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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on May 22, 2026 is acknowledged. Claim 1 is currently amended. Claim 4 is canceled. Claim 16 is newly presented. Claims 1-3 and 5-16 remain pending in the application.
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment. New rejections follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 1 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The limitation “wherein for each secondary particle comprised in the lithium manganese-based oxide, the minimum value of the minor axis length measured for the primary particle exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is 80 nm or more” is not properly described in the application as filed because of the term “for each secondary particle comprised in the lithium manganese-based oxide”. The specification discloses that the minimum value of the minor axis length measured for the primary particle exposed on the surface of the secondary particle may be 80 nm or more (page 14), but includes no suggestion that this must be true for each secondary particle comprised in the lithium manganese-based oxide. Claims 2-3 and 5-15 are similarly rejected because they depend upon claim 1.
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 1-3 and 5-15 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 the limitation "each secondary particle" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Line 4 recites “a secondary particle”, but does not recite a plurality of secondary particles. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted the limitation of line 4 as “a plurality of secondary particles”, and the limitation of line 12 as “each secondary particle of the plurality of secondary particles”. Additionally, the limitation “the secondary particle” of claims 1-3, 5-9, and 12 have been interpreted as “a secondary particle of the plurality of secondary particles”. Claims 2-3 and 5-15 are similarly rejected because they depend upon claim 1.
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 1-3, 5-11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (US 2019/0372109 A1, hereinafter “Moon”) in view of Yun et al. (US 2020/0119351 A1, hereinafter “Yun”) and Choi et al. (WO 2021075941 A2, corresponding US 2022/0388864 A1 relied upon herein as a translation, and hereinafter “Choi”).
Regarding claim 1, Moon discloses a positive electrode active material comprising:
a lithium manganese-based oxide in which a phase belonging to a C2/m space group and a phase belonging to an R3-m space group are dissolved or complexed ([0062]-[0063] and Formulae 4a and 4b),
wherein the lithium manganese-based oxide comprises a secondary particle formed by aggregating a plurality of primary particles ([0032], secondary particle may be an aggregate of the plurality of primary particles),
wherein the lithium manganese-based oxide comprises at least one selected from tungsten, molybdenum and niobium as a dopant ([0036] and [0065], M in Formula 4b may be Nb or Mo and the second layered crystalline phase of Formula 4b may be doped with a first metal, which may be Mo),
an interparticle porosity between the primary particles, measured from a cross-sectional SEM image of the secondary particle, is 10% or less ([0151], secondary particle of Example 2 had a porosity of about 0.76%).
Moon does not disclose at least some of the oxygens present in the lithium manganese-based oxide are substituted with a halogen, wherein for each secondary particle comprised in the lithium manganese-based oxide, the minimum value of the minor axis length measured for the primary particle exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is 80 nm or more.
Yun discloses at least some of the oxygens present in the lithium manganese-based oxide are substituted with a halogen ([0080]-[0081] and Formula 3, X can be fluorine and 0<α≤0.01).
Yun is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of lithium-manganese based oxides. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active material of Moon with the teachings of Yun so that at least some of the oxygens present in the lithium manganese-based oxide are substituted with a halogen. Doing so would enhance the structural stability of the positive active material due to the high electronegativity of the replacement anion (Yun [0036]).
Modified Moon does not disclose wherein for each secondary particle comprised in the lithium manganese-based oxide, the minimum value of the minor axis length measured for the primary particle exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is 80 nm or more.
Choi discloses a cathode material comprising a lithium manganese-based oxide with a C2/m space group phase and an R3-m space group phase ([0009]-[0012]), and secondary particles comprising 100% by volume primary particles with semi-major axis length 500 nm to 10 μm ([0034]-[0039], primary particle size is the maximum length). Choi further discloses that the average particle diameter of the primary particles may be adjusted to be 500 nm to 10 μm ([0040]). The average particle diameter is considered to be the average value of the major axis length and minor axis length, and therefore the minor axis length of the primary particles of Choi would be greater than 0 nm and less than or equal to 500 nm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Choi further discloses that that the maximum length of the primary particles can be adjusted to solve the problems of decreased discharge capacity and voltage decay and increase the density of the cathode active material ([0041]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the maximum length of the primary particles as a result-effective variable, and it would have been routine optimization to arrive at a maximum primary particle length such that the minimum value of the minor axis length of the primary particle exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is 80 nm or more, for each secondary particle comprised in the lithium manganese-based oxide.
Choi is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of lithium manganese-based oxides. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active material of modified Moon with the teachings of Choi, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Doing so would solve the problems of decreased discharge capacity and voltage decay, and increase the density of the cathode active material (Choi [0041]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Moon discloses the positive electrode active material according to claim 1. Moon discloses a secondary particle shell ([0032], but does not disclose wherein when the distance from the center to surface of the secondary particle set from the cross- sectional SEM image of the secondary particle is r, and a region at a distance of 0.5r to 1.0r from the center of the secondary particle is an external bulk region, the porosity in the external bulk region is 1% or less.
Yun discloses wherein when the distance from the center to surface of the secondary particle set from the cross-sectional SEM image of the secondary particle is r, and a region at a distance of 0.8r to 1.0r from the center of the secondary particle is an external bulk region ([0048], the shell portion 30 is a region corresponding to, from the outermost surface of the particulate structure 100, 5 length % to 20 length % of a total distance between the center and the outermost surface of the particulate structure 100), the porosity in the external bulk region is 0.1% to 2% ([0048]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active material of modified Moon with the teachings of Yun so that wherein when the distance from the center to surface of the secondary particle set from the cross-sectional SEM image of the secondary particle is r, and a region at a distance of 0.5r to 1.0r from the center of the secondary particle is an external bulk region, the porosity in the external bulk region is 1% or less. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)). Doing so would further enhance the structural stability of the active material (Yun [0048]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Moon discloses the limitations of claim 1. Modified Moon further discloses wherein the average value of the minor axis lengths of the primary particles exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is more than 0 nm and 500 nm or less (Choi [0034]-[0040]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the maximum length of the primary particles as a result-effective variable, and it would have been routine optimization to arrive at a maximum primary particle length such that the average value of the minor axis lengths of the primary particles exposed on the surface of the secondary particle to be 160 nm or more and 500 nm or less.
Regarding claim 5, modified Moon discloses the limitations of claim 1. Modified Moon further discloses wherein the maximum value of the minor axis length measured for the primary particle exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is 1 μm or less (Choi [0034]-[0040], minor axis length is greater than 0 nm and less than or equal to 500 nm).
Regarding claim 6, modified Moon discloses the limitations of claim 1. Modified Moon further discloses wherein the average value of the major axis lengths of the primary particles exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is 500 nm or more and 10 μm or less (Choi [0034]-[0040],). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the maximum length of the primary particles as a result-effective variable, and it would have been routine optimization to arrive at a maximum primary particle length such that the average value of the major axis lengths measured of the primary particles exposed on the surface of the secondary particle to be 570 nm or more and 1 μm or less.
Regarding claim 7, modified Moon discloses the limitations of claim 1. Modified Moon further discloses wherein the minimum value of the major axis length measured for the primary particle exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is greater than 245 nm (Choi [0034]-[0040], maximum length of 500 nm to 10 μm).
Regarding claim 8, modified Moon discloses the limitations of claim 1. Modified Moon further discloses wherein the maximum value of the major axis length measured for the primary particle exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is 500 nm to 10 μm (Choi [0034]-[0040]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the maximum length of the primary particles as a result-effective variable, and it would have been routine optimization to arrive at a maximum primary particle length such that the maximum value of the major axis length measured for the primary particle exposed on the surface of the secondary particle to be 1.5 μm or less.
Regarding claim 9, modified Moon discloses the limitations of claim 1. Modified Moon further discloses wherein the average value of the major axis lengths and minor axis lengths of the primary particles exposed on the surface of the secondary particle ([major axis length+minor axis length]/2) is 0.5 to 10 μm (Choi [0040], average particle diameter). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the maximum length of the primary particles as a result-effective variable, and it would have been routine optimization to arrive at a maximum primary particle length such that the average value of the major axis lengths and minor axis lengths of the primary particles exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is 0.1 to 5 μm.
Regarding claim 10, modified Moon discloses the positive electrode active material according to claim 1. Moon further discloses:
wherein the lithium manganese-based oxide is represented by the formula
rLi2MnO3-b’X'b’•(1-r)LiaM1xM2yM3zO2 ([0066] and Formula 5, aLi2MnO3•(1-a)LiMO2) wherein,
M1 is at least one selected from Ni and Mn ([0067], at least a portion of M may be Ni),
M2 is at least one selected from Ni, Mn, Co, Al, P, Nb, B, Ti, Zr, Ba, K, Mo, Si, Fe, Cu, Cr, Zn, Na, Ca, Mg, Pt, Au, Eu, Sm, W, V, Ta, Sn, Hf, Ce, Gd and Nd ([0067], M may include at least two elements selected from Ni, Co, Mn, V, Cr, Fe, Zr, Re, Al, B, Ru, Ti, Nb, Mo, Mg, and Pt)
M3 is at least one selected from W, Mo and Nb ([0036] and [0067], M may include at least two elements selected from Ni, Co, Mn, V, Cr, Fe, Zr, Re, Al, B, Ru, Ti, Nb, Mo, Mg, and Pt and the oxide of Formula 5 includes a first metal which may be Mo),
M1 to M3 do not overlap ([0036] and [0067], M may include at least two elements selected from Ni, Co, Mn, V, Cr, Fe, Zr, Re, Al, B, Ru, Ti, Nb, Mo, Mg, and Pt),
0<r≤0.7 ([0067], 0<a<1), 0≤a≤1 (Formula 5, Li1), 0≤b'≤0.1 (Formula 5, b’=0), 0<x≤1 ([0067], Ni content in M may be about 90 mol % or greater), 0≤y≤1 ([0067] and Formula 5, M may include at least two elements), 0<z≤0.1 ([0067] and Formula 5, Ni content in M may be about 90 mol % or greater, so z may be about 10 mol % or less), and 0<x+y+z≤1 (Formula 5, M1).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Moon does not disclose wherein the lithium manganese-based oxide is represented the formula
rLi2MnO3-b’X'b’•(1-r)LiaM1xM2yM3zO2-bXb, X and X' are halogens capable of substituting for at least some of the oxygens in the lithium manganese-based oxide, and 0≤b≤0.1, provided that b and b’ are not 0 at the same time.
Yun discloses a nickel-based active material represented by Formula 3,
Lia(Ni1-x-y-zCoxMnyMz)O2-αXα ([0080]), X can be fluorine ([0081]), 0≤b≤0.1 ([0081], 0<α≤0.01), provided that b and b’ are not 0 at the same time ([0081], 0<α≤0.01).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active material of modified Moon with the teachings of Yun so that wherein the lithium manganese-based oxide is represented the formula rLi2MnO3-b’X'b’•(1-r)LiaM1xM2yM3zO2-bXb, X and X' are fluorine capable of substituting for at least some of the oxygens in the lithium manganese-based oxide, and 0≤b≤0.1, provided that b and b’ are not 0 at the same time. Doing so would enhance the structural stability of the positive active material due to the high electronegativity of the replacement anion (Yun [0036]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Moon discloses the positive electrode active material according to claim 10, wherein the primary particle is doped with fluorine (primary particles contain the material with formula rLi2MnO3-b’X'b’•(1-r)LiaM1xM2yM3zO2-bXb, X is fluorine at a 0≤b≤0.1 dopant level).
Regarding claim 14, modified Moon discloses the positive electrode active material according to claim 1, and Moon further discloses a positive electrode comprising the positive electrode active material according to claim 1 ([0007], a cathode including the composite cathode active material).
Regarding claim 15, modified Moon discloses the positive electrode according to claim 14, and Moon further discloses a lithium secondary battery using the positive electrode of claim 14 ([0008], a lithium battery including the cathode).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US 2019/0372109 A1) in view of Yun (US 2020/0119351 A1) and Choi (WO 2021075941 A2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 2015/0060725 A1, hereinafter “Yamamoto”).
Regarding claim 12, modified Moon discloses the positive electrode active material according to claim 1. Modified Moon discloses a second composite cathode active material with a remarkably small specific surface area (Moon [0152]), but does not disclose wherein the BET specific surface area of the secondary particle is 0.3 m2/g or more and 2.0 m2/g or less.
Yamamoto discloses wherein the specific surface area of the positive electrode active substance particles is more preferably 0.3 to 9 m2/g ([0042]).
Yamamoto is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of lithium-manganese based oxides. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active material of modified Moon with the teachings of Yamamoto so that the BET specific surface area of the secondary particle is 0.3 m2/g or more and 2.0 m2/g or less. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)). Doing so would prevent deterioration in charge/discharge rate characteristics and discharge capacity (Yamamoto [0042]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Moon discloses the positive electrode active material according to claim 1. Modified Moon does not disclose wherein a press density in the pressurization of the positive electrode active material with a pressure of 4.5 tons is greater than 2.53 g/cc.
Yamamoto discloses wherein the compressed density of the positive electrode active substance particles is preferably 2.4 to 3.0 g/cc ([0041]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active material of modified Moon with the teachings of Yamamoto so that a press density in the pressurization of the positive electrode active material with a pressure of 4.5 tons is greater than 2.53 g/cc. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)). Doing so would prevent deterioration in charge/discharge rate characteristics and discharge capacity (Yamamoto [0041]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US 2019/0372109 A1) in view of Kumar et al. (US 2010/0086854 A1, hereinafter “Kumar”).
Regarding claim 16, Moon discloses a positive electrode active material comprising:
a lithium manganese-based oxide in which a phase belonging to a C2/m space group and a phase belonging to an R3-m space group are dissolved or complexed ([0062]-[0063] and Formulae 4a and 4b),
wherein the lithium manganese-based oxide comprises a secondary particle formed by aggregating a plurality of primary particles ([0032], secondary particle may be an aggregate of the plurality of primary particles),
wherein the lithium manganese-based oxide comprises at least one selected from tungsten, molybdenum and niobium as a dopant ([0036] and [0065], M in Formula 4b may be Nb or Mo and the second layered crystalline phase of Formula 4b may be doped with a first metal, which may be Mo),
an interparticle porosity between the primary particles, measured from a cross-sectional SEM image of the secondary particle, is 10% or less ([0151], secondary particle of Example 2 had a porosity of about 0.76%), and
wherein the lithium manganese-based oxide is represented by the formula
rLi2MnO3•(1-r)LiaM1xM2yM3zO2 ([0066] and Formula 5, aLi2MnO3•(1-a)LiMO2) wherein,
M1 is at least one selected from Ni and Mn ([0067], at least a portion of M may be Ni),
M2 is at least one selected from Ni, Mn, Co, Al, P, Nb, B, Ti, Zr, Ba, K, Mo, Si, Fe, Cu, Cr, Zn, Na, Ca, Mg, Pt, Au, Eu, Sm, W, V, Ta, Sn, Hf, Ce, Gd and Nd ([0067], M may include at least two elements selected from Ni, Co, Mn, V, Cr, Fe, Zr, Re, Al, B, Ru, Ti, Nb, Mo, Mg, and Pt)
M3 is at least one selected from W, Mo and Nb ([0036] and [0067], M may include at least two elements selected from Ni, Co, Mn, V, Cr, Fe, Zr, Re, Al, B, Ru, Ti, Nb, Mo, Mg, and Pt and the oxide of Formula 5 includes a first metal which may be Mo),
M1 to M3 do not overlap ([0036] and [0067], M may include at least two elements selected from Ni, Co, Mn, V, Cr, Fe, Zr, Re, Al, B, Ru, Ti, Nb, Mo, Mg, and Pt),
0<r≤0.7 ([0067], 0<a<1), 0≤a≤1 (Formula 5, Li1), 0<x≤1 ([0067], Ni content in M may be about 90 mol % or greater), 0≤y≤1 ([0067] and Formula 5, M may include at least two elements), 0<z≤0.1 ([0067] and Formula 5, Ni content in M may be about 90 mol % or greater, so z may be about 10 mol % or less), and 0<x+y+z≤1 (Formula 5, M1).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Moon does not disclose wherein the lithium manganese-based oxide is represented the formula
rLi2MnO3-b’X'b’•(1-r)LiaM1xM2yM3zO2-bXb, X and X' are halogens capable of substituting for at least some of the oxygens in the lithium manganese-based oxide, 0≤b≤0.1, and 0<b≤0.1.
Kumar discloses a two-phase lithium manganese-based oxide composition represented by formulae Li1+xNiαMnβCoγA𝛿O2-zFz (average composition) and bLi2M’O3-cFc•(1-b)Li2MO2-dFd (two component notation), wherein z represents the amount of fluorine doping and is from about 0.01 to about 0.1 ([0063]-[0065]).
Kumar is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of lithium-manganese based oxides. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active material of Moon with the teachings of Kumar, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Doing so would stabilize the oxide crystal lattice during battery charging and discharging while maintaining high capacity (Kumar [0061]-[0062]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to Applicant’s remarks on pages 6-7 with regards to superior results, it is the examiner’s position that Applicant has not demonstrated the criticality of these limitations in scope with the amended claims. Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 716.02(d)). Applicant’s Tables 2 and 3, provided in the specification filed on May 09, 2023, shows data for Examples 1-5 (minimum value E from 168 nm to 209 nm) and Comparative Examples 1, 2, and 5 (minimum value E from 60 nm to 71 nm). The limitations of the currently amended claims are far broader than the data provided, reciting that the “minimum value of the minor axis length… is 80 nm or more”. For this reason, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and amended claim 1 is rejected over Moon in view of Yun and Choi.
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 Jackie Liang whose telephone number is (571)272-0880. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:45AM to 4:45PM.
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 (571)-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.
/J.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 20 August 2026
Prosecution Insights