DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-17 are pending, of which claims 1-4 and 13-17 are withdrawn.
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
Claims 1-4 and 13-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 4/10/26.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 7/10/23 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-6 objected to because of the following informalities: the “2” in MnO2 is not written in subscript. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 5-6 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 1998043917 (“Ellgen”, cited in IDS of 5/24/24).
Regarding claim 5, Ellgen teaches a method of making Li2Mn2O4, which is considered the same material as LiMnO2 (see e.g. page 1, lines 12-16). The material is prepared by contacting MnO2 with dissolved lithium metal (see e.g. page 5, lines 18-22). The solvent can be any solvent that generates solvated electrons from lithium, including several organic solvent examples (see e.g. page 5, line 31 to page 6, line 5).
Regarding claim 6, Ellgen teaches that the MnO2 can be b-MnO2 (see e.g. page 5, lines 24-28).
Regarding claim 11, Ellgen teaches that the solution can include an aromatic compound (see e.g. page 6, line 30 to page 7, line 2).
Regarding claim 12, Ellgen teaches that the aromatic compound can be benzophenone (see e.g. page 6, line 30 to page 7, line 2).
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.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellgen in view of US 5641468 (“Ellgen ‘468”).
Regarding claim 7, Ellgen teaches the limitations of claim 5 as set out above. Ellgen teaches that the solvent can be any solvent in which lithium generates solvated electrons, including ethers (see e.g. page 5, lines 31-32). However, Ellgen does not teach that the solvent comprises glyme or a chain carbonate. However, Ellgen ‘468 teaches a similar method of generating LiMnO2 by reaction of a manganese compound with lithium in a solvent that generates solvated electrons from the lithium (see e.g. col. 4, lines 25-30). Ellgen ‘468 further teaches that the solvent can be 1,2-dimethoxy ethane, which is glyme (see e.g. col. 19, lines 11-15). Per MPEP 2143(I)(B), simple substitution of one known element for another is prima facie obvious. Here, the claimed method differs from that of Ellgen by the substitution of glyme for the solvent of Ellgen. Per Ellgen ‘468, before the effective filing date of the application, it was known in the art that glyme is an ether in which solvated electrons are generated from dissolving lithium. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have been able to substitute glyme as the solvent in the method of Ellgen and the results would have been predictable. As such, claim 7 is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 8, Ellgen ‘468 teaches that the solvent can be dimethoxy ethane (see e.g. col. 19, lines 11-15).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 are 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:
Claims 9-10 recite that the solvent used during the reaction to generate LiMnO2 comprises methyl ethyl carbonate. Ellgen does not teach or suggest the use of methyl ethyl carbonate or any other carbonate as the solvent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S SHERMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4784. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571)270-3591. 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.
/E.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights