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 .
Claims 1-6, 12, and 13 are pending in the application.
Claims 7-11 are withdrawn in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-6, 12 and 13 in the reply filed on 8/18/2026 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Claim 7-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected process for making the positive electrode active material, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/18/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: “A positive electrode material, at least comprising” should be corrected to “A positive electrode material, comprising”.
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein a chemical formula” should be corrected to “wherein the chemical formula”.
Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities: A lithium-ion battery comprises” should be corrected to “A lithium-ion battery comprising”.
Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities: A lithium-ion battery comprises” should be corrected to “A lithium-ion battery comprising”.
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.
Claim 2 and 4 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 2 recites “wherein a molar ratio of iron atoms on a surface”, it is unclear whether the recited percentage represents Fe relative to all elements detected by EDS, all metal atoms detected by EDS, or Fe and Zr or the constituents of the coating layer or some other defined group of elements retendering the claim vague and indefinite.
Claim 4 recites, “ positive electrode active material in the secondary spherical form”, it is unclear if the active material forms a secondary particle and those secondary particles are spherical or the active material itself is somehow in a “secondary spherical form” rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
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.
Claim 1, 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (Engineering cathode-electrolyte...) in view of Kwak ( New cost-effective Halide…).
Huang discloses a positive electrode material comprising a positive electrode active material comprising LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 (abstract, page 40650, col. 1, para. 3) and a coating layer coated on the positive electrode active material where in the coating layer comprises a solid halide electrolyte (Li3InCl6, abstract, page. 40650, col. 1, para. 3).
Huang fails to disclose the coating layer has a chemical formula of Li2+aZr1-aFeaCl6-x-yBrxIy where in 0<a≤0.5; x =0 to 6, y =0 to 6, x+y≤6.
Kwak discloses a halide solid electrolytes for all solid-state batteries and in particular Fe3+ -substituted Li2ZrCl6 of formula Li 2+x Zr 1-x Fe x Cl 6 (abstract, page. 2, col. 2, para. 3) and shows excellent compatibility with LiCoO2 or single-crystalline LiNi0.88Co0.11Al0.01O2 (single-NCA88, abstract, page 2, col. 2, para. 3) . Kwak further discloses Li 2 . 25 Zr 0.75 Fe 0.25 Cl 6 as the composition of the solid electrolyte (page 2, col. 2, para. 3) which falls within the claimed range of solid electrolyte composition.
Kwak discloses that aliovalent substitution of Li2ZrCl6 with Fe3+ enhances lithium ion conductivity and cost-effective to use Zr and Fe metals, instead of the conventional use of rare-earth metals (page 4, col. 2, para. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the coating on Huang’s positive electrode active material with iron comprising halide as taught by Kwak. Such a modification would result in positive electrode active material with a coating of halide solid electrolyte with a chemical formula as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the coating of Huang to improve the lithium ion conductivity and reduce the cost of the lithium batteries.
Regarding claim 2, As discussed above with respect to claim 1, the combination of Huang and Kwak would result in a positive electrode material comprising LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 having a coating layer of Li 2 . 25 Zr 0.75 Fe 0.25 Cl 6 . Since coating layer constitutes the surface of the positive electrode active material and iron is part of the coating layer composition, therefore iron would be present on a surface of the electrode material of the modified positive electrode material of Huang and Kwak. Huang discloses that varying the coating amount correspondingly carries the coating constituents and detects the particles surface by EDS ( page. 40650, col. 1, para. 3, SI- figure S6). In the composition of the coating layer of Kwak Li 2 . 25 Zr 0.75 Fe 0.25 Cl 6 (page 2, col. 2, para. 3) molar ratio of Fe to total atoms can be calculated as 0.25/(2.25+0.75+0.25+6) = 0.027 or 2.7 %. The calculated molar ratio would fall within the claimed range of 0.2% to 5%. The prior art combination produces a positive electrode material coated with a solid halide electrolyte similar to claim 1, therefore, the molar ratio of iron atoms on a surface of the positive electrode material within the recited range would inherently be present in the product of the combination. The burden is upon the applicant to prove otherwise. MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 12, Huang discloses a lithium-ion battery comprising the positive electrode material (page 40649, col. 2, para. 3 – 40650, col. 1 para. 1).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (Engineering cathode-electrolyte...) in view of Kwak ( New cost-effective Halide…) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (CN 115050962A, for prior art discussion see cited machine translation).
Huang and Kwak are relied upon as discussed above.
Regarding claim 2, Huang discloses that varying the coating amount correspondingly carries the coating constituents and detected at the particles surface by EDS ( page. 40650, col. 1, para. 3, SI- figure S6). Neither Huang nor Kwak does not explicitly disclose a molar ratio of iron atoms on a surface of the positive electrode material measured by an energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer is 0.2% to 5%.
Chen discloses a positive electrode active material having a coating layer on the surface of the positive electrode active material where in the coating layer comprises of halide solid electrolyte (para. n0008, n0013, n0015). Chen discloses forming a halide solid electrolyte coated positive electrode material by mixing 0.2% by mass of halide solid electrolyte Li3InCl6 with an average particles size of 50 nm with the cathode material in a high-speed mixer at a speed of 1000rpm until homogeneous and then cooled to room temperature. Then, by holding the material at 450℃ for 6 hours, the desired halide solid electrolyte-coated cathode material (para. n0077). This method and amount to halide 0.2% by mass which falls in the range of 0.1 to 1.2 % (instant application, para. 0036) is considerably similar to the applicant’s disclosure (instant application, para. 0042) where the halide solid electrolyte and the positive electrode active material at a mass ratio of (0.1 to 1.2):(99.9 to 98.8) are mixed. Applying Chen’s coating process using the solid electrolyte of Kwak (Li 2 . 25 Zr 0.75 Fe 0.25 Cl 6 ) on the positive electrode of Huang (LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 ) therefore necessarily yields a positive electrode material having a surface iron molar ratio within the recited range. As the prior-art discloses a process similar to process in the instant application and Huang, Kwak in combination with Chen produces similar coating on the positive electrode material, the resulting coating layer would inherently possess iron atoms on the surface of the positive electrode material in the claimed range (MPEP 2112)
Chen further discloses as the thickness of the coating layer increases (the ratio of coating source to positive electrode material increases), the internal resistance of the battery shows an upward trend. This is because the excessively thick coating layer prolongs the transport distance of electrons and ions on the material surface (para. n0091, n0094) while an excessively thin coating layer can lead to incomplete coating and insufficient battery interface stability (para. n0094). Chen disclose the amount of electronic and ionic conductors added in the hybrid conductor coating layer is easy to control, and the coating amount can be adjusted according to different types of cathode materials, so the preparation method has universality (para. n0012).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the positive electrode active material of modified Huang to control the thickness of coating layer and use the method of coating as taught by Chen. One of ordinary skill in art would have been motivated to control the thickness of the coating as taught by Chen to adopt the coating method for different types of cathode materials, to avoid increase in battery’s resistance and for the battery to possess sufficient interface stability.
Claim 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Huang (Engineering cathode-electrolyte...) in view of Kwak ( New cost-effective Halide…) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeong ( KR 20210131726A, for prior art rejection applicant provided machine translation cited in IDS filed on 09/03/2024 ).
Huang and Kwak are relied upon as discussed above
Regarding claim 3, Huang and Kwak fails to disclose the halide solid electrolyte is Li 2 . 3 Zr 0.7 Fe 0.3 Cl
Jeong discloses a solid electrolyte with a composition Li 2+x M11-c M2 c X 6 where 1≤a<4, 0<b<1, 0<c<1 and
M1 is a transition metal element having an oxidation number of +4,
M2 is a metal element having an oxidation number of +2 or +3,
X is a halogen element (para. 0019- 0032). Jeong discloses when M1 is Zr and M2 is Fe, the range of c may be 0.1 or more and 0.5 or less, and specifically 0.2 or more and 0.4 or less meeting the claim limitation when c = 0.3 (MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Jeong discloses the above M1 alone exhibits conductivity equivalent to that of a metal having an oxidation state of +3, and when used together with a metal M2 having an oxidation state of +2 or +3, it significantly improves conductivity by more than double, so it can be used as a solid electrolyte material useful for lithium batteries (para. 0092).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the coating of the combination of Huang and Kwak as taught by Jeong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the coating of Huang to improve the lithium ion conductivity of the lithium batteries.
Regarding claim 13, Jeong discloses Li-ion batteries are used to power electronic devices (para. 0002).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the battery of Huang comprising of modified positive electrode material in an electronic device as taught by Jeong. One of ordinary skill in art would have been motivated to include battery in an electronic device to power the device as is well known in the art.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (Engineering cathode-electrolyte...) in view of Kwak ( New cost-effective Halide…) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liang (Granularity control enables…).
Huang and Kwak are relied upon as discussed above.
Regarding claim 4, Huang and Kwak fails to disclose the positive electrode active material is in a secondary spherical form or a single crystal form.
Liang discloses LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 (LNMO) cathode materials for lithium-ion batteries (abstract, page. 1050, col.1, para. 2). Liang discloses forming single crystal LNMO with different sizes (page. 1050, col. 1, para. 3). Liang further discloses single crystal materials have high tap density, high mechanical strength, high energy density and high cycle stability and the single crystal materials eliminate the structural and physical inhomogeneity of the material, which further improves the performance of the material (page. 1050, col. 1, para.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the positive electrode active material of modified Huang to be in single crystal form as taught by Liang. One of ordinary skill in art would have been motivated to use the single crystal form of positive electrode active material to improves the performance of the material.
Regarding claim 5, modified Huang discloses a positive electrode active material in a single form as set forth above with respect to claim 4. Because claim 5 does not positively require the positive electrode material to be in the secondary spherical form, the claim is interpreted as simply further narrowing the scope of a claim limitation in the
alternative, and thus renders it optional, and thus the claim as a whole is met by the prior art as set forth above.
Regarding claim 6, Liang discloses D50 of the positive electrode active material in the single crystal form is 1.658 µm, 4.429 µm and 5.291 µm for LNMO-850, LNMO-900 and LNMO-950 for each of the LNMO samples prepared at different temperatures (page. 1052, col. 1, para. 1, page. 1056, col. 2, para. 3) overlapping the claimed range of 1-16 µm. Liang further discloses the large particle size can reduce the contact area between the cathode material and the electrolyte, resulting in an improved structure stability and reduced cycling decay and it has to be realized that oversized particle will prolong the migration path of Li ions and damage the rate performance (page. 1052, col. 1, para. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the positive electrode active material of modified Huang to have a D50 in the range as taught by Liang. One of ordinary skill in art would have been motivated to use the single crystal form of positive electrode active material to find the balance between improved structure stability and reduced cycling decay and reduce the damage the rate performance.
Claims 4-5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (Engineering cathode-electrolyte...) in view of Kwak ( New cost-effective Halide…)
as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhu (Preparation of spherical …) and Nakazawa (US PG Pub. 2017/0162906A1)
Huang and Kwak are relied upon as discussed above.
Regarding claim 4, Huang and Kwak fails to disclose the positive electrode active material is in a secondary spherical form
Zhu discloses LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 with a spherical hierarchical morphology for the material particles (abstract, page 290, col. 2, para. 2, figure 3 (d)) as a positive electrode active material. Zhu discloses the LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 as synthesized are spherical particle (page. 293, col. 1, para. 4) and is in the form of secondary particle composed of smaller nano-scale or submicron scale primary particles (page. 293, col. 1, para. 4). Zhu further discloses the spherical particle improves the electrochemical performances of LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4. Spherical particle provides an optimum isotropic diffusion path for Li ions fast transferring between particle bulk and surface and meantime it can also reduce the heat generation in high rate charging and discharging process due to its lower resistance. Zhu further discloses the spherical particle have an active equaled surface layer and the smallest surface area, where will form a stable uniform thin cathode–electrolyte interface layer and consume a least amount of Li ions and the corresponding smallest interface between cathode and electrolyte resulting from the spherical particle also weakens the unexpected side reaction during the electrochemical process and by which significantly improves the cycling performance. At last, during the charging/discharging cycles, the deformation stress from stretching and shrinking of the spherical particle is axially isotropy, and the sphere can reduce the stress accumulation by dispersing it into the overall arc (page. 296, col. 1, para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the positive electrode active material of modified Huang to include secondary spherical particles as taught by Zhu. One of ordinary skill in art would have been motivated to include the positive electrode active material to improve the electrochemical performance of the cathode.
Regarding claim 5, Huang, Kwak and Zhu fails to disclose a median particle diameter D50 of the positive electrode active material in the secondary spherical form is 10-40 µm.
Nakazawa discloses a lithium, transition metal oxide with spinel structure including LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 (para. 0361, 0384) which forms the positive electrode active material layer (para. 0386) . Nakazawa discloses the primary particles are agglomerated to form a secondary particle and the primary particles are agglomerated to form a secondary particle, and the shape of the secondary particle may be spherical or oval spherical. (para. 0764). Nakazawa discloses the secondary particles having a median diameter D50 of preferably 0.1 μm or more, preferably 0.5 μm or more, further preferably 1 μm or more, particularly preferably 3 μm or more, and is preferably 30 μm or less, more preferably 20 μm or less, further preferably 16 μm or less, and particularly preferably 15 μm or less (para. 0769) overlapping with the claimed range MPEP 2144.05 (I). Nakazawa further discloses if the median diameter d50 is within the above-mentioned range, a high bulk density product can be easily obtained, and further, a less time is taken for diffusion of the lithium in the particle, so that the battery characteristics are difficulty lowered.(para. 0769).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the positive electrode active material of modified Huang to have a D50 in the range as taught by Nakazawa. One of ordinary skill in art would have been motivated to include the positive electrode active material to reduce the time taken for diffusion of the lithium in the particle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISWARYA MATHEW whose telephone number is (571)272-9515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, ALICIA CHEVALIER can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/I.M./
Iswarya MathewExaminer, Art Unit 1788 09/11/2026
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights