sun et al. further the cathode material according to claim 1, wherein the lithium metal oxide material and the solid electrolyte have a weight ratio ranged from 1:0.4 to 1:0.5 (para. 0109, weight ratio of positive electrode to solid electrolyte material is 70:30 which is mathematically equivalent to a ratio of 1:0.43).
Regarding claim 7: Sun et al. further teaches the cathode material according to claim 1, wherein the first material is one selected from the group consisting of lithium chloride (LiCl), lithium fluoride (LiF), indium chloride (InCl3), and indium fluoride (InF3) (para. 0083).
Regarding claim 8: Sun et al. further teaches the cathode material according to claim 1, wherein the solvent comprises a volatile organic solvent (para. 0054).
Regarding claim 9: Sun et al. further teaches the cathode material according to claim 1, wherein the precursor is heat-treated in a vacuum environment or an inert atmosphere to form the cathode material (para. 0052).
Regarding claim 10: Sun et al. further teaches the cathode material according to claim 1, wherein the precursor is heat-treated at a temperature to form the cathode material (para. 0050-0051), and the temperature is ranged from 100 °C to 250 °C (para. 0051).
Regarding claims 11 and 12: Sun et al. teaches a NMC positive electrode material, coated with indium-based halide solid electrolyte material, and a method of making wherein the required raw materials are mixed together in a liquid phase and heat-treated to form the desired positive electrode material with a solid electrolyte. Sun discloses a preparation method of a cathode material, comprising steps of: (a) providing an NMC, (b) mixing the NMC with a first material and a solvent to form a precursor, wherein the first material comprises lithium, indium, chlorine, and fluorine (para. 0050); and (c) heat-treating the precursor to form the cathode material comprising a plurality of particles (para. 0051). and the coating layer comprises a solid electrolyte having a composition of Li3InClxFy, wherein x+y=6, 0<x<6, and 0<y<6 (para. 0038), and the first material is reacted on the core layer to form the solid electrolyte (para. 0050-0051), wherein the lithium metal oxide material and the solid electrolyte have a weight ratio ranged from 1:0.3 to 1:0.6 (para. 0109, weight ratio of positive electrode to solid electrolyte material is 70:30 which is mathematically equivalent to a ratio of 1:0.43).
Sun et al. discloses a NMC positive electrode material (para. 0034), coated with indium-based halide solid electrolyte material (para. 0038). However, Sun et al. does not teach wherein each of the plurality of particles comprises a core layer and a coating layer coated on the core layer, the core layer comprises the lithium metal oxide material, has a composition of wherein the lithium metal oxide material has a composition of Li[NiaCobMncAld]O2, wherein a+b+c+d=1, 0.8<a<1, 0<b<1, 0≤c<1, and 0≤d<1.
Additionally, Yu teaches a particle structure of a cathode material and a preparation method thereof where a lithium metal oxide precursor is mixed with salts before a heat-treatment to form the desired particle with a core layer and coating layers (abstract). Yu discloses heat-treating the precursor to form the cathode material comprising a plurality of particles, wherein each of the plurality of particles comprises a core layer and a coating layer coated on the core layer (para. 0015), the core layer comprises the lithium metal oxide material (para. 0015), wherein a+b+c+d=1, 0.8<a<1, 0<b<1, 0≤c<1, and 0≤d<1 (para. 0042). Additionally, Yu discloses wherein 0.9<a<1 (para. 0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the cathode and solid electrolyte of Sun with the specific NMC cathode material utilize by Yu, because the oxide by Yu and the oxide by Sun are considered as functionally equivalent oxides in a core/shell structure of the cathode.
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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
The combination of Sun et al. and Yu et al. discloses the preparation method of the cathode material of claim 11 as described above in Paragraph 3. However, Sun and Yu fail to teach wherein each of the plurality of particles has a particle size, and the coating layer has a thickness, wherein the particle size and the thickness have a ratio ranged from 6:1 to 40:1.
Additionally, Xu et al. teaches a composite positive electrode material comprising a positive electrode material core and a halide coating layer that is coated on the surface of the positive electrode material core (abstract). Xu discloses wherein each of the plurality of particles has a particle size, and the coating layer has a thickness, wherein the particle size and the thickness have a ratio ranged from 6:1 to 40:1 (para. 0021-0023). Additionally, Xu discloses wherein the particle size is ranged from 5 µm to 20 µm (para. 0021), and the thickness is ranged from 0.5 µm to 3 µm (para. 0023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cathode material particle of Sun et al. and Yu. et al. to include the claimed ratio of Xu et al. because Xu teaches that in such ranges, a good cladding layer can be formed on the surface of the cladded matrix material (para. 0025).
When a composition with a touching or overlapping range is found in the prior art, this is considered sufficient to support a holding of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 13: Sun et al. further teaches the preparation method of the cathode material according to claim 11, wherein 4≤x≤5.5, and 0.5≤y≤2 (para. 0038).
Regarding claim 14: Sun et al. further teaches the preparation method of the cathode material according to claim 11, wherein the lithium metal oxide material and the solid electrolyte have a weight ratio ranged from 1:0.4 to 1:0.5 (para. 0109, weight ratio of positive electrode to solid electrolyte material is 70:30 which is mathematically equivalent to a ratio of 1:0.43).
Regarding claim 17: Sun et al. further teaches the preparation method of the cathode material according to claim 11, wherein the first material is one selected from the group consisting of lithium chloride (LiCl), lithium fluoride (LiF), indium chloride (InCl3), and indium fluoride (InF3) (para. 0083).
Regarding claim 18: Sun et al. further teaches the preparation method of the cathode material according to claim 11, wherein the solvent comprises a volatile organic solvent (para. 0054).
Regarding claim 19: Sun et al. further teaches the preparation method of the cathode material according to claim 11, wherein the precursor is heat-treated in a vacuum environment or an inert atmosphere to form the cathode material (para. 0052).
Regarding claim 20: Sun et al. further teaches the preparation method of the cathode material according to claim 11, wherein the precursor is heat-treated at a temperature to form the cathode material (para. 0050-0051), and the temperature is ranged from 100 °C to 250 °C (para. 0051).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In page 10 of the Remarks, applicant argues that Sun and Yu fail to teach particle size of the particle and the thickness of the coating layer. Additionally, applicant states that Xu discloses that the solid electrolyte Li3YX6 has a particle size of 5 nm to 500 nm, and that while Xu discloses the particle size of the solid electrolyte particles, it fails to disclose or suggest thickness of the solid electrolyte coating layer. Applicant states that none of Sun, Yu, or Xu discloses or suggests the thickness of the solid electrolyte coating layer. Therefore, Xu is not able to achieve core-coating structure with the specific thickness ratio.
In response:
Sun discloses that the solid electrolyte layer has the advantage that the thickness is small, and generally the thickness may be less than 50 µm (para, 0118). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a small thickness below 50 µm. This falls within the claimed range of 0.5 µm to 3 µm.
Xu discloses that the solid electrolyte has a particle size of 5 nm to 500 nm (0.5 µm) (para. 0023). This indicates that if only one solid electrolyte particle of 0.5 µm is used, the diameter of the particle defines the thickness of the solid electrolyte, resulting in a layer thickness of 0.5 µm that directly touches the lower bound of the claimed range of 0.5 µm to 3 µm. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a coating layer typically involves a plurality of particles stacked across the surface. If more than one particle is used to form the layer, the cumulative thickness of the stacked particles will increase, falling within the claimed range of 0.5 µm to 3 µm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the coating thickness because Xu teaches that in such ranges, a good cladding layer can be formed on the surface of the cladded matrix material (para. 0025), particularly in light of the teaching in the primary reference desiring a coating having an overlapping range with the claimed invention.
In page 10 and 11 of the Remarks, applicant emphasizes that the present application specifically addresses the technical problem that high-nickel cathode materials (where nickel content a>0.8) are highly sensitive to moisture. Applicant states that none of Sun, Yu, or Xu recognizes this specific technical problem associated with high-nickel cathode material (a>0.8). Applicant states that without the recognition of this moisture-sensitivity problem for such specific high-nickel materials, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to combine these references to arrive at the claimed core-coating structure with the specific thickness ratio in the present application.
In response: It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by the applicant. See MPEP § 2144 IV.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ADRIANA P CLAUDIO VAZQUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571)270-7692. 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.
/APCV/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights