Invalidity Analysis — US10597307 (public record)

For attorney review — not a legal opinion, not a validity determination. Every IS4 chart correctly concludes that no single eligible reference discloses target Formula (I) arranged as claimed, so there is no clean §102 anticipation ground — the recurring gap is the cobalt-DOMINANT host Li α Co(1-x-2y) bearing BOTH a distinct Me dopant AND a charge-balanced +2/+4 (M1M2) pair, together with the four quantified ranges. The strongest candidate grounds are therefore all §103 combinations built around US6878487B2, the only eligible reference that expressly recites a cobalt-dominant host formula (LixCo1-yM'yO2 with M' drawn from a menu including Ni, Mn, Al, Mg, V and 0≤y≤0.5, 0.95≤x≤1.1), combined with references that supply the known Ni2+/Mn4+ (or analogous +2/+4) co-substitution concept — most powerfully the LiNi0.4Mn0.4Co0.2O2 synthesis paper, which verbatim reports that '80% of the Ni and Mn are in the 2+ and 4+ oxidation states' in a layered α-NaFeO2 (trigonal) Co-containing oxide, and US6677082B2, whose claim 5 recites 'M ions are Ni and Co, and M′ is Mn.' The principal caveats the attorney should weigh: (1) no eligible reference discloses the specific cobalt-dominant single-phase compound with a separate Me term plus a discrete +2/+4 pair, so the combination requires an articulated motivation and reasonable expectation of success rather than a direct teaching; (2) the strongest 'pair' teachings are Ni-dominant or Mn-rich, making the shift to a Co-dominant lattice a patentee counterargument point; and (3) the narrow dependent y-value claims (about 0.04–0.22) rest on routine-optimization / overlapping-range theory that is vulnerable to an unexpected-results rebuttal supported by the target's own worked examples.

Candidate grounds for attorney evaluation, ranked strongest-first — not a validity determination. Confirm every reference date and quotation before relying on a ground.

Ground 1 — §103 obviousness

Strength: moderate
References: US6878487B2, The synthesis, characterization and electrochemical behavior of the layered LiNi0.4Mn0.4Co0.2O2 compound
Claims: 1, 2, 3, 15, 16, 17, 18
KSR rationale: (A) — MPEP § 2143

Claim 1's cobalt-dominant Formula (I) framework, Li coefficient, and oxygen coefficient map onto US6878487B2's recited 'Li x Co 1-y M′ y O 2-z X z' host (Li 0.95-1.1, O≈2), where M′ can be Ni, Mn, Al, Mg, V simultaneously; the target's requirement of a separate Me dopant plus an M1(+2)/M2(+4) pair is supplied by the synthesis paper's teaching that in a layered Co-containing oxide '80% of the Ni and Mn are in the 2+ and 4+ oxidation states, respectively' — i.e., the Ni2+/Mn4+ pair of claim 2. Claim 3 (trigonal structure) is met because the synthesis paper's compound has 'the α-NaFeO2 layer structure' (space group R-3m, trigonal). Claim 15's NiMn pairing is expressly taught. Claims 16-18 (cathode with current collector, battery cell with anode/current collector, portable electronic device) are disclosed by US6878487B2, which recites a positive electrode/current collector, a full battery, and expressly addresses 'portable electronic equipment.' The combination would render these claims obvious under §103.

Motivation to combine: US6878487B2 is directed to improving 'electrochemical characteristics and thermal stability' of lithium-cobalt-oxide cathode active materials and expressly recites the cobalt-dominant host 'Li x Co 1-y M′ y O 2-z X z' with 'M′ ... at least one element selected from the group consisting of Al, Ni, Co, Mn, Cr, Fe, Mg, Sr, V' and '0.95≦x≦1.1, 0≦y≦0.5.' A PHOSITA seeking to stabilize such a Co-based layered oxide would apply the well-known charge-balanced Ni2+/Mn4+ co-substitution demonstrated by the synthesis paper, which reports Ni and Mn residing '2+ and 4+ oxidation states' in a layered α-NaFeO2 Co-containing oxide, to occupy the M′ site (Me=Al or Mg, M1=Ni, M2=Mn) — a combination of known layered-oxide dopants according to known methods yielding the predictable result of a stabilized cathode, with a reasonable expectation of success because both materials share the same R-3m/α-NaFeO2 structure and predictable substitution chemistry (MPEP § 2143 rationale (A); § 2143.02).

Weakest link: Neither reference discloses the claimed compound as a single cobalt-DOMINANT phase bearing a discrete Me term AND a charge-balanced +2/+4 pair with the quantified x/y ranges arranged as in Formula (I); US6878487B2 lists its Co host only generically among many active materials (in a patent actually directed to conductive-agent coating) and does not require the +2/+4 pairing, while the synthesis paper's demonstrated Ni2+/Mn4+ pair sits in a Ni-dominant (not Co-dominant) lattice.

Patentee's likely counterarguments:

• The combination is impermissible hindsight: US6878487B2 never selects the Co host with a paired Ni2+/Mn4+ substitution, and the synthesis paper's pair is demonstrated only in a Ni/Mn-dominant composition, so a PHOSITA had no direction to transplant it onto a Co-dominant lattice with a separate Me dopant.
• US6878487B2 is directed to conductive-agent surface coating, not compound stoichiometry, so its generic listing of Co-oxide formulas provides no teaching of the claimed +2/+4 pair architecture or the specific x/y/α/δ ranges; the patentee may argue the arrangement-as-claimed is absent from both references even in combination.

Ground 2 — §103 obviousness

Strength: moderate
References: US6878487B2, US6677082B2
Claims: 1, 2, 3, 15, 16, 17, 18
KSR rationale: (A) — MPEP § 2143

US6878487B2 supplies the cobalt-dominant host framework and the Li/O coefficient ranges; US6677082B2 supplies the M2 (+4) menu 'Mn, Ti, and Zr' (claim 11) and the Ni/Co/Mn combination (claim 5) plus Mg2+/Al3+ as substituents (claim 8), addressing the Me and M1M2 pair limitations of claim 1 and the NiMn pair of claim 2. The layered R-3m character (claim 3) is consistent with both references' layered oxides. Claims 15-18 follow as in Ground 1. The combination would render these claims obvious under §103.

Motivation to combine: US6677082B2 teaches a layered lithium metal oxide in which 'M ions are Ni and Co, and M′ is Mn' (claim 5), with M′ being a tetravalent ion (average oxidation state four) and M a trivalent-average ion, and further teaches that 'M and M′ ions are partially replaced by Mg2+ or Al3+ ions' (claim 8) — supplying both the +4 (Mn/Ti/Zr) M2 menu and Mg/Al as the Me dopant. A PHOSITA improving the cobalt-dominant LixCo1-yM'yO2 host of US6878487B2 would incorporate the known Ni/Mn (with Mg/Al) co-substitution taught by US6677082B2 to obtain a stabilized layered cathode, a predictable combination of known layered-oxide constituents (MPEP § 2143 rationale (A)) with reasonable expectation of success given the shared layered oxide chemistry.

Weakest link: US6677082B2's compound is a lithium-RICH, Mn/Ni-based two-component composite (Li:metal ratio 'greater than one and less than two') in which its Ni carries an average oxidation state of THREE, not the claimed +2 for M1, and Co is only optional — so it does not cleanly supply a +2/+4 pair on a Co-dominant lattice, and the combination must overcome the difference in host architecture.

Patentee's likely counterarguments:

• US6677082B2 characterizes M (including Ni) as 'average oxidation state of three,' directly contradicting the claim's requirement that M1 (Ni) be a +2 metal, so it does not teach the claimed +2/+4 pair.
• US6677082B2 is a Li-rich Mn/Ni composite with Li:M greater than one and less than two; combining it with a stoichiometric Co-dominant host would change the principle of operation and the patentee can argue no reasonable expectation of success in producing the single-phase Co-dominant Formula (I) compound (MPEP § 2143.01, § 2143.02).

Ground 3 — §103 obviousness

Strength: weak
References: US6878487B2, The synthesis, characterization and electrochemical behavior of the layered LiNi0.4Mn0.4Co0.2O2 compound
Claims: 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13
KSR rationale: (E) — MPEP § 2143

The dependent claims recite progressively narrower y windows (0<y≤0.25; 0.02–0.06; 0.05–0.09; 0.08–0.12; 0.14–0.18; 0.20–0.25). US6878487B2's disclosed substituent-fraction range 0≤y≤0.5 overlaps each of these, and the synthesis paper confirms functional Ni2+/Mn4+ substitution at appreciable levels; a PHOSITA optimizing the co-dopant fraction of the Ground 1 compound would predictably land within the claimed sub-ranges, rendering them obvious under §103.

Motivation to combine: Once the base cobalt-dominant Ni2+/Mn4+-substituted compound of Ground 1 is rendered obvious, selecting the pair fraction y within the sub-ranges of claims 4-13 would have been a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable: US6878487B2 already teaches a broad substituent fraction '0≦y≦0.5,' which overlaps and encompasses the claimed 0<y≤0.25 windows, and a PHOSITA optimizing capacity versus structural stability would arrive at values in these ranges by choosing among a finite number of predictable dopant levels with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP § 2143 rationale (E); overlapping-range optimization).

Weakest link: No eligible reference discloses a cobalt-dominant compound with any of the specific claimed y values (about 0.04, 0.07, 0.10, 0.16, 0.22); the overlapping-range theory relies on a broad generic fraction range for a substituent group whose composition and role differ from the claimed discrete +2/+4 pair, so the 'result-effective variable' predicate is contestable.

Patentee's likely counterarguments:

• The patentee can point to its own worked examples showing that specific y values produce a surface-stabilized cathode with unexpectedly superior capacity retention, invoking unexpected results commensurate with the claimed sub-ranges to rebut routine-optimization obviousness (MPEP § 2145).
• US6878487B2's 0≤y≤0.5 describes a single generic substituent M', not the claimed +2/+4 pair fraction y, so there is no recognition in the art that the pair fraction is a result-effective variable, undercutting the obvious-to-try rationale.

Ground 4 — §103 obviousness

Strength: weak
References: US6007947A, The synthesis, characterization and electrochemical behavior of the layered LiNi0.4Mn0.4Co0.2O2 compound
Claims: 1, 2, 3, 15, 16, 17, 18
KSR rationale: (A) — MPEP § 2143

US6007947A supplies a trigonal (α-NaCrO2) layered Ni/Co/Mn oxide with additional metal dopants (Me menu overlap: Al, Ti, Cr, Mg) and full cell/current collector/portable-use context (claims 16-18), while the synthesis paper supplies the Ni2+/Mn4+ oxidation-state pairing (claims 2, 15). Together they would render claims 1-3 and 15-18 obvious under §103.

Motivation to combine: US6007947A discloses a layered lithium nickel cobalt metal oxide 'Lix Niy Coz Mn O2' with an α-NaCrO2 (trigonal) crystal structure in which M is 'aluminum, titanium, tungsten, chromium, molybdenum, magnesium, tantalum, silicon' (supplying an Me dopant) together with Ni, Co and Mn, and a current collector and full lithium-ion cell. A PHOSITA combining this with the synthesis paper's demonstrated Ni2+/Mn4+ pairing would arrive at a layered Ni/Co/Mn oxide with an Me dopant and a +2/+4 pair, a predictable combination of known layered-oxide elements (MPEP § 2143 rationale (A)).

Weakest link: US6007947A is Ni-DOMINANT (its ratio z/y ranges only 'from above 0 to about 1/3,' making cobalt a minority element) and its Ni/Co/Mn primarily appears in a physical mixture context rather than a single cobalt-dominant compound, so it does not supply the claimed Co(1-x-2y) majority-cobalt lattice.

Patentee's likely counterarguments:

• US6007947A teaches a nickel-dominant compound and a two-material electrode mixture, not the single cobalt-dominant Formula (I) phase, so the central 'cobalt as majority transition metal' limitation is absent from both references (MPEP § 2141.02 — reference considered as a whole).
• The patentee can argue the references would not be combined to reach a Co-dominant lattice absent hindsight from the target's own disclosure, and that the differing host stoichiometry defeats a reasonable expectation of success.

Unverified leads (no established date — not usable as grounds)

These references had no establishable date, so they were withheld from the grounds analysis — an undated reference cannot anchor a §102/§103 ground. Undated web results are often post-priority commentary describing the target’s own commercialized feature; treat these strictly as leads to date manually.

• Ni-rich lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide cathode materials: A review on the synthesis methods and their electrochemical performances (non-patent literature)
• Review Issues and challenges of layered lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxides for lithium-ion batteries (non-patent literature)
• Niobium doping of Li 1.2 Mn 0.54 Ni 0.13 Co 0.13 O 2 cathode materials with enhanced structural stability and electrochemical performance (non-patent literature)
• A novel low-cobalt long-life LiNi 0.88 Co 0.06 Mn 0.03 Al 0.03 O 2 cathode material for lithium ion batteries (non-patent literature)
• Effect of Cationic (Na+) and Anionic (F-) Co-Doping on the Structural and Electrochemical Properties of LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3O2 Cathode Material for Lithium-Ion Batteries (non-patent literature)
• Impact of Excess Li on the Structural and Electrochemical Properties of Li1+x(NizCo1-2zMnz)1-xO2 Materials for Lithium-Ion Batteries (non-patent literature)
• Effects of cationic substitution on structural defects in layered cathode materials LiNiO2. (non-patent literature)

Element-by-element mapping of the strongest prior-art references against the target’s independent claims. A single absent element defeats §102 anticipation for that reference (it may still contribute to a §103 combination). Quoted reference passages are verified verbatim against the fetched reference text; any unverified quote is flagged in the Priority-Date Discipline section. For attorney review.

US5744262A — Stable high-voltage electrolyte for lithium secondary battery vs. claim 1

Verdict: missing element(s) — no §102.

For attorney review — not a legal opinion, not a validity determination. US5744262A is directed to an organic electrolyte (a carbonate/acetate solvent mixture with a lithium salt) for a lithium secondary battery, not to a cathode active compound. Its only reference to cathode material is generic — the abstract states the electrolyte works with 'a cathode which contains either LiCoO2 or LiMn2 O4' — which is undoped lithium cobalt oxide, not the multi-element doped Formula (I) compound of the target claim. The reference contains NO disclosure of the claimed Formula (I) stoichiometry, no Me dopant selection, no +2 (M1) / +4 (M2) metal pairs, and none of the quantified ranges for x, y, α, or δ. Every substantive element of claim 1 is therefore absent from this single reference, so it would NOT anticipate claim 1 under §102 (MPEP § 2131 — a §102 rejection requires a single reference to disclose every element arranged as in the claim). Even the mention of 'LiCoO2' does not partially map, because the claim requires cobalt substituted by Me and M1M2 pairs, which bare LiCoO2 lacks. This reference has essentially no relevance as an anticipation anchor for claim 1 and would at most serve as a generic electrolyte teaching in a broader §103 combination — a role the attorney should weigh separately.

US6007947A — Mixed lithium manganese oxide and lithium nickel cobalt oxide positive electrodes vs. claim 1

Verdict: missing element(s) — no §102.

For attorney review — not a legal opinion, not a validity determination. US6007947A does NOT anticipate claim 1 under §102 because at least four limitations are absent, arranged-as-claimed. The reference discloses a lithium NICKEL cobalt metal oxide (Lix Niy Coz Mn O2) in which cobalt is the minority element (z/y up to about 1/3), whereas Formula (I) requires a cobalt-dominant host, Li α Co(1-x-2y)...; the reference's specific cobalt-base arrangement is therefore only partially mapped. The substituent identity list overlaps (Al, Ti, Cr, Mg are common to both Me and the reference's M), the dopant fraction range overlaps (reference n up to about 0.25 within claimed 0<x≤0.3), the lithium coefficient partially overlaps (reference x about 0 to 1 vs claimed 0.95≤α≤1.4), and δ≈2 maps to the reference's O2. However, the reference never discloses the paired M1/M2 co-substitution scheme central to the claim: there is no disclosure of an M1 metal in a +2 oxidation state (Ni/Mg/Zn) paired with an M2 metal in a +4 oxidation state (Mn/Ti/Zr/V) within a single compound (elements 3, 4, 5), nor the corresponding pair fraction y (element 7). The reference instead teaches a physical MIXTURE of two separate compounds (LixNiyCozO2 plus LixMn2O4) — not a single formula bearing charge-balanced M1M2 pairs. Because these limitations are missing from the single reference, no §102 anticipation is made out; the reference may still be relevant to a §103 combination, which is outside this chart.

US6077496A — Positive electrode active material for nonaqueous secondary cells and a process for producing said active material vs. claim 1

Verdict: missing element(s) — no §102.

For attorney review — not a legal opinion, not a validity determination. US6077496A discloses a lithium transition-metal oxide of formula Li_a Ni_b M_c O_d in which the stoichiometric coefficient ranges partially overlap the target claim: the lithium coefficient (0.95≤a≤1.05, quoted) falls within the claimed 0.95≤α≤1.4, the oxygen coefficient (d=2, quoted) falls within the claimed 1.90≤δ≤2.10, and the reference's M element list (Co, Mn, Fe, V, Ti, Al, Sn, Zn, Cu, Mg, etc.) overlaps the claimed Me list. However, the reference is a NICKEL-DOMINANT compound (Ni occupies the majority coefficient b, with b+c=1 and 0<c<0.4), whereas target claim 1 requires a COBALT-DOMINANT compound with Co in the (1-x-2y) position. Critically, the reference discloses NO M1M2 paired-metal construct — it never recites a +2 metal (M1) selected from Ni/Mg/Zn paired with a +4 metal (M2) selected from Mn/Ti/Zr/V, nor the associated y coefficient (0<y≤0.4). Because the cobalt-based Formula (I), the M1/M2 oxidation-state pair limitation, and the y range are all absent from this single reference and cannot be found arranged as in the claim, the reference does NOT anticipate claim 1 under §102/MPEP § 2131; the missing pair/cobalt-base limitations are the dispositive gaps. The reference may nonetheless be relevant to a §103 combination analysis, which is outside this single-reference chart.

US6677082B2 — Lithium metal oxide electrodes for lithium cells and batteries vs. claim 1

Verdict: missing element(s) — no §102.

US6677082B2 discloses a lithium-RICH, manganese-based layered composite of the form xLiMO2·(1-x)Li2M′O3 (Li:metal ratio 'greater than one and less than two'), not the cobalt-DOMINANT compound of target Formula (I), Li α Co(1-x-2y)Me x (M1M2)y O δ, in which cobalt carries the base coefficient (1-x-2y). The reference maps at the conceptual level only: it teaches an M′ tetravalent metal that is at least one of Mn/Ti/Zr (element 4, disclosed) and Ni + Mn pairing (elements 3/5, partial), and mentions Mg/Al substituents (element 2, partial). However, the arranged Formula (I) itself is absent (the reference's formula is structurally different and does not recite cobalt as the majority metal), the reference's Ni is characterized as average oxidation state THREE rather than the claimed +2 for M1, and the quantitative limits 0<x≤0.3 (element 6) and 0<y≤0.4 (element 7) are entirely absent — the reference's variable 'x' denotes the LiMO2/Li2M′O3 mole fraction, an unrelated parameter. Because at least these limitations are absent and not arranged as in the claim, this single reference would NOT anticipate claim 1 under §102 (MPEP § 2131); it is better assessed as a potential §103 combination component. For attorney review — not a legal opinion, not a validity determination.

US6680143B2 — Lithium metal oxide electrodes for lithium cells and batteries vs. claim 1

Verdict: missing element(s) — no §102.

The reference discloses a lithium-rich, manganese-based layered composite of the form xLiMO2·(1−x)Li2M′O3 in which the trivalent M must include Mn and the tetravalent M′ is drawn from Mn, Ti, Zr, Ru, Re, Pt — this maps cleanly onto claim 1's M2 (+4) limitation (Mn/Ti/Zr) and partially onto the Me dopant limitation (via Mg2+/Al3+ partial replacement) and onto an M1 candidate (Ni is listed among M). However, the reference does NOT disclose the claimed Formula (I) architecture in which cobalt is the dominant transition metal at Co(1-x-2y); the reference's base structure is Mn-anchored (at least one M ion 'being Mn'), Co is merely one optional member of M, and the compound is a two-component Li-rich composite rather than the single-phase Co-based oxide of Formula (I). Critically, the quantitative range limitations of the claim — 0<x≤0.3 and 0<y≤0.4 (the reference's 'x' is the unrelated LiMO2/Li2M′O3 mole fraction, not a Me or pair content), and the specific α (0.95–1.4) and δ (1.90–2.10) windows — are not disclosed as arranged in the claim. Because at least the Co-dominant formula and the x/y stoichiometric ranges are absent from this single reference, it would not anticipate claim 1 under §102 (MPEP §2131); the reference may instead be relevant to a §103 combination.

US6878487B2 — Active material for battery and method of preparing same vs. claim 1

Verdict: missing element(s) — no §102.

This reference is directed to coating an active material with a conductive-agent layer, and it lists conventional lithium-transition-metal-oxide active materials only generically. Several limitations of claim 1 map partially: the reference recites cobalt-based host formulas (Li x Co 1-y M′ y A 2 / Li x Co 1-y M′ y O 2-z X z), an M′ substituent group that overlaps the claimed Me/M1/M2 element menus (Ni, Mg, Mn, V, etc.), a Li range (0.95≤x≤1.1) that falls within the claimed 0.95≤α≤1.4, and an oxygen sub-stoichiometry near 2. However, the reference discloses only a SINGLE substituent species M′ with a single fraction y; it does NOT disclose the claim's defining architecture — a distinct dopant Me together with a co-substituted PAIR (M1M2)y in which M1 is specifically a +2 metal and M2 a specifically +4 metal, nor the associated pair-fraction 0<y≤0.4 in a Co(1-x-2y) framework. Because at least the 'M1M2 pairs of a +2 and +4 metal' limitation and the associated pair-fraction limitation are absent, and the reference nowhere characterizes oxidation states or arranges these terms as in Formula (I), the single reference does not disclose every element arranged as claimed. Under §102 / MPEP § 2131 this reference would not anticipate claim 1 (missing elements); its generic Co-oxide formulas may nonetheless be relevant to a §103 combination for the attorney to weigh.

KR101515678B1 — Positive-electrode active material with improved output and secondary battery including them vs. claim 1

Verdict: missing element(s) — no §102.

For attorney review — not a legal opinion, not a validity determination. The KR101515678B1 available text (abstract and claims only; no detailed description was provided, so any disclosure beyond the claims is UNVERIFIED) does not anticipate target claim 1 under §102/MPEP § 2131. The reference's core subject matter is a COMPOSITE (physical mixture) of a Mn-rich layered oxide (Formula 1: a[Li2MnO3]·(1-a)[LiM1O2]) and an NCA-type oxide (Formula 3: Li(NixCoyAlz)O2) — not the single cobalt-dominant compound of target Formula (I) Li α Co(1-x-2y) Me x (M1M2)y O δ, so element (1) is absent as arranged. The only element that maps even partially is the Me substituent list (element 2), where the reference's dopant list in claim 5 (Al, Mg, Ni, Co, Fe, Cr, V, Ti, Cu, Zn, Zr, etc.) overlaps the claimed Me group; but that list appears as an optional doping of an additional composite component, not as the Me term of the claimed single formula. Critically, the reference nowhere characterizes the paired M1(+2)/M2(+4) construct (elements 3–5) nor recites the specific stoichiometric ranges for x, y, α, and δ tied to Formula (I) (elements 6–9). Because multiple limitations are absent and the elements are not arranged as in the claim, no §102 anticipation is made out; the reference may at most be a candidate contributor to a §103 combination, which is outside this single-reference anticipation chart.

US8741482B2 — Mixed cathode active material having improved power characteristics and lithium secondary battery including the same vs. claim 1

Verdict: missing element(s) — no §102.

US8741482B2 does not anticipate claim 1 under §102. The dispositive gap is the claimed Formula (I) itself — a cobalt-dominant lithium oxide of the form Li α Co(1-x-2y) Me x (M1M2)y O δ, in which cobalt occupies the majority (1-x-2y) transition-metal site and M1/M2 form defined +2/+4 pairs. The reference's central compound is a manganese-RICH layered oxide, aLi2MnO3·(1-a)LixMO2 with Mn 'included in a range of 50 mol% to 80 mol%,' mixed with a second CDMO (xMnO2·(1-x)Li2MnO3) material; cobalt appears only as one optional member of a Markush 'M' group or as an optional third lithium-containing oxide, never as the required majority element of the specifically recited formula. While the reference's dopant/element lists overlap the claim's Me, M1 (Ni, Mg), and M2 (Mn, Ti, Zr, V) genera (partial disclosures), it nowhere discloses (i) the specific cobalt-based Formula (I) arranged as claimed, (ii) M1M2 as defined +2/+4 paired substituents on a cobalt lattice, or (iii) any of the four quantitative parameter ranges (x, y, α, δ). Because at least these limitations are absent and are not 'arranged as in the claim,' the verdict is missing_elements; the overlapping element lists may be relevant to a §103 combination analysis but cannot support §102 anticipation. This is candidate prior-art analysis for attorney review, not a legal opinion or validity determination.

USRE45310E1 — Cathode active material, cathode therewith and nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery vs. claim 1

Verdict: missing element(s) — no §102.

This reference is directed to a surface-coated (film/metal-salt-coated) cathode active material, not to the specific stoichiometric compound of Formula (I). It maps only at a high level of generality: the reference expressly discloses a layered lithium-cobalt-containing composite oxide particle (claims 4-5, 11-12) whose surface bears a different element that may be nickel Ni or manganese Mn (claim 7), which loosely overlaps the Me/M1/M2 element menus of the claim. However, the reference nowhere discloses the claimed Formula (I) itself, the paired M1/M2 (+2/+4) structural relationship on the transition-metal site, or any of the four quantified stoichiometric ranges for x, y, α, and δ that define the claim — indeed the Ni/Mn in the reference appear as surface constituents rather than as substituents occupying the Co lattice site per the formula. Because multiple limitations (M1M2 pairing and all four numeric ranges) are absent from this single reference, it does not anticipate claim 1 under §102/MPEP § 2131; at most it could serve as one component of a §103 combination, an analysis outside the scope of this anticipation chart.