DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 2, 9, 10, and 21-27 are currently pending. Claims 1, 3-8, and 11-20 are cancelled. New claim 27 has been added. The amended claim 22 does not overcome the previously stated 103 rejections. Therefore, upon further consideration, claims 2, 9, 10, and 21-27 are rejected under the following 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, and 25-27 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 gathered closely together in a state of being 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] and Fig. 2).
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.
Regarding claim 27, Song et al does not expressly teach a content of the carbon material in the secondary particles that is from 2.7 percent by weight of the secondary particles to 4.8 percent by weight of the secondary particles.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Song positive active material to include a content of the carbon material in the secondary particles that is from 2.7 percent by weight of the secondary particles to 4.8 percent by weight of the secondary particles because even if the range of prior art and the claimed range do not overlap, obviousness may still exist if the ranges are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect a difference in properties (In re Woodruff 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed content of the carbon material in the secondary particles. As shown in Table 2, there is no statistical and practical significance between Example 1 (2.7 wt%) and Example 10 (1.4 wt%) and between Example 11 (4.8 wt%) and Example 12 (8.5 wt%) in terms of Pre-cycle Average discharge voltage voltage retention rate%.
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 filed 7/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that “In contrast, the primary Song reference is directed " to a positive active material for a lithium rechargeable battery that includes secondary particles including primary particles gathered with one another, wherein the secondary particles have a void core structure See, Song, Abstract, paragraph [0086] and Fig. 2. Further, the primary Song reference " does not expressly teach primary particles that each consist of a lithium-manganese phosphate as admitted by the Patent Office (See, Office Action, page 3), let alone as further defined in dependent claim 23. Indeed, Song is directed to LiFePO4 primary particles "gathered with one another" to form "secondary particles [having] a void core structure as previously discussed. Clearly then, the secondary particle void core structure formed from LiFePO4 primary particles of Song is different from the claimed primary/secondary particle structure as claimed and as further supported in the published application, for example, Figs. 3-4 and corresponding written description as previously discussed, and thus one skilled in the art would not necessarily equate the Song positive active material characteristics (e.g., primary particle average particle diameter) to a secondary battery including a positive electrode including primary particles that each consist of a lithium manganese phosphate compound and that that are gathered closely together in a state of being separated from each other by the carbon material as claimed. Moreover, Song provides "carbon in an amount of about 1 wt% to about 5 wt% based on the total weight of the positive active material " (See, Song, paragraph [0083]), clearly in contrast to " a content of the carbon material in the secondary particles is from 1.4 percent by weight of the secondary particles to 4.8 percent by weight of the secondary particles as claimed, let alone as further defined in newly added claim 27. Applicant has recognized and demonstrated that the claimed positive electrode features contribute to enhanced battery characteristics. See, published application, Table 1: Examples 1, 2, and 3 (claimed secondary battery) in comparison to Examples 4 and 8 having an average particle diameter of primary particles of 110 nm as shown in Table 1; and corresponding written description including paragraphs [0040] and [0186] to [0188]”.
In response, the limitation “primary particles are gathered closely together in a state of being separated from each other by the carbon material” recited in claim 22 does not distinguish over a void core structure being present in the Song positive active material. As shown in Fig. 2 of Song, the primary particles “1a” are gathered closely together in a state of being separated from each other by the carbon material “1b”. In addition, as stated above, Song discloses a content of carbon in the secondary particles that is about 1.5 wt% to 2 wt% which is within the range recited in claim 22 of 1.4 wt% to 4.8 wt%. Further, Table 1 only shows Examples 1 and 2 that are commensurate in scope with claim 22 because Examples 3 and 4 correspond to an average particle diameter of 100 nm and 110 nm respectively. Therefore, based upon a comparison between Experimental example 2 (average particle diameter = 60 nm) and Experimental example 3 (average particle diameter = 100 nm), there is no evidence of unexpected results in terms of “Average discharge voltage retention rate %”. Lastly, the Office points out that Song discloses an average primary particle diameter of 30 nm to 50 nm that is within the range of “equal to or greater than 30 nm and less than 100 nm” recited in claim 22. So, Table 1 cannot show evidence of unexpected results of the claimed average particle diameter.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 9/10/2026
Prosecution Insights