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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed July 19, 2023 and October 10, 2025 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to, as only one figure (single view) exists, and it either referred to with the abbreviation “fig.” and/or a number. Note: “Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation “FIG.” must not appear.” See MPEP §608.02(V)(u).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0253042 (Sun et al.).
As to claim 1, Sun et al. teach an active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, including:
a core that is able to reversibly occlude and release Li (intercalate and deintercalated lithium ions) (i.e. LiaNixCoyMnzM1-x-y-z-O2Qσ, where M is an element selected from the group B, Mg, Al, Cr, V, Ti, Fe, Zr, Zn, Si Y, Nb, Ga, Sn, Mo, W, and a combination thereof, Z is a halogen or sulfur, 1.0 ≤ a ≤ 1.2, 0.0 ≤ x ≤ 0.95, 0.0 ≤ y ≤ 0.7, 0.0 ≤ z ≤ 0.7, 0.0 ≤ 1-x-y-z ≤ 0.3, 0.0 ≤ σ ≤ 0.1; Li1/3Co1/3/Mn1/3/O2 exemplified) (para 0053-0054; table 1 examples 1-3 (para 0129)); and
a salt adhering to a surface of the core, wherein
the salt includes an oxyfluoride represented by the general formula M1OFa (2 ≤ a ≤ 6 and M1 represents one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Ti, Zr, Si, P, and B) (metal oxyfluorides appreciated including at least one metal selected from the group consisting of Sc, Y, Zr, V, Nb, Cr, Mo, W, Mn, Fe, Co, B, Al, Ga, In, Sn, As La, Ce, Sm, Gd, and a combination thereof) (para 0076)) (core-shell structure seen in fig. 2). (Regarding the salt with a metal oxyfluoride with the claimed general formula, a multi-metal oxyfluoride with one of the metals being Zr and B would fit the claimed invention, as the other metal would form the salt, and the subscripts would be fulfilled by balancing the composition. Although a specific composition is not set forth (no sufficient specificity for anticipation), an overlapping composition is apricated within the teaching and thus would render the claimed invention obvious.)
As to claim 2, Sun et al. do not specifically teach the salt is (NH4)4M1OF4.
However, Sun et al. recognizes the use of a chelating agent using an ammonium cation-included compound is set forth (para 0047) (note: ammonium is (NH4)+). Sun also recognizes coating compounds including metal fluorides, metal oxyfluorides, and ammonium metal fluorides (para 0072). Combining the ammonium with a metal oxyfluoride (to create a salt) would yield the predictable result of providing a coating material, as each element (the ammonium to create the salt, and the metal oxyfluoride as an anion) would perform the same function as it does separately (which is evidenced by Sun et al. recognizes that metal fluorides and ammonium metal fluorides have the same effect (para 0072).) Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to combine the ammonium cation with metal oxyfluoride (i.e. arriving at ammonium metal oxyfluoride from the teaching of metal oxyfluoride and having an ammonium cation), as the combination would yield the predictable result of providing a coating material, as each element (the ammonium to create the salt, and the metal oxyfluoride as an anion) would perform the same function as it does separately (which is evidenced by Sun et al. recognizes that metal fluorides and ammonium metal fluorides have the same effect (para 0072)). “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
(Regarding the specific formula of (NH4)2M1OF4, the claimed invention is appreciated within the combination (which recognizes the use of ammonium as a cation (para 0047, 0072), as well as B or Zr as a metal (para 0076), as composition rendered obvious would at the very least be encompassed within the broad teaching, wherein the subscripts would be fulfilled by balancing the composition.)
As to claim 3, Sun et al. teach the M1 represents Ti or Zr (Zr appreciated) (para 0076).
As to claim 4, Sun et al. teach the core is a lithium-containing composite oxide having a layered structure and represented by the general formula LixNiyM21-yO2 (0.9 ≤ x ≤ 1.4, 0.4 ≤ y ≤ 1, and M2 represents at least one element selected from the group consisting of Mn, Co, Al, and Fe) (as LiaNixCoyMnzM1-x-y-z-O2Qσ, where M is an element selected from the group B, Mg, Al, Cr, V, Ti, Fe, Zr, Zn, Si Y, Nb, Ga, Sn, Mo, W, and a combination thereof, Z is a halogen or sulfur, 1.0 ≤ a ≤ 1.2, 0.0 ≤ x ≤ 0.95, 0.0 ≤ y ≤ 0.7, 0.0 ≤ z ≤ 0.7, 0.0 ≤ 1-x-y-z ≤ 0.3, 0.0 ≤ σ ≤ 0.1 (para 0053-0054) teaches compounds that overlaps that claimed).
As to claim 5, Sun et al. teach a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, comprising:
an electrode including the active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1 (para 0083) (note: the positive electrode according to claim 1 set forth in the rejection to claim 1, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake);
a counter electrode to the electrode (negative electrode; para 0083); and
an electrolyte (non-aqueous electrolyte; para 0095).
Conclusion
Note: No other prior art is considered pertinent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:30 -7:30(AM) and 9:00-4:30 ET.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights