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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/10/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The amendment filed 10/10/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-5
remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 103
rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 07/14/2025. Support
for the amendments is found in the original filing, and there is no new matter.
Applicant’s arguments (dated 10/10/2025) with respect to the
rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3 under 35 U.S.C 103 in conjunction with the
claim amendments have been fully considered. Therefore, the rejection has been
withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, amended and new grounds of rejections
under 35 U.S.C. 103 citing to the new art are set forth below as necessitated
by the claim amendments.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US 20100086854 A1, hereinafter Kumar).
Regarding Claims 1 and 2, Kumar discloses the limitations regarding a positive electrode active material (Kumar, positive electrode active material, [0063]) for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Kumar, non-aqueous electrolyte secondary lithium ion battery, [0013]),
the positive electrode active material (Kumar, positive electrode active material, [0063]) comprising:
a lithium-transition metal composite oxide represented by a composition formula LixMnyNizAlaMbO2-cFc, wherein M contains Co and one more elements selected from Ti and Nb (Claim 1 and Claim 2), 1.0<x≤1.2, 0.4≤y≤0.8, 0≤z≤0.4, 0<a<0.01, 0<b<0.03, 0<c<0.1, and x+y+z+a+b≤2 (Claim 1), and more specifically 0<b<0.02 (Claim 2), b indicating a molar ratio of each of M (Kumar, positive electrode active material represented by formula Li1+xNiαMnβCoγAδO2-zFz, where x ranges from about 0.02 to about 0.19, α ranges from about 0.1 to about 0.4, β range from about 0.375 to about 0.6, γ ranges from about 0.01 to about 0.2, δ ranges from about 0 to about 0.1, and z ranges from about 0.01 to about 0.075, and where A is Al, Ti, Nb or combinations thereof, and x + α + β + γ + δ is approximately equal to 1, [0063-0065];
Li = Li, the disclosed range of 1+x, wherein 0.02≤x≤0.19 falls within the claimed range of 1.0<x≤1.2;
Mn = Mn, and about 0.375≤β≤0.6, substantially overlapping the claimed range of 0.4≤b<0.8;
Ni = Ni, the disclosed range of 0.1≤α≤0.4 overlaps the claimed range of 0≤z≤0.4;
Co = Co, the disclosed range of 0≤γ≤0.2 overlaps the claimed range of 0<b<0.03;
A = Al, Ti or Nb, or combinations thereof, and the disclosed range of 0≤δ≤0.1, overlaps the claimed Al range of 0<a<0.01;
A = Al, Ti or Nb, or combinations, and the disclosed range of 0 ≤ δ ≤ 0.1, overlaps the claimed M (Nb or Ti) range of 0<b<0.03 (Claim 1), and more specifically 0<b<0.02 (Claim 2);
O = O, the disclosed range of 2 – z, wherein 0.01 ≤ z ≤ 0.075, falls within the claimed range of 2 – c, wherein 0<c<0.1;
F = F, the disclosed range of 0.01 ≤ z ≤ 0.075 falls within the claimed range of 0<c<0.1;
The disclosed sum of x + α + β + γ + δ is approximately equal to 1 falls within the claimed range of x+y+z+a+b ≤ 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 3, Kumar discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kumar discloses the limitations regarding a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Kumar, non-aqueous electrolyte secondary lithium ion battery, [0013]), comprising: a positive electrode (Kumar, a positive electrode, [0013]) including the positive electrode active material (Kumar, a positive electrode active material, [0013]);
a negative electrode (Kumar, a negative electrode, [0013]);
a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (Kumar, a separator between the positive electrode and negative electrode, [0013]).
Regarding Claim 4, Kumar discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kumar discloses the limitations regarding positive electrode active material (Kumar, a positive electrode active material, [0013]) for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Kumar, non-aqueous electrolyte secondary lithium ion battery, [0013]), wherein M contains Nb (Kumar, A is Al, Ti, Nb or combinations thereof, [0063]).
Regarding Claim 5, Kumar discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kumar discloses the limitations regarding positive electrode active material (Kumar, a positive electrode active material, [0013]) for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Kumar, non-aqueous electrolyte secondary lithium ion battery, [0013]), wherein the lithium-transition metal composite oxide represented by the composition formula LixMnyNizAlaMbO2-cFc constitutes substantially 100 mass% of the positive electrode active material included in the positive electrode (Kumar, the lithium metal oxide produced is used as the positive electrode active material, [0092]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pages 4-7, filed 10/10/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kumar et al. (US 20100086854 A1, hereinafter Kumar), as noted above.
Applicant argues that criticality or unexpected effects attached to the particular elemental composition represented by the instantly claimed formula is represented by Modified Table because Examples 1-3, 6, and 7 exhibited significant improvement in initial capacity, compared to Examples 4 and 5 as well as Comparative Examples 1-3, each of which fails to fulfill the compositional requirements.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Modified Table shows that criticality of the elemental inclusion of Co and any one or more of Ti, Ge, and Nb may be shown by Modified Table. However, the criticality of the molar ratio of M is not shown by Modified Table, which is necessary to be commensurate with the entire scope of the claim, because Modified Table only shows a value of 0.0025 for the molar ratio of Al and M, as previously mentioned in Final Rejection, dated 07/14/2025.
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would be obvious to routinely select from the overlapping molar ratios of M from Kumar, and that positive electrode active material would reasonably exhibit results commensurate with the values shown in Modified Table. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:50 - 7:50 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, NICHOLAS A SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/K.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752