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 amendments filed 13 July 2026 have been entered. Claims 9 and 19 have been canceled by the Applicant. Claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20-22 remain pending in the application.
All previous prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn considering amendments to the claims. New grounds of rejection are presented herein.
Additionally, all previous objections to the specification are withdrawn considering amendments to the specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In the last sentence of paragraph [0019], "Tfirst" should read "The first".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: "particles of an electroactive material configured to store and release lithium ions by undergoing a reversible redox reaction with lithium" in claim 11.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7, 10, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kishimoto et al. (US 20170077502 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kishimoto teaches a battery that cycles lithium ions, the battery comprising:
a positive electrode (positive electrode, [0002]) comprising an electroactive material (active material, [0009]) comprising a lithium and manganese-rich oxide (lithium nickel manganese oxide, [0009]); and
an electrolyte (electrolyte, [0033]) infiltrating the positive electrode, the electrolyte comprising:
an organic solvent (non-aqueous solvent, e.g., propylene carbonate, [0033]);
an inorganic lithium salt (lithium salts, e.g., LiPF6, [0033]) in the organic solvent (supporting electrolyte in a non-aqueous solvent, see [0033]); and
0.001% to 10% by weight of a functional additive (additives LiF and Li3PO4 added to electrolyte, [0078]) in the organic solvent, the functional additive consisting of lithium fluoride (LiF), lithium phosphate (Li3PO4), or a combination thereof (0.3 wt % of LiF and 1 wt % of Li3PO4 were added to the electrolyte, see Comparative Example 2 in paragraph [0078]).
It is deemed that the electrolyte infiltrating the positive electrode is an inherent characteristic and/or property of the specifically disclosed lithium-ion battery. In this respect, MPEP 2112 sets forth the following:
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It was well known in the art by the time of the effective filing date that porous structured lithium and manganese-rich cathode materials, such as LNMO material, benefitted performance of lithium ion batteries (Schipper, F.; Nayak, P.K.; Erickson, E.M.; Amalraj, S.F.; Srur-Lavi, O.; Penki, T.R.; Talianker, M.; Grinblat, J.; Sclar, H.; Breuer, O.; et al. Study of Cathode Materials for Lithium-Ion Batteries: Recent Progress and New Challenges. Inorganics 2017, 5, 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/inorganics5020032; see section 2.3 on porous Li- and Mn-rich high energy density cathode materials). Additionally, a standard process for manufacturing LNMO cathode materials involves calendering, which affects pores as the cathode is produced by compacting powders or crystals (M. Abdollahifar, H. Cavers, S. Scheffler, A. Diener, M. Lippke, A. Kwade, Insights into Influencing Electrode Calendering on the Battery Performance. Adv. Energy Mater. 2023, 13, 2300973. https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.202300973).
The literature prior to the effective filing date establishes that conventional Li- and Mn- rich cathode material should have a porous structure resulting from the compacting/calendaring of positive electrode active material particles. Thus, the non-aqueous, liquid electrolyte would necessarily infiltrate the cathode by filling the pores of the positive electrode active material.
Finally, Kishimoto’s positive electrode comprising LNMO positive electrode active material, conductive material, binder, a polymer film/coating, and the cathode being dried and pressed before introducing liquid electrolyte into the cell ([0025]-[0029], and [0031]-[0032]) should be essentially the same porous type as the presently claimed positive electrode, absent of evidence that Kishimoto’s electrode does not posses that characteristic.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433
Regarding Claim 2, Kishimoto teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein the organic solvent comprises a cyclic carbonate and a linear carbonate (ethylene carbonate EC is cyclic and dimethyl carbonate DMC is linear, and both materials together can be used as the non-aqueous solvent, see [0033]).
Regarding Claim 3, Kishimoto teaches the battery of claim 2, wherein the functional additive comprises LiF, and wherein the LiF constitutes, by weight, greater than or equal to about 0.001% to less than or equal to about 3% of the electrolyte (0.3 wt % LiF, [0078]).
Regarding Claim 4, Kishimoto teaches the battery of claim 2, wherein the functional additive comprises Li3PO4, and wherein the Li3PO4 constitutes, by weight, greater than or equal to about 0.001% to less than or equal to about 3% of the electrolyte (1 wt % Li3PO4, [0078]).
Regarding Claim 5, Kishimoto teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein the functional additive is not generated in the electrolyte as a result of the electrochemical decomposition of lithium difluorophosphate (Kishimoto does not teach lithium difluorophosphate; the additives are added directly).
Regarding Claim 6, Kishimoto teaches the battery of claim 1. It is deemed that the functional additive depositing on surfaces of the electroactive material of the positive electrode and forming an interphase layer thereon that isolates the electroactive material of the positive electrode from physical contact with the electrolyte is an inherent characteristic and/or property of the specifically disclosed battery assembly. In this respect, MPEP 2112 sets forth the following:
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The additives LiF and Li3PO4 in the electrolyte solution enable SEI formation. Kishimoto assembles the positive electrode and introduces the electrolyte solution with the additives to the cell. Upon initial charging, the SEI is expected to have formed (H. Adenusi, G. A. Chass, S. Passerini, K. V. Tian, G. Chen, Lithium Batteries and the Solid Electrolyte Interphase (SEI)—Progress and Outlook. Adv. Energy Mater. 2023, 13, 2203307. https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.202203307)
Additionally, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433
Regarding Claim 7, Kishimoto teaches the battery of claim 1, further comprising:
an interphase layer (coating, [0052]) formed in situ (during charging, occurs in situ) on the electroactive material of the positive electrode (on the surface of the positive electrode [0052]) after initial assembly of the battery (during charging, after initial assembly, [0052]),
wherein the interphase layer comprises the functional additive (comprises the lithium fluoride and lithium phosphate, [0052]) and physically isolates the electroactive material of the positive electrode from contact with the electrolyte (inherent, the coating physically isolates the cathode active material from contact with electrolyte, at least by steric hinderance).
Regarding Claim 10, Kishimoto teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein the inorganic lithium salt is lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6 as the lithium salt, [0033]).
Regarding Claim 21, Kishimoto teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein the electrolyte consists of a cyclic carbonate (ethylene carbonate, [0033]), a linear carbonate (dimethyl carbonate, [0033]), the inorganic lithium salt (lithium salts, e.g., LiPF6, [0033]), and the functional additive (additives LiF and Li3PO4 added to electrolyte, [0078]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto et al. (US 20170077502 A1) in view of Liu et al. (US 20210091413 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Kishimoto teaches the battery of claim 1.
Kishimoto does not teach that the electrolyte further comprises a co-additive selected from the group listed in claim 8.
However, Liu discloses a battery with a lithium and manganese-rich cathode material and a carbonate solvent electrolyte and additives to promote SEI formation, improving stability (abstract), wherein the electrolyte further comprises the co-additive lithium carbonate (Li-2CO3) (SEI formation additive Li-2CO3, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Kishimoto’s battery to include lithium carbonate as an electrolyte additive to promote SEI formation, as taught by Liu.
Claims 11-16, 18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto et al. (US 20170077502 A1) in view of Hirose et al. (US 20250079447 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Kishimoto teaches a battery that cycles lithium ions (lithium ion secondary battery, [0030]), the battery comprising:
a positive electrode (positive electrode, [0002]) comprising particles of an electroactive material (active material, [0009]) configured to store and release lithium ions by undergoing a reversible redox reaction with lithium (inherent to lithium-ion battery anodes), the electroactive material of the positive electrode comprising a lithium and manganese-rich oxide (lithium nickel manganese oxide, [0009]);
a negative electrode (negative electrode, [0030]) comprising particles of an electroactive material configured to store and release lithium ions by undergoing a reversible redox reaction with lithium (inherent to lithium-ion battery anodes), the electroactive material of the negative electrode comprising graphite ([0030]);
an electrolyte infiltrating the positive electrode and the negative electrode (electrolyte, [0033]), the electrolyte comprising:
an organic solvent comprising a cyclic carbonate (ethylene carbonate, [0033]) and a linear carbonate (dimethyl carbonate, [0033]);
an inorganic lithium salt in the organic solvent (lithium salts, e.g., LiPF6, [0033]); and
0.001% to 10%, by weight, of a functional additive in the organic solvent (additives LiF and Li3PO4 added to electrolyte, [0078]), the functional additive comprising lithium fluoride (LiF) and lithium phosphate (Li3PO4) (0.3 wt % of LiF and 1 wt % of Li3PO4 were added to the electrolyte, see Comparative Example 2 in paragraph [0078]).
Kishimoto does not teach silicon oxide in the negative electrode.
However, Hirose teaches a negative electrode active material comprising graphite and silicon oxide (silicon oxide SiO2, [0009]) for improving first charge-discharge efficiency and cycle characteristics. The materials used in the anode are shown to improve battery performance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the battery taught by Kishimoto to have silicon oxide along with graphite in the anode to improve the battery’s performance, as taught by Hirose.
The office deems the electrolyte infiltrating the electrodes as inherent, see reasoning in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Kishimoto teaches the battery of claim 11, wherein the lithium fluoride constitutes, by weight, greater than or equal to about 0.01% to less than or equal to about 10% of the electrolyte (0.3 wt % LiF, [0078] of Kishimoto).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Kishimoto teaches the battery of claim 11, wherein the LiF constitutes by weight, greater than or equal to about 0.001% to less than or equal to about 3% of the electrolyte (0.3 wt % LiF, [0078] of Kishimoto), and wherein the Li3PO4 constitutes, by weight, greater than or equal to about 0.001% to less than or equal to about 3% of the electrolyte (1 wt % Li3PO4, [0078] of Kishimoto).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Kishimoto teaches the battery of claim 13, wherein LiF and the Li3PO4 are not generated in the electrolyte as a result of the electrochemical decomposition of lithium difluorophosphate (LiPO2F2) (Kishimoto does not teach lithium difluorophosphate; the additives are added directly).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Kishimoto teaches the battery of claim 14. It is deemed that the functional additive depositing on surfaces of the electroactive materials of the positive and negative electrodes upon assembly and forming an interphase layer thereon that isolates the electroactive material of the positive electrode from physical contact with the electrolyte is an inherent characteristic and/or property of the specifically disclosed battery assembly. In this respect, MPEP 2112 sets forth the following:
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The additives LiF and Li3PO4 in the electrolyte solution enable SEI formation. Kishimoto assembles the positive electrode and introduces the electrolyte solution with the additives to the cell. Upon initial charging, the SEI is expected to have formed (H. Adenusi, G. A. Chass, S. Passerini, K. V. Tian, G. Chen, Lithium Batteries and the Solid Electrolyte Interphase (SEI)—Progress and Outlook. Adv. Energy Mater. 2023, 13, 2203307. https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.202203307)
Additionally, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433
Regarding Claim 16, modified Kishimoto teaches the battery of claim 14, further comprising:
a first interphase layer (coating, [0052] of Kishimoto) disposed on the particles of the electroactive material of the positive electrode that physically isolates the electroactive material of the positive electrode from contact with the electrolyte (HF present in electrolyte inhibited from adversely affecting the positive electrode material [0037] of Kishimoto); and
a second interphase layer disposed on the particles of the electroactive material of the negative electrode that physically isolates the electroactive material of the negative electrode from contact with the electrolyte (because the LiF and Li3PO4 are contained in the electrolyte in comparative example 2 of Kishimoto, the interphase layer necessarily forms on the particles of the electroactive material of the negative electrode),
wherein the first interphase layer and the second interphase layer are formed in situ upon assembly of the battery (during charging, after initial assembly, [0052]), and
wherein the first interphase layer and the second interphase layer do not comprise decomposition products of lithium difluorophosphate (LiPO2F2) (Kishimoto does not teach lithium difluorophosphate; the additives are added directly).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Kishimoto teaches the battery of claim 11, wherein the organic solvent comprises fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) ([0216] of Hirose) and diethyl carbonate (DEC) ([0033] Kishimoto), and wherein the inorganic lithium salt comprises lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) (LiPF6 as the lithium salt, [0033] Kishimoto).
Regarding Claim 22, modified Kishimoto teaches the battery of claim 15, wherein the electrolyte consists of fluoroethylene carbonate ([0216] of Hirose), diethyl carbonate ([0033] of Kishimoto), lithium hexafluorophosphate ([0033] of Kishimoto), the lithium fluoride ([0078] of Kishimoto), and the lithium phosphate ([0078] of Kishimoto).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto et al. (US 20170077502 A1) in view of Hirose et al. (US 20250079447 A1) as applied to claims 11-16, 18, and 22 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 20210091413 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Kishimoto teaches the battery of claim 11, but does not teach that the electrolyte further comprises a co-additive selected from the group listed in the claim.
However, Liu discloses a battery with a lithium and manganese-rich cathode material and a carbonate solvent electrolyte and additives to promote SEI formation, improving stability (abstract), wherein the electrolyte further comprises the co-additive lithium carbonate (Li-2CO3) (SEI formation additive Li-2CO3, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Kishimoto’s battery to include lithium carbonate as an electrolyte additive to promote SEI formation, as taught by Liu.
Claims 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto et al. (US 20170077502 A1) in view of Hirose et al. (US 20250079447 A1) as applied to claims 11-16, 18, and 22 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20180006294 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Kishimoto teaches the battery of claim 11, but does not teach wherein the electroactive material of the positive electrode comprises Li2MnO3. However, Lee teaches a rechargeable lithium-ion battery with lithium-manganese-rich (LMR) layered oxides, also known as over-lithiated oxides (OLOs), as cathode materials for their high capacities and energy densities ([0008]). They teach Li2MnO3 as a commonly studied over-lithiated oxide material which has high capacities and energy density ([0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the electroactive material of the positive electrode of modified Kishimoto by replacing the LiMn2O4 with Li2MnO3 for higher battery capacity and energy density.
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 ANDREW N KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-9169. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ANDREW KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights