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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on 8/3/2026 was received. Claim 1 was amended. Claims 6, 7 were withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued on 5/4/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-5 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura (WO 2019065254 A1). The rejections are restated below to address the amendment.
Regarding claims 1, 3: Tamura discloses a positive electrode active material, a method for producing the positive electrode active material, a positive electrode, and a lithium-ion battery (par. 1). The positive electrode active material comprising particles and a coating layer (par. 19), the particles are represented by the following formula:
LiaNibCocMndOe (where 1.0 ≤ a ≤ 1.05, 0.8 ≤ b ≤ 0.9, 1.8 ≤ e ≤ 2.2, b+c+d=1) (par. 19);
wherein the coating layer is LiNbO3 (par. 19).
Tamura does not specifically disclose the formula (2) of the instant claim. However, Tamura discloses Example 10 (par. 46, Table 1) as following:
Core: Li1.02Ni0.9Co0.07Mn0.03O2.02, with particle diameter (D50)= 3µm
Coating layer: LiNbO3, with thickness of 5nm
The specific surface area=0.9 m2/g (equivalent to X in formula (2))
Examiner uses Example 10 to calculate the Nb content Y (mass %) in the positive electrode active material as following:
The volume of Li1.02Ni0.9Co0.07Mn0.03O2.02 = (4/3) x 3.14x(1.5x10-4)3=1.41x10-11cm3
The mass of Li1.02Ni0.9Co0.07Mn0.03O2.02 = (4.8 g/cm3) x (1.41x10-11cm3)=6.77x10-11g
(Examiner uses the density of LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 of 4.8 g/cm3 as evidenced by Ge et al. (US 20240429400 A1) in par. 44 as the approximately density of Li1.02Ni0.9Co0.07Mn0.03O2.02)
The volume of LiNbO3 = 4 x 3.14 x (1.5x10-4)2x (5 x10-7)= 1.41x10-13cm3
The mass of LiNbO3 = (4.64 g/cm3) x (1.41x10-13cm3)= 6.56x10-13 g
(Examiner uses the density of LiNbO3 of 4.64 g/cm3 as evidenced by Kanda et al. (US 20090068563 A1) in par. 55)
The mass % of Nb in LiNbO3 = 62.84%
The Nb content Y (mass %) in the positive electrode active material
= [(6.56x10-13) x 62.84%]/[ 6.56x10-13+6.77 x10-11] x100%
=0.60 %
Therefore, Y/X=0.60/0.9=0.67 in Example 10.
Similar calculation can be done for Example 7 of Tamura. Y/X= 0.72 in Example 7.
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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP §2144.05(I).
In addition, Tamura recognizes as the battery capacity is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said specific surface area of the positive electrode active material, with said battery capacity increasing as the specific surface area is decreasing (par. 26), the precise specific surface area would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the precise specific surface area to obtain the desired battery capacity.
Tamura further recognizes as the battery capacity and the output power are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said thickness of the LiNbO3 coating layer, with said battery capacity decreasing and said output power increasing as the thickness of the LiNbO3 coating layer is increasing (par. 7, 15). As the thickness of the LiNbO3 coating layer is proportional to the Nb content in the positive electrode active material, i.e., a thicker LiNbO3 coating layer correlates to a higher Nb weight percentage, the thickness of the LiNbO3 coating layer is a proxy for the Nb content in the positive electrode active material. Therefore, the Nb content in the positive electrode active material would have been considered an effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Accordingly, one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the Nb content in the positive electrode active material to obtain the desired battery capacity and output power. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding claim 2: Tamura discloses the particle size of the positive electrode active material with the coating layer may be 2 to 12 μm (par. 28). 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4: Tamura discloses a positive electrode for all-solid lithium-ion batteries, comprising the positive electrode active material for all-solid lithium ion batteries according to claim 1 (par. 42, 45).
Regarding claim 5: Tamura discloses an all-solid lithium-ion battery comprising a positive electrode layer comprising the positive electrode for all-solid lithium ion batteries according to claim 4, a negative electrode layer, and a solid electrolyte layer (par. 42, 45).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed on 08/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues:
The Examiner's Calculated Value Is Not an Actual Disclosure, but the Product of a Multi- Step Estimation. Four assumptions the Examiner made:
- an assumption as to the density of the core particle;
- an assumption as to the density of the coating layer;
- an assumption that the particle shape is perfectly spherical; and
- an assumption that the coating is applied uniformly over the entire particle surface.
Tamura Neither Discloses the Y/X Metric Itself Nor Provides Any Motivation to Optimize
Criticality of the Claimed Range
In response:
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Tamura discloses the specific examples described in paragraph 2 above. Examiner uses the examples Tamura discloses and the densities supported by the evidence references, Ge and Kanda, to calculate the approximately value of Y/X. Even though Tamura does not disclose Y/X, the fundamental structure of the positive electrode active material coated with LiNbO3 remains the same regardless of what terms (Y/X or D50, coating thickness, and specific surface area) are used.
In addition, Examiner’s assumptions are reasonable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have the uniform coating thickness over the spherical particle to obtain the optimal performance.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Approximately Y/X values can be calculated from Tamura’s examples. Tamura further provides the motivations (improving battery capacity and output power) to optimize the Nb content (Y) and the specific surface area (X). Therefore, Y/X is a variable which affects the results of the battery capacity and the output power.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The Y/X values of Examples 1, 3, 5 in the instant application are within the claimed range. However, the resistance value of Example 5 is much higher than that of Example 4 (Y/X in Example 4 is outside the claimed range). It is unclear if there are other parameters that influence the resistance value.
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 PIN JAN WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/PIN JAN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights