DETAILED ACTION
Application 18/469,576, “CATHODE MATERIAL, MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF, AND SECONDARY BATTERY INCLUDING THE SAME”, was filed with the USPTO on 9/19/2023 and has a foreign priority document of KR10-2023-0113832 filed on 8/29/2023 and also has PRO of 63/408,472 filed on 9/21/2022.
This office action is in response to communication filed on 9/19/2023.
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 of Group I (claims 1-9 and 15) (note: there is a typo in “response to election” filed on 5/20/2026, “Group I (claims 1-19 and 15)” should read “Group I (claims 1-9 and 15)”) in the reply filed on 5/20/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 10-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/20/2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18/469,576, filed on 10/31/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/19/2023 and 3/9/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because a scale bar is missing in Fig. 3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraphs [0019], [0020] and [0059] of PGpub of the instant application (lines 15-19 on page 3, lines 18-23 on page 8 of the specification filed on 9/19/2023) recite “an oxygen gas transmission rate (OTR) of …. Darcy”. However, the unit “Darcy” is a unit of permeability not for oxygen gas transmission rate (OTR).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-14 are objected to because they do not have the correct status identified. To overcome the objection, Examiner suggests that they should be withdrawn. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-5 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 is indefinite because of the recitation “an electrical conductivity of 40 µΩ·m or less”. “µΩ·m” is a unit of electrical resistivity. Therefore, it is unclear if claim 3 is claiming an electrical conductivity less than a certain conductivity (unit is S/m or Ω-1 cm-1) or claiming an electrical resistivity which is 40 µΩ·m or less. For examination purposes, the aforementioned recitation has been interpreted as “an electrical resistivity of 40 µΩ·m or less”.
Claims 4 and 5 are indefinite because of the unit “Darcy” is not a unit for oxygen gas transmission rate. Claims 4 and 5 recite a limitation of “an oxygen gas transmission rate” However, the unit “Darcy” is a unit of permeability not for oxygen gas transmission rate. For examination purposes the aforementioned unit has been interpreted as “cc/m2·day”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Schaefer (US 20130260189 A1, provided on IDS filed on 3/9/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Schaefer teaches a cathode material (see embodiment [0014]) comprising:
a lithium metal oxide (active material for positive electrodes: LiMn2O4, LiCoO2, LiNiO2, see [0055]-[0056]; note: embodiment [0014] comprises first electrode with first active material, see [0006]; first electrode is positive electrode, [0047]); and
a coating layer (graphene, see [0014]) formed on a surface of the lithium metal oxide (graphene extends into the first boundary layer formed between first metallic substrate and its coating layer first active material, see [0006] and [0014]) and having a gas barrier property (graphene is a gas barrier, see [0160]).
Regarding claim 2, Schaefer teaches wherein the lithium metal oxide (active material for positive electrodes: LiMn2O4, LiCoO2, LiNiO2, see [0055]-[0056]) includes lithium (Li) (LiMn2O4, LiCoO2, LiNiO2, see [0056]) and one or more of nickel (Ni) (LiNiO2, see [0056]), manganese (Mn) (LiMn2O4, see [0056]), cobalt (Co) (LiCoO2, see [0056]), aluminum (Al), chromium (Cr), vanadium (V), and iron (Fe).
Regarding claim 15, Schaefer teaches a secondary battery comprising:
a cathode (first electrode/positive electrode, see [0047]);
an anode (second electrode/negative electrode, see [0047]); and
an electrolyte (solid electrolyte, [0127]) formed between the cathode and the anode (separator is between first and second electrodes and separator comprises the electrolytes used in the battery, see [0006] and [0126]),
wherein the cathode includes the cathode material comprising:
a lithium metal oxide (active material for positive electrodes: LiMn2O4, LiCoO2, LiNiO2, see [0055]-[0056]; note: embodiment [0014] comprises first electrode with first active material, see [0006]; first electrode is positive electrode, [0047]); and
a coating layer (graphene, see [0014]) formed on a surface of the lithium metal oxide (graphene extends into the first boundary layer formed between first metallic substrate and its coating layer first active material, see [0006] and [0014]) and having a gas barrier property (graphene is a gas barrier, see [0160]).
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.
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.
Claim 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer (US 20130260189 A1, provided on IDS filed on 3/9/2025) in view of Kim et al. (US 20140272350 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Schaefer does not teach wherein the coating layer has an oxygen gas transmission rate of 4.0×10−1 Darcy or less.
Kim et al. teaches wherein the coating layer (gas barrier film (see [0084]) and graphene/PDMS film (see [0095])) has an oxygen gas transmission rate (oxygen transmission rate, see Table 1 [0100]) of 4.0×10−1 Darcy or less (5 × 10-2 cc/m2·day, see Example 2 in Table 1 [0100]; interpretation see 112(b) rejection above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the graphene layer taught by Schaefer with the gas barrier film (graphene/PDMS film) taught by Kim et al. to have excellent gas and water vapor blocking effects (see Kim et al. [0030]).
Regarding claim 5, Schaefer in view of Kim et al. does not teach wherein the coating layer has an oxygen gas transmission rate of 4.0×10−5 Darcy or less.
Kim et al. in general teaches wherein the coating layer (gas barrier film, [see 0084] and graphene/PDMS film (see [0095])) has an oxygen gas transmission rate (oxygen transmission rate, see [0084]) of 4.0×10−5 Darcy or less (10-5 to 8 × 10-1 cc/m2·day, see [0084]; interpretation see 112(b) rejection above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the graphene/PDMS film taught by Schaefer in view of Kim et al. to have the oxygen gas transmission rate between 10−5 to 4.0×10−5 cc/m2·day as taught by Kim et al. to have excellent gas and water vapor blocking effects (see Kim et al. [0030]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer (US 20130260189 A1, provided on IDS filed on 3/9/2025) in view of Ali et al. (Title: Graphene Nanoplatelet (GNPs) Doped Carbon Nanofiber (CNF) System: Effect of GNPs on the Graphitic Structure of Creep Stress and Non-Creep Stress Stabilized Polyacrylonitrile (PAN). Nanomaterials 2020, 10(2), 351).
Regarding claim 8, Schaefer does not teach wherein the coating layer has a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of an X-ray diffraction angle (2θ) of a (002) plane that ranges from 3° to 6° using CuKα rays.
Ali et al. teaches wherein the coating layer (PAN/GNPs–1200 °C, see Table 1 on page 9 of 16; note: PAN is polycrylonitrile and GNP is graphene nanoplatelet) has a full width at half maximum (FWHM) (full width at half maximum (FWHM), see Table 1 on page 9 of 16) of an X-ray diffraction angle (2θ) of a (002) plane (FWHM(002), see Table 1 on page 9 of 16) that ranges from 3° to 6° (3.64°, see FWHM(002) value of PAN/GNPs–1200 °C, in Table 1 on page 9 of 16; note: use the Scherrer equation Lc = K·λ / (β·cosθ) and convert β (FWHM) in radians to degrees by equation: Degrees = Radians × (180° / π)) using CuKα rays.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the graphene layer taught by Schaefer by adding the PAN/GNPs–1200 °C taught by Ali et al. to have a production of highly conductive electrodes for energy storage (see Ali et al. Conclusion on page 14 of 16).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer (US 20130260189 A1, provided on IDS filed on 3/9/2025) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 20130130153 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Schaefer does not teach wherein the coating layer has an X-ray diffraction peak using CuKα rays, which satisfies Equation 1 below:
2≤I(002)/I(100)≤5 [Equation 1]
(wherein, in Equation 1, I(002) is a maximum peak intensity at a (002) plane of the coating layer, and I(100) is a maximum peak intensity at a (100) plane of the coating layer).
Suzuki et al. teaches wherein the coating layer (2, Figs 1-3) has an X-ray diffraction peak (peak of plane 21 and 22, see Fig. 2 and [0052]) using CuKα rays, which satisfies Equation 1 below:
2≤I(002)/I(100) ≤5 (I(002)/I(100) ≥ 3, see [0052]) [Equation 1]
(note: the carbon layer 2 has a peak intensity of the (002) plane 21 as much as 3 times or more the peak intensity of a (100) plane 22, see [0052])
(wherein, in Equation 1, I(002) is a maximum peak intensity at a (002) plane of the coating layer (peak intensity of the (002) plane 21, see [0052]), and I(100) is a maximum peak intensity at a (100) plane of the coating layer (peak intensity of a (100) plane 22, see [0052])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the graphene layer taught by Schaefer by adding the carbon layer containing the graphite to have 3≤I(002)/I(100) ≤5 taught by Suzuki et al. to have better conductivity and durability (see Suzuki et al. [0027]).
Claims 1 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 113471414 A, citations see machine translation) in view of Schaefer (US 20130260189 A1, provided on IDS filed on 3/9/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang et al. teaches a cathode material (a lithium-ion battery composite cathode material, see Example 1 [n0057]) comprising:
a lithium metal oxide (LiCoO2/Li0.8Ni0.5Mn1.5O4, see Example 1 [n0057]; also see 200 coated 100 in Fig. 1, note: 100 (LiCoO2) as positive electrode substrate material and 200 (Li0.8Ni0.5Mn1.5O4) as lithium-poor intermediate layer); and
a coating layer (graphene/Li3PO4, see Example 1 [n0057], called composite coating layer; also see 300, Fig. 1; note: 300 comprises: 310 (graphene) as electronic conductor and 320 (Li3PO4) as ionic conductor, see Fig. 1) formed on a surface (300 forms on surface of 100/200, Fig. 1) of the lithium metal oxide (LiCoO2/Li0.8Ni0.5Mn1.5O4, see Example 1 [n0057]).
Zhang et al. does not explicitly teach coating layer having a gas barrier property.
Schaefer teaches coating layer having a gas barrier property (graphene is a gas barrier, see [0160]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the graphene taught by Zhang et al. to be the graphene taught by Schaefer to use graphene as a gas barrier in a lithium ion battery (see Schaefer [0160]).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang et al. in view of Schaefer teaches wherein,
the lithium metal oxide (LiCoO2/Li0.8Ni0.5Mn1.5O4, see Zhang et al. Example 1 [n0057]) has an average particle diameter of 10 nm to 20 μm (median particle size of LiCoO2 about 12 µm, Zhang et al. [n0057]; diameter of LiCoO2/Li0.8Ni0.5Mn1.5O4 composite Zhang et al. [n0059] is also around 12 µm, see SEM image in Zhang et al. Fig. 3),
the coating layer (graphene/Li3PO4, see Zhang et al. Example 1 [n0057]; also see Zhang et al. 300, Fig. 1) has a thickness of 20 nm to 2000 nm (about a few hundred nm to 1µm, see surface/coating particles in SEM image of Zhang et al. Fig. 4; also see “thickness of the composite coating layer is not greater than 5 μm”, Zhang et al. [n0014]), and
the cathode material (a lithium-ion battery composite cathode material, see Zhang et al. [n0033] and Example 1 [n0057]) has an average particle diameter of 30 nm to 20 μm (about 10-15 µm, see SEM image of Zhang et al. Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang et al. in view of Schaefer does not teach wherein the cathode material includes 70 to 90 wt % of a lithium metal oxide and 10 to 30 wt % of the coating layer.
A different embodiment of Zhang et al. (Example 4, [n0086]) teaches wherein the cathode material includes 70 to 90 wt % (85 wt%; 96.55 / (96.55 + 1 + 16)) of a lithium metal oxide (LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2 / Li0.7Ni0.4Co0.1Mn1.5O4, 96.55 g, [n0088]) and 10 to 30 wt % (15 wt%; (1 + 16) / (96.55 + 1 + 16)) of the coating layer (carbon nanotube (1g) and Li3PO4 (16g), [n0089]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the wt% of LiCoO2/Li0.8Ni0.5Mn1.5O4 and wt% of graphene/Li3PO4 taught by Zhang et al. in view of Schaefer to be 85 wt% and 15 wt%, respectively as taught by Example 4 of Zhang et al. because it’s well known in the art (see Zhang et al. Example 4 [n0086]-[n0089]). Further, it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 113471414 A, citations see machine translation) in view of Schaefer (US 20130260189 A1, provided on IDS filed on 3/9/2025) in view of Day et al. (US 20200220121 A1) in view of Lin et al. (US 20160026846 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang et al. in view of Schaefer teaches wherein the coating layer (graphene/Li3PO4, see Zhang et al. Example 1 [n0057]; also see Zhang et al. 300, Fig. 1) is amorphous (see SEM image of Zhang et al. Fig. 4).
Zhang et al. in view of Schaefer does not teach wherein the coating layer has an electrical conductivity of 40 μΩ·m or less and a pencil hardness of 4H or more as measured according to ISO 15184.
Day et al. teaches wherein the coating layer (140, Fig. 1; also see graphene layer, [0006]; note: graphene layer thickness 0.4 to 1.5 µm, [0006]) has an electrical conductivity (interpretation see 112(b) rejection above) of 40 μΩ·m or less (0.5 to 10 μΩ·m; see 0.5 E-6 ohms per meter (Ω/m) to about 10 E-6Ω/m, [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the graphene/Li3PO4 layer taught by Zhang et al. in view of Schaefer by adding the graphene layer that having electrical resistivity of 0.5 to 10 μΩ·m as taught by Day et al. to prevent the thermal runaway event from propagating to neighboring battery cells (see Day et al. Abstract).
Zhang et al. in view of Schaefer in view of Day et al. does not teach wherein the coating layer has a pencil hardness of 4H or more as measured according to ISO 15184.
Lin et al. teaches wherein the coating layer (conductive graphene films in Example 6, [0087]) has a pencil hardness of 4H or more (pencil hardness 5H-6H, see ID 6-C and 6-D, Table 6, [0088]) as measured according to ISO 15184.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang et al. in view of Schaefer in view of Day. et al. by adding the conductive graphene films of Example 6 taught by Lin et al. because such conductive graphene film with pencil hardness of 5H to 6H is well known in the art (see Lin et al. [0086]-[0088]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NING CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1163. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM - 4:30 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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/NING CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights