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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 17 July 2024 and 29 October 2025 were considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claims 1 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Washida et al. (WO2020175506A1, cited on IDS, Machine Translation via EPO) in further view of Wang et al. (Wang et al. Atomic Layer Deposition of Lithium Niobium Oxides as Potential Solid-State Electrolytes for Lithium-Ion Batteries. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 17 January 2018; 10 (2): 1654–1661., NPL cited on IDS).
Regarding Claim 1, Washida teaches a coated positive electrode active material [0019, 0027] that could be used for a lithium secondary battery [0119]. The coated positive electrode active material includes a positive electrode active material (“core material”) [0012] and a coating layer disposed on a surface of the positive electrode active material [0012], and the coating layer can include niobium atoms [0012]. The core particles in Washida correlate to the positive electrode active material of the instant application, and the coating layer of Washida correlates to the coating layer that is disposed on the active material of the instant application.
Washida does not explicitly teach the peaks observed at a niobium (Nb)- L3 absorption edge of an X-ray absorption fine structure spectrum of the coated positive electrode active material measured by X-ray absorption fine structure spectroscopy (XAFS) are designated as a peak A, a peak B, and a peak C in an order from lower absorption energy, a difference between absorption energy at a peak top of the peak A and absorption energy at a peak top of the peak C is 12.9 eV or greater.
However, Wang discusses an atomic layer deposition of lithium niobium oxides as potential solid-state electrolytes for lithium-ion batteries. Wang teaches substrates that are coated with lithium niobium films, and the films are amorphous and layered such as they are in the instant application. Wang further teaches peaks observed at a niobium (Nb)-L3 absorption edge of an X-ray absorption fine structure spectrum of the coated positive electrode active material measured by X-ray absorption fine structure spectroscopy (XAFS) that are designated as a peak A, a peak B and a peak C in an order from lower absorption energy, and a difference between the absorption energy at a peak top of the peak A and absorption energy at a peak top of the peak C being 12.9 eV or greater (Figure 3, Table 1, NbxO). The difference is 14.0 eV.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify and combine the positive electrode active material of Washida with the XAFS peak differences of Wang. One would have been motivated to modify and combine the inventions in this way because both inventions relate to lithium niobium oxide coatings for lithium secondary battery materials, such as active materials or electrolytes, and Wang asserts in its introduction that “lithium niobate glasses have demonstrated good ionic conductivity” (Wang, 2017). Further, Wang concludes that the lithium niobium oxide films, including any of the films found in Table 1, “can provide a moderate ionic conductivity at room temperature, which is higher than that of other similar amorphous systems” (Wang, 2017).
Regarding Claim 2, Washida and Wang teach all the limitations of Claim 1 but do not teach the difference between the absorption energy at the peak top of the peak A and the absorption energy at the peak top of peak C being 12.9 eV or greater and 13.8 eV or less.
However, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the difference in peak absorption energies between peaks A and C to fall between the range of 12.9 and 13.8 eV, inclusive. One would have been motivated to modify the difference in peak absorption energies to find an optimal ionic conductivity for the active material. It would have been obvious to try to modify the peak energy differences for this reason. Wang teaches a peak energy difference between peak A and C that is 14 eV, which is close to the upper limit of the claimed range. Also, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, and, similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 3, Washida teaches a coated positive electrode active material [0019, 0027] that could be used for a lithium secondary battery [0119]. The coated positive electrode active material includes a positive electrode active material (“core material”) [0012] and a coating layer disposed on a surface of the positive electrode active material [0012], and the coating layer can include niobium atoms [0012]. The core particles in Washida correlate to the positive electrode active material of the instant application, and the coating layer of Washida correlates to the coating layer that is disposed on the active material of the instant application.
Washida does not explicitly teach the peaks observed at a niobium (Nb)- L3 absorption edge of an X-ray absorption fine structure spectrum of the coated positive electrode active material measured by X-ray absorption fine structure spectroscopy (XAFS) are designated as a peak A, a peak B, and a peak C in an order from lower absorption energy, a difference between absorption energy at a peak top of the peak A and absorption energy at a peak top of the peak B is 3.1 eV or less.
However, Wang discusses an atomic layer deposition of lithium niobium oxides as potential solid-state electrolytes for lithium-ion batteries. Wang teaches substrates that are coated with lithium niobium films, and the films are layered and amorphous such as they are in the instant application. Wang further teaches peaks observed at a niobium (Nb)-L3 absorption edge of an X-ray absorption fine structure spectrum of the coated positive electrode active material measured by X-ray absorption fine structure spectroscopy (XAFS) that are designated as a peak A, a peak B and a peak C in an order from lower absorption energy, and a difference between the absorption energy at a peak top of the peak A and absorption energy at a peak top of the peak B being 3.1 eV or less (Figure 3, Table 1, NbxO). The difference is 2.4 eV.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify and combine the positive electrode active material of Washida with the XAFS peak differences of Wang. One would have been motivated to modify and combine the inventions in this way because both inventions relate to lithium niobium oxide coatings for lithium secondary battery materials, such as active materials or electrolytes, and Wang asserts in the introduction section that “lithium niobate glasses have demonstrated good ionic conductivity” (Wang, 2017). Further, Wang concludes that the lithium niobium oxide films, including any of the films found in Table 1, “can provide a moderate ionic conductivity at room temperature, which is higher than that of other similar amorphous systems” (Wang, 2017).
Regarding Claim 4, Washida and Wang teach all the limitations of Claim 3, and Wang further teaches the difference between the absorption energy peak at the peak top of the peak A and the absorption energy at the peak top of the peak B is 2.3 eV or greater and 3.1 eV or less; the difference between the absorption energy peaks at peak tops A and B is 2.4 eV (Figure 3, Table 1, NbxO).
Regarding Claim 5, Washida and Wang teach all the limitations of Claim 1, and Wang further teaches the difference between the absorption energy peak at the peak top of the peak A and the absorption energy at the peak top of the peak B is 2.3 eV or greater and 3.1 eV or less; the difference between the absorption energy peaks at peak tops A and B is 2.4 eV (Figure 3, Table 1, NbxO).
Regarding Claim 6, Washida and Wang teach all the limitations of Claim 5 but do not specifically teach the difference between the absorption energy at the peak top of the peak A and the absorption energy at the peak top of the peak C is 12.9 eV or greater and 13.8 eV or less.
However, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the difference in peak absorption energies between peaks A and C to fall between the range of 12.9 and 13.8 eV, inclusive. One would have been motivated to modify the difference in peak absorption energies to find an optimal ionic conductivity for the active material. It would have been obvious to try to modify the peak energy differences for this reason. Wang teaches a peak energy difference between peak A and C that is 14 eV, which is close to the upper limit of the claimed range. Also, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, and, similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Wang also further teaches the difference between the absorption energy peak at the peak top of the peak A and the absorption energy at the peak top of the peak B is 2.3 eV or greater and 3.1 eV or less; the difference between the absorption energy peaks at peak tops A and B is 2.4 eV (Figure 3, Table 1, NbxO).
Regarding Claim 7, Washida and Wang teach all the limitations of claim 1, and Washida further teaches the coating layer being amorphous [0023].
Regarding Claim 8, Washida and Wang teach all the limitations of claim 1, and Washida further teaches the positive electrode active material having a layered structure [0076]. The active material is comprised of core particles [0026], and core material particle powder, made of lithium metal composite oxide, can have a layered structure [0076].
Regarding Claim 9, Washida and Wang teach all the limitations of Claim 8, and Washida further teaches the positive electrode active material including nickel, cobalt and manganese, and the molar ratio of nickel, cobalt and manganese is Ni:Co:Mn = x:y:z, which satisfies relationships of 0.4<x≤1.0, 0≤y<0.3, 0≤z<0.4 and x + y + z = 1 [0100-0101]. The ratio of Ni:Co:Mn is 0.6:0.2:0.2 [0100-0101].
Regarding Claim 10, Washida in view of Wang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 with respect to the coated positive electrode active material as described in the rejection above, and Washida further teaches a lithium secondary battery [0119] that includes a positive electrode [0121], a negative electrode [0121] (positive and negative electrodes must be present if positive and negative electrode layers are present because the latter are subcomponents of the former) and a solid electrolyte layer [0080]. The solid electrolyte can be a sulfide-based solid electrolyte [0082].
Regarding Claim 11, Washida and Wang teach all the limitations of Claim 3, and Washida further teaches the coating layer being amorphous [0023].
Regarding Claim 12, Washida and Wang teach all the limitations of claim 3, and Washida further teaches the positive electrode active material having a layered structure [0076]. The active material is comprised of core particles [0026], and core material particle powder, made of lithium metal composite oxide, can have a layered structure [0076].
Regarding Claim 13, Washida in view of Wang teaches all the limitations of claim 3 with respect to the coated positive electrode active material as described in the rejection above, and Washida further teaches a lithium secondary battery [0119] that includes a positive electrode [0121], a negative electrode [0121] (positive and negative electrodes must be present if positive and negative electrode layers are present because the latter are subcomponents of the former) and a solid electrolyte layer [0080]. The solid electrolyte can be a sulfide-based solid electrolyte [0082].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAXIMILIAN D BAGILEO whose telephone number is (571)270-5460. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291.
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.
/M.D.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/LAURA C POWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights