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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 and 13 in the reply filed on 1/15/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the method was specifically developed for the active material of group I and the special technical feature should be considered as a whole. This is not found persuasive because the active material is taught by the existing art, and the method of preparing the material is distinct from the material in that the special technical feature of group I is known, and known to be achieved/ prepared by other methods. Therefore, the special technical feature is the active material and the method of preparing it is a separate feature and the active material of group I does not make a contribution over the prior art and claims 9-12 are withdrawn.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 6 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.
In lines 6, 10, 12, and 13, z is undefined. It appears as though applicant may intend for z to be as defined in claim 1, but is unclear and undefined as currently presented. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted aa z being 0< z< 0.2 as defined in independent claim 1 from which claim 6 depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kosova et al (Journal of Solid State Electrochemistry article).
Kosova et al disclose an active material for a battery electrode (battery comprises a positive electrode, negative electrode, and electrolyte which forms an SEI layer on the electrode; instant claim 13; page 237, column 1) doped spinel LiNi0.5-x Mn1.5-y M x+y O4 (M = Co, Cr, Ti; x + y = 0.05), wherein the reference aims to limit the amount of Li y Ni1-y O by-product, with samples at 2% (page 238, column 2), meeting the limitations of the instant claim 1 for the formula and amount of Li y Ni1-y O impurities (instant M is Ti in examples, a is 0, x is 0.05, see page 237, column 1, LiNi0.5 Mn1.45 Ti 0.05 O4 ; instant claims 1-4).
With respect to the property limitations as set forth by the instant claims 5-8, the reference teaches a material having a similar make-up and impurities falling within the scope of the instant claims as discussed above. Regarding instant claim 5, given the similarity of the reference material to that of the instant invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the reference material to inherently possess similar properties, therefore the reference material would possess the claimed tap density and the specific surface area of the spinel solid solution oxide in the active material to also fall within the scope of the instant claim 5 absent evidence to the contrary.
A similar position is taken by the office with respect to the instant claims 6-8, wherein the instant claim 6 sets forth equations to be satisfied by the active material for the crystal structure and impurities, as well as the lattice constant by the instant claim 7, and the full width at half max equations as set forth by the instant claim 8. Similar to the analysis of the instant claim 5, each of these claims presents limitations to a property. Given that the material of the reference teaches a similar active material having the same dopant in same amounts, and the lithium nickel oxide impurity in the claimed amounts, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the material of the reference to inherently possess similar properties to that as instantly claimed absent evidence to the contrary.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosova et al.
Kosova et al has been discussed above. The reference teaches its aim is to eliminate the Li y Ni1-y O by-product impurity (page 236, column 1, paragraph 2).
As discussed above, the reference includes examples at 2% impurity, however, with the reference teaching one of ordinary skill in the art the aim is to “eliminate” the impurity to improve battery properties, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at an amount between 0 and 2% wt % through routine experimentation and optimization of the battery properties. Therefore, the broader range of 0 to 2% (and 0.01 to 2 wt % as set forth by the instant claim 2), would be met by the reference.
Regarding claims 3-8 and 13, as discussed above, the reference teaches the material have the formulas as claimed, and would inherently possess the claimed properties given the similarity between the reference material and that of the instant invention absent evidence to the contrary.
Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Kosova, choosing as the active material, that having an Li y Ni1-y O impurity falling within the range as set forth by the instant claim to improve battery properties.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Okamoto et al disclose a positive electrode active material having a spinel oxide of a formula similar to the instant formula 1, wherein the lithium transition metal oxide includes a dopant (Cr, Ti, Fe, Co, Cu, Al, Mg), wherein the reference teaches that known impurities include LixNi1-xO ([0019], [0030], [0037], [0042]), but fails to teach or suggest the amounts of impurities, and the active material particles further comprise Ti-containing coating layer. Additional references cited by applicant on the information disclosure forms and on the foreign search reports teach similar materials broadly, but do not closely teach the material have the claimed materials despite having similar oxides (and assumed 0 wt% impurities).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA C WALKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 5:30am to 4pm.
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.
/AMANDA C. WALKE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722