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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-11 and 24 in the reply filed on 7/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-23 are withdrawn.
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 9 is 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 9 depends from claim 1 and refers to “a content of carbon” contained in the coating layer. However, the coating layer containing carbon is not introduced until claim 8. It appears that claim 9 should depend from claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CHOI et al. (US 2021/0167380).
Regarding claim 1,
CHOI teaches a cathode active material particle with a core of lithium metal oxide [0080]. The coating layer can include another lithium metal oxide layer where the metal can include Nb and alkaline earth metals Ca, and Ba [0094]-[0095].
Regarding claim 6,
CHOI teaches that primary particles are very small [0050] but aggregate into secondary particles which can be 10µm [0065] and [0154].
Regarding claim 10,
CHOI teaches making a battery [0108]+ using a solid electrolyte [0130] (all solid state).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOI et al. (US 2021/0167380).
Regarding claim 2,
CHOI defines the lithium composite oxide particles in [0044] and [0080] according to Formula 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
47
635
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In that formula “w” can be 0.5-1.5 which overlaps the claimed range of 1-1.3 [0048] and [0084].
The subscript for Ni contains a typo and should be a subtraction instead of multiplication “1-(x+y+z+z’)” to make the sum of all the metals to be 1. The other subscripts can be 0 which means that Ni can 0-1 based upon the amount of other metals present as described below. The amount of Ni overlaps the claimed range.
In the formula “x” can be 0-0.5 [0048] which overlaps the “z” for Coz of 0.01-0.5.
In the formula M1 can be Mn [0045] and “y” can be 0-0.2 [0048] which overlaps the “w” for Mnw of 0.01-0.5.
An additional metal M2 [0046] can be several of the metals described as claimed M1 but can also be zero. The reference also specifically includes Nb but it can be zero. In the component M2z the z can be 0-0.2 which is the same as applicant’s v in M1v.
The oxygen subscript is 2 which falls within the claimed range of 1.5-4.5.
The reference does not expressly disclose embodiments of the particle material with the selected component subscript ratios. However, one of ordinary skill in the art can follow the generic formula of the prior art and arrive at cathode active material particles within the scope of applicant’s formula. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to follow the directions of the prior art and use the cathode active material within the scope of the disclosure.
Regarding claim 3,
CHOI teaches the coating material corresponds to Formula 2, LiaM3bOc [0094]. The “a” can be zero [0096]. M3b is at least one of several metals that includes Nb and Ba while “b” can be 0-8 [0095]-[0096]. This overlaps the total amount of Nb and Ba used in the claimed species (2-3). The Oc used indicates “c” can be 2-13 which includes the 1-6 used in the examples described in the claim.
The reference does not expressly disclose embodiments of the coating material with the selected component subscript ratios. However, one of ordinary skill in the art can follow the generic formula of the prior art and arrive at cathode active material particles within the scope of applicant’s formula. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to follow the directions of the prior art and use the cathode active material within the scope of the disclosure.
The examiner notes that the amount of alkaline earth metal used in the niobium oxide layer can be small and the species listed in the claim are only “partially comprised in niobium oxide constituting the shell”. Accordingly, when a small amount of Ba is added, a single atom of Ba may bond with the niobium oxide to form the BaNbO and meet the claim limitation for example. This interpretation reflects the specification and claims which indicate that a much lower amount of alkaline earth metal is used instead of the implicitly suggested ratio of 1:1 or 1:2 with niobium.
Regarding claim 4,
CHOI teaches a coating layer that corresponds to Formula 2, LiaM3bOc [0094]. The reference further notes that a mixture of oxides could also be mixed used [0097]. Accordingly, a BaNbO material could be mixed with NbO to drive down the total content of Ba (alkaline earth metal) in terms of weight.
The CHOI reference does not expressly teach the amount of alkaline earth metal used in the coating in terms of weight of a niobium oxide coating. However, the scope of the reference includes using any particular amount. Generally, change in concentration art not patentable without showing criticality of the concentration, MPEP 2144.05.II.
Regarding claim 5,
CHOI teaches the coating layer is present to improve physical and electrochemical characteristics of the particles [0092] and [0099]. However, by adding the coating material the cathode active material particles are burdened with non-active material which adds weight without adding charge capacity. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the amount of coating material to achieve the desired physical and electrochemical properties while maintaining a desired capacity per weight ratio.
Regarding claim 7,
CHOI teaches forming the coating on “at least part” of the core particles [0090]. This is considered to be a range that includes up to 100% coverage. This range overlaps the claimed range of at least 60% and is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOI et al. (US 2021/0167380) in view of GROOMBRIDGE et al.(US 2023/0178719).
Regarding claim 8,
CHOI teaches an active material with a shell based on niobium oxide but does not teach an additional layer of carbon. However, GROOMBRIDGE teaches that when using a niobium oxide layer, a carbon coating can be used to improve electrical conductivity and reduce reaction with electrolyte [0150]-[0151]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to coat the shell of CHOI with carbon to improve electrical conductivity and suppress reactions with the electrolyte.
Regarding claim 9,
GROOMBRIDGE further teaches that the amount of carbon used is determined by balancing the reduced capacity (carbon does not provide capacity) of the active material with the improved electrical conductivity [0152]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to manipulate the amount of carbon in the active material to achieve a desired electrical conductivity (lowering internal resistivity) at the cost of battery capacity.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOI et al. (US 2021/0167380) in view of TOMURA (US 2019/0252719).
Regarding claim 11,
CHOI teaches using an inorganic solid electrolyte [0130] but does not teach a sulfide. One of ordinary skill would naturally look to the art for known and used inorganic solid electrolyte. TOMURA teaches sulfide solid electrolytes are well known inorganic solid electrolytes [0029]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a sulfide solid electrolyte as the inorganic solid electrolyte as a well-known solid electrolyte used in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The examiner notes that the combination of limitations would require multiple statements of obviousness that compound on each other. In particular, the motivation for changing the loading of niobium oxide coating in the rejection above was to tailor the structural/physical properties of the active material while maintaining a charge to weight ratio. However, that loading depends on the material used in the coating and it is reasonable that different compositional coatings will require different total amounts in the active material to achieve the same structural/physical properties. In order to arrive at the claimed invention, one would need to select a particular material for the coating (within the scope of CHOI) and then also manipulate the loading of that particular selection. Modifying the amount of coating material after modifying the type of material is a modification of a modification and is considered to rely on impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571272-1418. 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.
/AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights