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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
In this instance, the abstract recites the phrase that can be implied “The present invention relates to…” in the 1st line.
The use of the term “ketjen black”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application (see paragraph [0057] of the specification). The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, 1st line, add “,” after “secondary particles” for clarity.
In claim 2, last line, add “.” after “layer”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over JP 2004-87487 A, of which a complete copy of the Japanese document was provided with the Information Disclosure Statement dated October 27, 2025, and with a machine translation provided with this Office Action.
Regarding independent claim 1, JP ‘487 discloses a lithium nickel manganese composite oxide that includes secondary particles, and further including a plurality of primary particles aggregated with each other (see abstract; paragraphs [0013]-[0018] and [0033]-[0038] of the Japanese document; pages 3-9 of the machine translation under the heading TECH-PROBLEM; and Figure 25(b)), wherein the lithium nickel manganese composite oxide includes the following features:
a General Formula (1) of LixNiyMnzO2, wherein 1.0 ≤ x < 1.07, 0.45 ≤ y ≤ 0.55, 0.45 ≤ z ≤ 0.55, and 1.0 ≤ z/y ≤ 1.22 (see the top of page 4 of translation corresponding to paragraph [0014] of the Japanese document),
wherein Li contained in a transition metal layer would not form LiMn6 (see the x-ray diffraction graph in Figure 25(b) that has no corresponding peak thereof),
wherein the lithium nickel manganese composite oxide has a manganese-rich layer from a surface of the secondary particles toward an inside of the secondary particles (see abstract and pages 3-5 of translation),
wherein a ratio of a number of Mn atoms to a number of Ni atoms (Mn/Ni ratio) in the manganese-rich layer is between 1.0 and 3.0 (see the top of page 4 of translation corresponding to paragraph [0014] of the Japanese document), and
wherein the lithium nickel manganese composite oxide has a space group R-3m (see pages 3-5 of translation), and as based on the above General Formula (1) and Mn/Ni ratio, would further include a-axis lattice constant of 2.87 Å to 2.90 Å, and a c-axis lattice constant of 14.28 Å to 14.32 Å (see Figure 25(b)).
With regard to the ranges of the General Formula (1), the Mn/Ni ratio, the a-axis lattice constant, and the c-axis lattice constant, these ranges would be anticipated and/or obvious since these ranges would be readily contemplated by one of ordinary skill in the art. In this instance, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the obviousness of the ranges in view of JP ‘487, as set forth in MPEP 2144.05. “In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980). In addition, since the parameters of the claimed General Formula (1) and Mn/Ni ratio include substantial overlap with those of JP ‘487, the a-axis lattice constant (of 2.87 Å to 2.90 Å) and the c-axis lattice constant (of 14.28 Å to 14.32 Å) would be included (see Figure 25(b)), and in the absence of formation of LiMn6, no peak is derived thereof from x-ray diffraction data in JP ‘487, for the purpose of controlling structure arrangement in the primary particles, thereby achieving high-rate and cycle characteristics at high capacity and low cost (see abstract and page 3 of translation under the heading TECH-PROBLEM).
Regarding claim 2, although JP ‘487 does not explicitly disclose that a spectrum measured by solid-state lithium nuclear magnetic resonance analysis (6Li-MAS-NMR) using a magic-angle sample rotation method, there would be no peak at 1,495 to 1,505 ppm caused by LiMn6 formed by Li contained in the transition metal layer since no peak is derived thereof from x-ray diffraction data, as set forth in above claim 1 (see abstract and pages 3-9 of translation).
Regarding claim 3, JP ‘487 discloses a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery comprising the lithium nickel manganese composite oxide according to claim 1 as a main component (see abstract and pages 3-5 of translation).
Regarding claim 4, JP ‘487 discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte, wherein the positive electrode contains a positive electrode active material whose main component is the lithium nickel manganese composite oxide according to claim 1 (see abstract and pages 3-5 of translation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to teach or suggest a method of producing the lithium nickel manganese composite oxide of claim 1, in which the method comprises the following process steps (of claim 5 that depends from independent claim 1):
a first process of reacting at least one of lithium and a lithium compound with NiaMnbZα, wherein Z is O or OH, 0<a<1, 0<b<1, a+b=1, and α is a value that keeps NiaMnbZα electrically neutral, to obtain a powder by heating a mixture containing at least one of lithium and the lithium compound, and NiaMnbZα at a temperature between 950°C and 1,150°C for between 1 minute and 5 hours;
a second process in which the powder is retained at 900°C for 0.5 to 12 hours;
a third process in which the powder is retained at 800°C for 0.5 to 12 hours;
a fourth process in which the powder is retained at 750°C for 0.5 to 12 hours;
a fifth process in which the powder is retained at 600°C for 0.5 to 20 hours; and
a sixth process in which the powder is retained between 400°C and 500°C for 0.5
to 30 hours.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 August 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights