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 was filed in this application after appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but prior to a decision on the appeal. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on November 11, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received February 11, 2026:
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-13, 17-18, and 29-45 are pending. Claims 2-3, 5, 7, 14-16 and 19-28 have been cancelled as per applicant’s request.
The previous provision double patenting rejections have been amended in light of the amendment.
The core of the previous prior art rejection is maintained with slight changes made in light of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-13, 17-18, 30-33 and 37-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thackeray et al. (US 2019/0207124) in view of Thackeray et al. (US 2006/0099508).
Regarding Claim 1, Thackeray ‘214 teaches lithium-metal-oxide composite electrode for lithium electrochemical cells (Para. [0003]) materials having a disordered rock salt structure with partial lithiated-spinel character having the formula Li2(M’’2-aM’’’a)O4 wherein M’’ and M’’’ are metal ions wherein M’’ may be one or more of Ni and Mn, M’’’ may be one or more of Al, Ga, Mg and Ti (i.e. M’’’ equivalent to Mz of the instant claim wherein M is one or more metal cations selected from the group consisting of Al cation, a Ga cation, a Mg cation and a combination of Mg and Ti) and 0<a≤0.5 (i.e. wherein a/2 is equivalent to z of the instant claim and overlaps with range of z as z would be 0<z≤0.25, x+y+z would be 1, 0 < x <1.0, 0 < y < 1.0) (Para. [0043] and claim 11) and thus, teaches a formula overlapping with the cobalt-free electrode active material, with a lithiated spinel structure having the empirical formula LiMnxNiy--MzO2 -as claimed. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Thackeray ‘214 does not explicitly teach x=y (i.e. a 1:1 ratio of Mn:Ni) as claimed
However, Thackeray ‘508 teaches a lithium metal oxide positive electrode for a non-aqueous electrochemical lithium cell (Para. [0061]) wherein the lithium-metal-oxide composite electrode material having an Mn:Ni ratio of 1:1 (Para. [0009]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thackeray ‘214 to incorporate the teaching of an Mn:Ni ratio of 1:1 as such a lithium metal oxide composite material having the Mn:Ni ratio of 1:1 provides an electrode material with excellent stability at high potentials (Para. [0055]) and imparts greater structural stability to LiMO-2 electrode materials during electrochemical cycling in lithium cells and batteries (Para. [0012]).
Regarding Claim 4, Thackeray ‘214 as modified by Thackeray ‘508 teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Thackeray ‘214 further teaches the Li, M’’ (i.e. Mn and Ni) and M’’’ (i.e. M) cations can be partially disordered over octahedral sites of layered and spinel component structures (Para. [0044]) (i.e. at least two of the Li, Mn, Ni and M cations in the lithiated spinel are partially disordered over the octahedral sites of the lithiated spinel structure).
Regarding Claim 6, Thackeray ‘214 as modified by Thackeray ‘508 teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Thackeray ‘214 further teaches it is well known in the art that metal oxide materials can often contain a small fraction of cation or anion defects (i.e. vacant sites) such that the electrode materials can deviate from ideal stoichiometry (Para. [0037]) and the lithiated spinel material can have a structure that is either cation or anion deficient (Para. [0044]). Thus, a lithium, total non-lithium metal content and/or oxygen ratio of lithiated spinel material would be either (a) expected to vary up to about 5 percent from an ideal 1:1:2 respective elemental stoichiometry or (b) differences in the variation from the ideal elemental stoichiometry would be slight differences in ranges that would be obvious.
With respect to (a): The reasons regarding expectedness are that the anion and/or cation defects would inherently cause the elemental stoichiometry to vary from the electrode material elemental stoichiometric ratio of 1:1:2 up to about 5 percent. An inherent feature does not need to be recognized by the art at the time of the invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. See MPEP §2112(II).
With respect to (b): If it is show that such characteristics are not present, then any differences (regarding the variation from the ideal 1:1:2 respective elemental stoichiometry) would be small and obvious. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 8, Thackeray ‘214 as modified by Thackeray ‘508 teaches all of the elements of the electrode active material in claim 1 as explained above (i.e. the first electrode active material).
Thackeray ‘214 further teaches lithium-metal-oxide composite electrode for lithium electrochemical cells (Para. [0003]) (i.e. an electrode active composition for an electrochemical cell) comprising materials having a disordered rock salt structure with partial lithiated-spinel character having the formula Li2(M’’2-aM’’’a)O4 (i.e. first cobalt-free electrode active material with a lithiated spinel structure) wherein the lithiated spinel oxide can be structurally integrated with a two-component layered-layered material of wLi---2MnO3• (1-w)LiMO2 --wherein M may be cobalt (Para. [0045]) (i.e. a lithiated spinel structure mechanically blended or structurally integrated with a second electrode active material comprising one or more cobalt-containing lithium metal oxide materials, as one of the components may be LiCoO2).
Regarding Claim 9, Thackeray ‘214 as modified by Thackeray ‘508 teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 8 as explained above.
Thackeray ‘214 further teaches wherein the lithiated spinel oxide can be structurally integrated with a two-component layered-layered material of wLi---2MnO3• (1-w)LiMO2 --wherein M may be cobalt (Para. [0045]) (i.e. a lithiated spinel structure mechanically blended or structurally integrated with a second electrode active material comprising the cobalt-containing lithium metal oxide materials with a layered structure, as one of the components may be LiCoO2).
Regarding Claim 10, Thackeray ‘214 as modified by Thackeray ‘508 teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 8 as explained above.
Thackeray ‘214 further teaches wherein the lithiated spinel oxide can be structurally integrated with a two-component layered-layered material of wLi---2MnO3• (1-w)LiMO2 --wherein M may be cobalt and 0<w<1 (Para. [0045]) and thus w could be equal to 0.95, wherein the two-component structure of the second electrode active material would be 0.95Li-2MnO3*-0.05LiCoO2 (i.e. Co comprises 5 mol% of non-lithium metal ions in the second electrode active material, within the claimed range of less than about 33 mol%).
Regarding Claim 11, Thackeray ‘214 as modified by Thackeray ‘508 teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 8 as explained above.
Thackeray ‘214 further teaches wherein the lithiated spinel oxide can be structurally integrated with a two-component layered-layered material of wLi---2MnO3• (1-w)LiMO2 --wherein M may be cobalt and 0<w<1 (Para. [0045]) and thus w could be equal to 0.95, wherein the two-component structure of the second electrode active material would be 0.95Li-2MnO3*-0.05LiCoO2 (i.e. Co comprises 5 mol% of non-lithium metal ions in the second electrode active material, within the claimed range of less than about 20 mol%).
Regarding Claim 12, Thackeray ‘214 as modified by Thackeray ‘508 teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 8 as explained above.
Thackeray ‘214 further teaches wherein the lithiated spinel oxide can be structurally integrated with a two-component layered-layered material of wLi---2MnO3• (1-w)LiMO2 --wherein M may be cobalt and 0<w<1 (Para. [0045]) and thus w could be equal to 0.95, wherein the two-component structure of the second electrode active material would be 0.95Li-2MnO3*-0.05LiCoO2 (i.e. Co comprises 5 mol% of non-lithium metal ions in the second electrode active material, within the claimed range of less than about 10 mol%).
Regarding Claim 13, Thackeray ‘214 as modified by Thackeray ‘508 teaches all of the elements of the electrode active material of claim 1 as explained above.
Thackeray ‘214 further teaches an electrode for a lithium electrochemical cell (Para. [0058]) wherein the particulate materials are mixed together with a binder (Para. [0035]) (i.e. comprising particles of an electrode active material in a binder matrix) coated on a metallic current collector (i.e. coated on a metal current collector) (Para. [0050]).
Regarding Claim 17, Thackeray ‘214 as modified by Thackeray ‘508 teaches all of the elements of the electrode of claim 13 as explained above.
Thackeray ‘214 further teaches an electrode (i.e. the electrode of claim 13) for a lithium electrochemical cell wherein the cell comprises an anode, cathode, and a LiPF6 electrolyte (i.e. a lithium-containing electrolyte contacting the anode and cathode) (Para. [0058]).
Regarding Claim 18, Thackeray ‘214 as modified by Thackeray ‘508 teaches all of the elements of the electrochemical cell of claim 17 as explained above.
Thackeray ‘214 further teaches a battery consisting of a plurality of the electrochemical cells (i.e. the electrochemical cells of claim 17) connected electrically in series and in parallel (Para. [0028]).
Regarding Claim 30, Thackeray ‘214 as modified by Thackeray ‘508 teaches all of the elements of the electrochemical cell of claim 1 as explained above.
Thackeray ‘214 further teaches the formula Li2(M’’2-aM’’’a)O4 wherein M’’’ may be one or more of Al, Ga, Mg and Ti (i.e. M is an Al cation) and 0<a≤0.5 (i.e. wherein a/2 is equivalent to z of the instant claim and overlaps with range of z as z would be 0<z≤0.25, ) (Para. [0043] and claim 11) and thus, teaches a “z” range overlapping with the claimed z is 0.10 to 0.30. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 31, Thackeray ‘214 as modified by Thackeray ‘508 teaches all of the elements of the electrochemical cell of claim 30 as explained above.
Thackeray ‘214 further teaches the formula Li2(M’’2-aM’’’a)O4 wherein M’’ and M’’’ are metal ions wherein M’’ may be one or more of Ni and Mn, M’’’ may be Al and 0<a≤0.5 (i.e. wherein a/2 is equivalent to z of the instant claim and overlaps with range of z as z would be 0<z≤0.25, x+y+z would be 1, 0 < x <1.0, 0 < y < 1.0) (Para. [0043] and claim 11) and thus, teaches a formula overlapping with LiMn0.45Ni0.45Al0.1 and LiMn0.4Ni0.4Al0.2O2 as claimed. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 32, Thackeray ‘214 as modified by Thackeray ‘508 teaches all of the elements of the electrochemical cell of claim 1 as explained above.
Thackeray ‘214 further teaches the formula Li2(M’’2-aM’’’a)O4 wherein M’’’ may be one or more of Mg and Ti (i.e. M is a combination of Mg and Ti cations).
Regarding Claim 33, Thackeray ‘214 as modified by Thackeray ‘508 teaches all of the elements of the electrochemical cell of claim 30 as explained above.
Thackeray ‘214 further teaches the formula Li2(M’’2-aM’’’a)O4 wherein M’’ and M’’’ are metal ions wherein M’’ may be one or more of Ni and Mn, M’’’ may be one or more of Mg and Ti and 0<a≤0.5 (i.e. wherein a/2 is equivalent to z of the instant claim and overlaps with range of z as z would be 0<z≤0.25, x+y+z would be 1, 0 < x <1.0, 0 < y < 1.0) (Para. [0043] and claim 11) and thus, teaches a formula overlapping with the LiMn0.4Ni0.4Mg0.1Ti0.1O2 -as claimed. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 37, Thackeray ‘214 as modified by Thackeray ‘508 teaches all of the elements of the electrode active material of claim 30 as explained above.
Thackeray ‘214 further teaches an electrode for a lithium electrochemical cell (Para. [0058]) wherein the particulate materials are mixed together with a binder (Para. [0035]) (i.e. comprising particles of an electrode active material in a binder matrix) coated on a metallic current collector (i.e. coated on a metal current collector) (Para. [0050]).
Regarding Claim 38, Thackeray ‘214 as modified by Thackeray ‘508 teaches all of the elements of the electrode of claim 37 as explained above.
Thackeray ‘214 further teaches an electrode (i.e. the electrode of claim 37) for a lithium electrochemical cell wherein the cell comprises an anode, cathode, and a LiPF6 electrolyte (i.e. a lithium-containing electrolyte contacting the anode and cathode) (Para. [0058]).
Regarding Claim 39, Thackeray ‘214 as modified by Thackeray ‘508 teaches all of the elements of the electrochemical cell of claim 38 as explained above.
Thackeray ‘214 further teaches a battery consisting of a plurality of the electrochemical cells (i.e. the electrochemical cells of claim 38) connected electrically in series and in parallel (Para. [0028]).
Regarding Claim 40, Thackeray ‘214 as modified by Thackeray ‘508 teaches all of the elements of the electrode active material of claim 31 as explained above.
Thackeray ‘214 further teaches an electrode for a lithium electrochemical cell (Para. [0058]) wherein the particulate materials are mixed together with a binder (Para. [0035]) (i.e. comprising particles of an electrode active material in a binder matrix) coated on a metallic current collector (i.e. coated on a metal current collector) (Para. [0050]).
Regarding Claim 41, Thackeray ‘214 as modified by Thackeray ‘508 teaches all of the elements of the electrode of claim 40 as explained above.
Thackeray ‘214 further teaches an electrode (i.e. the electrode of claim 40) for a lithium electrochemical cell wherein the cell comprises an anode, cathode, and a LiPF6 electrolyte (i.e. a lithium-containing electrolyte contacting the anode and cathode) (Para. [0058]).
Regarding Claim 42, Thackeray ‘214 as modified by Thackeray ‘508 teaches all of the elements of the electrochemical cell of claim 41 as explained above.
Thackeray ‘214 further teaches a battery consisting of a plurality of the electrochemical cells (i.e. the electrochemical cells of claim 41) connected electrically in series and in parallel (Para. [0028]).
Regarding Claim 43, Thackeray ‘214 as modified by Thackeray ‘508 teaches all of the elements of the electrode active material of claim 32 as explained above.
Thackeray ‘214 further teaches an electrode for a lithium electrochemical cell (Para. [0058]) wherein the particulate materials are mixed together with a binder (Para. [0035]) (i.e. comprising particles of an electrode active material in a binder matrix) coated on a metallic current collector (i.e. coated on a metal current collector) (Para. [0050]).
Regarding Claim 44, Thackeray ‘214 as modified by Thackeray ‘508 teaches all of the elements of the electrode of claim 43 as explained above.
Thackeray ‘214 further teaches an electrode (i.e. the electrode of claim 43) for a lithium electrochemical cell wherein the cell comprises an anode, cathode, and a LiPF6 electrolyte (i.e. a lithium-containing electrolyte contacting the anode and cathode) (Para. [0058]).
Regarding Claim 45, Thackeray ‘214 as modified by Thackeray ‘508 teaches all of the elements of the electrochemical cell of claim 44 as explained above.
Thackeray ‘214 further teaches a battery consisting of a plurality of the electrochemical cells (i.e. the electrochemical cells of claim 44) connected electrically in series and in parallel (Para. [0028]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 8-9, 29 and 32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-12, 19 and 28, of copending Application No. 18/075,023 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 10 of copending Application No. 18/075,023 teaches all of the elements of instant claim 1, and 8, 29, 30, 32. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claim 11 of copending Application No. 18/075,023 teaches all of the elements of instant claim 1 and 8. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claim 12 of copending Application No. 18/075,023 teaches all of the elements of instant claim 4 as it teaches the material of the lithiated spinel electrode material comprises domains of a disordered lithiated spinel component among octahedral sites of the lithiated spinel structure.
Claim 19 of copending Application No. 18/075,023 teaches all of the elements of instant claim 8 and 9.
Claim 28 of copending Application No. 18/075,023 teaches all of the elements of instant claim 1, 8, 29, 32.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 8, 29 and 32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 and 4 of copending Application No. 18/121,785 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claims 3 and 4 of copending Application No. 18/121,785 teaches all of the elements of instant claim 1, 8, 29, and 32 as LiMn-0.5Ni0.5O2 reads on the empirical formula of instant claim 1 (wherein z = 0, x = 0.5, y = 0.5 and z is 0), is cobalt-free comprising a lithiated spinel structure.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 4, 13, 17, 18, 29-30, 32, 34-36 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 ,7 ,9, 18-20, and 22-24, of copending Application No. 19/363,299 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/363,299 teaches all of the elements of instant claim 1, 4, and 29. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claim 7 and 9 of copending Application No. 19/363,299 teaches all of the elements of instant claim 30 and 32. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claim 18 of copending Application No. 19/363,299 teaches all of the elements of instant claim 34. Claim 19 of copending Application No. 19/363,299 teaches all of the elements of instant claim 35. Claim 20 of copending Application No. 19/363,299 teaches all of the elements of instant claim 36.
Claim 22 of copending Application No. 19/363,299 teaches all of the elements of instant claim 13.
Claim 23 of copending Application No. 19/363,299 teaches all of the elements of instant claim 17.
Claim 24 of copending Application No. 19/363,299 teaches all of the elements of instant claim 18.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 4, 13, 30-33 and 37-44 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 13-15, of copending Application No. 19/363,262 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/363,262 teaches all of the elements of instant claim 1, 4, and 30-33, as 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claim 13 of copending Application No. 19/363,262 teaches all of the elements of instant claim 13, 37, 40 and 43. Claim 14 of copending Application No. 19/363,262 teaches all of the elements of instant claim 17, 38, 41 and 44. Claim 15 of copending Application No. 19/363,262 teaches all of the elements of instant claim 18, 39, 42 and 45.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Thackeray ‘214 would not have pointed one of ordinary skill in the art towards the claimed compositions.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The formula as taught by the primary reference contains a limited number of variation such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage the claimed cobalt-free materials. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the combination of Thackeray ‘214 with Thackeray ‘508 does not support a prima facie case of obviousness because the advantages in ‘508 do not apply to the lithiated spinel of ‘214 as the references relate to different crystal forms and Thackeray ‘214 materials are partial lithiated while the claims are directed to lithiated spinel.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As Thackeray ‘214 contemplates use of both lithiated spinel and layered materials and teaches “these lithiated spinel materials can be used on their own…or in combination, for example, with a layered or layered-layered metal oxide material.” (Para. [0034]), the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are distinct from the prior art of record for the same reason as the independent claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection with respect to the independent claim has been maintained, and thus the rejections to the dependent claims are maintained as well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729