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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/2/2024 has been considered by the examiner. Initialed copies accompany this action.
Drawings
The Drawings filed 8/2/2024 are approved by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 7/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims are linked by corresponding special technical features and that the restriction requirement should be reconsidered. This is not found persuasive because under the PCT Rule 13.2, a special technical feature is defined as a technical feature that defines a contribution each claimed invention makes over the prior art. If a feature is shared among multiple claims but does not make a contribution over the prior art, it cannot be considered a special technical feature, and thus unity of invention may be lacking. Lack of unity is proved in the restriction requirement mailed 6/3/2026, the shared technical feature is a Li₁₊ₓMn₂O₄ product, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Choi et al (KR 2012043981). Choi discloses a Li₁.₉₅Mn₂O₄ product (para 0067). See MPEP 1850, II.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 22-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected because it contains periods in the middle of the claim. Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. See MPEP 608.01(m). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-15, 17-19, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (KR2020043981) in view of Demazeau (Journal of Physics: Conference Series 215 (2010) 012124) and Rojas (US2024/0010514). The machine translation of KR2020043981 is relied upon for the rejection purposes.
Regarding claims 1, 17-18, Choi discloses a method for preparing a lithium manganese oxide of Formula 1 having a spinel crystal structure according to the present invention synthesizes a lithium manganese oxide of Formula 1 by reacting a lithium manganese oxide of Formula 2 with a lithium compound in a reducing atmosphere.
Li 1 + x M y Mn 2 - y O 4 - z Q z (1)
Li 1 + x ' M' y ' Mn 2- x' - y ' O 4 - z' Q 'z' (2)
Where 0.4 <x ≦ 1; 0 ≦ x ′ ≦ 0.35; 0 ≦ y ≦ 0.5; 0 ≦ y '≦ 0.5; 0 ≦ z ≦ 1; 0 ≦ z '≦ 1;
M and M 'are independently of each other Al, Mg, Ni, Co, Fe, Cr, V, Ti, Cu, B, Ca, Zn, Zr, Nb, Mo, Sr, Sb, W, Ti and Bi, Q and Q 'are independently of each other one or more elements selected from the group consisting of N, F, S and Cl (page 2).
The reaction may be carried out by polyhydric alcohol method, it may include the step of refluxing in a reducing atmosphere by putting a lithium manganese oxide and a lithium compound of the spinel crystal structure in a polyhydric alcohol as a solvent, the polyhydric alcohol may be used as long as the carbon chain contains two or more hydroxyl groups, and derivatives in which one or more hydrogens connected to the carbon chain are substituted with other atoms, atomic groups or carbon chains (page 3). Since the reaction happens in a reducing atmosphere, the reactants must be contained in a sealed container/vessel.
The reflux temperature may vary depending on the type of polyhydric alcohol used, but may be in the range of 200 to 330 ° C, the temperature of the reaction may also vary depending on the boiling point of the solvent, if the temperature is too low, the reaction time may take too long (page 3). Reaction temperatures and times are well-established as reaction parameters in chemistry, and reaction parameters are recognized in the art to be result-effective variables. A patent will not be granted based upon the optimization of result effective variables when the optimization is obtained through routine experimentation unless there is a showing of unexpected results which properly rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Choi does not disclose the sealed container is configured to generate its own autogenous pressure. However, as Demaseau discloses a solvothermal process can be define as a chemical reaction in a close system involving different reactants in presence of a solvent (aqueous or non aqueous) at a temperature higher than its boiling temperature. Pressure is autogeneous and closely dependent of the percentage of filling for the reaction vessel and of temperature (abstract). Choi discloses that the reflux causes a reaction at the solvent's vaporizable temperature (higher than its boiling temperature), therefore pressure inside the container/vessel is autogeneous.
Choi does not disclose collecting the lithium manganese oxide of Formula 1 from the container. However, collecting the final product from the reaction container/vessel would be a step, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that this particular step is significant.
Regarding claims 2-5, Choi discloses the lithium compound sis lithium hydroxide (page 3) and the polyhydric alcohol may be one or more selected from the group consisting of diethylene glycol, triethylene glycol, tetraethylene glycol, propylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, hexylene glycol, butylene glycol and glycerol. Preferably it may be one or more selected from the group consisting of tetraethylene glycol, triethylene glycol and diethylene glycol (page 3).
Regarding claim 6, Choi discloses the molar ratio of Li compound: LiMn2O4 is in the range of about 0.05 to about 3.00 (example 1, page 7).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Choi does not disclose the claimed molar ratio of Li compound: LiMn2O4. However, Choi discloses the excess lithium can be used to consume the irreversible of the negative electrode as described above in the charging and discharging process, as well as can be used as a lithium source for operation in the 3V region in order to consume the irreversibility of the cathode and to use the 3V region, the larger the amount of Li, the better. However, it is not preferable that the amount (x) of Li is more than 2 due to the oxidation water problem. (page 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to determine the amount of Li compound, molar ratio of Li compound: LiMn2O4 in order to improve the charging and discharging efficiency. Differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 9-13, Choi does not disclose the claimed solids/liquid mass ratio. However, Choi discloses the reflux temperature may vary depending on the type of polyhydric alcohol used, but may be in the range of 200 to 330 ° C. The reflux causes a reaction at the solvent's vaporizable temperature. Therefore, the temperature of the reaction may also vary depending on the boiling point of the solvent. Demaseau discloses solvothermal processes are governed by different key factors : (i) the composition of the reactants, the naturof the solvent (in particular its physico-chemical properties), and the thermodynamical parameters : temperature and pressure (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to determine optimum mass ratio of solids/liquids in the reaction, which affects the reaction parameters (temperature and pressure), in order to produce the final product that provides improved the battery’s charging and discharging efficiency. Differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 14-15, Choi discloses the LiMn2O4 is doped with at least one additional metal element or non-metal element (Formula 1, page 2) but does not expressly disclose the amount of the additional element. However, the amount of the additional element in the Formula 1 (value of y and z) falls within the claimed range. The claims would have been obvious over the teachings of the reference because overlapping ranges would have been obvious. See 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) and MPEP 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 19, Choi does not disclose collecting the lithium manganese oxide of Formula 1 from the container as claimed. However, collecting the final product from the reaction container/vessel would be a step including filtering, washing, and drying as disclosed in Rojas (para 0094), which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that this particular step is significant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIDUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5455. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 10a-3p.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/HAIDUNG D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
8/8/2026
Prosecution Insights