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 without traverse of Group I (claims 1-22) in the reply filed on February 13, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 23-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 February 13, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 and 12 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, which depends upon claim 1, recites the acronyms “(L)” and (LS)” without defining the acronyms. Examiner suggests the applicant amend claim 6 to recite “wherein (L) indicates a layered structure, and (LS) indicates a component with a lithiated-spinel structure.” for purposes of clarity.
Claim 12, line 9 recites “…comprises a an ordered…” which should recite “comprises an ordered…” for purposes of clarity.
Claim 12, lines 6-7 recites “…one or more of non-transition cations…” which should recite ““…one or more of non-transition metal cations …” for purposes of clarity.
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 4 and 19 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 4, the claim recites “….the material comprises Li-2MnO3*LiMn0.5-Ni0.5O2…”, having a molar ratio of 1:1. Claim 1, which claim 4 is dependent upon, recites a material of formula (1-y)[xLi2MnO3*(1-x)LiMeO2]*yLiMO2 and thus, in order for the formula of claim 4 to read on the formula described in claim 1, “x” must be 1 which requires “y” to be 1 in order for the formula of claim 4 to read on the formula described in claim 1. However, claim 1 limits y to 0 < y < 0.3 and thus, the formula of claim 4 falls outside of the scope of the material formula in claim 1 and the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite and unclear in scope.
Regarding Claim 19, the claim recites the spinel component comprises one or more material selected from the group consisting of (a) Li1+xMn2-xO4, wherein 0 ≤ x < 1/3;…-”. Claims 12 and 18, which claim 19 is dependent upon, recite the spinel component having the formula LiM82O4 and thus, requiring the molar ratio of lithium to M8 to O to be 1:2:4. Thus, dependent claim 19 broadens the scope of the molar ratio of LiM82O4 when 0 < x <1/3 as this interval falls outside of the scope of the molar ratio in claims 12 and 18, thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite and unclear in scope.
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 4 and 19 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. Claim 4 is not a proper dependent claim because although claim 4 depends from a previous claim, claim 4 fails to specify a further specify a limitation of the subject matter of claim 1. In particular, claim 4 recites a “y” range which is outside the upper range as recited in claim 1 and thus, fails to specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. Claim 19 is not a proper dependent claim because although claim 19 depends from a previous claim, claim 19 fails to specify a further specify a limitation of the subject matter of claim 12 and 18. In particular, claim 19 recites a “x” range which is outside the molar ratio of the spinel component as recited in claim 12 and 18 and thus, fails to specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-3, 5-18 and 20-22 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, appears to teach, suggest or render obvious the invention of at least claims 1 and 12.
Claim 1 teaches a composite electrode active material comprising the
elements therein. Notably, the claim requires a material of formula (1-y)[xLi2MnO3*(1-x)LiMeO2]*yLiMO2 wherein 0 ≤ x ≤ 1; 0 < y < 0.3; M is one or more metal ions selected from Mn, Ni and Co optionally with minor amounts of Mg, Al, Ti and/or Fe, Me is one or more metal ions at least one of which is selected from the group consisting of Mn, Ni and Co ions; and wherein the LiMO2 comprises domains of ordered or partially disordered lithiated spinel, and partially-disordered layered and rock salt structures. Thackeray et al. (US 2019/0207214) teaches multi-component composite structures (Para. [0013]) for use as positive electrode active material (Para. [0012]) (i.e. a composite electrode active material) layered-layered compound has a formula of wLi---2MnO3• (1-w)LiMO2 (Para. [0035]) (i.e. xLi---2MnO3• (1-x)LiMeO2 of the formula) and lithiated spinel has the general formula Li-2(Co1-xNix)2-2zM’2zO4 in which M’ is selected from a cation such as Mn and z is preferably 0<z≤0.5 and x is preferably 0<x≤0.5 (Para. [0034], [0035]) (i.e. reading on LiMO2). Although it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose, there is no teaching of the combining the two compositions at ratio wherein 0 < y < 0.3 as claimed. There is no suggestion or motivation to arrive at the claimed invention of claim 1 in the prior art. Thus, none of the prior art alone or in combination renders obvious the claimed invention of claim 1. Since claims 2-3 and 5-11 are dependent upon claim 1, they are allowable for the same reason.
Claim 12 teaches a composite electrode active material comprising the
elements therein. Notably, the claim requires a material of formula n[xLi2MnO3*(1-x)LiMeO2]*mLiMO2*LiM82O4 wherein 0 ≤ x < 1; n+m+z=1, 0 < n < 1; 0 ≤ m < 1; 0 < z < 0.3; M is one or more metal ions selected from Mn, Ni and Co optionally with minor amounts of Mg, Al, Ti and/or Fe, Me is one or more metal ions at least one of which is selected from the group consisting of Mn, Ni and Co ions; M8 -is selected from first-row transition metal cations, optionally substituted by minor amounts of one or more of non-transition cation, the xLi2MnO3*(1-x)LiMeO2 comprises a layered or layered-layered structure, the LiMO2 comprises domains of ordered or partially disordered lithiated spinel, and the LiM8O2 comprises an ordered or partially disordered spinel structure. Thackeray et al. (US 2019/0207214) teaches multi-component composite structures (Para. [0013]) for use as positive electrode active material (Para. [0012]) (i.e. a composite electrode active material) layered-layered compound has a formula of wLi---2MnO3• (1-w)LiMO2 (Para. [0035]) (i.e. xLi---2MnO3• (1-x)LiMeO2 of the formula comprises a layered-layered stucture) and lithiated spinel has the general formula Li-2(Co1-xNix)2-2zM’2zO4 in which M’ is selected from a cation such as Mn and z is preferably 0<z≤0.5 and x is preferably 0<x≤0.5 (Para. [0034], [0035]) (i.e. reading on LiMO2) and a spinel oxide electrode comprising LiM2O4 in which M is a first row transition metal ion (i.e. LiM82O4). Although it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose, there is no teaching of the combining two compositions as taught by Thackeray et al. at ratio wherein 0 < z < 0.3 as claimed. There is no suggestion or motivation to arrive at the claimed invention of claim 12 in the prior art. Thus, none of the prior art alone or in combination renders obvious the claimed invention of claim 12. Since claims 13-18 and 20-22 are dependent upon claim 12, they are allowable for the same reason.
Claims 4 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729