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 . 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on August 10, 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 9 and 10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (KR 2017/0001920 A), hereinafter “Hong.”
Regarding claim 1, Hong discloses a method for producing a positive electrode active material comprising:
preparing a lithium transition metal oxide, in this case a lithium metal compound is synthesized (p. 5); and
mixing the lithium transition metal oxide and a washing solution and washing the mixture, in this case the synthesized lithium metal compound is washed with an aqueous solution of a phosphorous-containing material (p. 5), and then drying the material, in this case drying is carried out by heat treatment (p. 6):
wherein the washing solution contains a phosphorous-based compound and is basic, in this case the washing solution is an aqueous solution of a phosphorous-containing material (p. 5) and the phosphate ions in the solution would render it basic; and
the phosphorous-based compound is contained in the washing solution at 100-1,000 ppm based on the weight of the lithium transition metal oxide, in this case 0.01 to 9 parts by weight (p. 4). A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Hong further discloses that the phosphorous-based compound comprises phosphate (PO43-) (p. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Hong further discloses that the phosphorous-based compound is Li3PO4 or (NH4)2HPO4 (p. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Hong further teaches that the phosphorous-based compound is contained in the washing solution at 200-1,000 ppm based on the weight of the lithium transition metal oxide, in this case 0.01 to 9 parts by weight (p. 4). A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Hong further discloses that the washing solution has a pH of 7.00 to 9.00, in this case the phosphate ions present in the aqueous washing solution would yield a pH within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 7, Hong further discloses that the lithium transition metal oxide is represented by Formula 1:
Li1+aNix1Coy1M1z1M2w1O2, in this case LixNiyMzO2 (p. 3, Chemical Formula 1), wherein:
0 ≤ a ≤ 0.3, in this case a = 0,
0.6 ≤ x1 ≤ 1.0, in this case 0.4 ≤ y ≤ 1.00,
0 ≤ y1 ≤ 0.4, in this case M may be Co and 0 ≤ z ≤ 0.6,
0 ≤ z1 ≤ 0.4, in this case z1 = 0,
0 ≤ w1 ≤ 0.2, in this case w1 = 0, and
x1 + y1 + z1 + w1 = 1, in this case y + z = 1.
Regarding claim 8, Hong further discloses a step of mixing a coating element-containing raw material with the lithium transition metal oxide during the mixing step and subjecting the mixture to heat treatment to form a coating layer, in this case a lithium compound is left on the surface of the synthesized lithium metal compound (p. 5) that is present during the drying step and results in the coating.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hong as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Feng et al., IN-situ formation of hybrid Li3PO4-AlPO4-Al(PO3)3 coating layer on LiNi0.8Co0.1O2 cathode with enhanced electrochemical properties for lithium-ion battery, Chemical Engineering Journal 382 (2020) 122959, hereinafter “Feng.”
Regarding claim 6, Hong does not specify the solvent. However, Feng teaches depositing phosphates from an ethanol solution (§ 2.2). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that substituting the ethanol for the aqueous solution would have yielded the predictable result of depositing the phosphates on the lithium transition metal oxide. See M.P.E.P. § 2143 I. B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have substituted the ethanol of Feng for the aqueous solution of Hong in order to yield the predictable result of depositing the phosphates.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 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, 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.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights