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 .
Drawings
The Drawings filed 11 December 2024 are approved by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner and an initialed copy is attached.
Citation Notation
The following citations are made for the convenience of the reader:
Citations to PG publications are made to paragraph number under the ¶ format. Citations to other publications made under the format “ col 1/2” or pp 1 are directed to column and line number or to a page - whichever is appropriate. It is noted that any reference to a figure or a table is also directed to any accompanying text in the specification or the document. Notwithstanding those citations, the reference(s) is (are) relied upon for the teachings as a whole.
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.
Claims 7, 15 and 20 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. The term “essentially free” in claims 7, 15 and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially free” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claimed limitation (what is the threshold for a composition to be “essentially free”?).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhi ("Characterizations of spinel LiMn2-xZrxO4 cathode for lithium-ion batteries." Acta Physico-Chimica Sinica, 21(1), 89-92, Year: 2005).
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 11-17, 19 and 20: Zhi discloses a LiMn2-xZrxO4 with x=0, 0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.06, 0.08 and 0.1 (abs).
Claims 1, 5, 8, 10 and 18: Regarding the claimed disordered, energy and capacity property, if a prior art reference teaches the substantially identical structure/material/product, it would be reasonable that the same function and/or property would be imparted or exhibited. See MPEP 2112.01. Applicant is welcomed to provide any evidence that the disclosed material is exceedingly different from the claimed material - thus the claimed properties would inevitably not be present.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binder (US-20150089797-A1).
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 11-17, 19 and 20: Binder discloses A doped spinel comprising the formula:
Li1±wMe1vMe2x-vMn2-x-yTiyO4-zFz
where, 0≦w<1, 0.3<x≦0.7, 0.3≦v<0.7, x>v, 0.0001≦y≦0.35, and 0.0001≦z≦0.3. Me1 is a metal selected from a group of elements consisting of Cr, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, and Zn. Me2 is a metal selected from a group of elements consisting of Ni, Fe, Co, Mg, Cr, V, Ru, Mg, Al, Zn, Cu, Cd, Ag, Y, Sc, Ga, In, As, Sb, Pt, Au, and B (abs, 3-5, 41-44, 52 and examples). Further, Binder discloses the disordered feature (¶4, 7, 32 and 51). The Binder reference discloses the claimed invention with the claimed formula and elements but does not disclose the composition with the claimed elements and stoichiometric amounts with enough specificity to anticipate the claimed invention. Nevertheless, given that Binder discloses a composition with the claimed elements and stoichiometric values meeting the claimed formula, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the chemical art at the time of the invention to utilize and optimize any of the taught components since Binder teaches each one. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pursue the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success since the reference is directed to a similar field of endeavor. It is also noted that the fact that many components and values are disclosed would not have made any of them, such as Y or Zr, less obvious. Here, Binder discloses each of the claimed components and stoichiometric values and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection of the claimed components would be repugnant to a skilled artisan. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 10 and 18: Regarding the claimed energy, XRD patterns and capacity property, if a prior art reference teaches the substantially identical structure/material/product, it would be reasonable that the same function and/or property would be imparted or exhibited. See MPEP 2112.01. Applicant is welcomed to provide any evidence that the disclosed material is exceedingly different from the claimed material - thus the claimed properties would inevitably not be present.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571.270.7026. 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.
/TRI V NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights