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 1-9 and 16-18, a positive electrode comprising an active material comprising: LimAxMn1-yByP1-zCzO4-nFn where B is one element with a shell coating comprising a first coating layer covering the core comprising crystalline pyrophosphate MaP2O7 and an oxide M’bOc and a second coating comprising carbon in the reply filed on 7-31-2026 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)).
Claim 8 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7-30-2026.
Claims 10-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7-30-2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-7, 9 and 16-18 are 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. Claim 1 is rejected because the language for defining A, B, C, D, M and X should be “selected from the group consisting of” because of the use of “and”. Claim 1 is rejected because “A” seems to be a dopant of the Li site, but there is no clear relation between the corresponding subscripts “a” and “x”. Claim 1 is rejected because of the use of “B” as a variable because B stands for (boron) not a variable. Claim 1 is rejected because of the use of “C” as a variable because C stands for (carbon) not a variable. Claim 1 is rejected because it is unclear how M and X relates to each other. Claim 1 is rejected because it is unclear what the phrase “and the core is electrically neutral” because when the chemical formula is balanced, the core would be considered neutral. Claim 1 is rejected because it is unclear what the word “cladding” in cladding layer adds to the claim. Claims 3-7 and 9 are rejected because the phrase “optionally” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation claimed after the phrase “optionally” is a choice. In Ex parte Cordova, 10 USPQ2d 1949. Claim 9 is rejected because it is unclear what is the lower range of the Li/Mn antisite defect concentration. Claim 9 is rejected because it is unclear what is the lower range of the lattice change rate. Claim 9 is rejected because it is unclear what is the lower range of the surface oxygen valance. Claim 9 is rejected because unclear what is the upper range for the compacted density of the positive electrode active material. Claim 17 is rejected because the claim should cite “a secondary battery comprising the positive electrode plate according to claim 16”.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7, 9 and 16-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 10-13 and 19-20 of copending Application No. 18/635,016. Application No. 18/635,016 claims the exact same positive electrode active material with the exact same core comprising the chemical formula of instant application with a first layer comprising pyrophosphate MP2O7 and phosphate XPO4 and a second layer comprising carbon. Application No. 18/635,016 claims in claim 5, where a weight ratio of pyrophosphate to phosphate is 1:3 to 3:1. Application No. 18/635,016 claims in claim 2, where (1-y):y is from 1 to 4. Application No. 18/635,016 claims in claim 4, wherein the 1st layer and the coating amount of greater than 0 and less than or equal to 7 wt % and claims in claim 8, the second layer comprises a coating amount of greater than 0 and less than 6 wt%. Application No. 18/635,016 claims in claim 7, the same as instant claim 4. Application No. 18/635,016 claims in claim 6, the same as instant claim 2. Application No. 18/635,016 claims in claims 10-13, the same as instant claim 9. Application No. 18/635,016 claims in claims 19-20, the same as instant claims 16-17. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-7, 9 and 16-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6, 9 and 17-19 of copending Application No. 18/740,540. Application No. 18/740,540 claims the exact same positive electrode active material with the exact same core comprising the chemical formula of instant application with a first layer comprising pyrophosphate MbP2O7 and a second layer comprising phosphate XPO4 and a third layer comprising carbon. Application No. 18/740,540 claims in claim 2, the same as instant claim 6. Application No. 18/740,540 claims in claim 4, the same as instant claim 6. Application No. 18/740,540 claims in claim 6, the same as instant claim 7. Application No. 18/740,540 claims in claim 10, the same as instant claim 9. Application No. 18/740,540 claims in claims 17-19, the same as instant claims 16-18.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fang et al. (US 2015/0311522) teaches in Example 1, an active material comprising Li1.09Mn0.4(Ni0.1Co0.5)PO4. Fang et al. teaches in Example 2, an active material comprising Li1.10Mn1/3(Ni1/3Co1/3)PO4. Fang et al. teaches a positive active material comprising LiaMbN’1-bPO4-gBc where 0.9 < a <1.1; 0.6 < b < 1.0; 0 < g < 0.5 and 0 < c < 0.25 where M is at least one of Mn, Fe and Co and B is at least one of S, F, Cl, etc. Ohira et al. (US 9,005,810) teaches a cathode active material having a composition represented by formula (1): LiMn1-xMxP1-ySiyO4where M = Zr, Sn, Y or Al where 0 < x < 0.5 and 0 < y < 0.5. Ohira et al. teaches specifically cathode active material in Table 1, comprising: Li(Mn0.9Sn0.1)(P0.8Si0,2)O4, Li(Mn0.95Zr0.05)(P0.9Si0,1)O4, or Li(Mn0.95Sn0.05)(P0.9Si0,1)O4. Guan Wu (JP 6157563 B2, machine translation) teaches a lithium ion battery positive electrode material comprising the formula LiMnxFe1-xP1-aSibMcO4-dFd where M can be B, Cl or S).
Natsui et al. (US 2023/0402594) teaches in Example 1, a lithium transition metal composite oxide comprising Li1.67Sb0.001Mn0.55Ni0.275P0.065O1.92F0.08. Ma et al. (US 2023/0335723) claims in claim 1, a positive electrode active material comprising Li1+xMn1-yAyP1-zRzO4 which is the exact same material of the instant positive electrode material. Ma et al. (US 2023/0343938) claims in claim 1, a positive electrode active material comprising LiaAxMn1-yByP1-zCzO4-nDn which is the exact same material of the instant positive electrode material. Jiang et al. (US 2023/0361296) claims in claim 1, a positive electrode active material comprising LiaAxMn1-yByP1-zCzO4-nDn which is the exact same material of the instant positive electrode material. Wu (US 2016/0190584) teaches in claim 1, a Li-ion battery positive electrode material comprising LiMnxFe1-xP1-aSibMcO4-dFd where M is B or S and teaches in claim 3 that the positive active material contains a carbon coating layer. Ohira et al. (US 2013/0209886) teaches a cathode comprising a positive material comprising LiMn1-xMxP1-ySiyO4.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura Weiner whose telephone number is (571)272-1294. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm EST M, Th and F.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/LAURA S. WEINER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/Laura Weiner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights