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 Status
This office action is in response to amendments/arguments filed 11/12/2025. Claim 5 is currently amended, support for the amendment can be found in the specification and the original claims. No new matter has been entered. Claim 6 is canceled. Claims 7 and 9 remain canceled. Claims 1-4 remain withdrawn. Claims 5, 8, and 10-11 are addressed in this office action.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 8, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen (Effects of magnesium and fluorine co-doping on the structural and electrochemical performance of the spinel LiMn2O4, document cited in prior office action), in view of Okae (US 20110059357 A1) and Kazuhiko (JP 2000340231 English translation cited in the non-final rejection of 01/18/2024 is used as an English equivalent), and further in view of Li (High-voltage positive electrode materials for lithium-ion batteries, document cited in prior office action).
Regarding claim 5, Wen discloses an octahedral-structured (abstract) lithium manganese-based (abstract discloses LiMg0.1Mn1.9O3.8F0.2, a lithium manganese-based material) positive electrode active material (title and last sentence of conclusions on pg. 7 disclose the material used as a cathode material) comprising: a lithium manganese oxide (abstract) represented by formula 1 and doped with doping element M1 (see analysis below),
wherein the lithium manganese oxide has an octahedral structure (abstract):
Formula 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
30
169
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(abstract discloses LiMgxMn2-xO4-2xF2x)
wherein,
M1 is at least one element selected from the group consisting of magnesium (LiMgxMn2-xO4-2xF2x includes Mg/magnesium as M-1), A is at least one selected from F (LiMgxMn2-xO4-2xF2x uses F), and 0≤a≤0.2, 0.05≤b≤0.3, and 0≤c≤0.1 (table 1, sample 2, on pg. 3 discloses LiMg0.05Mn1.95O3.9xF0.1, satisfying the claimed formula. In this case, a is 0, b is 0.05, and c is 0.1, all of which fall within the claimed ranges.
Wen does not disclose that M1b includes both Al and Mg, and does not consider embodiments wherein M1b is more than one material, however Wen does disclose that substitution of lithium manganese oxides with Al is known in the art and can lead to good results in stabilizing octahedral structures and improving cycle performance (introduction). Wen further considers lithium manganese oxides doped with Al and F, citing that these are known in the art to obtain high discharge capacity and good cycle retention (introduction), but investigates F and Mg co-doping as there is a lack of knowledge in the art (introduction). Wen does not mention lithium manganese oxides which are doped with both Al and Mg as M1b, however such materials are known in the art.
For example, Okae discloses a lithium manganese oxide doped with Mg and Al according to the formula LiMn1.9Al0.05Mg-0.05O4 [0147] (falling within the claimed formula), disclosing that with such materials, high capacity and high capacity retention can be realized ([0048], [0156]). As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a lithium manganese oxide doped with both Mg and Al metals in the invention of Wen. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do this to obtain a ratio of lithium manganese aluminum and magnesium metals known to result in lithium manganese oxides capable of realizing high capacity and high capacity retention, and would obvious as being nothing more than the simple substitution of one known lithium manganese oxide formula for another.
Wen does not disclose that the active material has a specific surface area which falls within the claimed range, and indeed is completely silent as to the surface area of the material. However, Kazuhiko discloses an octahedral-structured lithium manganese-based positive electrode active material [0011]. Kazuhiko specifically teaches LiNi0.2Mn1.8O4 (example 6-4 in Table 5) or LiNi0.05Mn1.95O4 (example 6-2), which both fall within the claimed formula except for the use of nickel instead for M1b- instead of Mg and Al. Table 5 is provided below.
PNG
media_image2.png
311
452
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Additionally, while Kazuhiko does not disclose a specific embodiment that uses Mg or Al, [0011] and abstract teaches that M, which corresponds to M-1 of the instant application, can be Al or Mg instead of nickel. Furthermore, [0030] discloses that the BET specific surface area of the lithium oxide is from 0.2 to 2.0m2/g [0030] which overlaps the claimed range of 0.5-1.0 m2/g. Kazuhiko discloses that when the specific surface area is lower than the disclosed range it becomes difficult to form a battery having a large capacity, and when above the disclosed range decomposition of the electrolyte solution is likely to occur, resulting in inferior cycle characteristics.
As a result of the disclosure of Kazuhiko, and given the similarities between the octahedral-structured lithium manganese-based positive electrode active materials of Kazuhiko and Wen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the specific surface area disclosed by Kazuhiko for the surface area of the lithium manganese-based positive electrode active material of Wen, and one would have been motivated to do this on order to avoid the problems Kazuhiko teaches occur outside the disclosed range. After this, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to routinely select a specific surface area that falls within the claimed range from amongst the overlapping portion of the two ranges, 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 (see MPEP § 2144.05 (I)).).
Wen does not explicitly teach the presence of a (111) oriented surface. However, modified Wen teaches all other limitations of claim 5 except the lithium manganese oxide having the property of having a (111) oriented surface. Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. (see MPEP 2112 (III)). In this case a 35 U.S.C 103 rejection is made because other limitations of the instant claim can only be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, and not 35 U.S.C. 102.
However, even if the active material of Wen is found not to possess a (111) oriented surface, Li teaches that octahedral lithium manganese particles possessing a majority of (111) surface planes exhibit superior electrochemical performance (pg. 39, lines 8-10). In light of this, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the (111) oriented surface of Li into the octahedral-structured lithium manganese-based positive electrode active material of Wen because this would exhibit superior electrochemical performance.
Regarding claim 8, modified Wen discloses the octahedral structured lithium manganese-based positive electrode active material of claim 5, wherein the lithium manganese-based positive electrode active material has an average particle diameter of 5 µm to 20 µm (first paragraph of section 3: results and discussion of Wen on pg. 2 discloses the samples are made up of spherical sized particles in the range of 10-15 µm).
Regarding claim 10, modified Wen discloses a positive electrode (first paragraph of section 2.4: Electrochemical characterizations of Wen on pg. 2 discloses a cathode), and a positive electrode material (introduction on pg. 1 discloses a cathode material, section 2.4 on pg. 2 discloses the material is an active material), but does not explicitly disclose that the cathode comprises a positive electrode active material layer formed on a positive electrode collector. Such an arrangement however is common in battery electrodes and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For example, Kazuhiko discloses that their octahedral-structured lithium manganese-based positive electrode active material is incorporated into a positive electrode by forming a layer of positive active material on a positive electrode collector [0036]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have seen this and understood to do the same with the active material of Wen. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to obtain a positive electrode to utilize the active material of Wen, meeting the limitations of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, modified Wen discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising the positive electrode of claim 10 (last sentence of section 4: conclusions on pg. 7 discloses that the cathode material is used for a lithium-ion battery. The second paragraph of pg. 10 discloses that the example cells were charged and discharged for several cycles, thus meeting the definition for a secondary, or rechargeable, battery).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/12/2025 are considered but are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, applicant argues on pg. 5 that a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have no motivation to combine Li with Wen to form the material of Wen with a (111) oriented surface. Applicant argues that the active material of Li is directed to a completely different active material (a nickel manganese oxide), rather than the LiMgxMn2-x-O4-2xF2x material disclosed by Wen. Applicant argues that the active material art is highly unpredictable, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have no motivation to combined modified Wen and Li to arrive at the claimed invention. Examiner respectfully disagrees with this position.
First, in regards to applicant’s argument that the materials of Wen and Li are simply too different for motivation to be found to modify Wen based on Li, examiner will point out that both materials are octahedral shaped lithium manganese particles, and that even though the material of Li includes Ni, it is known in the art to use Ni in such materials, and lithium manganese octahedral structured oxide materials that include materials such as Ni, Al, and Mg, including in various combinations, are all known in the art and have similar properties and uses (see claim 1 rejection above, including the Kazuhiko reference, which discloses similar octahedral structured lithium manganese nickel oxides), despites applicant’s characterization of them as “completely different” materials.
Next, examiner notes that the disclosure of Li (see pg. 39) specifically indicates crystal structure and the (111) surface as exhibiting superior electrochemical performance, and that it is believed that these (111) surfaces possess facile Li-ion transport pathways and are more effectively passivated from interfacial side reactions. While Li does specifically note that other factors play roles in determining rate performance and surface reactivity with electrolyte which should not be discounted, including composition, Li is clear that it is the structure of the (111) oriented facts themselves that is thought to contribute to the beforementioned beneficial effects. In lieu of specific guidance from Wen and specific research investigating optimal surface orientation in octahedral-structured lithium manganese-based positive active material oxide compositions more exactly matching those used by Wen, it would be perfectly reasonable and rational for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known research of surface orientation in highly similar octahedral structured lithium manganese-based positive active material oxides such as disclosed by Li to help determine surface orientation for the active material of Wen. For these reasons, applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant additionally argues that the combination of references used to reject claim 6 is invalid because Kazuhiko supposedly teaches away from Li. However, examiner notes that the rejection of record does not attempt to modify Li based on Kazuhiko, nor Kazuhiko based on Li, but rather modifies Kazuhiko and Li are references used to modify Wen, and none of the three references offer teaching against such a modification or give reason to suppose such a modification would be unsuccessful.
Lastly, applicant argues that there would be no reasonable expectation for success (see arguments beginning on pg. 6) because the instant specification discloses a two-step sintering process, whereas Wen discloses only a one-step sintering process. Specifically, applicant points out data which appears in a table located on pg. 8 of remarks, and notes that in example 1, where a two step sintering process is used, an octahedral structure and a (111) surface is seen, whereas in comparative example 4, which uses a material of the same composition and a one-step sintering process, no octahedral structure or (111) surface is seen. Applicant argues that performing a second sintering step (at 700-850°C for 10-20 hours) in edition to the first sintering step (500-700°C for 3-10 hours) gives sufficient time for the active material components to react with each other, leading to easy sintering (unclear what applicant means by this), and thus a structurally stable spinel phase may be easily formed from which a lithium manganese oxide having an octahedral structure may easily be prepared by development of the structurally stable (111) phase (emphasis added (pg. of remarks and [0042]-[0043]).
This seems to imply that the octahedral structure and the (111) oriented surface are inherently linked, and indeed the table cited on pg. 8 of remarks does not contain a single example, comparative or otherwise, where the octahedral structure is present without the (111) surface, or where the (111) surface is present without the octahedral structure. Examiner also takes note that Wen does disclose that the active material possesses the typical octahedral structure (see abstract, as well as results and discussion, of Wen). Further, applicant cites giving sufficient time for the reaction to occur as the reason for the multiple sintering steps (pg. 7 of remarks, [0043] of specification). Examiner will point out that the first sintering step of the instant application lasts 3-10 hours at 400-700°C, with the second sintering taking place at 700-850°C for 10-20 hours, whereas the single sintering step of Wen takes place for 20 hours at 750°C.
If the proposed benefit of adding an additional sintering step is to give sufficient time for the different materials of the active material to react with each other, as stated on pg. 7 of remarks and [0043] of the instant application, it is unclear why this cannot be accomplished by a single, longer sintering step, such as used by Wen. Indeed the single sintering step of Wen might take as much time or longer than the two sintering steps used by the instant application, depending on what length of time is selected within applicant’s given ranges for each of the steps. Additionally, because of the implication that the octahedral structure and the (111) oriented surface are linked to each other (see pg. 7 of remarks and [0043] of instant application, see also table cited in pg. 8 of remarks where the octahedral structure and the (111) oriented surface are always either both present or both absent in cited examples, and never seen one without the other), and because Wen does disclose that their material has the aforementioned octahedral structure, applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive, and it is found that given the disclosure of every other claimed property (including the octahedral structure) by Wen, as well as the differences and similarities for the two sintering processes used by Wen and the instant application, and the stated reasons by applicant for the sintering process being the way it is, that applicant’s arguments have failed to overcome the prima facie case of obviousness that the material of Wen would possess the claimed (111) oriented surface, or that it would be obvious to include if not (see claim 5 rejection above, see claim 6 rejection of prior office action).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACKARY R COCHENOUR whose telephone number is (703)756-1480. The examiner can normally be reached 1-9:00PM ET.
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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/ZACKARY RICHARD COCHENOUR/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752