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 August 10th, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-9 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specifications and Claims have not overcome any of the rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed June 22nd, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 8 are 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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1 and 2) as being anticipated by MIKAMI (US 20220006082).
Regarding claim 1, Mikami teaches, a positive electrode active material having a layered rock salt structure [0144]. The layered rock salt structure includes Li, Ni, Co, Mn, O [0114, 0179 and 0186] and Mg [0087, 0104 and 0117]. The Mg content in the positive electrode active material is 0.1 mass% or more and 5.0 mass% or less (the range is covered in Mikami, Claim 2), the mass% of Mg in the positive electrode active material of prior art was calculated to be 1.42% based on atomic % described in [0088] and [0443]. The layered rock salt structure has c-axis length of 13.46 A or more and 14.20 A or less, Mikami teaches a positive electrode active material with layered rock salt structure having lattice constant of the c-axis greater than or equal to 14.045x10.sup.-1° m (14.045 A) and less than or equal to 0 14.065x10.sup.-10 m (14.065 A) [0091].
Regarding claim 2, Mikami teaches, a method of manufacturing a positive electrode active material, the method comprising: obtaining a first mixture including Ni, Co, and Mn and Li [0179] and [0146]. Wherein the first mixture is free of Mg, FIG. 8 shows the mixture containing Lithium and transition metal and does not contain Mg. That mixture is then heated to obtain a precursor having a layered rock salt structure [0181] and [0189]. The precursor is mixed with a Mg source to obtain a second mixture [0190], and the second mixture is heated [0196] to obtain a positive electrode active material having a layered rock salt structure (the objective being obtaining a product with few impurities to avoid defects in the layered rock salt structure, 0206-0207). Mikami also teaches the positive electrode active material comprising Li, Mg, Ni, Co, Mn, and O as constituting elements and having an Mg content greater than or equal to 0.1 mass% and less than or equal to 5.0 mass%, as previously stated in the rejection of claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
451
357
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
252
357
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Mikami teaches, a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising a positive electrode active material layer, an electrolyte layer, and a negative electrode active material layer [0339]. Such positive electrode has the claimed composition as previously stated for the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Mikami teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and the c-axis length of the layered rock salt structure being 13.46 A or more and 14.08 A or less, as previously stated for the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Mikami teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and the Mg content in the positive electrode active material having 0.5 mass% or more and 5.0 mass% or less, as previously stated for the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Mikami teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and the Mg content in the positive electrode active material having 0.5 mass% or more and 5.0 mass% or less and the c-axis length of the layered rock salt structure being 13.46 A or more and 14.08 A or less, as previously stated for the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Mikami teaches all the limitations of claim 2, and a positive electrode active material that contains 0.5 mass% or more and 5.0 mass% or less of Mg and the c-axis length of the layered rock salt structure being 13.46 A or more and 14.08 A or less, as previously stated in the rejection of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 10th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments (Applicant’s response, page 5) that Mikami fails to disclose or suggest every feature of amended independent claim 1. The remarks do not provide any specific reasons as to why the finding of facts or the conclusion of anticipation is allegedly in error. The legal decisions cited discuss various aspects of an anticipation analysis, but the arguments do not link to the facts of the cases or the asserted deficiency in the rejection. Therefore, Mikami meets every feature of claim 1, including the Mg content and c-axis length as described previously in the rejection of claim 1, and the rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Mikami is maintained.
In response to Applicant’s arguments (Applicant’s response, page 6) that Mikami fails to disclose or suggest every feature of amended independent claim 2. The remarks do not provide any specific reason as to why the teachings cited from Mikami fail to disclose the features of the amended independent claim 2. Therefore, Mikami meets every feature of claim 2, as previously stated in the rejection of claim 2, and the rejection of claim 2 as being anticipated by Mikami is maintained. However, Applicant’s reply is considered to be a bona fide attempt at a response and is being accepted as a complete response.
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 DOUGLAS E VENTURA HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1889. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:30 am-4:00 pm.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. 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.
/DOUGLAS E VENTURA HERNANDEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights