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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received June 12, 2026:
Claims 1-22 are pending. Claims 23-25 have been cancelled as per applicant’s request.
The previous claim objections have been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The previous 112 rejections to claim 4 have been withdrawn in light of the amendment. The previous 112 rejections to claim 19 has been maintained.
A prior art rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been made in light of the amendment. All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
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 19 is 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 19, the claim recites the spinel component comprises one or more material selected from the group consisting of (a) Li1+nMn2-nO4, wherein 0 ≤ n < 1/3;…-”. Claims 12 and 18, which claim 19 is dependent upon, recite “the LiM82O4 spinel component” and “the LiM82O4 component comprises an ordered or partially disordered spinel structure.”. The spinel component as claimed in claims 12 and 18 have 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, as this range 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 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 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 “n” 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 when the spinel component comprises one from the group consisting of the listed (a)-(f) is selected from (a). 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thackeray et al. (US 2013/0078518), referred to hereinafter as Thackeray ‘518, in view of Thackeray et al. (US 2019/0207214), referred to hereinafter as Thackeray ‘214.
Regarding Claim 4, Thackeray ‘518 teaches a composite electrode material of 0.5Li2MnO3*0.5LiMn0.5Ni0.5O2 (Para. [0081], [0083]) and comprises partially disordered structure (Para. [0012]) and layered structure (Para. [0083]) (i.e. comprises domains of partially-disordered layered structures) integrated with rock-salt structure (claim 1) (i.e. a structurally integrated composite electrode active material comprising a material of formula Li2MnO3*LiMn0.5Ni0.5O2).
Thackeray ‘518 does not explicitly teach wherein the LiMn0.5Ni0.5 comprises domains of ordered or partially-disordered lithiated spinel, and rock salt structures.
However, Thackeray ‘219 teaches lithium metal oxide materials of the formula Li2(M’’2-aM’’’a)O4 wherein M’’ and M’’’ are metal ions and “a” may be 0.5, having disordered rock salt structure, with partial lithiated-spinel character (Para. [0043]), and also partially disordered layered component structures (Para. [0044]) (i.e. comprises domains of ordered or partially-disordered lithiated spinel, and rock salt structures).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structurally integrated composite electrode active material of LiMn0.5Ni0.5O2 as taught by Thackeray ‘518 to incorporate the teaching of the structures of disordered rock salt structure, with partial lithiated-spinel character and also partially disordered layered component structures as taught by Thackeray ‘219 as such materials suppress the structural and electrochemical instability, providing stability (Para. [0011]; [0012] – lines 3-8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-3, 5-18 and 20-22 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: none of prior art of record appears to teach, suggest or render obvious the invention of at least claims 1 and 12.
The reasons for allowability for claims 1 and 12 are in the Office Action dated March 13, 2026 and are incorporated herein but are not reiterated for brevity’s sake. Since claims 2-3, 5-11, 13-18 and 20-22 are dependent upon claims 1 and 12, they are allowable for the same reason.
Claim 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.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 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
Prosecution Insights