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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/15/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1-2 is/are amended; Claims 1-2 are pending review in this Office action. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Office action mailed 09/15/2025 has/have been withdrawn. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is presented below.
Specification
Paragraph [0037] of the instant specification recites “<Comparative Example 1> La2Ni2Sn7 was used as the negative electrode active material” while Table 1 (pp. 13) and FIG. 2 of the instant specification recite Comparative Example 1 as being La3Ni2Sn7.
It is interpreted for the purposes of examination that paragraph [0037] is intended to recite La3Ni2Sn7, this interpretation being supported by [0003] and Table 1 (pp. 13) and FIG. 2 of the inst. spec.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuno et al. (US-20070054189-A1; "Matsuno-189", cited in 08/25/2022 IDS) in view of Matsuno et al. (US-20060110659-A1; "Matsuno-659").
Regarding claim 1, Matsuno-189 discloses a lithium-ion battery ([0005]), which comprises a positive electrode having a positive electrode mixture layer including a positive electrode active material ([0057]), and a negative electrode having a negative electrode mixture layer including a negative electrode active material ([0029]), and in which charge and discharge are performed by lithium ions moving between the positive electrode and the negative electrode ([0005]).
Matsuno-189’s negative electrode active material has a La3Co2Sn7-type crystal structure and the general formula (M1xLn1-x)3(M2)2(M3)7 ([0032]), an example embodiment comprising (Ca0.3La0.7)3(Ni0.7Nb0.1Mn0.2)2Sn7 (Example 13, pp. 6 Table 1). The only difference in composition between Matsuno-189’s Example 13 and the negative electrode active material of claim 1:
(claim 1) La3(1-x)M3xNi2(1-y)Mn2yX7, where M includes Ca; X includes Sn; and 0.1 ≤ x < 0.5 and 0 < y < 1,
being that a portion of Matsuno-189’s Ni sites (Ni2(1-y)) are substituted with 0.2 parts Nb in addition to 0.4 parts Mn, whereas the claimed material is substituted with 0.4 parts Mn only.
While Matsuno-189 does not necessarily require Ni to be substituted with Nb, appearing to recognize both metals as substitutable equivalents ([0034]), Matsuno-189 fails to specifically disclose a composition having Ni substituted with only Mn.
Matsuno-659 is directed to an analogous negative electrode active material comprising phases including an R3M2Sn7 phase where R is a rare earth element (e.g., La) and M is Co, Ni, Cu, Fe or Mn (Matsuno-659 [0064], [0074]), this being the same class of material as Matsuno-189’s La3Co2Sn7-type material.
Matsuno-659 teaches that a substitute element (“T”) such as Nb may optionally be included in a solid solution with the negative electrode active material to improve cycle characteristics ([0075], [0064]), but when prioritizing the initial capacity of the negative electrode active material, it is favorable to set a content of substitute element (T) to zero ([0080]).
As such, in seeking to improve the initial capacity of Matsuno-189 Example 13’s negative electrode active material (Ca0.3La0.7)3(Ni0.7Nb0.1Mn0.2)2Sn7 (Matsuno-189 pp. 6 Table 1), it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to avoid substituting Nb in the material as taught by Matsuno-659. Such a modification would result in a negative electrode active material represented by the formula (Ca0.3La0.7)3(Ni0.8Mn0.2)2Sn7, alternatively represented as La3(1-x)M3xNi2(1-y)Mn2yX7 (see claim 1) where part of the Ni sites (Ni2(1-y)) are substituted with Mn (Mn2y) only, M consists of Ca, X consists of Sn, x = 0.3 (claim 1, 0.1 ≤ x < 0.5), and y = 0.2 (claim 1, 0 < y < 1)
Regarding claim 2, modified Matsuno-189 discloses the lithium-ion battery according to claim 1, wherein an experimental embodiment of the negative electrode active material (Example 13, Matsuno-189 pp. 6 Table 1) is modified to comprise (Ca0.3La0.7)3(Ni0.8Mn0.2)2Sn7, alternatively represented as La3(1-X)Ca3XNi1.6Mn0.4Sn7 where x=0.3, the only difference between this composition and the claimed formula:
(claim 2) La3(1-X)Ca3XNi1.8Mn0.2Sn7,
being that modified Matsuno-189 substitutes 0.2 more parts of Ni with Mn in the modified example material. While appreciably similar, modified Matsuno-189 fails to disclose a negative electrode active material with a specific proportion of Ni and Mn being Ni1.8Mn0.2.
Matsuno-659 teaches that Ni is attributed to charge/discharge cycle life of the negative electrode active material ([0081]); consequently, it follows that increasing the proportion of Ni in modified Matsuno-189’s analogous negative electrode active material beyond Ni1.6Mn0.4 could improve this characteristic.
However, Matsuno-189’s experimental data indicates that increasing the Ni proportion up to Ni2.0Mn0 (see Example 4 comprising (Ca0.25La-0.75-)3Ni2Sn7, Matsuno-189 pp. 5 Table 1) provides negligible benefits to the charge/discharge cycle life (i.e., capacity retention rate) while also decreasing the overall capacity (pp. 6 Table 2) when compared to the Matsuno-189’s original Example 13 composition((Ca0.3La0.7)3Ni1.4 Nb0.2Mn0.4Sn7).
As such, in seeking to improve the charge/discharge cycle life characteristics without decreasing the electrode capacity of modified Matsuno-189’s negative electrode active material, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the Ni concentration between a range of Ni1.6Mn0.4 to Ni2.0Mn0 according to Matsuno-659 and Matsuno-189’s disclosure, and in doing so, arrive at the claimed composition of La3(1-X)Ca3XNi1.8Mn0.2Sn7 where the Ni proportion Ni1.8Mn0.2 is encompassed within this range of optimization (MPEP 2144.05 II). Such an optimization would be made with a reasonable expectation of success, being performed within the range of two working embodiments of Matsuno-189’s negative electrode active material composition (see Matsuno-189 Examples 4 and 13, pp.5-6 Table 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Matsuno et al. (US20070054189A1, Matsuno-189 herein) (Remarks pp. 3-5) 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. Withdrawal of the previous ground of rejection has been necessitated by Applicant’s amendment filed 12/15/2025.
Applicant asserts unexpected improvements in charge capacity from substitution of Ni sites with Mn specifically in the negative electrode active material; common knowledge in the art would suggest that this replacement would reduce cause a reduction in capacity.
While this argument has been considered, it has not been found persuasive, as Matsuno’s experimental results suggest improvements to electrode capacity from some substitution of Ni sites with Mn such that this effect appears to be expected.
Specifically, Matsuno-189 Example 13 ((Ca0.3La0.7)3Ni1.4 Nb0.2Mn0.4Sn7) where 0.6 parts Ni is substituted with Nb and Mn demonstrates improved capacity (1325 mAh/cm3) compared to Example 4 comprising (Ca0.25La0.75)3Ni2Sn7 (1256 mAh/cm3) (Matsuno-189 pp. 6 Table 2). Although these experimental examples are not identical to the claimed negative electrode active material composition, Matsuno-189 Example 13 is still similar enough in scope to the claims that a skilled artisan would expect some improvements to electrode capacity from a substitution of a similar amount of Ni sites with Mn (MPEP 716.02(c) I, II).
Additionally, the instant claims are not commensurate in scope with the evidence offered to support the unexpected results. For instance, the instant specification notes differences to first charge and discharge capacities from the amount of La substituted with Ca in the negative electrode active material ([0043], pp. 13 Table 2). Data to support unexpected improvements to electrode capacity is only provided for La1.8Ca1.2Ni1.8Mn0.2Sn7 ([0039]) (i.e., La3(1-x)Ca3xNi1.8Mn0.2Sn7 where x=0.4), while claims 1 and 2 as presented encompasses a range of La3(1-x)Ca3xNi1.8Mn0.2Sn7 where 0.1≤x<0.5. It is not apparent from Applicant’s experimental examples and discussion whether these improvements to electrode capacity would occur over the entire compositional range of x as claimed (MPEP 716.02(d)).
Furthermore, the total observed battery charge capacity depends on more factors than solely the negative electrode active material composition; as a non-limiting example, paragraph [0028-0030] of the instant specification indicates a cyano-group binder or ammonium CMC binder as being necessary to improve slurry dispersibility and inhibit gelation and [0034] indicates the selection of NH4-CMC for experimental embodiments of the electrodes, while the instant claims do not positively recite this component and are thus incommensurate in scope with at this experimental condition. As such, it is not apparent whether the unexpected improvements to electrode capacity would occur in a battery which does not use a cyano-group binder or ammonium CMC binder (MPEP 716.02(d)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVERETT T CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-8:00.
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, Jonathan G Leong can be reached on (571) 270 1292. 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.
/E.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 3/30/2026