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 .
This is a final office action in response to Applicant's remarks and amendments filed on 05/13/2026. Claims 1, 3, 6, 22-27 are currently amended. Claims 8, 16, and 18-19 are newly canceled. Claims 28-31 are newly added. Claims 1-6 and 21-31 are pending review in this action. The previous objections regarding the Claims are withdrawn in light of Applicant's amendment to the Claims. The previous 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejections are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to Claim 3. The previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are withdrawn in light of Applicant's amendment to Claim 1, however the previously cited prior art has been upheld as reading on select claim limitations, as detailed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 04/22/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
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 22-25 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. Claims 22-25 are amended to be dependent upon newly added Claim 31, thus it is not dependent upon a claim previously set forth. Applicant may cancel Claims 22-25 and incorporate the subject matter into Claim 31 or a new claim, amend Claims 22-25 to place it 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. For purposes of examination, Claims 22-25 will be examined as if dependent upon Claim 31 with the expectation that the claim numbering issue above will be addressed in Applicant’s next response.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, and 21 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).
The examiner notes that the claim recites a product, but also includes a limitation directed to a particular method for obtaining the structure of the claimed product. Specifically, Claim 1 recites that the layered lithium-and manganese-rich oxide is formed by calcination in an oxygen-containing environment at a temperature in a range of 855 degrees Celsius to 945 degrees Celsius. Patentability of product-by-process claims is based on the product itself. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113 citing In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695,698, 227 USPQ964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As modified Park teaches the structure of the layered lithium-and manganese-rich oxide as claimed, 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 Li1.233Ni0.175Mn0.584Mo0.008O2, wherein a=0.233, b=0.175, c=0.584, d=0.008 [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 Li1.233Ni0.175Mn0.584Mo0.008O2, wherein a=0.233, b=0.175, c=0.584, d=0.008 [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 Li1.233Ni0.175Mn0.584Mo0.008O2, wherein a=0.233, b=0.175, c=0.584, d=0.008 [0024]. In such an embodiment, the ratio of c/b is ~3.3. 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 Li1.233Ni0.175Mn0.584Mo0.008O2.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]. Park further discloses that the layered lithium-and manganese-rich oxide (lithium transition metal oxide) has an average working potential of 4.5V or more [0012]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” or are “merely close” a prima facie case obviousness exists (MPEP §2144.05).
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.
Claims 22-31 are 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 6 above, and further in view of Tokuno et al. (JP 2005251716 A) (citations made to English machine translation attached to the Non-Final Rejection dated 02/18/2026) and Erk et al. (US 2017/0355614 A1).
In Regards to Claim 26 (Dependent Upon Claim 6):
Park as modified by Harada discloses the positive electrode material of Claim 61 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 1) the positive electrode material being in the form of particles, 2) the aspect ratio, and 3) mean particle diameter of the positive electrode active material particles.
Regarding 1) and 2), 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 [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 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, the limitations of Claim 26 requiring that the positive electrode material being in the form of particles and the aspect ratio is less than 10, are met.
Regarding 3), Erk discloses mixed lithium-transition metal oxide particles for use in a cathode of a lithium ion battery [0001, 0168]. Erk further discloses that the mixed lithium-transition metal oxide particles may have a mean diameter between 10 nm and 500 nm [0164].
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” or are “merely close” a prima facie case obviousness exists (MPEP §2144.05). 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 mean diameter of the positive electrode material of Park, between 10 nm and 500 nm, as such a size is known in the art as suitable for materials used in a cathode of a lithium ion battery, as taught by Erk. It has been held that changes in size of an object is a matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence the particular shape of the claimed object is significant (MPEP 2144.04 IV). Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 26 are met.
In Regards to Claim 27 (Dependent Upon Claim 26):
Park as modified by Harada, Tokuno, and Erk discloses the positive electrode material of Claim 26 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 Li1.233Ni0.175Mn0.584Mo0.008O2, wherein a=0.233, b=0.175, c=0.584, d=0.008, and wherein the material is free of cobalt [0024]. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 27 are met.
In Regards to Claim 28 (Dependent Upon Claim 27):
Park as modified by Harada, Tokuno, and Erk discloses the positive electrode material of Claim 27 as set forth above.
Park is deficient in disclosing that the layered lithium-and manganese-rich oxide is formed by a sol-gel process comprising:(a) preparing a precursor solution comprising a lithium salt, a manganese salt, a nickel salt, a compound comprising a transition metal capable of having five or more valence electrons, and a chelating agent in a solvent; (b) controlling or adjusting a pH of the precursor solution to form a gel comprising a liquid phase and a solid precipitate phase; (c) removing the liquid phase from the solid precipitate phase to form a dried gel; and then (d) calcining the dried gel in the oxygen-containing environment at the temperature in a range of 855 degrees Celsius to 945 degrees Celsius for a duration of 12 hours to 36 hours to form the layered lithium-and manganese-rich oxide.
However, the examiner notes that the claim recites a product, but also includes a limitation directed to a particular method for obtaining the structure of the claimed product. Specifically, Claim 28 recites that the layered lithium-and manganese-rich oxide is formed by a sol-gel process comprising the steps detailed above. Patentability of product-by-process claims is based on the product itself. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113 citing In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695,698, 227 USPQ964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As modified Park teaches a product (the layered lithium-and manganese-rich oxide) which is the same as the product of the claim, the claim is unpatentable regardless of the method used to arrive at the claimed product. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 28 are met.
In Regards to Claim 29 (Dependent Upon Claim 28):
Park as modified by Harada, Tokuno, and Erk discloses the positive electrode material of Claim 28 as set forth above.
Park is deficient in disclosing a step (b) which comprises controlling or adjusting the pH of the precursor solution to within a range of 6.65 to 7.35.
However, the examiner notes that the claim recites a product, but also includes a limitation directed to a particular method for obtaining the structure of the claimed product. Specifically, Claim 29 recites that the layered lithium-and manganese-rich oxide is formed with a step which comprises controlling or adjusting the pH of the precursor solution to within a range of 6.65 to 7.35. Patentability of product-by-process claims is based on the product itself. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113 citing In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695,698, 227 USPQ964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As modified Park teaches a product (the layered lithium-and manganese-rich oxide) which is the same as the product of the claim, the claim is unpatentable regardless of the method used to arrive at the claimed product. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 29 are met.
In Regards to Claim 30 (Dependent Upon Claim 29):
Park as modified by Harada, Tokuno, and Erk discloses the positive electrode material of Claim 29 as set forth above.
Park is deficient in disclosing that step (c) comprises heating the gel at a temperature in a range of 100 degrees Celsius to 200 degrees Celsius to release gaseous reaction products of H20 and/or NH3 therefrom, and step (d) comprises heating the dried gel at a temperature in a range of 400 degrees Celsius to 600 degrees Celsius to form a powder having an amorphous structure, and then calcining the powder in the oxygen-containing environment at the a temperature in a range of 855 degrees Celsius to 945 degrees Celsius to form the layered lithium-and manganese-rich oxide.
However, the examiner notes that the claim recites a product, but also includes a limitation directed to a particular method for obtaining the structure of the claimed product. Specifically, Claim 30 recites that the layered lithium-and manganese-rich oxide is formed according to steps (c) and (d) as detailed above. Patentability of product-by-process claims is based on the product itself. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113 citing In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695,698, 227 USPQ964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As modified Park teaches a product (the layered lithium-and manganese-rich oxide) which is the same as the product of the claim, the claim is unpatentable regardless of the method used to arrive at the claimed product. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 30 are met.
In Regards to Claim 31 (Dependent Upon Claim 30):
Park as modified by Harada, Tokuno, and Erk discloses the positive electrode material of Claim 30 as set forth above.
Park is silent to the chelating agent comprises citric acid.
However, the examiner notes that the claim recites a product, but also includes a limitation directed to a particular method for obtaining the structure of the claimed product. Specifically, Claim 31 recites that the layered lithium-and manganese-rich oxide is formed with a chelating agent which comprises citric acid. Patentability of product-by-process claims is based on the product itself. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113 citing In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695,698, 227 USPQ964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As modified Park teaches a product (the layered lithium-and manganese-rich oxide) which is the same as the product of the claim, the claim is unpatentable regardless of the method used to arrive at the claimed product. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 31 are met.
In Regards to Claim 22 (Dependent Upon Claim 31):
Park as modified by Harada, Tokuno, and Erk discloses the positive electrode material of Claim 31 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].
Park is deficient in disclosing that the compound comprising a transition metal capable of having five or more valence electrons comprises ammonium molybdate.
As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 28, the limitation requiring that the layered lithium-and manganese rich oxide is formed by a sol-gel process comprising a step of preparing a precursor including a compound comprising a transition metal capable of having five or more valence electrons, is a product-by-process limitation. As modified Park teaches a product (the layered lithium-and manganese-rich oxide) which is the same as the product of the claim, the claim is unpatentable regardless of the method used to arrive at the claimed product. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 22 are met.
In Regards to Claim 23 (Dependent Upon Claim 31):
Park as modified by Harada, Tokuno, and Erk discloses the positive electrode material of Claim 31 as set forth above.
Park is deficient in disclosing 1) that the transition metal having five or more valence electrons is hexavalent tungsten W (VI), and 2) the compound comprising a transition metal capable of having five or more valence electrons comprises ammonium tungstate.
Regarding 1), 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.
Regarding 2), as detailed above in the rejection of Claim 28, the limitation requiring that the layered lithium-and manganese rich oxide is formed by a sol-gel process comprising a step of preparing a precursor including a compound comprising a transition metal capable of having five or more valence electrons, is a product-by-process limitation. As modified Park teaches a product (the layered lithium-and manganese-rich oxide) which is the same as the product of the claim, the claim is unpatentable regardless of the method used to arrive at the claimed product. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 23 are met.
In Regards to Claim 24 (Dependent Upon Claim 31):
Park as modified by Harada, Tokuno, and Erk discloses the positive electrode material of Claim 31 as set forth above.
Park is deficient in disclosing 1) that the transition metal having five or more valence electrons is pentavalent niobium Nb (V) and 2) wherein the compound comprising a transition metal capable of having five or more valence electrons comprises ammonium niobate oxalate hydrate.
Regarding 1), 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.
Regarding 2), as detailed above in the rejection of Claim 28, the limitation requiring that the layered lithium-and manganese rich oxide is formed by a sol-gel process comprising a step of preparing a precursor including a compound comprising a transition metal capable of having five or more valence electrons, is a product-by-process limitation. As modified Park teaches a product (the layered lithium-and manganese-rich oxide) which is the same as the product of the claim, the claim is unpatentable regardless of the method used to arrive at the claimed product. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 24 are met.
In Regards to Claim 25 (Dependent Upon Claim 21):
Park as modified by Harada, Tokuno, and Erk discloses the positive electrode material of Claim 31 as set forth above.
Park is deficient in disclosing 1), that the transition metal having five or more valence electrons comprises Mo (VI), hexavalent W (VI), and pentavalent niobium Nb (V), and 2) wherein the compound comprising a transition metal capable of having five or more valence electrons comprises ammonium molybdate, ammonium tungstate, and ammonium niobate oxalate hydrate.
Regarding 1), 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.
Regarding 2), as detailed above in the rejection of Claim 28, the limitation requiring that the layered lithium-and manganese rich oxide is formed by a sol-gel process comprising a step of preparing a precursor including a compound comprising a transition metal capable of having five or more valence electrons, is a product-by-process limitation. As modified Park teaches a product (the layered lithium-and manganese-rich oxide) which is the same as the product of the claim, the claim is unpatentable regardless of the method used to arrive at the claimed product. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 25 are met.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that prior art references Park et al. (US 2012/0045694 A1) and Harada et al. (US 2017/0077507 A1) fail to disclose the newly added limitation of Claim 1 requiring that the layered lithium-and manganese-rich oxide is formed by calcination in an oxygen-containing environment at a temperature in a range of 855 degrees Celsius to 945 degrees Celsius. The Applicant references NPL source R. Veena et al., which teaches that the composition and structure of lithium-rich manganese oxide depend on the synthesis condition and calcination temperature. The Applicant further argues that based upon such teaching from Veena, the structural and compositional features of the claimed material depend upon the calcination characteristics now claimed in Claim 1. The Applicant further argues that the newly added limitation is not a limitation which is subject to a product-by-process argument as the claim limitation is believed to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the claimed product.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner appreciates that Veena teaches that the composition and structure of lithium-rich manganese oxides depend on the synthesis conditions and calcination temperatures, as well as that Mn has a lower valence state at higher calcination temperatures and a phase change can occur at elevated temperatures. However, the examiner notes that the materials studied by Veena do not encompass the composition of the positive electrode material of instant Claim 1. Specifically, the material primarily studied by Veena, Li4Mn5O12-Li2MnO3, is not representative of the positive electrode material of Claim 1 which is required to be represented by the formula (1): Li1=aNibMncMedO2, wherein 0.1≤a≤0.3, 0.1≤b≤0.5, 0.4≤c≤0.7, 0.002≤d≤0.04, a+b+c+d=1, and Me represents a transition metal having five or more valence electrons.
Additionally, the examiner respectfully notes that the instant specification [0055] (and formerly Claim 18) teaches that a layered lithium-and manganese-rich oxide may be formed by calcining in an oxygen-containing environment at a temperature between 700 degrees Celsius and 1000 degrees Celsius, thus it would be understood by the skilled artisan that the structure of the layered lithium-and manganese-rich oxide can be achieved by processes other than one which requires calcination in an oxygen-containing environment at a temperature in a range of 855 degrees Celsius to 945 degrees Celsius. As such, the examiner notes that the newly added limitation of Claim 1 is considered a product-by-process limitation.
The examiner welcomes the Applicant to submit experimental data which shows criticality in the range of calcination temperature, at which time the examiner would be happy to reconsider the Applicant’s arguments.
The Applicant further argues that the skilled artisan would not be motivated to modify Park in view of Harada to include hexavalent Mo (VI). The Applicant specifically argues that Harada teaches the inclusion of hexavalent Mo (VI) for the express purpose of maintaining charge neutrality and such a motivation would not be applied to Park as Park does not include vacancies at “Na sites” in the crystal lattice.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed above in the rejection of 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]).
Specifically, 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 Li1.233Ni0.175Mn0.584Mo0.008O2, 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).
The examiner appreciates that the motivation of Harada to include in the lithium-based composite oxide (composite oxide), hexavalent Mo (VI), is at least in part to maintain charge neutrality. The examiner also understands that such motivation would not be applied to the positive electrode material of Park, as charge neutrality is not a central issue of concern as Na vacancies are not present. However, Park teaches a positive electrode material (first cathode active material layer) which may comprise Mo. Park is silent to the valence state of Mo. Although the materials of Park and Harada have different compositions, the skilled artisan would still look to Harada to find an electron state of Mo for use in a composite oxide. Furthermore, the skilled artisan would appreciate that Mo(VI) is the most common oxidation state for Mo.
The Applicant further argues that the skilled artisan would not be motivated to modify Park in view of Harada, as modified Park would not produce the layered lithium-and manganese-rich oxide as claimed in Claim 1. Specifically, the Applicant argues that Park is silent to the method of preparation (and as such a calcination temperature) of the layered lithium-and manganese-rich oxide, and Harada teaches performing calcination in a temperature range of 600 degrees Celsius to 850 degrees Celsius in air for between 1 to 3 hours [094]. As such, the Applicant argues that based on the teachings of Veena, the skilled artisan would understand that the valence state of Mo is dependent upon the synthesis condition and calcination temperature being in line with that claimed in Claim 1.
As detailed above, the examiner respectfully notes that the instant specification [0055] (and formerly Claim 18) teaches that a layered lithium-and manganese-rich oxide may be formed by calcining in an oxygen-containing environment at a temperature between 700 degrees Celsius and 1000 degrees Celsius, thus it would be understood by the skilled artisan that the structure of the layered lithium-and manganese-rich oxide can be achieved by processes other than one which requires calcination in an oxygen-containing environment at a temperature in a range of 855 degrees Celsius to 945 degrees Celsius. As such, the examiner notes that the newly added limitation of Claim 1 is considered a product-by-process limitation.
The Applicant further argues that Park and Harada fail to disclose the limitation of Claim 6 requiring that the layered lithium-and manganese-rich oxide has an operating potential of 4.6 Volts vs. Li/Li+.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 6, Park further discloses that the layered lithium-and manganese-rich oxide (lithium transition metal oxide) has an average working potential of 4.5V or more [0012]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” or are “merely close” a prima facie case obviousness exists (MPEP §2144.05).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
/STEWART A FRASER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights