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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 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.
With regard to claim 5 (in the last line of the claim), it is noted that the limitation 0.5Li2Mn0.98B0.02O2.95F0.05 * 0.5LiNi0.4Co0.4Mn0.22B0.02O1.95F0.05 lacks Ti. On the other hand, independent claim 1 (from which claim 5 depends) includes Ti, rendering the claim indefinite. In this instance, it is unclear whether or not Ti should be added to the last line of claim 5, or if independent claim 1 should have Ti removed from the compound. Correction and clarification are required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US 2015/0010823).
Regarding independent claim 1, as well as claim 16-18 dependent therefrom, Yu et al. disclose a lithium-rich manganese-based positive electrode material of a positive electrode plate used in a lithium-ion battery that is operable for use in an electric vehicle (abstract; paragraphs [0018]-[0038], [0050]-[0085], [0097], [0124], and [0136]-[0138]; and Figure 1), wherein the positive electrode material of the lithium-ion battery comprises a crystal structure (see paragraphs [0018]-[0030] and [0136]-[0138]) formed by the following formula (Chemical Formula 2, as disclosed in paragraphs [0018] and [0059]): LiaNibCocMndMeO2-fM’f (also see paragraphs [0018]-[0026] and [0059]-[0062]). Although the claimed values/ranges of x and v (wherein “v” is equivalent to “f” in Chemical Formula 2) within the parameters of 0.4 < x < 0.6 and 0.005 ≤ v ≤ 0.02 would be met by adjusting the percentages of the elemental compositions set forth in the claimed ranges of independent claim 1, it is noted that the claimed lower limits are “0” (zero) for α, µ, λ, α’, a, b, c, λ’, and v’, and thus do not require the presence of numerous elements as set by “0” (zero), including for four out of five variables in the formula α’ + a + b + c + λ’ = 1. In addition, Yu et al. disclose that M comprises at least one doping agent (see paragraph [0097]), including in the form of boron (B3+).
In view of the composition disclosed in (at least) paragraph [0018] of Yu et al., one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the values/ranges of “x” and “v” (“f”) in the parameters of 0.4 < x < 0.6 and 0.005 ≤ v ≤ 0.02, and in considering formula α’ + a + b + c + λ’ = 1, in the lithium-rich manganese-based positive electrode material used in a lithium-ion battery, would be obvious since these ranges would be readily contemplated by one of ordinary skill in the art. In this instance, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the obviousness of the above ranges of Ishikawa et al., as set forth in MPEP 2144.05. “In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claim 3, Yu et al. disclose that M’ is an anion element of at least one of F-, S2-, Cl-, and/or Br- (see paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 4, Yu et al. disclose that the median diameter D50 of the lithium-rich manganese-based positive electrode material is between 2 µm and 20 µm, which totally encompasses the claimed range of 3 µm and 14 µm (see paragraph [0026]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to teach or suggest a lithium-rich manganese-based positive electrode material that includes all components of independent claim 1, and further comprising at least one of the following (of dependent claim 5):
0.5Li2Mn0.97Ti0.01B0.02O2.95F0.05 * 0.5LiNi0.4Co0.4Mn0.22B0.02O1.95F0.05 , or
0.5Li2Mn0.98B0.02O2.95F0.05 * 0.5LiNi0.4Co0.4Mn0.22B0.02O1.95F0.05.
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges the applicants’ amendment provided with the request for continued examination received by the USPTO on March 2, 2026. The amendment overcomes the prior objection to the abstract. Although the applicants’ amendments to independent claim 1 overcome the prior 35 USC 103 rejection, a new 35 USC 103 rejection is provided for all claims of record (with the exception of claim 5 that is indicated as allowable subject matter in above sections 7 and 8) in view of the newly provided reference to Yu et al. (US 2015/0010823) – see above section 6. A new 35 USC 112(b) rejection is also raised (see above section 2). Claims 6-15 remain withdrawn from consideration as drawn to a non-elected invention. Claims 1, 3-5, and 16-18 remain under consideration in the application.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 4, and 16-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection includes a new reference to Yu et al. (US 2015/0010823) in the above 35 USC 103 rejection, and thus does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants' disclosure. US 2016/0133929 is also cited in PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 March 27, 2026