DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In response to the restriction requirement mailed 2026-02-13, Applicant has elected without traverse, group I, pertaining to claims 1-12 and 14, in the reply filed 2026-03-11. Claim 13 is therefore withdrawn as pertaining to a non-elected method.
Claims 1-14 are pending; claim 13 being withdrawn. Claims 1-12 and 14 are examined herein. This is the first action on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuyama (US 2019/0260018 to Matsuyama et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Matsuyama teaches:
a positive active material of a lithium manganese-based active material covered with a coating layer of an amorphous compound comprising Li, O, and one or more elements of Ti, Zr, Ta, Nb, and Al (abstract, claim 1)
with examples such as lithium titanium (IV) oxide and lithium niobium (V) oxide (example 8, table 4), with Li to the metal A varying between 1.0 and 3.5, and exactly 2 in example 8
Regarding Claim 3, Matsuyama teaches:
with examples such as lithium titanium (IV) oxide and lithium niobium (V) oxide in a ratio of 0.1 to 1.4 (example 8)
Regarding Claim 4, Matsuyama teaches:
examples such as lithium titanium (IV) oxide and lithium niobium (V) oxide in a ratio of 0.1 to 1.4 (example 8), wherein niobium is described in the specification as meeting the claimed pentavalent cation A2
Regarding Claim 5, Matsuyama teaches:
examples such as lithium titanium (IV) oxide and lithium niobium (V) oxide in a ratio of 0.1 to 1.4 (example 8), wherein niobium is described in the specification as meeting the claimed pentavalent cation A2
Regarding Claims 8-12, Matsuyama teaches:
an electrode for a nonaqueous battery using the coated cathode material above, with a solid electrolyte (¶ 0226-0232)
Claims 1-3, 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jo (US 2020/0343537 to Jo et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Jo teaches:
an active material of a lithium cobalt-based cathode particles covered with a lithium metal oxide coating layer (abstract, claim 4)
wherein the coating layer can be Li2TiO3 (¶ 0085)
Regarding Claim 2, Jo teaches:
the coating layer is 0.05 wt% (¶ 0085)
Regarding Claim 3, Jo teaches:
wherein the coating layer can be Li2TiO3 (¶ 0085)
Regarding Claim 6, Jo teaches:
wherein the coating can be Li2TiO3 and Li2ZrO3 (claim 4), wherein the instant specification indicates that tetravalent Zr satisfies the claimed ionic radius of A3
Regarding Claim 7, Jo teaches:
wherein the coating can be Li2TiO3 and Li2ZrO3 (claim 4), wherein basically any compositional mix of titanium and zirconium reads on the claims, since x3 can vary from 0 to 1
Regarding Claim 9, Jo teaches:
an electrode for a nonaqueous electrolyte battery (claim 7)
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.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuyama (US 2019/0260018 to Matsuyama et al.).
Regarding Claim 14, Matsuyama does not explicitly teach:
an energy storage apparatus comprising two or more energy storages devices of claim 10
Combining batteries in series and/or parallel was obvious to meet a specific load requirement. Rearranging and/or duplicating parts has been found to be obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CPPA 1950) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, while rearrangement of known parts is obvious when the device operates in the same fashion towards the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.04, VI [R-6]. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights