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
The amendments filed 1/14/2026 have been entered. Claims 1 and 11 are amended and Claims 21-22 are new.
Support for the amendments can be found in paragraphs 0042 and 0043 of the instant specification.
Claims 1-22 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner noted in the non-final office action of 8/14/2025 that amending “a” in the present invention to be greater than 0 would overcome the materials taught by Lee as Lee does not have “a” in its formula. However, upon further consideration, the materials taught by Lee, specifically Li1.10Mn0.54Ni0.28Co0.08O2 (Col. 8, Example 1) and Li1.12Mn0.54Ni0.26Co0.08O2 (Col. 8, Example 2), can still be represented by formula 1 of amended Claim 1: For Li1.10Mn0.54Ni0.28Co0.08O2, x = x = 1.5a + 0.26, y = 0.08 – a, z = 0.06 – 2a, 0 < a < 0.03, and for Li1.12Mn0.54Ni0.26Co0.08O2, x = 1.5a + 0.26, y = 0.08 – a, z = 0.04 – 2a, 0 < a < 0.02.
Regarding Claims 5-6 and 15, although Li1.10Mn0.54Ni0.28Co0.08O2 and Li1.12Mn0.54Ni0.26Co0.08O2 do not have the exact same chemical formula as Li1.12Mn0.57Ni0.24Co0.07O2 (Claims 5 and 15) or Li1.10Mn0.57Ni0.25Co0.08O2 (Claim 6 and 15), it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (See MPEP 2144.05 I). The active materials of Lee have a composition close enough to the active materials of Claim 5-6 and 15 that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 10283771 B2, cited in the 7/17/2025 IDS).
Regarding Claims 1-4, Lee teaches Li1.1Mn0.54Ni0.28Co0.08O2 (Col. 8, Example 1) and Li1.12Mn0.54Ni0.26Co0.08O2 (Col. 8, Example 2) as positive electrode active materials.
These materials would read on the claimed formula 1: For Li1.10Mn0.54Ni0.28Co0.08O2, x = x = 1.5a + 0.26, y = 0.08 – a, z = 0.06 – 2a, 0 < a < 0.03, and for Li1.12Mn0.54Ni0.26Co0.08O2, x = 1.5a + 0.26, y = 0.08 – a, z = 0.04 – 2a, 0 < a < 0.02.
Furthermore, for both materials, 0.2 < x-0.5y+z < 0.37 (0.28 and 0.26) and 0 < y+a < 0.09 (0.08) (Claims 2-4).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee teaches the active material of Claim 1. The Mn may include both Mn having an oxidation number of +3 and Mn having an oxidation number of +4 (Col. 2, lines 14-15).
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, Lee teaches the active material of Claim 7. The active material can have Mn having an oxidation number of +3 in an amount between 0 wt% and 37 wt% (Col. 2, lines 21-26). Specifically, Lee teaches embodiments where the Mn having an oxidation number of +3 is present in an amount of 9.25 wt % (Col. 8, Example 1) or 5.55 wt% (Col. 8, Example 2). These would fall within the claimed ranges of about 3.5 wt% to about 45 wt% (Claim 8) and about 3.5 wt% to about 30 wt% (Claim 9).
Regarding Claim 10, Lee teaches the active material of Claim 1. M can be Co (Col. 8, Example 1).
Regarding Claim 11-14, Lee teaches a rechargeable lithium-ion battery comprising at least one lithium-ion battery cell (Col. 4, lines 16-23; Col. 8, Examples 3), where the cell includes a positive electrode comprising Li1.1Mn0.54Ni0.28Co0.08O2 (Col. 8, Example 1). This material would read on the claimed formula 1, wherein 1 < 1.333 – 0.667x-z-a < 1.333, 0 < x-0.5y+z < 0.5, and 0 < y+a < 0.333, and wherein 0.2 < x-0.5y+z < 0.37 and 0 < y+a < 0.09 (Claims 12-14). The cell includes a negative electrode including a negative active material and an electrolyte (Col. 4, lines 16-23; Col. 8, Examples 3).
Regarding Claim 16, Lee teaches the battery of Claim 11. A separator is placed between the positive and negative electrodes (Col. 4, lines 16-23).
Regarding Claim 17, Lee teaches the battery of Claim 11. The Mn may include both Mn having an oxidation number of +3 and Mn having an oxidation number of +4 (Col. 2, lines 14-15).
Regarding Claims 18 and 19, Lee teaches the battery of Claim 17. The active material can have Mn having an oxidation number of +3 in an amount between 0 wt% and 37 wt% (Col. 2, lines 21-26). Specifically, the Mn having an oxidation number of +3 is present in an amount of 9.25 wt % (Col. 8, Example 1). This would fall within the claimed ranges of about 3.5 wt% to about 45 wt% (Claim 8) and about 3.5 wt% to about 30 wt% (Claim 9).
Regarding Claim 20, Lee teaches the battery of Claim 1. The battery has a specific capacity greater than 150 mAh/g (Fig. 2: Example 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 10283771 B2, cited in the 7/17/2025 IDS).
Regarding Claims 5-6 and 15, Lee teaches the active material of Claim 1 and the battery of Claim 11. Lee teaches positive electrode active materials such as Li1.1Mn0.54Ni0.28Co0.08O2 (Col. 8, Example 1) and Li1.12Mn0.54Ni0.26Co0.08O2 (Col. 8, Example 2). Although these materials do not have the exact same chemical formula as the claimed Li1.12Mn0.57Ni0.24Co0.07O2 (Claim 5 and 15) or Li1.10Mn0.57Ni0.25Co0.08O2 (Claim 6 and 15), it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (See MPEP 2144.05 I). The active materials of Lee have a composition close enough to the active materials of Claim 5-6 and 15 that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 and 22 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach or suggest an active material represented by formula 1 where 0.04 < a < 0.333.
Lee teaches Li1.10Mn0.54Ni0.28Co0.08O2 (Col. 8, Example 1) and Li1.12Mn0.54Ni0.26Co0.08O2 (Col. 8, Example 2), which can be represented by formula 1 of amended Claim 1: For Li1.10Mn0.54Ni0.28Co0.08O2, x = x = 1.5a + 0.26, y = 0.08 – a, z = 0.06 – 2a. In order to satisfy 0 < z, a must be less than 0.03. Similarly, for Li1.12Mn0.54Ni0.26Co0.08O2, x = 1.5a + 0.26, y = 0.08 – a, z = 0.04 – 2a, and a must be less than 0.02.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ji (Li-Deficient Materials-Decoration Restrains Oxygen Evolution Achieving Excellent Cycling Stability of Li-Rich Mn-Based Cathode) teaches a active material comprising the composition Li1.2Mn0.54Ni0.13Co0.13O2 (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIHENG LU whose telephone number is (703)756-1077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 - 5 ET.
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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/ZIHENG LU/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752