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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 3-7 are amended.
Claims 8-11 are new.
Claims 1-2 are cancelled.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed on 6/5/2026 have been entered.
103 rejection from previous office action has been withdrawn in view of the arguments and amendments.
Double patenting rejection has been withdrawn in view of arguments.
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.
Claim(s) 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al (US 20130168599 A1).
Regarding Claim 3,
Kato teaches an active material for a lithium ion secondary battery that is represented by a formula (Paragraph 0007)
LiyNiaCobMncMdOxFz
Wherein 1.0 ≤y ≤1.3, 0< a≤0.3, 0≤b≤0.25, 0.3≤c≤0.7, 0≤d≤0.1, 1.9≤(x+z) ≤2, 0≤z≤0.15, 1.9≤(a+b+c+d+y) ≤2.1, and M is atleast one element selected from the group consisting of Al, Si, Zr, Ti, Fe, Mg, Nb, Ba, and V.
The claimed formula is LixMnyNizTiaMO2-cFc, wherein M represents at least two elements selected from the group consisting of Al, Sb, Sr, Si, Mg, Nb, P, and Ge, and 1.0 <x≤ 1.2, 0.4 ≤y ≤0.8, 0 ≤z ≤0.4, 0 <a ≤0.03, 0 <b≤ 0.05, 0 <c ≤0.1, and x+y+z+a+b≤ 2.
Hence, the elements of Li, Mn, Ni, O and F and their elemental ratios in the formula show overlap between the formula in Kato and the claimed formula. The element of Co in Kato can be set at b= zero (0) matching the absence of Co in the claimed formula. When the elements designated by M in Kato are chosen to be a combination of Ti and any two of Al, Si, Mg, Nb, then it overlaps with the claimed formula. Similarly, the ratios of the chosen elements from Kato can be chosen from the taught ranges to overlap with the claimed ranges. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a positive electrode active material according to the composition formula of claim 3 based on Kato in order to have high capacity and excellent charging/discharging cycle durability at high potential (Paragraph 0006).
Regarding Claim 4,
Kato teaches an active material for a lithium ion secondary battery that is represented by a formula (Paragraph 0007)
LiyNiaCobMncMdOxFz
Wherein 1.0 ≤y ≤1.3, 0< a≤0.3, 0≤b≤0.25, 0.3≤c≤0.7, 0≤d≤0.1, 1.9≤(x+z) ≤2, 0≤z≤0.15, 1.9≤(a+b+c+d+y) ≤2.1, and M is atleast one element selected from the group consisting of Al, Si, Zr, Ti, Fe, Mg, Nb, Ba, and V.
When the elements designated by M in Kato are chosen to be a combination of Ti and any two of Si, Mg, Nb; and Al then it overlaps with the claimed formula. Similar to rejection above, the other elements of Li, Mn, Ni, O and F and their elemental ratios in the formula show overlap between the formula in Kato and the claimed formula. The element of Co in Kato can be set at b= zero (0) matching the absence of Co in the claimed formula. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a positive electrode active material according to the composition formula of claim 4 based on Kato in order to have high capacity and excellent charging/discharging cycle durability at high potential (Paragraph 0006).
Regarding Claim 5,
Kato teaches an active material for a lithium ion secondary battery that is represented by a formula (Paragraph 0007)
LiyNiaCobMncMdOxFz
Wherein 1.0 ≤y ≤1.3, 0< a≤0.3, 0≤b≤0.25, 0.3≤c≤0.7, 0≤d≤0.1, 1.9≤(x+z) ≤2, 0≤z≤0.15, 1.9≤(a+b+c+d+y) ≤2.1, and M is atleast one element selected from the group consisting of Al, Si, Zr, Ti, Fe, Mg, Nb, Ba, and V.
When the elements designated by M in Kato are chosen to be a combination of Ti and Si, Al, Mg then it overlaps with the claimed formula. Similar to rejection above, the other elements of Li, Mn, Ni, O and F and their elemental ratios in the formula show overlap between the formula in Kato and the claimed formula. The element of Co in Kato can be set at b= zero (0) matching the absence of Co in the claimed formula. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a positive electrode active material according to the composition formula of claim 5 based on Kato in order to have high capacity and excellent charging/discharging cycle durability at high potential (Paragraph 0006).
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 8, Claim 10,
Kato teaches that in active material formula element M can be Ti, and that the elemental ratio of M can range from 0≤d≤0.1. This range includes the claimed range for Ti which is 0.002≤a≤0.02. Considering other elements that can be selected under M per Kato, it would still be possible to have the Ti component fall within the claimed range. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a mole ratio of Ti as claimed in order to have high capacity and excellent charging/discharging cycle durability at high potential (Paragraph 0006).
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 9, Claim 11,
Kato teaches a lithium ion secondary battery 100 includes an electrolyte solution containing lithium ions, a case 50, a negative electrode lead 60, and a positive electrode lead 62. The power generation element 30 includes a plate-like positive electrode 10, a plate-like negative electrode 20, and a plate-like separator 18. The negative electrode 20 and the positive electrode 10 face each other. The separator 18 is disposed adjacent to, and between the negative electrode 20 and the positive electrode 10 (Paragraph 0043). A material generally suggested as the material for use in a lithium battery or the like can be used as a nonaqueous electrolyte (Paragraph 0055).
Claim(s) 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al (US 20150010823 A1).
Yu teaches a positive active material for lithium batteries represented by the following Chemical formula 2 (Paragraphs 0018-0022); LiaNi-bCocMndMeO2-fM’f wherein M is a cation element of V, Ga, Zr, Mg, Al, Ti, Cr, Fe, W, Mo, Si or a combination thereof; M’ is an anion element of F, S, Cl, Br or a combination thereof; 1.1 <a<1.5, 0<b<1, 0<=c<1, 0<d<1, 0<e<1, 0<f<1, and 0.8 <= b+c+d+e<1. In this formula, when a = 1.2, b = 0.3, c = 0, d = 0.6, e= 0.03 (for elements, M = Ti + Al + Mg = 0.01+0.01+0.01), f = 0.1 (for element M’ = F), then this is one instance of matching the claimed formula in Claim 3. Hence, there is overlap between the claimed formula and the chemical formula 2 in Yu to be used as a positive active material in a rechargeable lithium battery. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the chemical formula 2 of Yu with specific elemental values in order to form a positive electrode active material with increased charge and discharge capacity, and improved cycle life characteristics when operating the battery at a high voltage (Paragraph 0058).
Yu teaches that element Ti can be chosen as one of the elements within group M, and that the ratio can range between 0<d<1. This range encompasses the claimed range of 0.002≤a≤0.02. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose an overlapping value for Ti element in Yu to match the claimed range in Claim 6 in order to form a positive electrode active material with increased charge and discharge capacity, and improved cycle life characteristics when operating the battery at a high voltage (Paragraph 0058).
Yu also teaches a rechargeable lithium battery comprising the positive electrode with positive active material, a negative electrode, a separator, and an electrolyte (Paragraph 0085). Yu teaches that the electrolyte includes a non-aqueous organic solvent and lithium salt which makes it a non-aqueous electrolyte (Paragraph 0103). This is akin to the battery of Claim 7.
Similarly, when M in Yu corresponds to a combination of Ti; Si, Mg and Al then that formula overlaps with the claimed formulas of Claim 4 and Claim 5. The Ti range also overlaps between Yu and Claims 8 and 10 as stated above. The lithium battery as taught by Yu would then read on the non-aqueous secondary battery of Claims 9, and 11. Hence, these claims are also obvious over the prior art of Yu to form a positive electrode active material with increased charge and discharge capacity, and improved cycle life characteristics when operating the battery at a high voltage (Paragraph 0058).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/5/2026, with respect to Claims 1-7 in view of Natsui have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claims 1-7 has been withdrawn for previous action. Examiner agrees with applicant that the reference of Natsui is not prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(1) or 102 (a)(2).
Applicant states that for rejections of claim(s) 1, 2, 7 in view of Yu are moot by the claim amendments. Upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Kato, and in view of Yu.
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 SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached on 571-272-8519. 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.
/SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights