DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a final office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on 8 July 2026. Claims 1, 2, 9, 10 and 15 are currently amended. Claims 1-19 are pending review in this action. The previous 35 U.S.C 112 rejection is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s corresponding amendment.
New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments are presented below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The examiner acknowledges receipt of the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 24 June 2026. Applicant is advised that a concise explanation of relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, was not provided for the following foreign language reference listed on the IDS: Office Action, corresponding to Korean Application No. 10-2022-0124523, dated May 13, 2026, 12 pages. As indicated on the IDS, this document has not been considered. See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0376314, hereinafter Son in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0037680, hereinafter Park, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0377655, hereinafter Mun, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0359295, hereinafter Hayner and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0185714, hereinafter Han.
Regarding claim 1, Son teaches a composite cathode active material. The composite cathode active material comprises core-shell particles (abstract).
A first core-shell particle includes a first core comprising a first lithium transition metal oxide and a shell conforming to a surface of the first core.
A second core-shell particle includes a second core comprising a second lithium transition metal oxide and a shell conforming to a surface of the second core.
The shell comprises a first metal oxide and a carbonaceous material (abstract). Son teaches that the carbonaceous material includes a graphene (“first carbon-based material”) (paragraph [0062]).
The first metal oxide is within a matrix of the graphene (“first carbon-based material”). The first metal oxide is represented by MaOb (0<a≤3, 0<b<4, wherein if a is 1, 2, or 3, b is not an integer). M is at least one metal selected from among Groups 2 to 13, 15 and 16 of the periodic table of elements (abstract).
Son fails to: 1) teach a second carbon-based material having an aspect ratio of 10 or more and 2) report the particle diameter of the first lithium transition metal oxide and the second lithium transition metal oxide.
Regarding 1), Park teaches a composite cathode active material comprising core-shell particles (paragraph [0035]). The core is a lithium transition metal oxide (paragraphs [0041-0044]). The shell includes the same metal oxide as Son and a carbonaceous material (paragraphs [0036, 0051]). Son teaches that the carbonaceous material may be carbon nanotubes with an aspect ratio of less than 300, which serve to improve the electrical conductivity of the material (paragraphs [0047, 0048, 0050]).
Mun teaches a composite cathode active material comprising core-shell particles (paragraph [0045]). The core is a lithium transition metal oxide and the shell includes a metal oxide and a carbonaceous material (paragraphs [0045, 0048-0052, 0056-0066]). Mun teaches that the carbonaceous material may be at least one of various carbon materials including carbon nanotubes, carbon nanofibers and graphene (paragraph [0052]).
Hayner teaches an active material composite particle (100) comprising an active material core (102) and a graphene-containing coating (110), which encapsulates the core (paragraphs [0037, 0046]). Hayner teaches that the graphene-containing coating (110) further includes carbon nanotubes (paragraph [0048]). The graphene is present in the range 5 wt% to 10 wt% of the composite material and the carbon nanotubes are present at about 1 wt% of the composite material (paragraph [0049]). Therefore the amount of carbon nanotubes with respect to the total amount of carbon nanotubes and graphene is in the range of about 2 wt% to about 10 wt%. In a specific example Hayner teaches 3 wt% (paragraph [0095]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include carbon nanotubes with an aspect ratio of less than 300 as a second carbon-based material in Son’s shell at an amount in the range of about 2 wt% to about 10 wt% with respect to the total amount of carbon nanotubes and graphene for the purpose of enhancing the composite cathode active material’s electrical conductivity.
Regarding 2), Mun teaches a composite cathode active material comprising core-shell particles (paragraph [0045]). The core is a lithium transition metal oxide and the shell includes a metal oxide and a carbonaceous material (paragraphs [0045, 0048-0052, 0056-0066]). The core has an average particle size in the range 1 µm to 30 µm (paragraph [0068]).
Han teaches a composite cathode active material comprising core-shell particles (paragraphs [0055-0057]). The core is a lithium transition metal oxide (paragraphs [0040-0054]). Han teaches a first core that is a small-diameter primary particle with an average diameter of 2 µm to 8 µm (paragraph [0039]). (It is noted that given that there is an average diameter in the claimed range, two separate particles with different diameters greater than 1 µm could be selected among the small-diameter particles in Han’s composite cathode active material and designated the “first lithium transition metal oxide” and “second lithium transition metal oxide”).
Han further teaches that the composite cathode active material includes a second core which is a secondary particle with a diameter in the range 10 µm to 20 µm (paragraph [0059]). Han teaches that the resulting bimodal particle diameter distribution allows for improved energy density, because the small-diameter particles fill in gaps between the large-diameter particles within the electrode layer (paragraphs [0015, 0031]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the first lithium transition metal oxide and the second lithium transition metal oxide with different particle diameters and to form the second lithium transition metal oxide as a primary particle with an average diameter in the range 2 µm to 8 µm for the purpose of achieving superior energy density.
The optimum range for the aspect ratio overlaps the instant application's optimum range of more than 10. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Son as modified by Mun and Han teaches that the first transition metal oxide comprises a secondary particle comprising a plurality of primary particles (Han’s paragraph [0058]).
The second transition metal oxide is a primary particle and is secondary particle free.
Regarding claim 3, Son as modified by Mun and Han teaches that the first lithium transition metal oxide is a large-diameter lithium transition metal oxide having a larger particle diameter than that of the second lithium transition metal oxide. The second lithium transition metal oxide is a small-diameter lithium transition metal oxide having a smaller particle diameter than that of the first lithium transition metal oxide (Han’s paragraphs [0039, 0058]).
Regarding claim 4, Son as modified by Mun and Han teaches that the first lithium transition metal oxide and the second lithium transition metal oxide have a bimodal particle diameter distribution (Han’s abstract).
The first transition metal oxide has a particle diameter in the range 10 µm to 20 µm (Han’s paragraph [0059]). The second transition metal oxide has a particle diameter in the range 2 µm to 8 µm (Han’s paragraph [0039]).
The optimum range for the particle diameter ratio overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 3:1 to 40:1. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Son as modified by Mun and Han teaches that the first transition metal oxide has a particle diameter in the range 10 µm to 20 µm (Han’s paragraph [0059]). The second transition metal oxide has a particle diameter in the range 2 µm to 8 µm (Han’s paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 6, Son as modified by Mun and Han teaches that a weight ratio of the first transition metal oxide to the second transition metal oxide is in the range 8:2 to 7:3 (80:20 to 70:30) (Han’s paragraph [0061]).
Regarding claim 7, Son as modified by Park and Mun teaches that the second carbon-based material comprises carbon nanotubes (Park’s paragraph [0048]).
All carbon nanotubes can be said to comprise a carbon nanotube primary structure, which is a carbon nanotube unit.
Regarding claim 8, Son as modified by Park and Mun teaches that the carbon nanotube primary structure may be a single-walled carbon nanotube, a multi-walled carbon nanotube or a combination thereof (Park’s paragraph [0048]).
Son as modified by Park and Mun teaches that the carbon nanotube primary structure has a diameter in the range 1 nm to 50 nm (paragraph [0050]).
Son as modified by Park and Mun teaches that the carbon nanotube primary structure has an aspect ratio of less than 300 (paragraph [0048]).
Therefore, within the ranges taught by Son as modified by Park and Mun is a range of lengths that at least overlaps the instantly claimed range of lengths.
The optimum range for the diameter and the length overlaps the instant application's optimum ranges of 1 nm to 20 nm and 100 nm to 2 µm, respectively. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Son as modified by Park and Mun teaches carbon nanotubes on the core. The carbon nanotubes together are an aggregation of a plurality of nanotubes and are thus a “carbon nanotube secondary structure” and may be described as a bundle.
Son as modified by Park and Mun teaches a carbon nanotube has a diameter in the range 1 nm to 50 nm (Park’s paragraph [0050]). Then the “carbon nanotube secondary structure” will also have “a diameter” in the range 1 nm to 50 nm.
Son as modified by Park and Mun teaches that the carbon nanotube has an aspect ratio of less than 300 (Park’s paragraph [0048]).
Therefore, within the ranges taught by Son as modified by Park and Mun is a range of lengths that at least overlaps the instantly claimed range of lengths.
The optimum range for the length overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 500 nm to 1000 µm. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Son as modified by Park and Mun teaches that the carbon nanotubes (“second carbon-based material”) may be present at a range of 0.001 wt% to 5 wt% of the total weight of the composite positive electrode material (Park’s paragraph [0055]).
The carbon nanotubes (“second carbon-based material”) are on a surface of the composite positive electrode material (Park’s paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 11, Son teaches that a first metal in the first metal oxide is at least one selected from Al, Nb, Mg, Sc, Ti, Zr, V, W, Mn, Fe, Co, Pd, Cu, Ag, Zn, Sb and Se (paragraph [0045]).
The first metal oxide is at least one selected from Al2Oz (0<z<3), NbOx (0<x<2.5), MgOx (0<x<1), Sc2Oz (0<z<3), TiOy (0<y<2), ZrOy (0<y<2), V2Oz (0<z<3), WOy (0<y<2), MnOy (0<y<2), Fe2Oz (0<z<3), Co3Ow (0<w<4), PdOx (0<x<1), CuOx (0<x<1), AgOx (0<x<1), ZnOx (0<x<1), Sb2Oz (0<z<3), and SeOy (0<y<2) (paragraph [0045]).
Regarding claim 12, Son teaches that the shell further comprises a second metal oxide.
The second metal oxide is represented by formula MaOc (0<a≤3, 0<c≤4, when c is an integer, a is 1, 2, or 3). The second metal oxide comprises the same metal as the first metal oxide. The ratio c/a is larger than the ratio b/a (paragraph [0046]).
The second metal oxide is in the first carbon-based matrix (paragraph [0053]).
Regarding claim 13, Son teaches that the second metal oxide is selected from Al2O3, NbO, NbO2, Nb2O5, MgO, Sc2O3, TiO2, ZrO2, V2O3, WO2, MnO2, Fe2O3, Co3O4, PdO, CuO, AgO, ZnO, Sb2O3, and SeO2. The first metal oxide is a reduction product of the second metal oxide (paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 14, Son teaches that in each core-shell particle, the first carbon-based material of the shell is chemically bonded to the transition metal of the lithium transition metal oxide in the core (paragraph [0047]).
A carbon atom (C) in first carbon-based material of the shell is chemically bonded to a transition metal (Me) in the lithium transition metal oxide through a C-O-Me bond via an oxygen atom (paragraph [0047]).
The first metal oxide is chemically bonded to the first carbon-based material (paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 15, Son teaches a third metal doped on each core or a third metal oxide applied to each core. The shell is on the third metal oxide. The third metal oxide is an oxide of at least one third metal selected from Al, Zr, W and Co (paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 16, Son teaches that the shell has a thickness in the range 1 nm to 5 µm (paragraph [0049]).
The shell is applied in a single step, therefore it is understood to be a single-layer structure (paragraph [0127]).
The shell is applied in a dry milling step (paragraph [0127]).
The amount of the shell is in the range 3 wt% or less relative to the total weight of the composite cathode active material (paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 17, Son teaches that the first lithium transition metal oxide and the second lithium transition metal oxide may be represented by one of the following formulas.
Formula 1 (corresponds to instantly claimed Formula 1):
LiaNixCoyMzO2-bAb, with 1.0 ≤ a ≤ 1.2, 0 ≤ b ≤ 0.2, 0.8 ≤ x ≤ 1, 0 < y ≤ 0.3, 0 < z ≤ 0.3, and x+y+z=1. M is at least on selected from manganese (Mn), niobium (Nb), vanadium (V), magnesium (Mg), gallium (Ga), silicon (Si), tungsten (W), molybdenum (Mo), iron (Fe), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), titanium (Ti), aluminum (Al), and boron (B), and A is F, S, CI, Br, or a combination thereof (paragraphs [0063-0066]).
Formula 2 (corresponds to instantly claimed Formula 2):
LiNixCoyMnzO2, with 0.8 ≤ x ≤ 0.95, 0 < y ≤ 0.2, 0 < z ≤ 0.2, and x+y+z=1 (paragraphs [0067, 0068]).
Formula 3 (corresponds to instantly claimed Formula 3):
LiNixCoyAlzO2, with 0.8 ≤ x ≤ 0.95, 0 < y ≤ 0.2, 0 < z ≤ 0.2, and x+y+z=1 (paragraphs [0067, 0068]).
Regarding claim 18, Son teaches a cathode comprising the positive electrode active material of claim 1 (paragraph [0070]).
Regarding claim 19, Son teaches a lithium battery comprising the cathode of claim 18, an anode and an electrolyte between the cathode and the anode (paragraph [0081]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of copending Application No. 18/477,186 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 10 of the reference application anticipate instant claims 1 and 10.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3-9 and 11-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-9 and 11-19 of copending Application No. 18/477,186 in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0359295, hereinafter Hayner.
Claims 1, 3-9 and 11-19 of copending Application No. 18/477,186 include all of the limitations of instant claims 1, 3-9 and 11-19 except for the amount of the second carbon-based material.
Hayner teaches an active material composite particle (100) comprising an active material core (102) and a graphene-containing coating (110), which encapsulates the core (paragraphs [0037, 0046]). Hayner teaches that the graphene-containing coating (110) further includes carbon nanotubes (paragraph [0048]). The graphene (first carbon-based material) is present in the range 5 wt% to 10 wt% of the composite material and the carbon nanotubes (second carbon-based material) is present at about 1 wt% of the composite material (paragraph [0049]). Therefore the amount of carbon nanotubes (second carbon-based material) with respect to the total amount of carbon nanotubes (second carbon-based material) and graphene (first carbon-based material) is in the range of about 2 wt% to about 10 wt%. In a specific example Hayner teaches 3 wt% (paragraph [0095]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the second carbon-based at an amount in the range of about 2 wt% to about 10 wt% with respect to the total amount of the first carbon-based material and the first carbon-based material for the purpose of enhancing the composite cathode active material’s electrical conductivity.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-13 and 17-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-5, 8-11 and 14-16 of copending Application No. 18/485,036 in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0185714, hereinafter Han and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0359295, hereinafter Hayner.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-11 and 14-16 of copending Application No. 18/485,036 include all of the limitations of instant claims 1, 3-5, 7-13 and 17-19 except that the particle diameter of the second lithium transition metal oxide is 1 µm or more and the amount of the second carbon-based material.
Han teaches a composite cathode active material comprising core-shell particles (paragraphs [0055-0057]). The core is a lithium transition metal oxide (paragraphs [0040-0054]). Han teaches a first core that is a small-diameter primary particle with an average diameter of 2 µm to 8 µm (paragraph [0039]). It would have been obvious to select a diameter in the range 2 µm to 8 µm without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Hayner teaches an active material composite particle (100) comprising an active material core (102) and a graphene-containing coating (110), which encapsulates the core (paragraphs [0037, 0046]). Hayner teaches that the graphene-containing coating (110) further includes carbon nanotubes (paragraph [0048]). The graphene (first carbon-based material) is present in the range 5 wt% to 10 wt% of the composite material and the carbon nanotubes (second carbon-based material) is present at about 1 wt% of the composite material (paragraph [0049]). Therefore the amount of carbon nanotubes (second carbon-based material) with respect to the total amount of carbon nanotubes (second carbon-based material) and graphene (first carbon-based material) is in the range of about 2 wt% to about 10 wt%. In a specific example Hayner teaches 3 wt% (paragraph [0095]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the second carbon-based at an amount in the range of about 2 wt% to about 10 wt% with respect to the total amount of the first carbon-based material and the first carbon-based material for the purpose of enhancing the composite cathode active material’s electrical conductivity.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-13 and 17-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-8 and 16-19 of copending Application No. 17/993,714 in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0185714, hereinafter Han and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0359295, hereinafter Hayner.
Claims 1, 3-8 and 16-19 of copending Application No. 17/993,714 include all of the limitations of instant claims 1-13 and 17-19 except for a second core comprising a second lithium transition metal oxide, with a different particle diameter than the first lithium transition metal oxide, the particle diameter of the second lithium transition metal oxide being 1 µm or more and the amount of the second carbon-based material.
