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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 11/14/2025 is acknowledged.
In the reply filed on 11/14/2025, Claims 9-14 and 20 are cancelled and Claims 7-9 and 15-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/14/2025.
The examiner acknowledges that Claims 21-27 are newly added and are dependent upon Claim 1 in the elected Group I. Newly added Claims 21-27 are thus subject to examination in this office action along with elected Claims 1-6.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-8, and 15-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “the oxide has a layered crystal structure” in line 2. Claim 1, on which Claim 6 indirectly depends, recites “a layered lithium-and manganese-rich oxide” in line 2. The examiner suggests amending the limitation of Claim 6 to read “the layered lithium-and manganese-rich oxide has a layered crystal structure” to increase clarity and consistency throughout the claims.
Claims 7-8 and 15-19 have been withdrawn following election of Group I in the reply filed on 11/14/2025. The examiner notes that in the current claim set (dated 11/14/2025), Claims 7-8 and 15-19 are listed as “original” and should be denoted as “withdrawn”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 21 requires that subscript “b” (related to formula (1) in Claim 1) is within the range of “0.175≤b≤0.182. Claim 3, on which Claim 21 depends, requires that subscript “b” is within the range of “0.2≤b≤0.3. As such, Claim 21 does not further limit the subject matter of the claim from which it depends, but rather, the range required by Claim 21 falls entirely outside of the range taught by Claim 3. Claims 22-27 are also rejected due to their dependency upon Claim 21. For purposes of examination, the broadest reasonable interpretations will be given to the claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-6, 21-25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2012/0045694 A1) further in view of Harada et al. (US 2017/0077507 A1).In Regards to Claim 1:
Park discloses a positive electrode material (first cathode active material layer) comprising: a layered lithium-and manganese-rich oxide (lithium transition metal oxide) which may be represented by the formula Li1+xMe-1-x-yAyO2, wherein -0.1≤x≤0.3, 0≤y≤0.1, Me is one or more of nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), and manganese (Mn), and A is one or more of aluminum (Al), chromium (Cr), magnesium (Mg), titanium (Ti), zirconium (Zr), and molybdenum (Mo) (Figure 1, [0021, 0024]).
As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that there are many different embodiments of the positive electrode material (first cathode active material layer) of Park which may also be represented by formula (1) of the instant claim. For example, the positive electrode material may be Li1.233Ni0.2Mn0.562Mo0.005O2, wherein a=0.233, b=0.2, c=0.562, d=0.005. Alternatively, the positive electrode material may be Li1.233Ni0.175Mn0.584Mo0.008O2, wherein a=0.233, b=0.175, c=0.584, d=0.008.
Park is silent to the valence electrons of Mo.
Harada discloses an active material for a battery, wherein the active material is a lithium-based composite oxide (composite oxide) [0002, 0017]. Harada further discloses that the lithium-based composite oxide (composite oxide) includes at least one metallic element (M2) which may be selected from a group which includes molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), and niobium (Nb) [0022]. Harada further discloses that when Mo is included in the lithium-based composite oxide (composite oxide), it may be in a hexavalent state [0066].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to select for the Mo of Park, hexavalent Mo (VI), as it is known in the art that hexavalent Mo is suitable for use as a metallic element in a lithium-based composite oxide, as taught by Harada. Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). Upon the above modifications, all of the limitations of Claim 1 are met.
In Regards to Claim 2 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Park as modified by Harada discloses the positive electrode material of Claim 1 as set forth above. Upon the modification detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, modified Park discloses that the transition metal may be hexavalent Mo (VI) [0024]. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 2 are met.
In Regards to Claim 3 (Dependent Upon Claim 2):
Park as modified by Harada discloses the positive electrode material of Claim 2 as set forth above. As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, one possible embodiment of the positive electrode material of Park may be Li1.233Ni0.2Mn0.562Mo0.005O2, wherein a=0.233, b=0.2, c=0.562, d=0.005 [0024]. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 3 are met.
In Regards to Claim 4 (Dependent Upon Claim 3):
Park as modified by Harada discloses the positive electrode material of Claim 3 as set forth above. As disclosed above in the rejection of Claim 1, one possible embodiment of the positive electrode material of Park may be Li1.233Ni0.2Mn0.562Mo0.005O2, wherein a=0.233, b=0.2, c=0.562, d=0.005 [0024]. In such an embodiment, the ratio of (1+a)/(b+c+d) is ~1.6. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 4 are met.
In Regards to Claim 5 (Dependent Upon Claim 4):
Park as modified by Harada discloses the positive electrode material of Claim 4 as set forth above. As disclosed above in the rejection of Claim 1, one possible embodiment of the positive electrode material of Park may be Li1.233Ni0.2Mn0.562Mo0.005O2, wherein a=0.233, b=0.2, c=0.562, d=0.005 [0024]. In such an embodiment, the ratio of c/b is 2.81. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 5 are met.
In Regards to Claim 6 (Dependent Upon Claim 5):
Park as modified by Harada discloses the positive electrode material of Claim 5 as set forth above. As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, Park discloses a layered lithium-and manganese-rich oxide (lithium transition metal oxide) which may be represented by the general formula Li1+xMe-1-x-yAyO2, and wherein one embodiment of the positive electrode material (first cathode active material layer) may be Li1.233Ni0.2Mn0.562Mo0.005O2.Park further discloses that the lithium-and manganese-rich oxide (lithium transition metal oxide) has a layered crystal structure [0012]. Park further explicitly distinguishes between the layered lithium-and manganese-rich oxide (lithium transition metal oxide) of the positive electrode material (first cathode active material layer) which has a layered structure, and a lithium transition metal oxide having a spinel structure [0021, 0023].
The examiner notes that the instant specification discloses that lithium-based oxides may have a layered crystal structure, a spinel structure, or may be subject to a phase transition from a layered structure to a spinel/spinel-like structure [0003].
Park does not explicitly disclose that the lithium-and manganese-rich oxide (lithium transition metal oxide) crystal structure includes a transition metal layer, an oxygen layer, and a lithium layer, and wherein the transition metal having five or more valence electrons is present at an octahedral site within the transition metal layer. However, the skilled artisan would appreciate that as multiple embodiments of the lithium-and manganese-rich oxide (lithium transition metal oxide) of Park may be represented by formula (1) of the instant application, and as Park teaches that the lithium-and manganese-rich oxide (lithium transition metal oxide) has a layered crystal structure which is entirely distinct from a lithium transition metal oxide with a spinel structure, the skilled artisan would appreciate that the structure of the lithium-and manganese-rich oxide (lithium transition metal oxide) of Park would be expected to meet the requirements of the instant claim.
Furthermore, the examiner notes that the instant application does not define what specific structure may be considered “a transition metal layer”, “an oxygen layer”, or “a lithium layer”. These terms as written are broad limitations and are subject to the broadest reasonable interpretation in the review of the claims. For example, “a transition metal layer” as written may refer to a layer which comprises any amount of a transition metal, a layer which is mostly comprised of a transition metal, or a layer which is comprised entirely of a transition metal. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 6 are met.
In Regards to Claim 21 (Dependent Upon Claim 6):
Park as modified by Harada discloses the positive electrode material of Claim 6 as set forth above. As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, one possible embodiment of the positive electrode material of Park may be Li1.233Ni0.175Mn0.584Mo0.008O2, wherein a=0.233, b=0.175, c=0.584, d=0.008 [0024]. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 21 are met.
In Regards to Claim 22 (Dependent Upon Claim 21):
Park as modified by Harada discloses the positive electrode material of Claim 21 as set forth above. As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 2, modified Park discloses that the transition metal is hexavalent Mo (VI) [0024]. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 22 are met.
In Regards to Claim 23 (Dependent Upon Claim 21):
Park as modified by Harada discloses the positive electrode material of Claim 21 as set forth above.
Park is deficient in disclosing that the transition metal having five or more valence electrons is hexavalent tungsten W (VI).
Harada discloses an active material for a battery, wherein the active material is a lithium-based composite oxide (composite oxide) [0002, 0017]. Harada further discloses that the lithium-based composite oxide (composite oxide) includes at least one metallic element (M2) which may be selected from a group which includes molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), and niobium (Nb) [0022]. Harada further discloses that when W is included in the lithium-based composite oxide (composite oxide), it may be in a hexavalent state [0066].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to select for the transition metal of Park, hexavalent W (VI), as it is known in the art that hexavalent W (VI) is recognized as an equivalent to hexavalent Mo (VI) for use as a metal element in an oxide for an active material, as taught by Harada. The substitution of known equivalent structures involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Fout 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Susi 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). When a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result. Upon the above modifications, all of the limitations of Claim 23 are met.
In Regards to Claim 24 (Dependent Upon Claim 21):
Park as modified by Harada discloses the positive electrode material of Claim 21 as set forth above.
Park is deficient in disclosing that the transition metal having five or more valence electrons is pentavalent niobium Nb (V).
Harada discloses an active material for a battery, wherein the active material is a lithium-based composite oxide (composite oxide) [0002, 0017]. Harada further discloses that the lithium-based composite oxide (composite oxide) includes at least one metallic element (M2) which may be selected from a group which includes molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), and niobium (Nb) [0022]. Harada further discloses that when Nb is included in the lithium-based composite oxide (composite oxide), it may be in a pentavalent state [0066].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to select for the transition metal of Park, pentavalent Nb (V), as it is known in the art that pentavalent Nb (V) is recognized as an equivalent to hexavalent Mo (VI) for use as a metal element in an oxide for an active material, as taught by Harada. The substitution of known equivalent structures involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Fout 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Susi 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). When a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result. Upon the above modifications, all of the limitations of Claim 24 are met.
In Regards to Claim 25 (Dependent Upon Claim 21):
Park as modified by Harada discloses the positive electrode material of Claim 21 as set forth above.
Park is deficient in disclosing that the transition metal having five or more valence electrons comprises Mo (VI), hexavalent W (VI), and pentavalent niobium Nb (V).
Harada discloses an active material for a battery, wherein the active material is a lithium-based composite oxide (composite oxide) [0002, 0017]. Harada further discloses that the lithium-based composite oxide (composite oxide) includes at least one metallic element (M2) which may be selected from a group which includes molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), and niobium (Nb) [0022]. Harada further discloses that when Nb is included in the lithium-based composite oxide (composite oxide), it may be in a pentavalent state [0066]. Harada further discloses that when W and Mo are included in the lithium-based composite oxide (composite oxide), they may be in a hexavalent state [0066].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to select for the transition metal of Park, a combination of pentavalent Nb (V), hexavalent Mo (VI), and hexavalent W (VI), as it is known in the art that a combination of pentavalent Nb (V), hexavalent Mo (VI), and hexavalent W (VI) is recognized as an equivalent to hexavalent Mo (VI) for use as a metal element in an oxide for an active material, as taught by Harada. The substitution of known equivalent structures involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Fout 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Susi 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). When a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result. Upon the above modifications, all of the limitations of Claim 25 are met.
In Regards to Claim 27 (Dependent Upon Claim 21):
Park as modified by Harada discloses the positive electrode material of Claim 21 as set forth above. As disclosed above in the rejection of Claim 1, one possible embodiment of the positive electrode material of Park may be Li1.233Ni0.2Mn0.562Mo0.005O2, wherein a=0.233, b=0.2, c=0.562, d=0.005, and wherein the material is free of cobalt [0024]. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 27 are met.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2012/0045694 A1) as modified by Harada et al. (US 2017/0077507 A1), as applied to Claim 21 above, and further in view of Tokuno et al. (JP 2005251716 A) (citations made to English machine translation attached to this office action).
In Regards to Claim 26 (Dependent Upon Claim 21):
Park as modified by Harada discloses the positive electrode material of Claim 21 as set forth above. Park further discloses that the positive electrode material (first cathode active material layer) is in the form of particles (lithium transition metal oxide having layered structure) [0021].
Park is silent about the positive electrode material being in the form of particles, and the aspect ratio and mean particle diameter of the positive electrode active material particles.
Tokuno discloses a positive electrode material for a battery, wherein the positive electrode material comprises a lithium transition metal composite oxide [0001]. Tokuno further discloses that the lithium transition metal composite oxide is in the form of particles, wherein the particles may have a diameter between 0.5 µm (500 nm) and 10 µm (10,000 nm) [0030, 0034]. Tokuno further discloses that the lithium transition metal composite oxide particles have an aspect ratio between 1 and 1.8 [0031]. Tokuno teaches that when the aspect ratio is too large, fine powder may be generated during pressure, this deteriorating thermal stability and load characteristics of the active material [0031].
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case obviousness exists (MPEP §2144.05 I). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the positive electrode material of Park to be in particle form having a mean particle diameter between 500 nm and 10,000 nm, and to have an aspect ratio between 1 and 1.8, as such characteristics are known in the art as suitable for a lithium transition metal composite oxide in a positive electrode material, as taught by Tokuno. By doing so, the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in avoiding the deterioration of thermal stability and load characteristics of the active material when subjected to pressure, as taught by Tokuno. Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 26 are met.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY E FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1498. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)-270-5256. 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.
/E.E.F./ Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724