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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received January 13, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1-2 and 7 are amended; and claim 6 is cancelled; resulting in claims 1-5 and 7-8 pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on December 3, 2025 and January 13, 2026 have been considered by the examiner.
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 1, and by dependency claims 2-5 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, lines 4-5 introduce a metal element or metalloid element M1 other than Li and Ti, however, it is not clear in the following formula which portion is represented by M1. M2 is defined as at least one of the element M1 excluding Mn, however, it is not clear from claim 1 if the Mn present in the claimed formula is part of M1. Claim 5 recites that M1 includes Mn, which indicates that the variable M1 referred to in claim 1 is likely Mn plus an additional element M2, however that is not clear in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, M1 is considered to include Mn plus a metal or metalloid element M2 other than Mn, Li, and Ti, based on the formula in claim 1.
Regarding claims 2-5 and 7-8, these claims are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
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 Kuniaki, et al. (JP 2009179501 A).
Regarding claims 1-2, Kuniaki teaches a positive electrode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery including a lithium-manganese composite oxide (¶ [0014], Ln. 1-4). Kuniaki teaches that the lithium-manganese composite oxide is represented by the formula Li1-x(Mn1-m-nFemTin)1-xO2, wherein 0<x<1/3, 0≤m≤0.60, 0≤n≤0.60, and 0≤m+n≤0.60 (¶ [0014], Ln. 5-8). In comparing the lithium-manganese composite oxide formula to the formula in instant claim 1, the reference teaches a lithium metal composite oxide in which M2 is represented by Fe, e=0, and the molar ratios of Li, Mn, Fe, Ti, and O overlap with the claimed ranges. 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)). Kuniaki further teaches that the lithium-manganese composite oxide may consist of a monoclinic layered rock-salt structure or a mixed phase of a monoclinic layered rock-salt structure and a cubic rock-salt structure (rock salt structure belonging to a space group Fm-3m) (¶ [0014], Ln. 13-17).
In Example 5, Kuniaki teaches a lithium-manganese composite oxide with the composition Li1.26Mn0.4366Fe0.155Ti0.148O2 (¶ [0162], Ln. 3-6; Table 11), teaching that the lithium-manganese composite oxide has a two-phase mixture of crystalline phases including 70% cubic, represented by the space group Fm-3m (¶ [0159]-[0161]). In comparing the lithium-manganese composite oxide of Example 5 to the formula in instant claim 1, M1 includes Mn and an element M2 represented by Fe, a=1.26, b=0.4366, c=0.148, d=0.155, e=0, and a+b+c+d=2. While it is noted that the value of d and the values of a+b+c+d do not overlap the claimed range, the values are close enough to render obvious the claimed ranges as a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 3, Kuniaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above including a positive electrode active material having a mixed phase of a monoclinic layered rock-salt structure and a cubic rock-salt structure (¶ [0014], Ln. 13-17) used for a lithium-ion battery, indicating that the crystal lattice includes vacant sites in order to allow for Li ion diffusion.
Regarding claim 5, Kuniaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above including a lithium manganese composite oxide represented by the formula Li1-x(Mn1-m-nFemTin)1-xO2, wherein 0<x<1/3, 0≤m≤0.60, 0≤n≤0.60, and 0≤m+n≤0.60 (¶ [0014], Ln. 5-8). In this case, Mn is included in the metal element represented by M1, and the additional metal element included in M1 excluding Mn is Fe (represented by M2). Kuniaki teaches that the combined molar ratio of Ti and Fe ranges from 0-0.60 and the molar ratio of Mn ranges from 0.40-1, such that the molar ratio of Mn may be larger than the combined molar ratio of Ti and Fe. 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)). Additionally, in the examples taught by Kuniaki including both Ti and Fe, the molar ratio of Mn is larger than the combined molar ratio of Ti and Fe (Table 11).
Regarding claim 7, Kuniaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above including a lithium manganese composite oxide represented by the formula Li1-x(Mn1-m-nFemTin)1-xO2, wherein 0<x<1/3, 0≤m≤0.60, 0≤n≤0.60, and 0≤m+n≤0.60 (¶ [0014], Ln. 5-8). In this case, the metal element included in M1 excluding Mn is Fe (represented by M2).
Regarding claim 8, Kuniaki teaches a lithium ion secondary battery using the lithium manganese composite oxide above, meeting the limitations of claim 1, a negative electrode, and electrolyte, assembled with other known battery components in a conventional manner (¶ [0073], Ln. 1-8). As the conventional manner includes interposing a separator between the positive electrode and negative electrode, Kuniaki teaches the limitations of claim 8.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuniaki, et al. (JP 2009179501 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishikawa, et al. (US 2019/0221838 A1), cited on IDS.
Regarding claim 4, Kuniaki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Kuniaki 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 Kuniaki 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 Objections
The previous objections to claims 2 and 7 are overcome by the Applicant’s amendment to include metalloids in the response filed January 13, 2026.
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102
In light of the amendment to claim 1 to incorporate the limitations of claim 6 and further limit the molar ratios in the formula, the previous rejections of claims 1 and 3-8 under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Ishikawa, et al. (US 2019/0221838 A1) and of claims 1-3 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Tabuchi, et al. (US 8,021,783 B2) 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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