DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claims 1, and 3. Claims 1-9 are pending and considered in the present Office action.
The rejections of the claims are withdrawn in view of the amendment. However, upon further consideration a new ground of rejection is necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
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 1-9 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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1-8 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yukinobu (JP2016023118, machine translation provided), in view of Ryu (US 2010/0015523, of record).
Regarding Claim 1-8, Yukinobu suggests a device comprising a battery pack comprising a battery module comprising a lithium ion secondary battery (see e.g., abstract, [0002], Figs. 1-2) comprising an anode active material comprising: an anode active material powder comprising a lithium metal oxide (e.g., Li2CuO2, LiCuO2, Li4Ti5O12, which is equivalent to Li1.33Ti1.67O4, LiTi2O4 (a spinel structure), etc., see e.g. [0030, 0038, 0040, 0042]) which satisfies claimed Formula 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
189
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yukinobu further suggests the lithium metal oxide consists of a single surface coating consisting of hexamethyldisilazane (HMDS), see e.g., Fig. 3, [0028, 0048]. Yukinobu appreciates the HMDS compound for its hydrophobic properties, but does not suggest the amount of HMDS used; 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., hydrophobicity, as desired by Yukinobu) 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yukinobu, in view of Kim et al. (US 2010/0015524), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding Claims 6-9, Yukinobu appears to suggest the claimed battery module, battery pack, and device recitation recited in claims 6-8. A device of an electric vehicle is not suggested by Yukinobu. Nonetheless, Kim discloses a battery module comprising the secondary battery as a unit battery; a battery pack comprises the battery module, especially in a device such as an electric vehicle or a hybrid electric vehicle, see e.g. para. [0049]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to incorporate batteries into a battery module, battery pack, and electric vehicle devices disclosed by Kim as doing so is taught by prior art and within the design choice of the practitioner in the art. Furthermore, such practices allow one skilled in the art to achieve the desired current and voltage for a specific application and decreases pollution through the use of alternative energy systems.
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
Prosecution Insights