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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 3, 2026 has been entered.
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received June 30, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1 and 5 are amended; and claims 2 and 6 are cancelled; resulting in claims 1, 3-5, and 7-8 pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “wherein M2 is at least one of the element M1 excluding Mn, and” has been struck-through in line 7, however, the “d” in the word “and” has not been included.
Regarding claim 5, there is a space missing between “M2” and “excluding” in line 3 of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-5, and 7-8 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.
Regarding claim 1, line 4 of the claim recites that “M2 is a metal element or metalloid element” while line 9 of the claim recites that “M2 includes at least one of Ge, Si, and Ga,” making it unclear if M2 is a single element or may include more than one element. The wording in line 4 seemingly indicates that M2 is a single element, however, the wording in line 9 seemingly indicates otherwise. Paragraph [0024] of the instant specification also recites that M2 includes “at least one selected from the group of consisting of Fe, Ge, Si, Ga, Ni, Co, Sn, Cu, Nb, Mo, Bi, V, Cr, Y, Zr, Zn, Na, K, Ca, Mg, Pt, Au, Ag, Ru, Ta, W, La, Ce, Pr, Sm, Eu, Dy, and Er,” in line with the claim language that M2 may include more than one element. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as allowing M2 to include more than one element.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation in line 2 recites that M2 includes Mn, however, claim 1 has been amended to define M2 as a metal element or metalloid element other than Li, Ti, and Mn. Thus, the limitation in claim 5 appears to contradict claim 1, from which claim 5 depends. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as reciting “The positive electrode active material for a secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the molar ratio of Mn in the lithium metal composite oxide is larger than the molar ratio of a total of Ti and the metal element M2.”
Regarding claims 3-5 and 7-8, these claims are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. —Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation in claim 7 appears to broaden the scope of claim 1. Lines 9-10 of claim 1 require that M2 includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Ge, Si, and Ga, however, lines 3-4 of claim 7 require that M2 includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Fe, Ge, Si, Ga, Ni, Co, Sn, Cu, Nb, Mo, Bi, V, Cr, Y, Zr, Zn, Na, K, Ca, Mg, Pt, Au, Ag, Ru, Ta, W, La, Ce, Pr, Sm, Eu, Dy, and Er. Thus, claim 7 appears to allow for a broader range of element choices for M2 than introduced in claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 3, 5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabuchi, et al. (WO 2018066633 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tabuchi teaches a cathode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery including a composite oxide of the Li2MnO3 type containing a specific amount of iron and nickel, and further containing titanium and/or germanium (¶ [0013], Ln. 1-8). Specifically, Tabuchi teaches the general formula Li1+x(M1yM2zMn1-y-z)1-xO2, wherein M1 represents Fe and/or Ni, M2 represents Ti and/or Ge, 0<x<1/3, 0≤y≤0.4, and 0<z≤0.3 (¶ [0013], Ln. 13-17). When M2 represents Ti, 0.10≤z≤0.25 and when M2 represents Ge, 0.01≤z≤0.10 (¶ [0032], Ln. 5-7). In the formula above, the Li content is within the claimed amount of greater than 1 and less than 1.35, the Mn content overlaps the claimed amount of 0.4 to 0.9, the Ti content overlaps the claimed range of greater than 0 and less than or equal to 0.15, and the F content overlaps the claimed range of 0 to 0.66. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)). Tabuchi teaches that both Ti and Ge may be included for M2, as Ti is cheaper but Ge produces superior results (¶ [0033], Ln. 4-5).
Tabuchi teaches that the lithium manganese-based composite oxide of the present invention may contain a crystalline phase of the monoclinic layered rock salt structure or the hexagonal layered rock salt structure and may also be a mixed phase containing a crystalline phase of another rock salt structure with a different cation distribution, providing the example of a cubic rock salt structure, which belongs to the space group Fm-3m (¶ [0026], Ln. 1-5). Tabuchi further teaches that the cubic salt-type crystalline phase also exhibits excellent charge-discharge characteristics, so there is no problem with having this crystalline structure (¶ [0027], Ln. 6-7), and that the cubic rock salt-type structure may account for 1-99% by weight of the crystalline phase (¶ [0028], Ln. 14-16). Tabuchi does not expressly teach an embodiment of a lithium manganese-based composite oxide including titanium and germanium in the claimed amounts and having a cubic rock salt-type structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the lithium manganese-based composite oxide to include both titanium and germanium in the claimed amounts and having a cubic rock salt-type structure based on the teachings in the reference. Tabuchi teaches that the lithium manganese-based composite oxide may include both titanium and germanium, wherein 0.10≤z≤0.25 for Ti and 0.01≤z≤0.10 for Ge. In comparing the lithium manganese-based composite oxide to the claimed formula, the claimed variable M2 is represented by Ge and either or both of Ni and Fe. As Tabuchi teaches a y value of greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to 0.4 and a Ge content of greater than or equal to 0.01 and less than or equal to 0.1, the total content of Ge and either or both of Ni and Fe ranges from 0.01 to 0.5, overlapping the claimed range of 0.025 to 0.1 for the content of M2. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)). One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to include both Ge and Ti in the lithium manganese-based composite oxide as Tabuchi specifically teaches that both may be included and would be motivated to include Ti at a higher amount as it is cheaper than Ge. Additionally one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to include a crystalline structure with a cubic salt-type crystalline phase. As Tabuchi teaches that this phase may account for 1-99% by weight of the crystalline structure, one would be motivated to include the cubic salt-type phase due to its excellent charge-discharge characteristics.
Regarding claim 3, Tabuchi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above including a lithium manganese-based composite oxide having a cubic salt-type crystalline phase and meeting the general formula Li1+x(M1yM2zMn1-y-z)1-xO2, indicating that the crystal lattice includes vacant sites in order to allow for Li ion diffusion.
Regarding claim 5, Tabuchi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, including a lithium manganese-based composite oxide meeting the general formula Li1+x(M1yM2zMn1-y-z)1-xO2. Tabuchi teaches that 0≤y≤0.4 and 0<z≤0.3 (¶ [0013], Ln. 13-17). Thus, the possible ranges for the content of M1 and M2 is greater than 0 to 0.7, making the possible ranges for the content of Mn 0.3 to less than 1, overlapping the claim limitation that the molar ratio of Mn is larger than the molar ratio of Ti and the metal element M2. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)). Further, in looking to the examples, each example lithium manganese-based composite oxide includes a higher content of Mn than the total of metals representing M1 and M2 (Examples 1-5).
Regarding claim 7, Tabuchi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, including a lithium manganese-based composite oxide including Ge, representing claimed variable M2 (¶ [0013], Ln. 1-8).
Regarding claim 8, Tabuchi teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery including the lithium manganese-based composite oxide meeting the limitations of claim 1 above as the positive electrode material of the positive electrode, a negative electrode, an electrolyte, and other known battery components (¶ [0077], Ln. 4-13). As a separator is a known battery component necessary for a lithium-ion secondary battery to function without short-circuiting, Tabuchi teaches the limitations of claim 8.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabuchi, et al. (WO 2018066633 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishikawa, et al. (US 2019/0221838 A1), cited on IDS.
Regarding claim 4, Tabuchi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Tabuchi does not expressly teach that the lithium manganese composite oxide includes fluorine.
Ishikawa teaches a positive electrode active material containing a lithium composite oxide including a first and second phase, wherein the first phase has a crystal structure that belongs to a space group Fm-3m (¶ [0010], Ln. 1-7). The lithium composite oxide may be represented by the general composition formula LixMeyOαQβ (¶ [0101], Ln. 1-4). Ishikawa teaches that the lithium composite includes cations other than lithium which may be one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Mn, Co, Ni, Fe, Cu, V, Nb, Mo, Ti, Cr, Zr, Zn, Na, K, Ca, Mg, Pt, Au, Ag, Ru, W, B, Si, P, and Al (¶ [0089], Ln. 1-6) and further teaches that the lithium composite oxide may contain one or more elements selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, N, and S (¶ [0096], Ln. 1-3). Ishikawa teaches that by partly replacing oxygen with an electrochemically inactive anion, the crystal structure of the lithium composite oxide may be stabilized and crystal lattice expansion may be caused (¶ [0134], Ln. 1-9). Specifically, Ishikawa teaches that by partly replacing oxygen with F, which has a high electronegativity, the discharge capacity or operating voltage of the battery is improved and the elimination of oxygen during charge is suppressed, further stabilizing the crystal structure (¶ [0138], Ln. 1-12). Ishikawa teaches that the element selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, N, and S is included in a content of 0.33-0.67 in order to stabilize the structure when Li is deintercalated (¶ [0139]-[0140]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the lithium manganese composite oxide of Tabuchi to include fluorine based on the teachings of Ishikawa. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to partly replace oxygen with fluorine due to its high electronegativity, improving the discharge capacity and operating voltage of the battery and stabilizing the crystal structure.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112
The previous rejection of claim 1, and by dependency claims 2-5 and 7-8 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 is overcome by the Applicant’s amendment to remove the reference to M1. However, in light of the amendments to the claims, new issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are presented in the office action above.
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 103
In light of the amendment to claim 1 in the response filed June 30, 2026 to require that the metal or metalloid element M2 includes at least one selected from the group of Ge, Si, and Ga and the cancellation of claim 5, the previous rejections of claims 1-3, 5, and 7-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kuniaki, et al. (JP 2009179501 A) and of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kuniaki in view of Ishikawa, et al. (US 2019/0221838 A1) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH J JACOBSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291.
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.
/SARAH J JACOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights