DETAILED ACTION
Introductory Notes
Any paragraph citation of the instant is in reference to the U.S. published patent application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/3/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-5, 7, 9-12 is 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.
Claims 1 and 12 state “x+y+z=2, 0.01≤α≤0.03, 1.8≤a≤2.035, 1.8≤a+b≤2.2”. It is unclear how a+b may be less than 2.01 given the need to balance x+y+z=2 plus α being at least 0.01. Notably no example in the instant has a+b less than 2.01.
Claim 1 states “Me is at least two elements each having an ion radius of 0.6 Å or greater, and selected from metal elements other than Li, Mn, Ni, and Co”. As stated, it is unclear if the elements listed, specifically Co, may or may be included in Me at all OR if Co is simply not to be counted when determining how many elements of Me have an ion radius greater than 0.6. In other words, the “and selected” may refer to “Me” in total, or may only refer to the “at least two elements”. As a purely illustrative example, it is unclear if Me being Co0.01Sr0.01Ca0.01 would or would not read on the claim.
The remaining claims are rejected due to dependency.
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 1-3, 5, 7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GAO (US 6361756 B1, cited in a previous office action)
Regarding claim 1, GAO discloses a positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, the positive electrode active material including a lithium-transition metal composite compound (“active cathode material in an electrochemical cell for a lithium or lithium-ion battery”, col. 5 line 30; “non-aqueous liquid”, col. 5 line 46), wherein
the lithium-transition metal composite compound is represented by a general formula LixMnyNizMeαOaFb wherein 1<x≤1.2, 0.4≤y≤0.8, 0≤z≤0.4, x+y+z=2, 0.01≤α≤0.03, 1.8≤a≤2.035, 1.8≤a+b≤2.2, and
Me is at least two elements each having an ion radius of 0.6 Å or greater, and selected from metal elements other than Li, Mn, Ni, and Co.
Regarding (A), GAO discloses a formula in paragraph beginning col. 4 line 12 LiMn1−bNicA0 dA1 eA2 fO2 reading on the claimed ranges. It is noted this formula does not state Li is greater than 1, however the instant notably allows for a range of a+b (where a is the amount of oxygen and b is the amount of F) while GAO utilizes O2. Because the amount of oxygen in the instant may be varied, Li may be adjusted to be greater than 1 by straightforward mathematical altering of the amount of oxygen. The same holds true for the x+y+z=2 limitation which may similarly be solved through the mathematical altering of the amount of oxygen (and/or F). It is further noted in the instant that x+y+z=2 is only possible when a+b>2 because α is ≥0.01. This can be seen in examples of the instant such as example 1 where Li1.17Mn0.58Ni0.25Sr0.01Ca0.01Y0.01O2.035 is given and notably the oxygen is greater than 2. If the oxygen in the instant was adjusted to 2, x+y+z would necessarily be less than 2 due to the presence of the dopants.
Furthermore, in col. 3, line 58 GAO lists Li as a possible dopant and that “the dopants [A] are used to replace manganese” (col. 3, lines 49) thus GAO teaches an over-lithiated oxide.
The limitation 0.01≤α≤0.03 is within the lower bounds of the summation of d, e, and f of GAO. Furthermore, GAO discloses “b=c+d+e+f; 0.1≤b≤0.5; 0.1≤c≤0.3” (col. 4, line 15) where 1-b is Mn and c is Ni; therefore d+e+f, which equates to α of the instant, may be near zero. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the overlapping portion of the claimed range. Such a selection of range is a result effect variable leading with the end goal being to “improve the stability” (col. 3, line 17).
Regarding (B), GAO discloses “dopants are two or more of … Cr … Ti, Zr, Mg, Ca, Sr, Zn and Ba” (col. 3, line 58) where each has ion radius less than 0.6 Å. It is further noted an ion radius greater than 0.6 Å encompasses nearly the entirety of the periodic table with Al3+ being the lone notable metal below 0.6 Å. In contrast, the possible list of dopants presented by GAO is much narrower (a total of nine listed elements when excluding Li, Ni, and Co) and GAO specifically states two dopants.
Regarding claim 2, GAO discloses the Me includes at least one element selected from K, Sr, Ba, Bi, Ca, La, Pr, Y, Dy, Sn, and Zn (“dopants are two or more of … Ca, Sr, Zn and Ba” per col. 3, line 58).
Regarding claim 3, GAO discloses the Me includes at least one element selected from Sr, Ca, Y, and Sn (“dopants are two or more of … Ca, Sr” per col. 3, line 58).
Regarding claim 5, GAO discloses the Me includes at least an alkaline earth metal element (Mg, Ca, Sr, and Ba per col. 3, line 58).
Regarding claim 7, GAO discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising: a positive electrode including the positive electrode active material for the non- aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1; a negative electrode; and a non-aqueous electrolyte (“lithium manganese oxides for use in rechargeable lithium and lithium-ion secondary batteries”, col. 1 line 14 ; “active cathode material in an electrochemical cell for a lithium or lithium-ion battery”, col. 5 line 30; as well as “non-aqueous liquid”, col. 5 line 46).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, GAO discloses the Me is a combination of two or more elements selected from the group consisting of Sr, Ca, Y, and Sn (“these dopants are two or more of … Ca, Sr”, col. 3 line 58 where GAO specifically states two dopants and the list of dopants in GAO is sufficiently narrow such that the selection of these two particular elements would have been obvious to try due to the teaching of “using multiple dopants to improve the stability” (col. 3, line 17)).
Regarding claim 11, GAO discloses b=0 (the formulas of GAO do not require fluorine).
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKAMORI (US 20120015231 A1, cited in a previous office action).
Regarding claims 1, TAKAMORI discloses a positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, the positive electrode active material including a lithium-transition metal composite compound (“positive electrode active material for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery” [0001]), wherein
the lithium-transition metal composite compound is represented by a general formula LixMnyNizMeαOaFb wherein 1<x≤1.2, 0.4≤y≤0.8, 0≤z≤0.4, x+y+z=2, 0.01≤α≤0.03, 1.8≤a≤2.035, 1.8≤a+b≤2.2, and
Me is at least two elements each having an ion radius of 0.6 Å or greater, and selected from metal elements other than Li, Mn, Ni, and Co.
Regarding (A), TAKAMORI discloses Lix(Mn1-y-z-dNiyFezMd)O2 (claim 1) wherein the ranges for Li, Mn, Ni, and Fe+M (which together equate to the claimed Me) overlap with the ranges per claim 1. Furthermore, TAKAMORI discloses example 7 (paragraph [0089]) where the total dopants are between 0.01 and 0.03. In that example the amount if Ni is 0.47, which is slightly above the claimed 0.4, however the range given in TAKAMORI, which overlaps the claimed range, combined with the example 0.47 renders the claimed range obvious.
Regarding (B), TAKAMORI discloses the two elements being Fe and one or more of “Mg, Ti, Ca, Cu, Zn, Co, Cr, Mo, Si, Sn, Nb and V” per claim 1, where each of these elements has an ion radius of 0.6 Å or greater.
Regarding claims 2, 3 and 5, TAKAMORI discloses the Me includes Ca, an alkaline earth metal (per claim 1, as well as the use of Fe and Ca as dopants in example 4).
Regarding claim 7, TAKAMORI discloses a battery (per claim 8).
Regarding claim 11, TAKAMORI discloses b=0 (the formulas of TAKAMORI do not require fluorine).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Further searching failed to identify any additional prior art that would render the limitations of Claims 4 and 12 either anticipated or obvious.
Therefore, the allowable feature of Claims 4 and 12 is Me is formed substantially and solely from at least three elements selected from Sr, Ca, Y, and Sn, in combination with the other limitations of the claims.
The closest prior art is represented by GAO (US 6361756 B1) as well as TAKAMORI (US 20120015231 A1).
GAO teaches three dopants, however GAO fails to teach the three dopants may be formed substantially and solely from at least three elements selected from Sr, Ca, Y, and Sn.
TAKAMORI teaches two or more dopants, however TAKAMORI teaches one of the dopants is Fe and fails to teach the three dopants may be formed substantially and solely from at least three elements selected from Sr, Ca, Y, and Sn.
For this reason, the claims as written read free of the closest available prior art, placing the application in condition for allowance.
Response to Arguments
Regarding art-based rejections, applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are not persuasive. In paragraph 2 of page 6 of the remarks applicant states the following cannot be met by Gao: (i) molar proportion x of Li in excess of 1, (ii) a molar proportion a of Me in the range of 0.01≤α≤0.03, and (iii) selection of at least two metal elements of Me with the exclusion of Co.
Each of these is addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Regarding (i) it is noted the instant allows the oxygen to be greater than two thus allowing for a non-over-lithiated oxide to read on the claim and furthermore that Gao teaches the inclusion of Li dopant and therefore teaches an over-lithiated oxide. Regarding (ii) it is noted the sum of dopants in Gao overlaps this range. Regarding (iii) it is noted Gao teaches multiple dopants excluding Co.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li et al. (“Improving rate performances of Li-rich layered oxide by the co-doping of Sn and K ions”, J. Mater., 5 (2019), pp. 149-155) directed to improved performance of Li and Mn rich layered oxide through the co-doping of Sn and K ions. The doping amount of K was kept at 1% and with Sn doping amount of 0, 0.5, 1, 3, and 5 wt%.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS L MARTIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm 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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303)297-4684. 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.
/T.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721