Han teaches a composite cathode active material comprising core-shell particles (paragraphs [0055-0057]). The core is a lithium transition metal oxide (paragraphs [0040-0054]). Han teaches a first core that is a small-diameter primary particle with an average diameter of 2 µm to 8 µm (paragraph [0039]). (It is noted that given that there is an average diameter in the claimed range, two separate particles with different diameters greater than 1 µm could be selected among the small-diameter particles in Han’s composite cathode active material and designated the “first lithium transition metal oxide” and “second lithium transition metal oxide”).
Han further teaches that the composite cathode active material includes a second core which is a secondary particle with a diameter in the range 10 µm to 20 µm (paragraph [0059]). Han teaches that the resulting bimodal particle diameter distribution allows for improved energy density, because the small-diameter particles fill in gaps between the large-diameter particles within the electrode layer (paragraphs [0015, 0031]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the first lithium transition metal oxide and the second lithium transition metal oxide with different particle diameters and to form the second lithium transition metal oxide as a primary particle with an average diameter in the range 2 µm to 8 µm for the purpose of achieving superior energy density.
Hayner teaches an active material composite particle (100) comprising an active material core (102) and a graphene-containing coating (110), which encapsulates the core (paragraphs [0037, 0046]). Hayner teaches that the graphene-containing coating (110) further includes carbon nanotubes (paragraph [0048]). The graphene (first carbon-based material) is present in the range 5 wt% to 10 wt% of the composite material and the carbon nanotubes (second carbon-based material) is present at about 1 wt% of the composite material (paragraph [0049]). Therefore the amount of carbon nanotubes (second carbon-based material) with respect to the total amount of carbon nanotubes (second carbon-based material) and graphene (first carbon-based material) is in the range of about 2 wt% to about 10 wt%. In a specific example Hayner teaches 3 wt% (paragraph [0095]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the second carbon-based at an amount in the range of about 2 wt% to about 10 wt% with respect to the total amount of the first carbon-based material and the first carbon-based material for the purpose of enhancing the composite cathode active material’s electrical conductivity.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-6, 11-13 and 17-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-11 and 16-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,658,436 in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0037680, hereinafter Park and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0359295, hereinafter Hayner.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-11 and 16-18 of copending Application No. 17/993,610 include all of the limitations of instant claims 1-6, 11-13 and 17-19 except for a second carbon-based material with an aspect ratio of at least 10 and the amount of the second carbon-based material.
Park teaches a composite cathode active material comprising core-shell particles (paragraph [0035]). The core is a lithium transition metal oxide (paragraphs [0041-0044]). The shell includes the same metal oxide as Son and a carbonaceous material (paragraphs [0036, 0051]). Son teaches that the carbonaceous material may be carbon nanotubes with an aspect ratio of less than 300, which serve to improve the electrical conductivity of the material (paragraphs [0047, 0048, 0050]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include carbon nanotubes with an aspect ratio of less than 300 as a second carbon-based material in Son’s shell for the purpose of enhancing the composite cathode active material’s electrical conductivity.
Hayner teaches an active material composite particle (100) comprising an active material core (102) and a graphene-containing coating (110), which encapsulates the core (paragraphs [0037, 0046]). Hayner teaches that the graphene-containing coating (110) further includes carbon nanotubes (paragraph [0048]). The graphene (first carbon-based material) is present in the range 5 wt% to 10 wt% of the composite material and the carbon nanotubes (second carbon-based material) is present at about 1 wt% of the composite material (paragraph [0049]). Therefore the amount of carbon nanotubes (second carbon-based material) with respect to the total amount of carbon nanotubes (second carbon-based material) and graphene (first carbon-based material) is in the range of about 2 wt% to about 10 wt%. In a specific example Hayner teaches 3 wt% (paragraph [0095]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the second carbon-based at an amount in the range of about 2 wt% to about 10 wt% with respect to the total amount of the first carbon-based material and the first carbon-based material for the purpose of enhancing the composite cathode active material’s electrical conductivity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s newly added limitations have been considered. However, after further search and consideration, the combination of the Son, Park, Mun, Hayner and Han references has been provided, as recited above, to address the amended claims.
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 LILIA V NEDIALKOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-1538. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 - 5.00 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
LILIA V. NEDIALKOVA
Examiner
Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights