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 .
Response to Amendment and Claim Status
The amendment filed 10 December 2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 35 USC § 112 Rejection of Claim 5 set forth in the Office Action mailed 10 September 2025. Claim 2 has been canceled. Claims 1 and 3–20 are pending in the application. Claims 9–20 are withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claims 1 and 3–8 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein an amount of the carbon coating layer comprises an amount of 2.5 to 10 wt% of pitch carbon with respect to 100 wt% of the cathode active material”, which is unclear and therefore indefinite. For instance, it is unclear how “an amount” of the carbon coating layer can comprise “an amount” of pitch carbon, i.e. does only some of the carbon coating layer comprise pitch carbon? Furthermore, it is unclear how the amounts of carbon coating layer, pitch carbon, and cathode active material relate to each other, e.g. is the carbon coating layer comprising 2.5 to 10 wt% of pitch carbon (with the other 97.5 to 90 wt% of the carbon coating layer made up of something else), or is 2.5 to 10 wt% of pitch carbon related to something else (e.g. the total weight of the cathode material) accounting for the entirety of the weight of the carbon coating layer? For the purposes of this Office Action, the limitation is being interpreted as “wherein the cathode material comprises an amount of 2.5 to 10 wt% of pitch carbon with respect to 100 wt% of the cathode active material”, which appears to find a basis in the Instant Specification PGPub [0087].
Claims 3–8 are rejected as they depend upon Claim 1 and do not resolve the indefinite language described above.
Appropriate correction is 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.
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, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (Kobayashi, Y.; Sawamura, M.; Kondo, S.; Harada, M.; Noda, Y.; Nakayama, M.; Kobayakawa, S.; Zhao, W.; Nakao, A.; Yasui, A.; Rajendra, H.B.; Yamanaka, K.; Ohta, T.; Yabuuchi, N. Activation and stabilization mechanisms of anionic redox for Li storage applications: Joint experimental and theoretical study on Li2TiO3–LiMnO2 binary system, Materials Today 37, p. 43–55, published online 13 August 2020) in view of Hwang et al. (KR 2019/0083701 A; see attached machine translation) as evidenced by Iftekhar et al. (Iftekhar, M.; Drewett, N.E.; Armstrong, A.R.; Hesp, D.; Braga, F.; Ahmed, S.; Hardwick, L.J. Characterization of Aluminum Doped Lithium-Manganese Rich composites for Higher Rate Lithium-Ion Cathodes, J. Electrochem. Soc. 161, p. A2109–A2116, published online 6 October 2014), further in view of Sun et al. (US 2013/0337327 A1), and further in view of Endo et al. (US 2023/0420656 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kobayashi discloses a cathode material for a lithium secondary battery (see high capacity positive electrode materials for advanced high energy lithium-ion batteries, p. 44 ¶ “In this article…”), comprising:
a Li-[Mn-Ti]-O-based cathode active material (see e.g. Li1.2Ti0.4Mn0.4O2, p. 44 ¶ “Crystal structures of…”).
Kobayashi does not disclose wherein the Li-[Mn-Ti]-O-based cathode active material is doped with Al, i.e. is a Li-[Mn-Ti]-Al-O-based cathode active material.
Hwang teaches a cathode material (see cathode active material, [0008]) for a lithium secondary battery (see secondary battery, [0008]; identified in [0025] as a lithium secondary battery), comprising a Li-[Mn-Ti]-Al-O-based cathode active material, i.e. a Li-[Mn-Ti]-O-based cathode active material that is doped with Al (see Formula 1 where A is Al and z is non-zero, [0008]–[0013]). Hwang teaches that including a dopant element such as Al into the cathode active material enhances battery characteristics ([0044]); note that it is well-known in the field of secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium that doping of Al into cathode active materials can improve stability and rate capability, as evidenced by Iftekhar (p. A2109 ¶ “Another possible approach…”).
Kobayashi and Hwang are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium. It would have therefore been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cathode material of Kobayashi by including Al as a dopant in the Li-[Mn-Ti]-O-based cathode active material to render it a Li-[Mn-Ti]-Al-O-based material, as taught by Hwang and evidenced by Iftekhar, for the purpose of enhancing battery characteristics such as stability and rate capability.
Kobayashi does not disclose a carbon coating layer comprising pitch carbon and coated on a surface of the cathode active material.
Sun teaches a cathode material (see cathode active material, [0074]) for a lithium secondary battery (see lithium secondary battery, [0074]) comprising a lithium metal phosphate active material ([0074]–[0080]) and a carbon coating layer comprising pitch carbon and coated on a surface of the cathode active material (see carbon-coated layer, [0091]; note that [0120] teaches that the carbon coating layer can be formed from pitch carbon). Sun teaches that the carbon coating layer improves the electric conductivity of the cathode material ([0091]).
Sun is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium. It would have therefore been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cathode material of modified Kobayashi such that it comprises the carbon coating layer comprising pitch carbon and coated on a surface of the cathode active material taught by Sun, for the purpose of improving electric conductivity.
Modified Kobayashi does not disclose wherein the cathode material comprises an amount of 2.5 to 10 wt% of pitch carbon with respect to 100 wt% of the cathode active material.
Endo teaches a cathode material (see composite positive active material, [0012]) for a lithium secondary battery (see nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device, [0012]; identified in [0100] as a lithium ion secondary battery), comprising: a lithium metal phosphate active material ([0012], Formula 1); and a carbon coating layer coated on a surface of the cathode active material ([0012]).
Endo discloses that the cathode material comprises an amount of 0.50 to 5.3 wt% of carbon with respect to 100 wt% of the cathode active material, by teaching ([0037]) that the cathode material comprises an amount of 0.5 to 5 wt% of carbon with respect to 100 wt% of the cathode material (i.e. where the cathode material weight is the combined weight of the cathode active material and the carbon coating layer; as an example calculation, when the carbon coating layer is comprised in an amount of 5 wt% with respect to 100 wt% of the cathode material, then 95 wt% of the cathode material will be comprised by the cathode active material, thus 5 wt% divided by 95 wt% and multiplied by 100 is equivalent to 5.2 wt% carbon with respect to 100 wt% of the cathode active material). Endo teaches ([0037]) that when the wt% of carbon is within the disclosed range, the electrical conductivity and density of the cathode material layer can be increased, thus increasing the capacity of the lithium secondary battery. Note that when the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Endo is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium. A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have thus found it obvious to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for the wt% of pitch carbon with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in a cathode material with suitable electrical conductivity and layer density which improves the capacity of the lithium secondary battery.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Kobayashi discloses the cathode material of Claim 1. Modified Kobayashi further discloses (Sun [0092]) wherein the thickness of the carbon coating layer is about 10 to about 100 nm, which overlaps the claimed range of about 10 to 25 nm. Sun teaches that when a thickness of the carbon coating layer is in the disclosed range, the electric conductivity may be effectively improved and the cathode material can have excellent electrochemical characteristics. Note that when the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I).
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have thus found it obvious to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for the thickness of the carbon coating layer with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in a cathode material which has improved electric conductivity and therefore excellent electrochemical characteristics.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Kobayashi discloses the cathode material of Claim 1. Modified Kobayashi discloses wherein the cathode active material does not comprise Ni nor Co as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (Kobayashi, Y.; Sawamura, M.; Kondo, S.; Harada, M.; Noda, Y.; Nakayama, M.; Kobayakawa, S.; Zhao, W.; Nakao, A.; Yasui, A.; Rajendra, H.B.; Yamanaka, K.; Ohta, T.; Yabuuchi, N. Activation and stabilization mechanisms of anionic redox for Li storage applications: Joint experimental and theoretical study on Li2TiO3–LiMnO2 binary system, Materials Today 37, p. 43–55, published online 13 August 2020) in view of Hwang et al. (KR 2019/0083701 A; see attached machine translation) as evidenced by and further in view of Iftekhar et al. (Iftekhar, M.; Drewett, N.E.; Armstrong, A.R.; Hesp, D.; Braga, F.; Ahmed, S.; Hardwick, L.J. Characterization of Aluminum Doped Lithium-Manganese Rich composites for Higher Rate Lithium-Ion Cathodes, J. Electrochem. Soc. 161, p. A2109–A2116, published online 6 October 2014), further in view of Sun et al. (US 2013/0337327 A1) and Endo et al. (US 2023/0420656 A1), and further in view of Kang et al. (US 2021/0257613 A1).
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, modified Kobayashi discloses the cathode material of Claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the cathode active material comprises Li1.25+y[Mn0.45Ti0.35]1−xAlxO2, in which 0.025 ≤ x ≤ 0.05 and −0.02 ≤ y ≤ 0.02 are satisfied (Claim 3), or more specifically wherein the cathode active material comprises Li1.25[Mn0.45Ti0.35]0.975Al0.025O2 (Claim 4).
Kobayashi discloses (Figure 1a) ratios of Ti to Mn ranging from [Mn0.8Ti0.13] to [Mn0.18Ti0.55]. Kobayashi further discloses (p. 44 ¶ “In this article…”) that increasing the fraction of Li2TiO3, i.e. the ratio of Ti to Mn, increases reversible capacity at elevated temperatures but also results in irreversible oxygen loss during the charge process.
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the ratio of Ti to Mn is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting the reversible capacity at elevated temperatures and the amount of irreversible oxygen loss during the charge process, as disclosed by Kobayashi, thus making the ratio of Ti to Mn a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cathode material of modified Kobayashi such that the ratio of Ti to Mn is [Mn0.45Ti0.35] (Claims 3 and 4) via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving a suitable reversible capacity at elevated temperatures and amount of irreversible oxygen loss during the charge process for the cathode material.
Iftekhar teaches a cathode material (see lithium-manganese rich metal oxides, p. A2109 ¶ “Despite its significance…”) for a lithium secondary battery (see lithium-ion batteries, p. A2109 ¶ “The increasing energy…”), comprising: Al-doped lithium-manganese rich, nickel manganese cobalt oxide cathode active materials (p. A2109 ¶ “Sol-gel synthesized…”). Iftekhar teaches that increasing the amount of Al doping increases cathode active material stability and cyclability (p. A2114 ¶ “Finally, both the…”) but can also decrease capacity (p. A2114 ¶ “The SG LMR NMC (0.01 Al)…”) and rate capability (p. A2115 ¶ “Here it may…”). Iftekhar is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium.
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the amount of Al doping in the cathode active material is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting stability, cyclability, capacity, and rate capability, as taught by Iftekhar, thus making the amount of Al doping in the cathode active material a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cathode material of modified Kobayashi such that the amount of Al doping, i.e. the value of x in [Mn0.45Ti0.35]1−xAlx, satisfies the expression 0.025 ≤ x ≤ 0.05 (Claim 3), or more specifically has a value of 0.025 resulting in a stoichiometry of [Mn0.45Ti0.35]0.975Al0.025 (Claim 4), via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving suitable levels of stability, cyclability, capacity, and rate capability for the cathode material.
Kang teaches a cathode material (see positive electrode active material, [0014]) for a lithium secondary battery (see lithium secondary battery, [0014]), comprising: a Li-[Mn-Ti]-Al-O-based cathode active material ([0035]–[0037], specifically Formula 1 wherein M is Al, Mn, and the 3d transition metal Ti). Kang further teaches ([0035]–00038]) adding excess lithium to the cathode active material beyond the amount required for site balance, such that lithium is present in interstitial sites in the material. Kang teaches that increasing the amount of excess lithium in this manner reduces transition metal migration during lithium deintercalation to maintain high capacity, but can also lead to a larger lithium ion diffusion barrier ([0034], [0040]). Kang is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium.
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the amount of excess lithium in the cathode active material is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting the amount of transition metal migration during lithium deintercalation, capacity, and lithium ion diffusion, as taught by Kang, thus making the amount of excess lithium in the cathode active material a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cathode material of modified Kang such that the value of y in Li1.25+y satisfies the expression −0.02 ≤ y ≤ 0.02 (Claim 3), or more specifically has a value of 0 resulting in a stoichiometry of Li1.25 (Claim 4), via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving suitable levels of transition metal migration during lithium deintercalation, capacity, and lithium ion diffusion for the cathode material.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (Kobayashi, Y.; Sawamura, M.; Kondo, S.; Harada, M.; Noda, Y.; Nakayama, M.; Kobayakawa, S.; Zhao, W.; Nakao, A.; Yasui, A.; Rajendra, H.B.; Yamanaka, K.; Ohta, T.; Yabuuchi, N. Activation and stabilization mechanisms of anionic redox for Li storage applications: Joint experimental and theoretical study on Li2TiO3–LiMnO2 binary system, Materials Today 37, p. 43–55, published online 13 August 2020) in view of Hwang et al. (KR 2019/0083701 A; see attached machine translation) as evidenced by Iftekhar et al. (Iftekhar, M.; Drewett, N.E.; Armstrong, A.R.; Hesp, D.; Braga, F.; Ahmed, S.; Hardwick, L.J. Characterization of Aluminum Doped Lithium-Manganese Rich composites for Higher Rate Lithium-Ion Cathodes, J. Electrochem. Soc. 161, p. A2109–A2116, published online 6 October 2014), further in view of Sun et al. (US 2013/0337327 A1), further in view of Endo et al. (US 2023/0420656 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Shin et al. (US 2018/0294477 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Kobayashi discloses the cathode material of Claim 1, but does not disclose the cathode material of Claim 1 further comprising a metal oxide coating layer in which an Li-Mo-O-based coating material is coated on the surface of the cathode active material.
Shin teaches a cathode material (see positive electrode active material, [0023]) for a lithium secondary battery (see secondary battery, [0023]; identified in [0141] as a lithium secondary battery), comprising: a lithium composite metal oxide-based ([0023]–[0024], Formula 1) cathode active material; and a metal oxide coating layer in which an Li-Mo-O-based coating material is coated on the surface of the cathode active material (see first surface-treated layer, [0023], [0025], [0033], Formula 2 wherein M4 is Mo). Shin teaches that the metal oxide coating layer can prevent the cathode active material from being dissolved in electrolyte via reaction with electrolyte-derived hydrofluoric acid and suppress oxygen gas generation.
Shin is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of secondary batteries capable of cycling lithium. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cathode material of modified Kobayashi such that it further comprises a metal oxide coating layer in which an Li-Mo-O-based coating material is coated on the surface of the cathode active material as taught by Shin, for the purpose of preventing the cathode active material from being dissolved in electrolyte via reaction with electrolyte-derived hydrofluoric acid and suppressing oxygen gas generation.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Kobayashi discloses the cathode material of Claim 6. Modified Kobayashi further discloses wherein the metal oxide coating layer is coated on the surface of the cathode active material in a form of an island (see may be partially formed, Shin [0037]), and
the carbon coating layer is coated on the surface of the cathode active material in a shape of an island, or is coated on the surface of the cathode active material and a surface of the metal oxide coating layer in a form of a layer (see may include a carbon-coated layer on the surface, Sun [0091]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10 December 2025 in regards to the rejection of Claim 2 (which has been canceled and the limitations of which have been incorporated into Claim 1) on the basis of the references Kobayashi, Hwang, Iftekhar, Sun, and Endo have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant argues on p. 8 of Remarks that Endo does not disclose or suggest applying 2.5–10 wt% pitch carbon relative to the cathode active material, nor does it recognize the instability issues resolved by Applicant’s invention. Applicant specifically argues:
Endo discloses improving conductivity of a chemically stable lithium metal phosphate (LMP) material, whereas the claimed invention is directed to securing the chemical stability of highly air-unstable Li-[Mn-Ti]-Al-O active material.
The carbon-coating configuration, including the required pitch carbon ratio is specifically tailored to stabilize this material.
Endo addresses conductivity improvement, while the claimed invention addresses chemical stability, specifically preventing degradation in air of Li-[Mn-Ti]-Al-O materials, a technical problem neither taught or suggested by Endo.
This argument is unpersuasive. Firstly, while it is the case that the carbon coating layer of Endo is applied to a lithium metal phosphate (LMP) active material, in contrast to the claimed Li-[Mn-Ti]-Al-O active material, both of these active materials are utilized in cathode materials for lithium secondary batteries, and thus a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider the teachings of Endo regarding the carbon coating layer to be applicable in the instant case, despite the difference in the specific cathode active materials employed. Furthermore, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage, i.e. stabilization of the cathode active material in the presence of air, which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In the instant case, as set forth in the rejection above, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify modified Kobayashi and target the overlapping portion of the range for the wt% of carbon, as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above, considering that Endo ([0037]) provides a clear motivation, i.e. increased electrical conductivity and density of the cathode material layer and increased capacity of the lithium secondary battery, for doing so. As such, the fact that an additional advantage may result from this obvious combination of references cannot be the basis for patentability. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on p. 8 of Remarks that the incorporation of the defined pitch-carbon content yields unexpected and superior chemical stability in a composition known to be extremely unstable in air. This argument is not persuasive. As set forth above, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage, i.e. stabilization of the cathode active material in the presence of air, which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Furthermore, Applicant has not demonstrated unexpected and superior results with regards to the claimed pitch-carbon content of 2.5 to 10 wt%. Firstly, the instant specification does not describe the results as unexpected, and thus a showing of unexpected results must be in an affidavit or declaration. An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). Applicants may compare the claimed invention with prior art that is more closely related to the invention than the prior art relied upon by the Examiner. In re Holladay, 584 F.2d 384, 199 USPQ 516 (CCPA 1978); Ex parte Humber, 217 USPQ 265 (Bd. App. 1961). In other words, the evidence of unexpected results must be compared with prior art. Emphasis added. See MPEP § 716.02(e). Furthermore, to establish advantageous results over a claimed range, Applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 716.02(d).II). In the instant case, for example, Applicant presents only one comparative example, i.e. 0 wt% pitch carbon ([0101]), outside of the claimed range, and does not present any comparative examples with wt% pitch carbon above the claimed range. Finally, results which are argued as being unexpected must be commensurate in scope with the claimed invention, i.e. the showing of apparent unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP § 716.02(d). In the instant case, for example, the described examples and comparative examples ([0091]–[0101]) are limited only to one specific Li–[Mn–Ti]–Al–O-based cathode active material, Li1.25[Mn0.45Ti0.35]0.975Al0.025O2. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA MARIE FEHR, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/J.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725