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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 28 April 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5, 8, 10-11, and 13-23 are currently pending
Claims 1, 8, and 21-22 are amended
Claims 6 and 7 have been cancelled
Claim 20 has been previously withdrawn
New claim 23 has been added
Status of Amendments
The amendment filed 28 April 2026 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Status of Objections and Rejections of the Office Action from 4 March 2026
The 103 rejections over Shin in view of Wu and further in view of Tang, Park, Zhao, and Nagao are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment. However, a new grounds of rejection over Shin in view of Wu and Liu, further in view of Park, Zhao, and Nagao has been set forth, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 8 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 8 recites the limitations "the alkali metal element" in line 3 and “the non-metal element” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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, 10-11, 13-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US 20200112024 A1), hereinafter Shin, in view of Wu et al. (CN 115832275 A, using US 20230395796 A1 as the English equivalent), hereinafter Wu, further in view of Liu et al. (CN 102569807 A, using the previously submitted English translation from 18 December 2025 in conjunction with a newly submitted English translation of the claims that were not included in the previously submitted version), hereinafter Liu.
Regarding claims 1-4, Shin teaches a composite positive electrode material, in this case a cathode active material 10 [0007], comprising:
a positive electrode material substrate, in this case a lithium nickel transition metal oxide [0046]; and
a first coating layer 200 at least partially covering the positive electrode material substrate [0060]; wherein:
a general formula of the positive electrode material substrate is:
LibNixCoyMnzMaO2-c, in this case LiaNibCocMndM8eO2-αXα [0098, Formula 6],
wherein 0.9≤a≤1.2, 0.7<b<1, 0<c<0.1, 0<d<0.1, 0≤e<0.01, b+c+d+e=1, and 0≤α<2 [0099], and
the first coating layer comprises a transition metal element. In this case the shell 200 is taught to be a third layer including a first composition and a second composition at the same time [0058] where the first composition may be one or more of Co, Zr, or Sb [0062], as also required by claim 4, in the form of, for example, Co3O4, LiCoO2, ZrO2, Li2ZrO3 [0066], as also required by claim 3, and the second composition may be one or more of Ce or La [0070], as also required by claim 4, in the form of, for example, CeO2, Ce2O3, Ce3O4, La2O3 [0071], as also required by claim 3.
Shin is silent as to M8 of Formula 6 comprising one or more of Y, W, Sr, Ta, Sb, Na, K, and Ca. However, Wu teaches a lithium nickel ternary positive electrode material comprising a general formula of Li1+a[NixCoyMnzM1bM2cWd]O2 wherein M1 may be Sb, M2 may be Sr and Ca, 0.65≤x≤1, 0≤y<0.3, 0≤z<0.3, 0<a<0.2, 0<b<0.1, 0<c<0.1, 0<d<0.1, and x+y+z+b+c+d=1 [0007]. This overlaps with the claimed LibNixCoyMnzMaO2-c, wherein 0.55≤x≤1.0, 0≤y<0.45, 0≤z<0.45, 0<a<0.45, 0.5<b<1.2, x+y+z+b=2, and -0.1<c<0.1, of claim 1 and LibNixCoyMnzMaO2-c, wherein 0.9≤x≤1.0, 0≤y<0.1, 0≤z<0.1, 0<a<0.1, 0.5<b<1.2, x+y+z+b=2, and -0.1<c<0.1, of claim 2. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Shin and Wu are both considered to be equivalent to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cobalt coated lithium nickel oxide positive electrode materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin with the positive electrode material of Wu. Doing so would have produced a battery with improved cycling performance and storage performance [Wu 0006]. Further, the selection of a known material, in this case a lithium nickel ternary oxide, based on its suitability for its intended use, in this case as a positive electrode material, supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Shin is silent as to the first coating further comprising a compound having a melting point lower than 900°C. However, Liu teaches a lithium oxide cathode active material (pg. 3, ¶ 9) coated with a combination of an A source compound and a melting agent (pg. 3, ¶ 2), where A may be Co (pg. 4, ¶ 8), and the melting agent may be lithium acetate (claim 7, see newly submitted English translation of the claims), lithium nitrate, and lithium oxalate (pg. 2, ¶ 12), and has a melting point lower than the temperature at which the materials are combined (pg. 3, ¶ 3), in this case 800-1000°C (pg. 2, ¶ 14). This overlaps with the melting point of lower than 900°C of claim 6. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Shin and Liu are both considered to be equivalent to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of coated lithium positive electrode materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating of Shin to further include the melting agent of Liu. Doing so would have produced a uniform coating layer with improved high-temperature cycle performance (Liu pg. 3, ¶ 3).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, modified Shin teaches the composite positive electrode material according to claims 1 and 4. Shin further teaches Co being present in the first composition in an amount of about 0.01 to about 1 parts by weight [0067] and Ce being present in the second composition in an amount of about 0.01 to about 1.5 parts by weight [0072] based on 100 parts by weight of the of the cathode active material. These equate to 100 to 10,000 ppm for the first composition and 100 to 15,000 ppm for the second composition. Therefore, even taking into account their different molar masses, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the molar ratio between the two compositions to overlap with the claimed molar ratio of 0<M≤10 and, optionally, 0<M≤1 of claim 5. Further, the mass content of the coating layer including the combined compositions would range from 200 to 25,000 ppm, which overlaps with the claimed 100 to 20,000 ppm and, optionally, 1,000 to 15,000 ppm of claim 15. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 8, modified Shin teaches the composite positive electrode material according to claim 1. Liu further teaches the mole content of lithium nitrate (LiNO3) as the melting agent being 0.01 moles in example 9 and 0.04 moles in example 8 compared to the mole content of Co3O4 as the A source compound of 0.01 moles in example 5 (Table 1). This equates to 0.689 to 2.740 grams of LiNO3 compared to 2.408 grams of Co3O4, or a ratio of LiNO3 to Co3O4 of 0.286 to 1.138. Liu does not teach a specific example using lithium acetate (C2H3LiO2) or lithium oxalate (C2Li2O4) as the melting agent. However, substituting them for the lithium nitrate would equate to 0.6598 to 2.639 grams of C2H3LiO2, a ratio of 0.274 to 1.096, or 1.019 to 4.076 grams of C2Li2O4, a ratio of 0.423 to 1.693. Therefore, for a Co composition mass content of 100 to 10,000 ppm, as taught by Shin [0067], one of ordinary skill in the art would expect to add 28.6 to 11,380 ppm of LiNO3, 27.4 to 10,960 ppm of C2H3LiO2, or 42.3 to 16,930 ppm of C2Li2O4. This would mean 2.86 to 1,138 ppm, 2.882 to 1152.976 ppm, or 5.753 to 2,302.48 ppm Li, respectively, which overlap with the claimed mass content of the alkali metal element of 100 to 15,000 ppm and, optionally, 1,000 to 8,000 ppm, as well as 25.74 to 10,242 ppm, 24.518 to 9,807.024 ppm, or 36.547 to 14,627.52 ppm of non-metal elements, respectively, which overlaps with the claimed mass content of the non-metal element of 200 to 50,000 ppm and, optionally, 500 to 8000 ppm. Examiner notes that the ratio of the added melting agent could potentially instead be calculated based on the ppm of the overall coating, in this case 200 to 25,000 ppm, rather than just the Co content, which would lead to ranges about two and a half times the size.
Regarding claim 10, modified Shin teaches the composite positive electrode material according to claim 1. Wu further teaches a high-nickel ternary positive electrode material with an inner coating layer containing a Co-containing compound and an outer coating layer including an Al-containing compound and a B-containing compound [0007].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin to include the outer coating of Wu. Doing so would have reduced the amount of lithium impurities contained in the surface and inhibited interface side reactions between the electrode material and the electrolyte leading to improved capacity and rate performance for the electrode material and improved cycling, storage, and safety performance for the battery [Wu 0009].
Regarding claims 11 and 13, modified Shin teaches the composite positive electrode material according to claim 10. Wu further teaches the mass content of Al in the second coating ranging from 100 ppm [0195] to 3000 ppm [0189], which overlaps the claimed range of 100 to 3500 ppm and, optionally, 500 to 2500 ppm of claim 11, the mass content of B in the second coating ranging from 100 ppm [0195] to 2000 ppm [0189], which overlaps the claimed range of 100 to 2500 ppm and, optionally, 500 to 2000 ppm of claim 11, and the mass ratio of Al to B in the second coating ranging from 0.5:1 to 2:1 [0016], as required by claim 13. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 14, modified Shin teaches the composite electrode active material according to claim 10. Shin further teaches the thickness of the first coating layer ranging from 0.001 to 0.55 nm [0059]. Wu further teaches a total thickness of the inner and outer coating layers being 0.001 to 1 µm [0015]. Therefore, the combination of the coating taught by Shin and the outer coating of Wu is considered to overlap with the claimed range of 0.01 to 1 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 17, modified Shin teaches the composite positive electrode material according to claim 1. Wu further teaches a particle distribution span of 1.2 or more [0019]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode material of Shin to have the span taught by Wu. Doing so would have significantly increased the volumetric energy density of the positive electrode material [Wu 0021].
Regarding claim 18, modified Shin teaches the composite positive electrode material according to claim 1. Shin further teaches a positive electrode plate, comprising the composite positive electrode material according to claim 1 [0111].
Regarding claim 19, modified Shin teaches the positive electrode plate according to claim 18. Shin further teaches a secondary battery, comprising the positive electrode plate according to claim 18 [0124].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Wu, further in view of Liu, as applied above, further in view of Park et al. (US 20180254511 A1), hereinafter Park.
Modified Shin teaches the composite positive electrode material according to claim 1. Shin is silent as to the aspect ratio of the primary particles of the composite positive electrode material. However, Park teaches a lithium nickel composite metal oxide [0013], wherein an aspect ratio of the primary particles of the composite positive electrode material ranges from 1.5 to 10. This matches the claimed range and overlaps with the optional range of 2 to 4. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Shin and Park are both considered to be equivalent to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lithium nickel composite metal oxides. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composite positive electrode material of Shin to have the aspect ratio taught by Park. Doing so would have prevented the weakening of the bonds between primary particles and the deterioration of the structural stability of the active material particle [0048].
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view Wu, further in view of Liu, as applied above, further in view of Zhao et al. (CN 115663139 A), hereinafter Zhao.
Modified Shin teaches the composite positive electrode material according to claim 1. Shin further teaches the first coating layer comprising a transition metal element. In this case the shell 200 is taught to include one or more of Co, Zr, Sb [0062], Ce, or La [0070], in the form of, for example, Co3O4, LiCoO2, ZrO2, Li2ZrO3 [0066], CeO2, Ce2O3, Ce3O4, or La2O3 [0071].
Shin is silent as to the first coating layer comprising a transition metal element in a form of a fluoride. However, Zhao teaches a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide positive electrode material (pg. 1, ¶ 2) coated with a cerium compound (pg. 4, ¶ 2) that may be selected from at least one of cerium oxide and cerium fluoride. Therefore, cerium fluoride is considered to be an art recognized equivalent to cerium oxide.
Shin and Zhao are both considered to be equivalent to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cerium coated lithium nickel oxide positive electrode materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition of Shin to include cerium fluoride, as taught by Zhao. The selection of a known material, in this case cerium fluoride, based on its suitability for its intended use, in this case as a cerium coating material, supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Nagao et al. (US 20210017039 A1), hereinafter Nagao, further in view of Liu.
Shin teaches a composite positive electrode material, in this case a cathode active material 10 [0007], comprising:
a positive electrode material substrate, in this case a lithium nickel transition metal oxide [0046]; and
a first coating layer 200 at least partially covering the positive electrode material substrate [0060]; wherein:
a general formula of the positive electrode material substrate is:
LibNixCoyMnzMaO2-c, in this case LiaNibCocMndM8eO2-αXα [0098, Formula 6],
wherein M comprises one or more of Zr, Y, Al, Ti, W, Sr, Ta, Mo, Sb, Nb, Na, K, and Ca, in this case M8 comprises Zr, Al, Ti, Nb, or Mo [0100], and
0.5≤b≤1.2,0.55≤x≤1.0, 0≤y≤0.45, 0≤z≤0.45, 0≤a≤0.45, a+x+y+z+b=2, and -0.1≤c≤0.1, in this case 0.9≤a≤1.2, 0.7<b<1, 0<c<0.1, 0<d<0.1, 0≤e<0.01, b+c+d+e=1, and 0≤α<2 [0099]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Shin further teaches the first coating layer comprising a transition metal element. In this case the shell 200 is taught to include one or more of Al, Ti, Co, Zr, Sb [0062], Ce, or La [0070] , in the form of, for example, Co3O4, LiCoO2, ZrO2, Li2ZrO3, Al2O3, TiO2 [0066], CeO2, Ce2O3, Ce3O4, or La2O3 [0071].
Shin is silent as to the first coating layer comprising a transition metal element including W. However, Nagao teaches a lithium nickel composite oxide [0022](Formula I) positive electrode material [0025] coated with a coating raw material that may be zirconium oxide, aluminum oxide, titanium oxide, or tungsten oxide [0163]. Therefore, tungsten oxide is considered to be an art recognized equivalent to zirconium oxide, aluminum oxide, and titanium oxide.
Shin and Nagao are both considered to be equivalent to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of coated lithium nickel composite oxide positive electrode materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition of Shin to include tungsten oxide, as taught by Nagao. The selection of a known material, in this case tungsten oxide, based on its suitability for its intended use, in this case as a coating material, supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Shin is silent as to the first coating further comprising a compound having a melting point lower than 900°C. However, Liu teaches a lithium oxide cathode active material (pg. 3, ¶ 9) coated with a combination of an A source compound and a melting agent (pg. 3, ¶ 2), where A may be Co (pg. 4, ¶ 8), and the melting agent may be lithium acetate (claim 7), lithium nitrate, and lithium oxalate (pg. 2, ¶ 12), and has a melting point lower than the temperature at which the materials are combined (pg. 3, ¶ 3), in this case 800-1000°C (pg. 2, ¶ 14). This overlaps with the melting point of lower than 900°C. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Shin and Liu are both considered to be equivalent to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of coated lithium positive electrode materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating of Shin to further include the melting agent of Liu. Doing so would have produced a uniform coating layer with improved high-temperature cycle performance (Liu pg. 3, ¶ 3).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Wu, further in view of Zhao.
Shin teaches a composite positive electrode material, in this case a cathode active material 10 [0007], comprising:
a positive electrode material substrate, in this case a lithium nickel transition metal oxide [0046]; and
a first coating layer 200 at least partially covering the positive electrode material substrate [0060]; wherein:
a general formula of the positive electrode material substrate is:
LibNixCoyMnzMaO2-c, in this case LiaNibCocMndM8eO2-αXα [0098, Formula 6],
wherein 0.9≤a≤1.2, 0.7<b<1, 0<c<0.1, 0<d<0.1, 0≤e<0.01, b+c+d+e=1, and 0≤α<2 [0099], and
the first coating layer comprises Co in a form of an oxide and Ce in a form of an oxide. In this case the shell 200 is taught to be a third layer including a first composition and a second composition at the same time [0058] where the first composition may be one or more of Co, Zr, or Sb [0062], in the form of, for example, Co3O4, LiCoO2, ZrO2, Li2ZrO3 [0066], and the second composition may be one or more of Ce or La [0070], in the form of, for example, CeO2, Ce2O3, Ce3O4, La2O3 [0071].
Shin is silent as to M8 of Formula 6 comprising one or more of Y, W, Sr, Ta, Sb, Na, K, and Ca. However, Wu teaches a lithium nickel ternary positive electrode material comprising a general formula of Li1+a[NixCoyMnzM1bM2cWd]O2 wherein M1 may be Sb, M2 may be Sr and Ca, 0.65≤x≤1, 0≤y<0.3, 0≤z<0.3, 0<a<0.2, 0<b<0.1, 0<c<0.1, 0<d<0.1, and x+y+z+b+c+d=1 [0007]. This overlaps with the claimed LibNixCoyMnzMaO2-c, wherein 0.55≤x≤1.0, 0≤y<0.45, 0≤z<0.45, 0<a<0.45, 0.5<b<1.2, x+y+z+b=2, and -0.1<c<0.1. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Shin and Wu are both considered to be equivalent to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cobalt coated lithium nickel oxide positive electrode materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin with the positive electrode material of Wu. Doing so would have produced a battery with improved cycling performance and storage performance [Wu 0006]. Further, the selection of a known material, in this case a lithium nickel ternary oxide, based on its suitability for its intended use, in this case as a positive electrode material, supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Shin is silent as to the first coating layer comprising Ce in a form of a fluoride. However, Zhao teaches a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide positive electrode material (pg. 1, ¶ 2) coated with a cerium compound (pg. 4, ¶ 2) that may be selected from at least one of cerium oxide and cerium fluoride. Therefore, cerium fluoride is considered to be an art recognized equivalent to cerium oxide.
Shin and Zhao are both considered to be equivalent to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cerium coated lithium nickel oxide positive electrode materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition of Shin to include cerium fluoride, as taught by Zhao, in addition to cobalt oxide. The selection of a known material, in this case cerium fluoride, based on its suitability for its intended use, in this case as a cerium coating material, supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that none of the cited references disclose a coating layer including both Co in a form of an oxide and Ce in a form of a fluoride. Examiner respectfully points out that Shin discloses a coating layer including both Co in a form of an oxide and Ce in a form of an oxide at the same time. Zhao further teaches cerium fluoride as an art recognized equivalent to cerium oxide. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating layer of Shin to include both Co in a form of an oxide and Ce in a form of a fluoride.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN KENWOOD VAN KIRK whose telephone number is (703)756-4717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/DUSTIN VAN KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights