DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Summary of Interview with SPE
Applicant called examiner's SPE to point out issues with the rejection in the final Office action (i.e., date of the Yukinobu reference). In response to applicant's call to the SPE, applicant is receiving a second Final Office action.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant's request (filed 02 September 2026) for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action (02 June 2026) is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is necessitated by amendment and newly found art.
The claim set from 02 September 2026 was not entered. This Office action addresses the claim filed 01 May 2026, where applicant amended claims 1 and 3; claims 1-9 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “single surface”. The original disclosure does not provide any details on the number of surface coatings, thereby making the language in the claim new matter; claims 3-9 depend from claim 1, thus are also rejected for the same reason.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 requires a particular lithium metal oxide formula (with M’ being Ti, Sn, Cu, etc.) and that the lithium metal oxide includes a spinel structure. However, some of the claimed lithium metal oxides, comprising metals of Sn, Cu Pb, etc., are not spinel. For example, lithium tin oxide (Li2SnO3) and lithium copper oxide (e.g., LiCuO2, Li3Cu2O4) are layered, lithium zirconium oxide (e.g., Li2ZrO3) is monoclinic (similar to layered, rock salt), and the lithium iron oxide (which is provided as an example LixFe2O3, published para. [0046]) is not a spinel. Thus, the combination of the spinel feature with the formula recited in claim 1 is considered new matter. Claims 2-9 depend from claim 1, thus are rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-5 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moriyama et al. (US 2012/0070744), Zhao (CN101214952), Scott et al. (US 2010/0279155), and Ryu (US 2010/0015523), hereinafter Moriyama, Zhao, Scott, and Ryu (Scott and Ryu are of record).
Regarding Claims 1-5, Moriyama suggests a secondary battery comprising a lithium secondary battery comprising an anode active material comprising: an anode active material powder comprising a lithium metal oxide represented by the following Formula 2, wherein the lithium metal oxide includes a spinel structure: LiaTibO4 wherein 0.5≤a≤3 and 1≤b≤2.5 (e.g., Li4T5O12 which is equivalent to Li1.33Ti1.67O4); these active material particles are coated with a coupling agent. See [0013, 0016-0017, 0033, 0036-0037, 0046-0048, 0051-0053].
Moriyama does not suggest the coupling agent is hexamethyldisilazane (HMDS). However, Zhao suggests an active material powder that adsorbs water and hydroxyl leads to electrolyte decomposition, and a deterioration in performance ([0010-0011]); thus, a silane coupling agent (e.g., one or more of hexamethyldisilazane, trimethylchlorosilane, etc.) on the surface of the active material powder is used to eliminate the water and hydroxyl groups ([0013-0014, 0019]), thereby ensuring good performance, [0015]. Scott suggests lithium titanate is hygroscopic, picking up moisture easily; the moisture leads to side reactions with the electrolyte, leading to gas formation, [0052-0053]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the lithium titanate active material powder of Moriyama consists of hexamethyldisilazane as the silane coupling on the surface of the hydroscopic lithium titanate powder with the expectation of eliminating the moisture (i.e., water), thereby eliminating the side reactions of moisture with the electrolyte which is expected to reduce gas formation, as suggested by Zhao and Scott.
While Zhao appreciates the HMDS compound for its moisture proof properties, the amount of HMDS used is not disclosed; thus, the amount of Si content cannot be calculated. However, Ryu suggests using 0.1 wt% to 5 wt% HMDS based on the weight of the active material, thereby suggesting 0.0348 % Si to 1.74 % Si based on a weight of active material (see calculations provided in the last action dated 04 February 2026, pages 4-5), because HMDS exerts a water inhibition effect and moisture proof property without increasing the electric resistance (which blocks the flow of electricity), thereby allowing the battery rate characteristics to be maintained, [0011-0017, 0052]. The amount of HMDS, hence Si content, suggested by Ryu overlaps with the claimed. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the amount of HMDS is 0.1-5wt%, which suggests a silicon content is 0.05 % Si by weight based on the total amount of anode active material, with the expectation of exerting a water inhibition effect (i.e., as desired by Zhao and Scott) and moisture proof property without increasing the electric resistance (which blocks the flow of electricity), thereby allowing the battery rate characteristics to be maintained, as suggested by Ryu.
Claims 6-9 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moriyama, Zhao, Scott, and Ryu, further in view of Kim et al. (US 2010/0015524, of record), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding Claims 6-9, Moriyama does not suggest the use of the secondary battery in a battery module as a unit battery, a battery pack comprising the module, a device comprising the battery pack, where the device is an electric vehicle. However, Kim discloses a battery module comprising a secondary battery as a unit battery comprising a lithium titanate anode; a battery pack comprises the battery module, especially in a device such as an electric vehicle or a hybrid electric vehicle as the power source, see e.g. para. [0049]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to incorporate batteries into a battery module, the module into a battery pack, and a battery pack into a device like an electric vehicle with the expectation of providing the output necessary to power such devices. Furthermore, such practices allow one skilled in the art to replace fossil fuel driven vehicles that cause pollution ([0003]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 pm.
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 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
