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
Claim 5 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected drawn to a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/17/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-4, drawn to the positive electrode active material, in the reply filed on 4/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “LixMnyNizSiaMfO2-αFα“ and recites that f can be 0 and also recites that M is at least one element, it is unclear if M has to be at least one element since M can also not be present when f is equal to 0. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites that M is at least two elements, however, since f can be 0 it is unclear if M has to be at least one element since M can also not be present when f is equal to 0. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
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) 1, 2, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (US 20130209871 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kato discloses a positive electrode active material (see claim 1) for non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries (claim 2 and claim 3), the positive electrode active material comprising a lithium-transition metal composite oxide having a composition formula of LiyNiaCobMncMdOxFz1Pz2,
wherein x=y and 1.0≤ y≤ 1.3 which overlaps with the range of x, 1.0 < x ≤ 1.2,
wherein a=z, and 0 < a ≤ 0.3 which overlaps with the range of z, 0 ≤ z ≤ 0.4,
wherein b+z2=f, (0≤b≤0.25)+(0.01≤z2≤0.1)=0.01 ≤ (b+z2) ≤0.35, which overlaps with the range of f, 0 ≤f ≤ 0.05
wherein c=y, and 0.3≤c≤0.7 which overlaps with the range of y, 0.4 ≤ y ≤ 0.8,
wherein d=a, and 0≤d≤0.1 which overlaps with the range of a, 0 < a ≤ 0.03
wherein x+z1=2, which overlaps with 1.9≤(x+z1) ≤ 2.1
wherein z1=α, and 0.07≤z1≤0.15 which overlaps with 0<α≤0.1, and wherein
y+a+b+c+d+z2≤ 2 + A, wherein A is z2 and z2 overlaps with the claimed range of A (0.01≤z2≤0.1).
Kato discloses that M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Al, Si, Zr, Ti, Fe, Mg, Nb, Ba and V and that the amount of cobalt can be zero (b=0).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use any of the elements listed for the possibility of M including Si because Kato discloses that these elements are appropriate for M.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges for the claimed compositional ranges as disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kato discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Kato discloses M is silicon and phosphorus and/or cobalt (claim 1) and wherein b+z2=f, (0≤b≤0.25)+(0.01≤z2≤0.1)=0.01 ≤ (b+z2) ≤0.35, which overlaps with the range of f, 0 ≤f ≤ 0.03.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges for the claimed compositional ranges as disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 4, modified Kato discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Kato discloses a representing a molar ratio of Si satisfies wherein d=a, and 0≤d≤0.1 which overlaps with the range of a, 0.002≤a ≤0.015 (claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges for the claimed compositional ranges as disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (US 20130209871 A1) as applied to claims 1, 2, and 4 above Oshima (US 20150099167 A1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kato discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Kato discloses that P is present and further discloses that b can be equal to zero which would indicate there is no Co in the composition.
However, Kato does not disclose an additional element including Al, Sb, Sr, Ti, Nb, or Mg is present in the compound.
Oshima discloses a dopant for a lithium nickel manganese compound can include Si and any one of Ti or Al [0022] and the dopant types and amount are not necessarily limited.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further include an additional dopants including Ti and/or Al as disclosed by Oshima in the lithium manganese nickel oxide cathode material of Kato because Oshima discloses that is possible to use these types of dopants in a lithium manganese nickel oxide cathode material.
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (US 20130209871 A1) as applied to claims 1, 2, and 4 above Noguchi (US 20030086863 A1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kato discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Kato discloses that P is present and further discloses that b can be equal to zero which would indicate there is no Co in the composition.
Noguchi discloses a dopant for a lithium nickel manganese compound can include Si and Ti instead of only Si [0051]-[0072], more especially [0058]-[0061].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further include an additional dopants to Si including Ti as disclosed by Noguchi in the lithium manganese nickel oxide cathode material of Kato because Oshima discloses that is possible to use these types of dopants in a lithium manganese nickel oxide cathode material.
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
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