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The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of Claim 2 from the previous Office Action is withdrawn, as noted in the 05/04/2026 Interview Summary, since “the group consisting of transition metals” encompasses Ti.
The amendments filed 05/22/2026 have been entered, with support found in [0031, 0035] of the original specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 05/22/2026 at pages 5-7, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and its dependent claims under Xie as the primary reference have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant effectively explains the difference in the amended limitations reciting certain mole percentages of the coating layer versus that which can be calculated from Xie, such that Xie does not obviously teach toward the amended claims. Therefore, the rejection of record relying on Xie has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of updated searching of the prior art which was conducted in light of the newly recited claim limitations, specifically directed to the mole percentages.
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.
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, 3, and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez et al. (US 2010/0151332 A1) in view of Zhao et al. (“Aegis of Lithium-Rich Cathode Materials via Heterostructured LiAlF4 Coating for High-Performance Lithium-Ion Batteries”, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2018 10 (39), 33260-33268; DOI: 10.1021/acsami.8b11471 – cited as relevant and attached in the 02/23/2026 Office action).
Regarding claim 1, Lopez teaches an active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (positive electrode active materials for lithium secondary batteries, [0001]; lithium ion batteries in which a non-aqueous electrolyte solution comprises lithium ions, [0022]), including:
a lithium-containing composite oxide (a positive electrode active material for a lithium ion battery comprises a layered lithium metal oxide composite, [0007, 0023]) serving as a core (uncoated material, [0007, 0053]) that is able to reversibly occlude and release Li (the positive electrode takes up lithium ions through intercalation or a similar process during discharge such that the positive electrode functions as a cathode which consumes electrons during discharge / upon recharging of the secondary battery, the flow of lithium ions is reversed through the battery with the negative electrode taking up lithium and with the positive electrode releasing lithium as lithium ions; [0022]); and
a compound adhering to a surface of the core (metal fluoride coatings, [0008, 0028]) in an adhesion amount (amount of coating material can be selected to accentuate the observed performance improvements, [0028]),
the adhesion amount of the compound relative to the lithium-containing composite oxide is greater than or equal to 0.1 mol% and less than or equal to 0.5 mol% (the amount of coating material ranges from about 0.01 mole percent to about 10 mole percent, in further embodiments from about 0.1 mole percent to about 7 mole percent, in additional embodiments from about 0.2 mole percent to about 5 mole percent, and in other embodiments from about 0.5 mole percent to about 4 mole percent; [0056] – per MPEP 2144.05 I: In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists).
Lopez fails to explicitly teach wherein the compound is represented by the general formula M1aM2Fb (0.1 ≤ a ≤ 2.2, 2 ≤ b ≤ 6, M1 represents one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Li, K, and Na, and M2 represents one or more elements selected from the group consisting of transition metals, Al, Si, B, P, Sn, Ge, Sb, Bi, Mg, Ca, and Sr).
However, Lopez does teach the coating compound for the positive electrode active material being a metal fluoride, since use of a metal fluoride coating or other suitable coatings provides further cycling enhancement ([0021]) and it has been discovered that metal fluoride coatings can provide significant improvements for lithium rich layered positive electrode active materials described herein, specifically teaching these improvements relate to long term cycling with significantly reduced degradation of capacity, a significant decrease in first cycle irreversible capacity loss and an improvement in the capacity generally ([0028]). Lopez teaches in [0008, 0055] toward AlF3 as an exemplary metal fluoride, but also teaches in [0054] other possible metal fluoride compositions that have been known for use as cathode active material coatings.
Zhao is analogous in the art of coated cathode materials and teaches that both AlF3- and LiAlF4-coated LNMO (a lithium-containing composite oxide) cathode materials show significantly increased discharge specific capacities as well as rate capabilities; however, as a lithium ion conductor, LiAlF4 proved to be most beneficial to facilitate lithium ion transport and achieved faster redox kinetics compared with AlF3 (pg. 33261, col. 1, para. 2).
Therefore, It would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the metal fluoride coating compound of Lopez to be LiAlF4 instead of AlF3 as taught by Zhao to beneficially facilitate lithium ion transport and achieve faster redox kinetics. Also, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143 I (B)).
Thus, the instant claim 1 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 3, modified Lopez teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and wherein the core has a layered structure (uncoated layered lithium metal oxide composite, Lopez [0007-0008]; lithium rich layered positive electrode active materials, Lopez [0028]) and represented by the general formula LixNiyM31-yO2 (Li1+xNiαMnβCoγMδO2 when z=0; Lopez [0044]) (0.9 ≤ x ≤ 1.4 (1.05 to 1.25 per Lopez [0044]), 0.4 ≤ y ≤ 1 (0.1 to 0.4 per Lopez [0044] – abuts/overlaps claimed range at 0.4, thus prima facie obvious per MPEP2144.05 I), and M3 represents one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Mn, Co, Al (Mn, Co included in formula plus optional additional M can be Al; Lopez [0044])).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lopez teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (batteries described herein are lithium ion batteries in which a non-aqueous electrolyte solution comprises lithium ions, Lopez [0022]; lithium secondary batteries per Lopez [0001]; electrodes described herein can be incorporated into various commercial battery designs, Lopez [0041]), comprising:
an electrode (see Lopez [0041-0042]) including the active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (secondary lithium ion battery can be constructed using a positive electrode comprising the positive electrode active material disclosed herein, Lopez [0010]) according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection over modified Lopez, above);
a counter electrode to the electrode (a negative electrode comprising a lithium intercalation composition and a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, Lopez [0010]; see also Lopez [0041-0042]); and
an electrolyte (non-aqueous electrolyte, Lopez [0022, 0039-0040]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lopez teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and teaches wherein the adhesion amount of the compound relative to the lithium-containing composite oxide is greater than or equal to 0.1 mol% and less than or equal to 0.3 mol% (see mole percent ranges for amounts of metal/metalloid fluoride coatings on the lithium rich layered compositions as taught in Lopez [0006, 0008, 0056]; per MPEP 2144.05 I: In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists). Claim 6 is obvious per the ranges disclosed by Lopez which encompass or overlap the claimed range. Also, Lopez teaches in [0056] that: In general, the amount of coating can be selected to balance the beneficial stabilization resulting from the coating with the loss of specific capacity due to the weight of the coating material that generally does not contribute directly to a high specific capacity of the material. Therefore, the amount of the coating is a result-effective variable which would also be obvious to optimize (per MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding claim 7, modified Lopez teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and teaches wherein the adhesion amount of the compound relative to the lithium-containing composite oxide is greater than or equal to 0.3 mol% and less than or equal to 0.5 mol% (see mole percent ranges for amounts of metal/metalloid fluoride coatings on the lithium rich layered compositions as taught in Lopez [0006, 0008, 0056]; per MPEP 2144.05 I: In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists). Claim 7 is obvious per the ranges disclosed by Lopez which encompass or overlap the claimed range. Also, Lopez teaches in [0056] that: In general, the amount of coating can be selected to balance the beneficial stabilization resulting from the coating with the loss of specific capacity due to the weight of the coating material that generally does not contribute directly to a high specific capacity of the material. Therefore, the amount of the coating is a result-effective variable which would also be obvious to optimize (per MPEP 2144.05 II).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez et al. (US 2010/0151332 A1) in view of Zhao et al. (“Aegis of Lithium-Rich Cathode Materials via Heterostructured LiAlF4 Coating for High-Performance Lithium-Ion Batteries”, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2018 10 (39), 33260-33268; DOI: 10.1021/acsami.8b11471 – cited as relevant and attached in the 02/23/2026 Office action) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (“Versatile Coating of Lithium Conductive Li2TiF6 on Over-lithiated Layered Oxide in Lithium-Ion Batteries”, Electrochimica Acta 117 (2014) 492– 497, <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2013.11.184>; as cited in the 07/20/2023 IDS and in the 02/23/2026 Office action).
Regarding claim 2, modified Lopez teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and wherein the M1 represents Li (Li in LiAlF4 as cited above in regards to claim 1, from Zhao modification), but fails to teach the M2 represents Ti.
Choi is analogous in the art of surface-coated cathode material for lithium-ion batteries (Abstract, Title) and teaches Li2TiF6 as a useful coating material for imparting high lithium-ion conductivity (Abstract) due to channels in its crystal structure through which lithium ions can easily move (pg.493,col.1,para.1), and for beneficially suppressing undesired side reactions (Abstract). In this Li2TiF6 formula, M1 is Li and M2 is Ti. Choi teaches that Li2TiF6 is desirable, and is the focus of their inventive coating, but is among other known lithium metal fluorides which are known to exhibit high lithium conductivity due to channels in their crystal structures (pg.493,col.1,para.1).
Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports an obviousness conclusion per MPEP 2143 I B, and selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination per MPEP 2144.07. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to select Li2TiF6 – where M2 represents Ti – instead of LiAlF4 as the metal fluoride coating material for the cathode in modified Lopez and expect functionality of desirably high lithium ion conductivity and suppression of undesired side reaction of the lithium composite metal oxide cathode core material as taught by Choi.
Thus, claim 2 is obvious.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez et al. (US 2010/0151332 A1) in view of Zhao et al. (“Aegis of Lithium-Rich Cathode Materials via Heterostructured LiAlF4 Coating for High-Performance Lithium-Ion Batteries”, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2018 10 (39), 33260-33268; DOI: 10.1021/acsami.8b11471 – cited as relevant and attached in the 02/23/2026 Office action) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of and further in view of Yoshida et al. (US 2009/0008602 A1, as cited the 02/23/2026 Office action).
Regarding claim 4, modified Lopez teaches the limitations of claim 1 above but fails to explicitly teach that the compound is an adhering material adhering to the surface of the core by dry-mixing.
Examiner notes that such is a product-by-process claim, wherein the patentable weight is given to the resultant product. However, to promote compact prosecution, the limitation is further examined herein:
Lopez does teach in [0067] that a dry powder rotary mixer can be used to form a homogenous powder mixture.
Yoshida is analogous in the art of cathode material (positive-electrode active material powder) in the form of a core (a granular material (A) capable of doping/dedoping lithium ions) with a surface coating (a deposit (B) placed on the surface of the material in a granular or layered form) (see Yoshida abstract). Yoshida [0006] teaches electrode granular material being of a lithium-nickel-transition metal-oxide formula. Yoshida teaches in [0015] that: the deposit (B) is placed on the surface of the granular material (A) in a granular or layered form means that the deposit (B) is adhered on the surface of the granular material (A) in a granular or layered form, in which this adhesion may be a chemical bond or physical adsorption between the (A) and the (B), wherein the (B) may be adhered on a portion of the surface of the (A), and the (B) may be adhered on the surface of the (A) in a granular form, or may coat the surface of the (A) in a granular or layered form. Yoshida further teaches in [0021, 0028] that dry mixing is preferable, since it is a simple compared to wet mixing, and can be carried out by various typed of mixers. Yoshida additionally teaches in [0029] that it is preferred to add at least one mixing process using a medium in the dry mixing steps, since it tends to give good mixing efficiency, strong adhesion of the compound (B) to the particle surface of the compound (A), and a positive-electrode active material powder which provides a nonaqueous secondary battery having excellent cycle performance and safety.
It would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify Lopez to use dry-mixing (taught by Yoshida) such that the coating compound was adhered to the surface of the core by dry-mixing – and therefore serves as an adhering material – with the motivation of achieving the benefits of: simplicity, good mixing efficiency, strong adhesion, excellent cycle performance, safety as taught by Yoshida.
Thus, the instant claim 4 is rendered obvious.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessie Walls-Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-1664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, typically 10-4.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/JESSIE WALLS-MURRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights