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 of Group I, claim(s) 1–5, in the reply filed on 10/23/25 is acknowledged. Claim(s) 6–9 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/23/25.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the formulae in the legends of fig. 6 are too small to be legible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
It is recommended that Applicant amend the claims as follows:
In claim 4, line 2, “the Li-rich transition metal oxides material has a general formula” should seemingly read “the Li-rich transition metal oxides material has a
In claim 5, lines 2 and 3, “comprising a Li-rich transition metal oxides material according to claim 1” should read “comprising [[a]] the Li-rich transition metal oxides material according to claim 1” to denote proper antecedence.
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.
Claim(s) 1–5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al. (US 20180351199 A1, from 07/23/25 PTO-892) (Maeda) in view of Hamano et al. (US 20150340683 A1, from same PTO-892) (Hamano).
Regarding claims 1–5, Maeda discloses a cathode for Li-ion batteries (pos. electrode, e.g., ¶ 0001), comprising Li-rich transition metal oxides material (excess lithium transition metal composite oxide, e.g., ¶ 0036).
Maeda discloses a Li-rich transition metal oxide represented by, e.g., Li1+aNixMnyMzO2, where 0 < a ≤ 0.5, 0 < x < 1, 0 < y < 1, 0 < z < 1, and M is Co or Fe (¶ 0038), with one example of Li1.2Mn0.54Ni0.13Co0.13O2 (¶ 0042). Maeda further discloses that to improve cycle characteristics and safety and enable use at high charge potential, Ni, Mn, and/or Co may be partially replaced by dopants such as Al (¶ 0041; see also doping Al in ¶ 0042’s exs.).
Although Maeda fails to explicitly embody the recited formula, Maeda’s general formula’s molar ratios overlap the recited formula’s (i.e., a Li content of > 1 to ≤ 1.5 overlaps the instant > 1.2 to ≤ 1.3; Ni and Mn contents each of > 0 and < 1 overlap the instant 0.13 and 0.54, respectively; a Co content of > 0 and < 1 overlaps the instant > 0 and ≤ 0.10; and, by including a dopant such as Al, the Al’s content would reasonably overlap or approach the recited 0.01 ≤ y ≤ 0.1 because dopant content is known to be relatively very small, as seen below).
More importantly, though, Hamano, in teaching a doped lithium transition metal oxide cathode material where the oxide may be overlithiated up to Li1.30 (e.g., Abstract), teaches that when Li content is too low, capacity decreases due to increased lithium deficiencies in the crystal structure, whereas when Li content is too high, the slurry unsatisfactorily gels (¶ 0044). Hamano further teaches that a total Mn and Co content is 0.05–0.60 because such a range increases thermal stability without reducing discharge capacity (¶ 0046). Hamano finally teaches that the content of dopants such as Al is 0.005–0.10 because this range provides good Li+ diffusion without reducing capacity (¶ 0047).
Maeda and Hamano are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely Li-rich transition metal oxide cathode materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely select within each molar ratio’s overlap between Maeda and the instant formulae—such as in forming materials like Li1.2Mn0.54Ni0.13Co0.13O2—with the reasonable expectation of forming a successful Li-rich transition metal oxide (MPEP 2144.05 (I)). It would have been further obvious to partially substitute Al for Co in the material with the reasonable expectation of improving cycle characteristics and safety and enabling use at high charge potential, as suggested by Maeda. Finally, upon partially substituting the Al for Co, to balance 1) the Li content for proper capacity without slurry gelation, 2) the Mn and Co content for proper thermal stability and discharge capacity, and 3) the Al content for proper Li+ diffusion and capacity, it would have been obvious to arrive at the instant formula by routinely optimizing the Li, Co, and Al contents, as taught by Hamano and including within each overlap (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
It is submitted that the above disclosure further reads on the following:
(claims 2 and 3) the x and y contents are overlapped and rendered obvious and appear optimizable to achieve when balancing the above effects, particularly capacity versus slurry gelation for the Li content, as well as Li+ diffusion and cycling/safety considerations versus capacity in the Al content, as discussed above;
(claim 4) in optimizing claim 1’s general formula according to the above considerations and based on Maeda’s general formula, claim 4’s specific formulae appear further achievable through routine experimentation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Synthesis, Characterisation and Electrochemical Intercalation Kinetics of Nanostructured Aluminium-Doped Li[Li0.2Mn0.54Ni0.13Co0.13]O2 Cathode Material for Lithium Ion Battery: base oxide where Mn is partly substituted with Al.
The Effect on the Properties of each Element in the Li1.2Mn0.54Ni0.13Co0.13O2 Material by the Incorporation of Al: base oxide where Co is partly substituted with Al.
US 20090224212 A1, US 20130040201 A1: Li1.2Mn0.54Ni0.13Co0.13O2 surface-modified with Al2O3 and Al, respectively.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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 Leong, can be reached on 571-270-192. 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.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 12/1/2025