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 11 May 2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 11 May 2026. Claims 2–4 and 6 have been canceled. Claims 1, 5, and 7–20 are pending in the application. Claims 9–20 are withdrawn from consideration.
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, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (“Activation and stabilization mechanisms of anionic redox for Li storage applications: Joint experimental and theoretical study on LiTiO3–LiMnO2 binary system”; art already of record) in view of Hwang et al. (KR 2019/0083701 A1; art already of record), further in view of Wu et al. (“Comparative study of Co, Cr and Al-doped LiMnO2 prepared by ion exchange”), further in view of Kang et al. (US 2021/0257613 A1; art already of record), further in view of Sun et al. (US 2013/0337327 A1; art already of record), and further in view of Shin et al. (US 2018/0294477 A1; art already of record).
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, nor more specifically wherein the cathode active material comprises Li1.25[Mn0.45Ti0.35]0.975Al0.025O2.
Kobayashi does disclose (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. Note that Kobayashi is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of lithium secondary batteries.
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] 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.
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 (see lithium transition metal oxide, [0010], represented by Chemical Formula 1 wherein A is Al, [0010]–[0013]) Hwang teaches that including a doping element such as Al into the cathode active material enhances battery characteristics ([0044]).
Hwang is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of lithium secondary batteries. 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 Al is included as a dopant, resulting in a Li-[Mn-Ti]-Al-O-based cathode active material, as taught by Hwang, for the purpose of enhancing battery characteristics.
Wu teaches a cathode material for a lithium secondary battery (see composite cathodes, p. 109 ¶ “Phase identification and…”) comprising a Li-Mn-Al-O-based cathode active material (see Al-doped LiMnO2, p. 109 ¶ “Since m-LiMnO2 was…”, i.e. LiMn1−xMxO2 (M = Al), p. 109 ¶ “Phase identification and…”). Wu teaches (p. 111–113, ¶ “The variation of…” and Figure 7) that increasing the amount of Al doping improves cycling performance but decreases discharge capacity. Note that Wu is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of lithium secondary batteries.
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 is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting the cycling performance and discharge capacity, as taught by Wu, thus making the amount of Al doping 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 is 0.025, resulting in a stoichiometry of [Mn0.45Ti0.35]0.975Al0.025, via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving suitable cycling performance and discharge capacity. It is noted that while Wu is not explicitly directed to Li-[Mn-Ti]-Al-O-based cathode active materials, the cathode active material of Wu is a similar Li-Mn-Al-O-based cathode active material, and thus it can be reasonably expected that the teachings regarding Al-doping of Wu will also be applicable to the cathode material of modified Kobayashi.
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 is Ti). Kang further teaches ([0035]–[0038]) 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]). Note that Kang is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of lithium secondary batteries.
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 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 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 excess lithium is such that the stoichiometry is Li1.25 via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving suitable levels of transition metal migration during lithium deintercalation, capacity, and lithium ion diffusion.
The above modifications will result in the cathode active material of modified Kobayashi comprising Li1.25[Mn0.45Ti0.35]0.975Al0.025O2.
Modified Kobayashi as set forth above 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 ([0091]) that the carbon coating layer improves the electric conductivity of the cathode material.
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 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. Note that while Sun is directed to a different cathode active material than that of modified Kobayashi, Hwang teaches a similar carbon coating layer (see carbon coating, [0010]) for Li-[Mn-Ti]-Al-O-based materials which provides the same benefit of improved electric conductivity ([0027]), and therefore it can be reasonably expected that the teachings and benefits regarding the carbon coating layer of Sun will also be applicable to the cathode material of modified Kobayashi.
Modified Kobayashi does not disclose wherein the carbon coating layer comprises 2.5 to 10 wt% of pitch carbon with respect to 100 wt% of the cathode active material.
As already set forth above, Hwang teaches a similar carbon coating layer for Li-[Mn-Ti]-Al-O-based materials. Hwang teaches ([0053]) wherein the carbon coating layer comprises 2 to 10 wt% of carbon (note that [0068] discloses that the carbon coating layer is formed of carbon) with respect to 100 wt% of the cathode active material. Hwang teaches that when the carbon coating layer comprises 2 to 10 wt% of carbon with respect to 100 wt% of the cathode active material, the effect of improving electrical conductivity is excellent, and it is also effective in increasing capacity and improving rate characteristics.
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 the carbon coating layer comprises 2 to 10 wt% of carbon (which in the case of modified Kobayashi, will be pitch carbon) with respect to 100 wt% of the cathode active material, as taught by Hwang, for the purpose of achieving an excellent improvement of electrical conductivity, increasing capacity, and improving rate characteristics. It is noted that while the teachings of Hwang are not explicitly directed towards a carbon coating layer comprising pitch carbon, because Hwang is directed to a similar carbon coating layer that provides the same benefits as that of modified Kobayashi (Sun), it can be reasonably expected that the teachings and benefits regarding the wt% of carbon in the carbon coating layer of Hwang will also be applicable to the cathode material of modified Kobayashi.
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). 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 select the portions of the overlapping ranges for the wt% of pitch carbon comprised in the carbon coating layer with respect to the wt% of the cathode active material with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in an excellent improvement of electrical conductivity, increased capacity, and improved rate characteristics.
Modified Kobayashi does not disclose 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 ([0029]) 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 lithium secondary batteries. 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. It is noted that while Shin is not explicitly directed to Li-[Mn-Ti]-Al-O-based cathode active materials, the cathode active material of Shin can be e.g. a similar Li-Mn-O-based cathode active material (see [Formula 1], [0023]–[0024]), and thus it can be reasonably expected that the teachings and benefits regarding the Li-Mo-O-based coating material of Shin will also be applicable to the cathode material of modified Kobayashi.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Kobayashi discloses the cathode material as set forth above, but does not disclose wherein the thickness of the carbon coating layer is about 10 to 25 nm.
However, Kobayashi does disclose (Sun [0092]) wherein the thickness of the carbon coating layer is about 10 to about 100 nm. Sun teaches ([0092]) that when the 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.
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). 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 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 7, modified Kobayashi discloses the cathode material as set forth above. 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]).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Kobayashi discloses the cathode material as set forth above. Modified Kobayashi discloses wherein the cathode active material does not comprise Ni nor Co as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks filed 11 May 2026 regarding the references Endo and Iftekhar as applied in the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection in the office action mailed 11 March 2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any of these references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s other arguments in the Remarks filed 11 May 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections in the office action mailed 11 March 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant argues on p. 7 of Remarks that the Examiner’s rejection requires an improper combination of seven separate references, that these references address a different feature and are drawn from a distinct active-material system, and that the need to assemble numerous, unrelated teachings from such a large number of references to reconstruct the claimed invention is indicative of impermissible hindsight reconstruction, in which the present application is used as a blueprint for selecting and modifying disparate disclosures.
This argument is not persuasive. Firstly, while the current rejection set forth above relies on fewer than seven references, it is nonetheless noted that reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Secondly, it is noted that different teaching references will naturally address different features of the cathode material. Thirdly, while some of the teaching references cited in the current rejection are directed to other active-material systems, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the teachings set forth in these references would be applicable to the instant active-material system due to such teachings being e.g. universal to cathode materials for lithium secondary batteries in general, the active-material systems of the teaching references being sufficiently similar to that of the instant active-material system such that it would be expected that the same teachings could be applied and the same benefits reaped, and/or because similar teachings have been successfully applied to substantially similar active-material systems, as set forth in the current rejection above.
Applicant argues on p. 7–8 of Remarks that the reference Sun is directed to pitch carbon coatings applied to chemically stable lithium metal phosphate cathode active materials to improve the electric conductivity of the material, which is inherently low in conductivity but chemically stable under ambient conditions, while in contrast, the present invention is related to a lithium-rich Li-[Mn-Ti]-Al-O-based active material that is recognized in the art as being unstable to air and moisture, and which require fundamentally different processing conditions to prevent degradation. Applicant thus argues that the pitch carbon coating serves a different technical function that that described in Sun, i.e. to protect the inherently air- and moisture-sensitive Li-[Mn-Ti]-Al-O-based active material from moisture-induced degradation, rather than to enhance the conductivity of a chemically stable phosphate material, and thus that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation that the pitch carbon coating strategy disclosed by Sun could be successfully applied to the chemically unstable Li-[Mn-Ti]-Al-O-based active material presently recited.
This argument is not persuasive. Firstly, while it is the case that the carbon coating layer of Sun is applied to a different active material, namely lithium metal phosphate, both of these active materials are utilized in cathode materials for lithium secondary batteries, and thus considering this shared utility, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the benefit of enhanced electronic conductivity taught by Sun would be both applicable and desirable in an Li-[Mn-Ti]-Al-O-based active material. As set forth in the current rejection, the above is further supported as Hwang teaches a similar carbon coating layer (see carbon coating, [0010]) for Li-[Mn-Ti]-Al-O-based materials which provides the same benefit of improved electric conductivity ([0027]). Thus a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that modification of modified Kobayashi with the teachings of Sun, as set forth in the current rejection, would successfully result in improved electronic conductivity. Secondly, regarding Applicant’s argument that the carbon coating layer of Sun provides a different benefit than that of the instant application, it is noted that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage 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, Sun provides a clear motivation, i.e. enhancement of electronic conductivity, for the modification. As such, the fact that an additional advantage may result from this obvious combination of references cannot be the basis for patentability.
Applicant argues on p. 8 of Remarks that that the reference Shin discloses a Li-Mo-O surface treatment for a different composite cathode active material, and thus contains no teaching or suggestion to apply that surface treatment to the claimed Li-[Mn-Ti]-Al-O-based active material or combine it with the teachings of the other cited references.
This argument is not persuasive. As set forth in the current rejection, while Shin is not explicitly directed to Li-[Mn-Ti]-Al-O-based cathode active materials, the cathode active material of Shin can be e.g. a similar Li-Mn-O-based cathode active material (see [Formula 1], [0023]–[0024]), and thus it can be reasonably expected that the teachings and benefits regarding the Li-Mo-O-based coating material of Shin will also be applicable to the cathode material of modified Kobayashi.
Applicant argues on p. 9 of Remarks that in view of the present amendment, a Rule 132 Declaration is not necessary to assert unexpected results of improved air-exposure stability because amended claim 1 is now limited to a specific active-material composition in combination with a specific Li-Mo-O metal oxide coating layer. Applicant further argues that the Examiner’s prior request for a declaration was premised on a perceived lack of commensurate scope between the asserted unexpected results, which were demonstrated for the Li1.25[Mn0.45Ti0.35]0.975Al0.025O2 embodiment in the working examples, and the broader scope of the previously pending claims, which has now been remedied with the presented amendment, wherein claim 1 is now coextensive with the specific embodiment for which air-exposure stability data are provided.
This argument is not persuasive. While the claims have been amended to be more commensurate in scope with the results which have been argued in Applicant’s reply to be unexpected and superior, Applicant still does not appear to have sufficiently demonstrated that such results are indeed unexpected and superior. Firstly, evidence relied upon should establish “that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance.” Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQd 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). In the instant case, Applicant does not appear to have provided any e.g. statistical evidence that the results are unexpected and superior when compared to the closest prior art. Secondly, for instance, claim 1 recites wherein the carbon coating layer comprises 2.5 to 10 wt% of pitch carbon with respect to 100 wt% of the cathode active material. 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). However, for instance, 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, the instant specification does not describe the results as unexpected, and thus a showing of unexpected results must be in an affidavit or declaration; arguments presented by the Applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Examples of statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration include statements regarding unexpected results, commercial success, solution of a long-felt need, inoperability of the prior art, invention before the date of the reference, and allegations that the author(s) of the prior art derived the disclosed subject matter from the inventor at least one joint inventor (see MPEP § 716.01(c).II).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights