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 .
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(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR10-2021-011930 (referred to herein below as ‘930) in view of WO2022203434 (referred to herein below as ‘434).
Regarding claim 1, ‘930 teaches a method for producing a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery which comprises a step of preparing an NCM424 solution as a positive electrode active material; a step of adding a lithium precursor and a niobium to produce a coating solution; and a step of adding the NCM424 solution (positive electrode active material) to the coating solution to produce NCM424 powder coated with LiNbO3 (abstract, 0145-0147, claims 1 and 10).
‘930 does not explicitly teach the instantly claimed step of removing the solvent by pressing and filtering.
‘434 teaches a method of making a positive electrode active material (abstract) including a step of permeating and filtering a lithium transition metal oxide by using a filter press (0154-0155).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to utilize the filter pressing of ‘434 with the method of ‘930 in order to remove the solvent of the material.
Regarding claims 2-3, ‘930 teaches the method as discussed above.
‘930 does not explicitly teach adding an aqueous solvent, as claimed.
‘434 teaches mixing the lithium transition metal oxide with deionized water (0155).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to add an aqueous solvent as in ‘434 to the solution of ‘930 as such is a well known solvent and the result of the inclusion, namely introducing a hydrophilic functional group to the surface of the positive electrode active material, would have been well within the purview of an ordinarily skilled artisan as being obvious to try without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, ‘930 teaches the method as discussed above.
‘930 does not explicitly teach the dispersion weight percent, as claimed.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to include any desired weight percentage of solids, such as the claimed percentage of 10-50, as such a range would have been well within the purview of an ordinarily skilled artisan as being obvious to try without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, ‘930 teaches the LiNbO3 to be coated in an amount of 1 wt% (0145).
Regarding claim 6, ‘930 teaches the method as discussed above.
‘930 does not explicitly teach the aqueous solvent weight percent, as claimed.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to include any desired weight percentage of the solvent, such as the claimed percentage of 1.2-1.4, as such a range would have been well within the purview of an ordinarily skilled artisan as being obvious to try without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, ‘434 teaches a method of making a positive electrode active material (abstract) including a step of permeating and filtering a lithium transition metal oxide by using a filter press (0154-0155), as discussed above.
‘930 and ‘434 do not teach the instantly claimed pressing and filtering pressure.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to use any desired pressure for the filter pressing of ‘434, such as the claimed range of 0.3-0.5 MPa, as such a range would have been well within the purview of an ordinarily skilled artisan as being obvious to try without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, ‘930 teaches the method as discussed above.
‘930 does not explicitly teach the coating layer thickness, as claimed.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to set the coating layer thickness to any desired thickness, such as the claimed thickness range of 10-30nm, as such a range would have been well within the purview of an ordinarily skilled artisan as being obvious to try without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9, ‘930 teaches drying at 110°C (0147).
Regarding claim 10, ‘930 and ‘434 teach a positive electrode active material for a lithium ion battery, as discussed above.
In the event any differences can be shown for the product of the product-by-process claim 10, as opposed to the product taught by the references ‘930 and ‘434, such differences would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a routine modification of the product in the absence of a showing of unexpected results; see also In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC 1985).
When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or 103 of the statute is appropriate. As a practical matter, the Patent and Trademark Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith. A lesser burden of proof is required to make out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their particular nature than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Brown, 59 CCPA 1063, 173 USPQ 685 (1972); In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A SLIFKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm EST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/SARAH A. SLIFKA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759 August 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights