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
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II and Species B, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/10/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species A, drawn to claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 04/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yasutomi (Synthesis and electrochemical properties of Li2-xM(SiO4)1-x(PO4)x(M = Fe, Mn) positive active materials by hydrothermal process for Li-ion Cells, see machine Translation and copy of foreign article).
Regarding claims 1-3, Yasutomi discloses a powder (See pg. 22, section 2 Experiments, left column) comprising a lithium metal polyanion (LMX) compound represented by Formula (I) (see Abstract)
Li1+xM(PO4)1-x(SiO4)x , Formula (I) (see Li2-xMn(SiO4)1-x(PO4)x powder (x =0, 0.02, 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, wherein x=0.1 the formula is Li1.9Mn(SiO4)0.9(PO4)0.1)
wherein 0.001 < x < 0.25 or 0.75 < x < 1, wherein M is one or more metal cations summing to a stoichiometry of 1.
Regarding claim 5, Yasutomi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Yasutomi discloses the powder as claimed.
With regards to the claim limitation “wherein at least one process variable or at least one stoichiometry variable required to produce the compound represented in Formula (I) is provided by a machine learning algorithm” this is considered a product-by-process claim limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 6, Yasutomi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Yasutomi discloses a cathode active material comprising the powder of claim 1 (see pg. 22 Experimental section, left hand column).
Regarding claim 7, Yasutomi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Yasutomi discloses a cathode comprising the cathode active material of claim 6 (see pg. 22 Experimental section, left hand column).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasutomi (Synthesis and electrochemical properties of Li2-xM(SiO4)1-x(PO4)x(M = Fe, Mn) positive active materials by hydrothermal process for Li-ion Cells, see machine Translation and copy of foreign article) as applied to claims 1-3 and 5-7 above, and further in view of Beppu (WO 2012057340 A1, Machine Translations).
Regarding claim 4, Yasutomi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Yasutomi does disclose Li1.9Mn(SiO4)0.9(PO4)0.1.
Yasutomi discloses that Fe can be used as a replacement for portions of Mn in a lithium active material containing in a silicate ,however, does not disclose that Fe can be used to replace portions of Mn in a lithium active material containing a silicate phosphate to obtain the composition as claimed Li1.9Mn0.9Fe0.1(SiO4)0.9(PO4)0.1
Beppu discloses that Fe can be used to replace portions of Mn in a lithium active material containing a silicate phosphate (see Table [0074] on pg. 29 foreign document and pg. 34 formula 3A and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the Li1.9Mn(SiO4)0.9(PO4)0.1 of Yasutomi by replacing Mn with Fe in the lithium active material to obtain the instantly claimed composition because Beppu discloses Fe can be used to replace portions of Mn in a lithium active material containing a silicate phosphate.
Regarding claim 8, modified Yasutomi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Yasutomi discloses a battery (see device pg. 22 Experimental section, left hand column and right hand column discloses batteries) comprising a cathode of claim 7 (the paste was applied to an Al foil current collector, dried at 150 ° C, and then pressed at constant pressure to adjust the thickness, thereby fabricating electrodes see pg. 22 Experimental section, left hand column) and an anode (lithium foil).
While Yasutomi discloses that the cathode active material is applicable to a lithium ion battery structure (Abstract), Yasutomi does not disclose the complete structure of the lithium ion battery.
Beppu discloses a lithium active material containing a silicon phosphate salt which is substantially similar to that of Yasutomi and discloses that a battery can formed with the active material containing a silicon phosphate salt used in the cathode, a separator, and an anode (see Example 32 pg. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the cathode active material of Yasutomi by using it in a battery device as disclosed by Beppu because Yasutomi discloses it is obvious to use the cathode active materials in Li-ion cells.
With regards to the limitation, “wherein the battery cell comprises a gravimetric capacity exceeding 170 mAh/g when normalized to the cathode active material mass” modified Yasutomi discloses the same structure for the battery and the same cathode active material as instantly claimed therefore the above property will be
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVINA PILLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 517-272-1307. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DEVINA PILLAY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/DEVINA PILLAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights