DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/12/25 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 2, 9, 10, and 21-26 are currently pending. Claims 1, 3-8, and 11-20 are cancelled. New claim 26 has been added. The amended claims do overcome the previously stated 103 rejections. However, upon further consideration, claims 2, 9, 10, and 21-26 are rejected under the following new 103 rejections.
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.
Claims 2, 21-23, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al (US 2012/0064408) in view of Yamashita et al (US 2018/0083280), and further in view of Yamamoto et al (US 2017/0271671).
Regarding claims 2, 21-23, and 26, Song et al discloses a lithium ion rechargeable battery (secondary battery) comprising: a positive active material (positive electrode) including primary particles that each consist of lithium iron phosphate particle “1a” and have an average primary particle diameter of about 30 nm to about 50 nm; wherein the positive active material includes a carbon material “1b” configured to cover a surface of each of the primary particles forming secondary particles, wherein the primary particles are separated from each other by the carbon material, wherein an amount of the carbon material included in the positive active material is 1.5 wt% to 2 wt%; a negative electrode; and an electrolytic solution ([0065]-[0086],[0120],[0130]).
However, Song et al does not expressly teach primary particles that each consist of a lithium-manganese phosphate, wherein M1 is magnesium and iron (claim 22); wherein the lithium-manganese phosphate compound is LiMn0.70Fe0.27Mg0.03PO4 (claim 23).
Yamashita et al discloses examples of a positive electrode active substance includes lithium transition metal phosphate compound such as LiFe0.15Mn0.75Mg0.1PO4 ([0026]).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because the disclosure of Yamashita et al indicates that LiFe0.15Mn0.75Mg0.1PO4 is a suitable material for use as positive electrode active substance. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has generally been held to be prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.07). As such, it would be obvious to use LiFe0.15Mn0.75Mg0.1PO4. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Song/Yamashita positive active material to include LiFe0.27Mn0.70Mg0.03PO4 because changes in proportion was held to have been obvious (In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed composition of the lithium transition metal phosphate compound.
However, Song et al as modified by Yamashita et al does not expressly teach a negative electrode having an electrochemical capacity per unit area of less than or equal to an electrochemical capacity per unit area of the positive electrode (claim 22).
Yamamoto et al discloses a capacity ratio p/n that is not less than 1.4, where p is a capacity (electrochemical capacity) per unit area of the positive electrode and n is a capacity (electrochemical capacity) per unit area of the negative electrode which corresponds to a negative electrode that has a capacity per unit area that is less than a capacity per unit area of the positive electrode ([0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Song/Yamashita battery to include a negative electrode having an electrochemical capacity per unit area of less than or equal to an electrochemical capacity per unit area of the positive electrode in order to prevent a potential of a positive electrode from becoming high in such a state that a state-of-charge is high, and to prevent a positive electrode amount contributing to charge and discharge from being too large ([0044]).
Regarding claim 25, the Office takes the position that the limitation “an initial-cycle charge capacity per unit area of the positive electrode is greater than or equal to an initial-cycle charge capacity per unit area of the negative electrode and a subsequent-cycle charge capacity per unit area of the positive electrode is greater than or equal to a subsequent-cycle charge capacity per unit area of the negative electrode” is an inherent characteristic of the Song/Yamashita/Yamamoto battery because Song as modified by Yamashita and Yamamoto teaches the same lithium-manganese phosphate compound and negative electrode having an electrochemical capacity per unit area that is less than an electrochemical capacity per unit area of the positive electrode as the present invention.
Claims 9, 10, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al in view of Yamashita et al and Yamamoto et al as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Oshitari et al (US 2017/0092933).
However, Song et al as modified by Yamashita et al and Yamamoto et al does not expressly teach a negative electrode that includes at least one of a titanium oxide, a lithium-titanium composite oxide, a hydrogen-titanium compound, a lithium-niobium composite oxide, a hydrogen-niobium compound, and a titanium-niobium composite oxide (claims 9 and 10); wherein the negative electrode includes Li4Ti5O12 (claim 24).
Oshitari et al discloses examples of an anode (negative electrode) that include Li4Ti5O12 (lithium titanium composite oxide) ([0118]).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because the disclosure of Oshitari indicates that Li4Ti5O12 is a suitable material for use as a negative electrode material. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has generally been held to be prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.07). As such, it would be obvious to use Li4Ti5O12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2, 9, 10, and 21-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONY S CHUO whose telephone number is (571)272-0717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:30pm.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached on 571-270-1292. 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.
/T.S.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/24/2026
Prosecution Insights