DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 2026-07-01, the following has occurred: Claims 1, 3, and 6 have been amended; Claims 2 and 7 have been canceled; Claims 15-16 have been added.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-16 are pending; claim 13 being withdrawn. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-12, and 14-16 are examined herein. This is a Final Rejection.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuyama (US 2019/0260018 to Matsuyama et al.) in view of Jo (US 2020/0343537 to Jo et al.), in further view of Wu (Wu et al. “Effect of Ta-doping on the ionic conductivity of lithium titanate.” Fusion Engineering and Design 85 (2010) 1442-1445) and Li (Li et al. “Li2TiO3 and Li2ZrO3 co-modification LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 cathode material with improved high-voltage cycling performance for lithium-ion batteries.” Solid State Ionics 349 (2020) 115292).
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)
the cathode material being a spinel (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
Matsuyama does not explicitly teach:
the covering layer being 0.01%-0.5% by mass of the active material
Matsuyama does not provide an explicit mass% range for the coating. Jo, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a lithium transition metal oxide cathode with a coating layer of lithium titanate, teaches coating layers of, e.g., 0.05 wt% (¶ 0085). It would have been obvious to provide a coating within the claimed range, similar to Jo, since Matsuyama does not provide an explicit mass% coating range. A structure or method step that is obvious to try— such as one that is chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
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:
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)
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
Although Matsuyama teaches more of the A2 element than claimed in example 8, Matsuyama renders obvious a broad range of compositions, wherein Ti, Zr, Ta, Nb are substitutable equivalents (see claim 1, ¶ 0049-0051). Moreover, Wu, also from the same field of invention, regarding an oxide coating, teaches that substituting titanium in a lithium titanium oxide with tantalum, wherein x is between 0.10 and 0.35 (abstract), improves the ionic conductivity of the material, which would improve rate performance for coated cathodes. It would have been obvious to use titanium and tantalum, as taught in Wu, for the lithium metal oxides of Matsuyama, since Wu teaches it improves ionic conductivity over lithium titanium oxide.
Regarding Claim 5, 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 6, 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)
wherein the elements Ti, Zr, Ta, Nb, and Al can therefore be combined, such as Ti and Zr, zirconium known to form a pentavalent cation and disclosed in the instant specification as an A3 element
It would, therefore, have been obvious to include both zirconium and titanium in the lithium transition metal oxide of Matsuyama, since both are provided in the inventive concept’s description, zirconium reading on the claimed A3 element. As further evidence of this, Li is cited for teaching a lithium metal oxide coating of a conventional cathode material containing both Zr and Ti. A structure or method step that is obvious to try— such as one that is chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claims 8-12, Matsuyama teaches:
an electrode for a nonaqueous battery using the coated cathode material above, with a solid electrolyte (¶ 0226-0232)
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).
Regarding Claims 15-16, Matsuyama teaches:
a spinel
Response to Arguments
The arguments made on 2026-07-01 have been considered but do not place the application in condition for allowance. In response to the instant amendments, the claims have been rejected as obvious over Matsuyama, Jo, Wu, and Li.
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 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