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
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-3, drawn to an iron-manganese-based positive electrode material, in the reply filed on August 7, 2026, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 4-9 and Claims 10-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, Groups II and III, drawn to a method and drawn to a lithium ion battery, respectively, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-18 are pending and Claims 1-3 are currently considered in this office action.
Priority
Applicant’s claim to foreign priority in application no. CN202110548471.6, filed May 19, 2021, and to application no. PCT/CN2022/093829, filed May 19, 2022, is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It appears that Claim 3 is listed twice in the most recently filed claim set of August 7, 2026. Please remove duplicate claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claim 2 recites the broad recitation 140-1000nm, and the claim also recites 140-500nm, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 recites that the intensity of the characteristic peaks within the range of 31-33° and/or 43-45° of the Li2MnO3 phase are less than one third of the maximum characteristic peak intensity of the iron-manganese-based positive electrode material; however, Claim 1 already specifies that the maximum intensity of a characteristic peak of the Li2MnO3 phase is less than one third the maximum characteristic peak of the iron-manganese-based positive electrode material. In order to meet the requirements of Claim 1, it appears that the requirements of Claim 3 would necessarily already be met. Therefore, Claim 3 fails to limit the subject matter of Claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1 and Claim 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haiqiang (“On the drastically improved performance of Fe doped LiMn2O4 nanoparticles prepared by a facile solution gelation route”).
Regarding Claim 1, Haiqiang discloses an iron-manganese positive electrode material (Abstract), comprising the compositions LiFe0.1Mn1.9O4 and LiFe0.2Mn1.8O4 (Abstract, x=0.1 and 0.2), which is equivalent to Li0.5Fe0.05Mn0.95O2 and Li0.5Fe0.1Mn0.9O2 and reads on the claimed composition LiaMnxFeyO2 wherein a is 0.1-0.5, 0<x<1.0 and 0<y<1.0.
Haiqiang further discloses wherein at least some Mn is tetravalent (pg. 140, Col. 2, para. 1-2), and wherein an XRD spectrum of the positive electrode material does not show any characteristic peaks of the Li2MnO3 phase (see Fig. 1, reproduced also below, which does not show any peaks of the Li2MnO3 phase in the range of 20-25°, 31-33°, 43-45° or 53-55°). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the designated (400) peak at ~44° is not a characteristic peak of the Li2MnO3 phase and is characteristic to the LiMn2O4 phase.
PNG
media_image1.png
804
954
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Haiqiang showing an absence of Li2MnO3 phase XRD peaks.
Regarding Claim 3, Haiqiang discloses wherein XRD spectrum of the positive electrode material is absent of characteristic peaks of the Li2MnO3 phase, and therefore the Li2MnO3 peaks comprise an intensity of 0 and reads on the claimed range of less than one third of the maximum characteristic peak intensity of the electrode material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haiqiang (“On the drastically improved performance of Fe doped LiMn2O4 nanoparticles prepared by a facile solution gelation route”), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Li (US 20230299264 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Haiqiang discloses wherein the particle sizes are 290nm and 320nm, which reads on the claimed range of 150-500nm (Pg. 140, Col. 2, Para. 3).
Haiqiang fails to disclose the content of residual alkali.
Li teaches 1500ppm or less residual alkali in order to avoid gas production during battery cycles, thereby improving processing performance and safety performance (Abstract; para. [0003]; para. [0013]; para. [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have comprised 1500ppm or less residual alkali, which overlaps the claimed range of 1400-1900ppm, as taught by Li, for the invention disclosed by Haiqiang, in order to avoid gas production during battery cycles and improve processing performance and safety performance (see teaching above).
Regarding residual alkali content, in the case where the 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Claim 1 and Claim 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamura (cited by Applicant in IDS filed June 6, 2025, JP 2006089320 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Miyamura discloses an iron-manganese-based positive electrode material comprising the formula LixMyMezOa, wherein x is 0.2-0.6, y is 0.4-0.6, z is 0.4-0.6 and a is 1.9-2.3, wherein Me may be Fe, and including compositions such as Li0.30Mn0.5Fe0.43O2 (Abstract; Table 1, inventive example 5), which reads on the claimed composition LiaMnxFeyO2 wherein a is 0.1-0.5, 0<x<1.0 and 0<y<1.0.
Element
Claim 1
Miyamura (Abstract)
Miyamura (Table 1, ex. 5)
Li
0.1-0.5
0.2-0.6
0.3
Mn
>0 and <1.0
0.4-0.6
0.5
Fe
>0 and <1.0
0.4-0.6
0.43
O
2
1.9-2.3
2
In the case where the 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Miyamura discloses the electrode material has XRD peaks at 18.7, 33.6, 35.6, 44.3, 49.5, 54.1, 57.1, 57.5, 58.8 and 64.8 degrees (para. [0009]), and discloses the XRD pattern of the positive electrode material, which is either absent of Li2MnO3 diffraction peaks, or comprises intensities which are less than one third the maximum characteristic intensity of the electrode material (see Fig. 5). For example, see Image 1 below, which compares the XRD patterns of Miyamura in Fig. 5 to the comparison example of the instant invention comprising the Li2MnO3 peaks (instant specification, Fig. 3). Samples by Miyamura which are annealed at 300-500C do not show the Li2MnO3 characteristic peaks (the peaks at 44.3 and 54.1 degrees correspond to the electrode material not the Li2MnO3 phase), and samples annealed at 600-700C show a maximum characteristic peak intensity which is less than a third the maximum characteristic peak intensity of the electrode material (see intensity of peak 18.7° of electrode material vs that at 31° degrees of the Li2MnO3 phase).
Miyamura fails to disclose the valency of the Mn as tetravalent.
However, the composition and XRD pattern of Miyamura is the same as claimed, and one of ordinary skill in the art would therefore appreciate that Miyamura comprise at least some tetravalent manganese. When 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). See MPEP 2112.01.
PNG
media_image2.png
1059
854
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Image 1: annotated Fig. 5 of Miyamura and Fig. 3 (comparative) of instant invention demonstrating the peaks of Li2MnO3 phase seen, or absent, in examples of Miyamura.
Regarding Claim 3, Miyamura discloses wherein a characteristic peak intensity of the Li2MnO3 phase in the range of 31-33 degrees and/or 43-45 degrees is less than one third of the maximum characteristic peak intensity of the electrode material (see Image 1 above, samples annealed at 300-500C do not show the Li2MnO3 characteristic peaks (the intensity is 0); see samples annealed at 600-700C, intensity of peak 18.7° of electrode material vs that at 31° degrees of the Li2MnO3 phase). As noted in Claim 1 above, the peaks at 44.3 and 54.1 degrees correspond to the electrode material not the Li2MnO3 phase.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamura (cited by Applicant in IDS filed June 6, 2025, JP 2006089320 A), as applied above in Claim 1, in further view of Li (US 20230299264 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Miyamura discloses a particle size of 200nm or less, which reads on the claimed range of 140-500nm ().
Miyamura fails to disclose the content of residual alkali.
Li teaches 1500ppm or less residual alkali in order to avoid gas production during battery cycles, thereby improving processing performance and safety performance (Abstract; para. [0003]; para. [0013]; para. [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have comprised 1500ppm or less residual alkali, which overlaps the claimed range of 1400-1900ppm, as taught by Li, for the invention disclosed by Miyamura, in order to avoid gas production during battery cycles and improve processing performance and safety performance (see teaching above).
Regarding particle size and residual alkali content, in the case where the 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Claim 1 and Claim 3 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamura (cited by Applicant in IDS filed June 6, 2025, JP 2006089320 A) in view of Hozumi (US 20180069243 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Miyamura discloses an iron-manganese-based positive electrode material comprising the formula LixMyMezOa, wherein x is 0.2-0.6, y is 0.4-0.6, z is 0.4-0.6 and a is 1.9-2.3, wherein Me may be Fe, and including compositions such as Li0.30Mn0.5Fe0.43O2 (Abstract; Table 1, inventive example 5), which reads on the claimed composition LiaMnxFeyO2 wherein a is 0.1-0.5, 0<x<1.0 and 0<y<1.0.
Element
Claim 1
Miyamura (Abstract)
Table 1, ex. 5
Li
0.1-0.5
0.2-0.6
0.3
Mn
>0 and <1.0
0.4-0.6
0.5
Fe
>0 and <1.0
0.4-0.6
0.43
O
2
1.9-2.3
2
In the case where the 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Miyamura discloses the electrode material has XRD peaks at 18.7, 33.6, 35.6, 44.3, 49.5, 54.1, 57.1, 57.5, 58.8 and 64.8 degrees (para. [0009]), and discloses the XRD pattern of the positive electrode material, which is either absent of Li2MnO3 diffraction peaks, or comprises intensities which are less than one third the maximum characteristic intensity of the electrode material (see Fig. 5). For example, see Image 1 above, which compares the XRD patterns of Miyamura in Fig. 5 to the comparison example of the instant invention comprising the Li2MnO3 peaks (instant specification, Fig. 3). Samples by Miyamura which are annealed at 300-500C do not show the Li2MnO3 characteristic peaks (the peak at 44.3 degrees corresponds to the electrode material not the Li2MnO3 phase), and samples annealed at 600-700C show a maximum characteristic peak intensity which is less than a third the maximum characteristic peak intensity of the electrode material (see intensity of peak 18.7° of electrode material vs that at 31° degrees of the Li2MnO3 phase).
Miyamura fails to disclose the valency of the Mn as tetravalent.
However, the composition and XRD pattern of Miyamura is the same as claimed, and one of ordinary skill in the art would therefore appreciate that Miyamura comprise at least some tetravalent manganese. When 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). See MPEP 2112.01.
Further, Hozumi teaches an equivalent composition wherein at least some Mn is tetravalent in order to reduce reaction resistance (Abstract; para. [0039]-[0040], LiFeMnO4 is chemically equivalent to Li0.5Fe0.5Mn0.5O2; para. [0026]-[0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have comprised at least some tetravalent Mn, as taught by Hozumi, for the invention disclosed by Miyamura, in order to reduce reaction resistance (see teaching above).
Claim 2 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamura (cited by Applicant in IDS filed June 6, 2025, JP 2006089320 A) in view of Hozumi (US 20180069243 A1), as applied above in Claim 1, in further view of Li (US 20230299264 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Miyamura discloses an aggregate particle size of 200nm or less, which reads on the claimed range of 140-500nm (para. [0008]).
Miyamura fails to disclose the content of residual alkali.
Li teaches 1500ppm or less residual alkali in order to avoid gas production during battery cycles, thereby improving processing performance and safety performance (Abstract; para. [0003]; para. [0013]; para. [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have comprised 1500ppm or less residual alkali, which overlaps the claimed range of 1400-1900ppm, as taught by Li, for the invention disclosed by Miyamura, in order to avoid gas production during battery cycles and improve processing performance and safety performance (see teaching above).
Regarding particle size and residual alkali content, in the case where the 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). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE P SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-4:00 MT.
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, 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.
CATHERINE P. SMITH
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/CATHERINE P SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights