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, 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 9th, 2025, has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received in the Remarks on November 11th, 2025:
Claims 1-4 are pending in the current office action and claim 1 has been amended.
Claim 1 has been amended to specify the lithium-transition metal composite oxide has “a single-phase”.
Status of Objections and Rejections from the Office Action of August 12th, 2025:
The previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C 103 have been overcome in view of the amendments received in the Remarks filed on November 11th, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4 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.
Claim 1 is 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 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 specifies the lithium-transition metal composite oxide has “a single-phase” rock-salt structure, the limitation “single-phase” does not seem to be cited nor referenced within the instant specification, closest mention is in regards to the space group, wherein the lithium-transition metal composite oxide has a rock-salt crystal structure belonging to the space group Fm-3m [instant specification, 0006 & 0025] and there is no such reference to the citation of this added material within the Remarks received on November 11th, 2025.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ceder et al, US 20190088945 A1 (as cited in the IDS).
Regarding Claim 1, Ceder teaches a positive electrode material including a lithium metal oxide or oxyfluoride [Ceder, 0014], wherein the lithium metal oxide or oxyfluoride have a general formula of LixM’aM”bO2-yFy, having a rock-salt structure, may be defined as 1.09 ≤x≤ 1.35, 0.1 ≤a≤ 0.7, 0.1 ≤b≤ 0.7 and 0 ≤y≤ 0.7, and M’ may be selected from the group including Mn2+, Fe2+, Co2+, Ni2+, and combinations thereof and M” is selected from the group including V3+, V4+, Mo4+, Mo5+, and combinations thereof [Ceder, 0010]. The lithium metal oxides or oxyfluorides belong to the crystallographic space group Fm-3m [Ceder, 0011], and have an a-lattice constant between 4.10 Å and 4.30 Å [Ceder, 0067]. However, Ceder is silent to teach the lithium metal oxides or oxyfluoride having a single-phase.
Moreover, according to MPEP 2144.05, 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, 541F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
While Ceder does not explicitly teaches the lithium metal oxides or oxyfluoride having a single-phase rock-salt crystal structure, Ceder teaches the lithium metal oxides or oxyfluorides taught have a disordered rock-salt structure characterized by a crystallographic space group Fm-3m [Ceder, 0011], and mentions not other crystallographic space group. Further, figures 11A and 11B show the x-ray diffraction patterns (XRD) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images of compounds LR-LMVO, Li1.2Mn0.2V0.6O2, and LR-LMVF20, Li1.23Mn0.255V0.515O1.8 F0.2, reveal the products are phase pure disordered rock-salt [Ceder, 0056] and figure 6 shows the XRD patterns of inventive LMV1 through LMV4 compounds [Ceder, 0050], and confirms that each are phase pure products [Ceder, 0096]. Moreover, Ceder teaches the lithium metal oxide or oxyfluoride have a general formula of LixM’aM”bO2-yFy, having a rock-salt structure, may be defined as 1.09 ≤x≤ 1.35, 0.1 ≤a≤ 0.7, 0.1 ≤b≤ 0.7 and 0 ≤y≤ 0.7, and M’ may be selected from the group including Mn2+, Fe2+, Co2+, Ni2+, and combinations thereof and M” is selected from the group including V3+, V4+, Mo4+, Mo5+, and combinations thereof [Ceder, 0010], wherein according to the instant specification, the positive electrode active material includes a lithium-transition metal composite oxide having a crystal structure belonging to a space group Fm-3m and represented by the compositional formula LixMnyMaObFc, wherein M is at least one metal element excluding Mn, x+y+a=b+c=2, 1 <x≤ 1.35, 0.4 ≤y≤ 0.9, 0 ≤a≤0.2, 1.3 ≤b≤1.8 [instant specification, 0023].
Therefore, based on MPEP 2112.01, Part II, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Thus the lithium metal oxides or oxyfluorides taught by Ceder should inherently be a single-phase rock-salt structure.
Regarding Claim 2, Ceder teaches the positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the lithium metal oxide or oxyfluoride have a general formula of LixM’aM”bO2-yFy, and x, representing the compositional ratio of Li and is defined by 1.09 ≤x≤1.35 [Ceder, 0010], satisfying the claimed requirement of 1.1 ≤x≤ 1.35.
Regarding Claim 3, Ceder teaches the positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the lithium metal oxide or oxyfluoride have a general formula of LixM’aM”bO2-yFy, and M”b is a high-valent transition metal [Ceder, 0012], and is selected from V3+, V4+, Mo4+, Mo5+, and combinations thereof [Ceder, 0013].
Regarding Claim 4, Ceder teaches a lithium-ion battery comprising a negative electrode material, and electrolyte and a positive electrode material [Ceder, 0037], wherein the positive electrode material comprises a lithium metal oxide or oxyfluoride [Ceder, 0036], Further, examples 1 of Ceder teaches an ethylene carbonate (EC), and dimethyl carbonate (DMC) solution used as the electrolyte and a separator used in the assembly of a cell [Ceder, 0095], wherein according to the instant specification, ethylene carbonate (EC) and dimethyl carbonate (DMC), are used to prepare the non-aqueous electrolyte liquid [instant specification, 0039] and teaches the assembly includes the cathode film, corresponding to the positive electrode of the claim, electrolyte solution, separator and the Li metal, counter electrode [Ceder, 0095], corresponding to the negative electrode of the claim, indicating the separator is interposed between the positive electrode and negative electrode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILIAN ALICE ODOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, NIKI BAKHTIARI can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/LILIAN ALICE ODOM/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722