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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 4/29/26 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 7/22/26. Claims 1, 5-7, and 9-13 are amended. Claims 2 and 8 are canceled. Claim 21 is added. Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-21 are rejected finally for the reasons provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claim 13 under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn in light of the amendment.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2021/0344002) in view of Park et al. (US 2018/0062172), and Jo et al. (US 2021/0039959).
Regarding claim 1, Jung teaches a lithium-ion battery, wherein the battery includes a positive electrode active material comprising lithium cobalt oxide particles doped with Al in an amount of, for example, 3900 ppm (abstract, [0093]).
Jung is silent on the molar ratio of Li to Co.
Park teaches that the Li/Co molar ratio of a doped lithium cobalt oxide active material composition is adjusted to be about 1±α (0≤ α ≤0.025), and is preferably closer to 1, in order to improve initial capacity, rate characteristics, and lifespan characteristics ([0032]).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to form the active material of Jung with a Li/Co molar ratio of 1±α (0≤ α ≤0.025), and preferably closer to 1, such as taught by Park, in order to improve initial capacity, rate characteristics, and lifespan characteristics.
With further regard to claim 1 and with regard to claim 21, in the instant disclosure, the initial Li/Co molar ratio is specifically taught as 1:0.996 ([0048] of published application). The examiner finds that the molar ratio of Jung in view of Park would inherently result in the claimed characteristics. Per MPEP 2112.01 II, products of identical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties. Additionally, the process of operating, or charging, limitations of claim 21 are not given patentable weight because the manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, per MPEP 2114 II.
With further regard to claim 1, and regarding claims 4 and 10, Jung in view of Park teaches the positive active material of claim 1 but fails to teach a coating layer covering at least part of an outer surface of the particles.
Jo teaches coating, or covering, Al2O3 on the particle surface of lithium cobalt oxide positive electrode active material particles is desirable for inhibiting reactivity of the particle surface to electrolyte, suppressing side reactions, and improving safety and lifespan characteristics ([0040]-[0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to coat Al2O3 on the surface of the active material particles of Jung in view of Park such as suggested by Jo in order to inhibit reactivity of the particle surface to electrolyte, suppress side reactions, and improve safety and lifespan characteristics.
As for claim 7, Jung teaches a content of Al of 3900 ppm ([0093]).
Regarding claims 8-9, Jo teaches that the thickness, and therefore the correlated mass %, of the coating layer is result effective for achieving the desired effects as discussed above ([0042]-[0043]). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to determine the optimum amount of coating (i.e., weight % and thickness) by routine experimentation, since it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II A
Regarding claims 11-13, Jung teaches particles, specifically large particles, having an average diameter D50 of 5µm to 14µm, wherein small particles have an average diameter D50 of 1µm to 4µm ([0011]). The examiner takes note of the fact that the ranges of Jung overlap the claimed ranges. Absent any more specific information, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 I
As for claim 14, Jung teaches Al dopant (abstract).
As for claims 18-20, Jung teaches artificial or natural graphite negative active material ([0052]); linear and cyclic carbonate electrolyte solvent ([0065]); lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) salt ([0065]); and 1,3-propene sultone additive ([0078]).
Regarding claim 15-17, Jung in view of Park teaches the claimed lithium-ion battery (see above). Therefore, the examiner finds that the battery functions are presumed to be inherent. MPEP 2112.01 I
Claims 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Park and Jo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bugga et al. (US 2017/0012284).
The teachings of Jung, Park, and Jo as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Jung in view of Park and Jo teaches Al2O3 coating on lithium oxide active material particles but fails to teach the coating materials of claims 3 and 5-6.
Bugga teaches coating lithium oxide active materials with a thin layer of inorganic material such as Al2O3, AlPO4, AlF3, or AlBO3 ([0088]).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to substitute the known coating materials of Bugga in the particles of Jung in view of Park and Jo and the result of the substitution, i.e. forming a coating to stabilize the material, would have been predictable. MPEP 2143 I B
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues that the prior art does not obviate the “distinguishing technical feature (1)”, i.e. the limitations to the coating layer and amount of coating layer.
Regarding the arguments starting at the top of page 7 of the Remarks, that Jung does not address the same technical problem as the instant application, the examiner finds that the argument is not convincing to overcome the rejection. Applicant is reminded that arguing additional advantages or latent properties does not rebut prima facie obviousness, per MPEP 2145 II. Specifically, it is noted that the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage, e.g. improved cycling performance of a lithium-ion battery at a high voltage, which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. Further, the examiner finds that cycling performance is not claimed, and reminds Applicant that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP 2145 VI and In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Continuing on page 7 and onto page 8, Applicant argues that the claimed limitations to the coating layer and mass of the coating layer are not obvious. The examiner disagrees.
Regarding the statements concerning the teachings of Bugga, the examiner finds that the Bugga reference is not relied upon in the rejection of claim 1. Further, the argument that Bugga “teaches in the opposite direction” would not have been convincing to overcome a rejection over Bugga in light of MPEP 2145 X.D.1., which states that a disclosure must criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed in order to be considered a teaching away, and in light of MPEP 2144.05 I, which states that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap or are merely close.
As for Applicant’s assertion that the teachings of Jo, to the thickness of the coating layer, “can be calculated as being greater than 1%” (see last full paragraph of page 7), Applicant has provided no evidence to support this assertion. Additionally, as is clear from the rejection above and the Non-Final Rejection of 4/23/26, the teachings of Jo relied upon in the rejection is the teaching that the amount of the coating layer, which Jo measures in thickness but which correlates to mass%, is result effective for achieving certain results such inhibited reactivity to electrolyte, suppression of side reactions, and improved safety and lifespan characteristics.
Next, in the paragraph bridging pages 7-8, Applicant argues that the present application “particularly controls the weight content of the coating layer because Applicant has found that ‘[a] thickness of the coating layer should not be too large …’” The examiner notes that Jo, in fact, teaches that the thickness of the coating layer is result effect.
Further, Applicant is reminded a prima facie case of obviousness of optimization of a result effective variable can be rebutted by a showing of criticality of the claimed range, per MPEP 2144.05 III.A.; however, the statement that the thickness “should not be too large” fails to establish criticality of the mass% of the coating layer. Applicant is directed to MPEP 716.02 and 2145 I for information on showing criticality and providing evidence where evidence is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.
The examiner maintains that providing a coating layer in the claimed amount would have been obvious over Jung in view of Park and Jo.
Next, Applicant argues that prior art does not obviate “distinguishing technical feature (2),” i.e. the limitation of claim 1 to molar ratios of Li to Co at different states of charge. The examiner disagrees.
As is discussed above in the rejection of claim 1 over Jung in view of Park, and in the Non-Final Rejection, the examiner finds that it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to optimize the Li/Co molar ratio in order to improve initial capacity, rate characteristics, and lifespan characteristics. Therefore, it is established that the Li/Co ratio is a result effective variable and that it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to optimize it, as discussed in MPEP 2144.05 II. This results in a battery that is inherently structurally the same as the claimed battery.
Next, as is explained in the rejection, once the skilled artisan has optimized the Li/Co ratio, the claimed characteristics, or molar ratios, that result from measurements of those characteristics at different states of charge, are inherent properties to a material that is the same as the claimed material. Applicant is invited to review MPEP 2112.01 II, where it is stated that products of identical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties. The examiner finds that the positive active material of Park in view of Jung and Jo is of identical composition to the claimed material, and therefore it inherently has the claimed properties, or “distinguishing technical feature (2).”
Applicant is reminded that, once a reference product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents reasoning to show inherency (as discussed above), the burden of production shifts to the Applicant, per MPEP 2112 V. Applicant has not provided any proof, merely arguments.
As to the second full paragraph on page 9 of the Remarks, arguing that the present application “optimally balances the structural stability of the positive electrode, suppression of surface side reactions, and the actual degree of lithium deintercalation,” these arguments are found to be merely attorney arguments, and do not provide the type of evidence that is needed to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness established in the rejection, see MPEP 2145 I and 716.02.
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 ALIX ECHELMEYER EGGERDING whose telephone number is (571)272-1101. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 4:30pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/ALIX E EGGERDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights