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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 4/2/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the first region" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the second region" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dahn et al. (US 2019/0207246 A1, hereinafter Dahn, cited by applicant).
Re Claim 1. Dahn teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (para. 32-34) comprising a positive electrode (para. 39-57), a negative electrode (para. 58-60), and a non-aqueous electrolyte (para. 61-70), wherein
the positive electrode has a positive electrode mixture including positive electrode active material particles, the positive electrode active material particles include a composite oxide (para. 39-57, core) containing lithium and a transition metal, and a cover material (para. 39-57, coating) covering at least a portion of a surface of the composite oxide, and the cover material includes a metal oxide (para. 39-57), and a phosphorus compound (para. 61-70) covering at least a portion of a surface of the metal oxide.
Re Claim 6. Dahn teaches wherein the metal oxide includes at least one element selected from the group consisting of aluminum, titanium, magnesium, zirconium, niobium, calcium (para. 39-57).
Re Claim 7. Dahn teaches wherein the composite oxide has a layered rock salt type structure, and includes Ni, Co, and at least one of Al (para. 39-57).
Re Claim 8. Dahn teaches wherein at an outermost surface of the positive electrode mixture, an atomic ratio of a metal derived from the metal oxide relative to Ni derived from the composite oxide is 0.34 (para. 52-55, 10 mol% Al/29 mol% Ni = 0.34).
Re Claim 9. Dahn teaches wherein the non-aqueous electrolyte includes a phosphate compound, and the phosphate compound has at least one alkenyl group in one molecule (para. 61-70).
Re Claim 10. Dahn teaches wherein the non-aqueous electrolyte has a content of the phosphate compound of 1 mass % (para. 39-57).
"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2131.03.
Re Claim 11. Dahn teaches wherein the alkenyl group includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a 2-propenyl group (para. 39-57).
Re Claim 12. Dahn teaches wherein the phosphate compound includes triallyl phosphate (para. 39-57).
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.
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) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0251724 A1, hereinafter Kim).
The teachings of Dahn have been discussed above.
Re Claim 2. Dahn fails to teach that the surface of the composite oxide has a first region covered with the metal oxide of an island state, and a second region other than the first region.
The invention of Kim encompasses positive active material. Kim teaches that the surface of the composite oxide has a first region covered with the metal oxide of an island state, and a second region other than the first region (para. 59).
In view of Kim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Dahn to have a first region of the composite oxide covered with the metal oxide of an island state, and a second region other than the first region; since Kim teaches the advantage of doing it, which is to reduce residual lithium and suppresses side reaction with the electrolyte solution (para. 59).
Re Claim 3. The combination teaches wherein the first region is scattered at the surface of the composite oxide (Kim, para. 59).
Re Claims 4 and 5. The combination does not explicitly teach that an amount of phosphorus detected at the surface of the metal oxide, MO, and an amount of phosphorus detected in the second region, MS, satisfies a relation MO>MS/MO>3MS.
However, since Dahn in view of Kim and the claimed method employ substantially similar materials and process, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (an amount of phosphorus detected in the second region, MS, satisfies a relation MO>MS/MO>3MS) would have naturally flowed following the teachings of Dahn in view of Kim. See MPEP 2112.01 & In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2145 & Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
4/25/2026
Prosecution Insights