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
Claims 5, drawn to a method of manufacturing an active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte, and claim 6, drawn to a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/01/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, drawn to claims 1-4 and an active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte, in the reply filed on 04/01/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Uchida (US 20110033749 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Uchida discloses an active material (Abstract lithium containing composite oxide [0018][0002]) for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, including: a core that is able to reversibly occlude and release Li ([0018]-[0020]); and a compound adhering ([0019]) to a surface of the core, wherein a titanium compound is trivalent (LiTiO2 [0020]).
Regarding claim 4, Uchida discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Uchida discloses wherein the core is a lithium-containing composite
oxide having a layered structure and represented by the general formula LixNiyM11-yO2 (0.9≤ x≤1.4,0.4≤y≤1, and M1 represents at least one element selected from the group consisting of Mn, Co, Al, and Fe [0018]).
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Thackeray (US 2013/0130095 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, Thackery discloses an active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, including: a core that is able to reversibly occlude and release Li; and a compound adhering to a surface of the core, wherein a titanium compound is applied as (NH4)2TiF6 (see claim 1 and [0035]).
Applicant’s specification indicates in Example 1 the following process in para [0045] in the PG publication of the instant application see US 20240055585 A1 “The lithium-containing composite oxide and (NH4)2TiF6 were mixed in water to prepare an aqueous solution with a pH of 7. The aqueous solution was stirred and mixed for 5 minutes at 300 rpm, and then filtered to obtain a positive electrode active material in which (NH4)2TiF5 adhered to the surface of the lithium-containing composite oxide.”
Thackeray discloses in paragraph [0035 ]“The invention relates more specifically to preconditioned metal-oxide- and lithium-metal-oxide electrode particles with surfaces etched by solutions, preferably mildly acidic solutions with 4<pH<7, more preferably 5<pH<7, and most preferably 6<pH<7, the solutions containing stabilizing ammonium, phosphorus, titanium, silicon, zirconium, aluminum and boron cations and fluoride anions, such as those found in NH4PF6, (NH4)2TiF6, (NH4)2SiF6, (NH4)2ZrF6, (NH4)3AlF6, NH4BF4 salts or derivatives thereof, to improve the capacity, cycling efficiency and cycling stability of lithium cells and batteries when charged to high potentials. These preconditioning reactions can take place optionally in the presence of lithium ions.”
Thackeray discloses a substantially similar method, lithium-containing composite oxide and salt (ammonium and fluorine containing salt) were mixed in an aqueous solution with a pH of 7 (see Examples made [0037]-[0043]).
Therefore with regards to the claim limitations that the “compound contains trivalent Ti” and wherein “the compound represents (NH4)2TiF5”, Thackeray discloses the same process and starting reactant for forming the trivalent compound as instantly disclosed.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
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(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thackeray (US 2013/0130095 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Thackeray discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Thackery discloses that the lithium-metal oxide electrodes can be selected from the family of layered compounds, LiMO2, wherein M is selected preferably from Mg, Al, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, and Ni ([0032]).-
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modified the lithium-containing composite oxide of Thackeray to have the
the general formula LixNiyM11-yO2 (0.9≤ x≤1.4,0.4≤y≤1, and M1 represents at least one element selected from the group consisting of Mn, Co, Al, and Fe) because Thackeray discloses a limited listing of lithium-containing composite oxides and therefore it would be obvious to use any and all of the limited listing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVINA PILLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-6:00.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 517-272-1307. 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.
DEVINA PILLAY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/DEVINA PILLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights