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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts that the instant application presents unexpected results in view of the declaration of 03/16/2026. This argument is not persuasive, as discussed below in response to the declaration.
Additionally, the applicant asserts that paragraph 0077 of Yoon fails to disclose a range encompassing the range of claim 1, stating that “1:99 to 99:1 is not a range, since it practically teaches all possible ratios of LFMP to NCM”. This has been fully considered but is not persuasive, as the scope of a range does not affect whether or not is a range. Any set of values with a lower bound an upper bound is considered to be a range.
Additionally, the applicant asserts that Yoon does not teach any result effective variable of the blend ratio that would lead one skilled in the art to optimize the blend ratio. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive, as Yoon’s figure 4 depicts the effects of LFMP:NCM ratio variation, presenting a 50:50 blend and a 70:30 blend. As depicted in the figure, the 50:50 blend shown superior potential over the 70:30 blend at an SOC range of 50-90%. Accordingly, this represents a motivation for one ordinarily skilled in the art to optimize the blend ratio, further motivating a reduction of the blend ratio to an LFMP content below 50%, as a reduction of LFMP relative to NCM is depicted as showing beneficial effects.
Additionally, the applicant asserts that in regards to Yoon teaching away from a Mn molar ratio above 0.5, and in regards to claim 22, where Yoon teaches away from increasing an amount of Manganese in the LFMP above 0.5, one ordinarily skilled in the art would not be motivated to combine Kim with Yoon, due to Yoon’s teaching of instability risks at high temperatures. This argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive. Yoon’s disclosure of instability risks is directed towards LFMP with an Mn content less than 50 percent. This is counteracted by Kim’s disclosure that a content of Mn in the range of 0.6 to 0.7 provides specific benefits in regards to a higher energy density resulting from a higher ratio between Mn and Fe, depicted in their figure 1, which presents a higher average voltage when Mn content is above 0.5 (Paragraph 0062, “As MF raises, the higher plateau extends and lower one shrinks. As a result, the average voltage increases with increased MF.”). Accordingly, this provides motivation for the combination of Kim and Yoon, even in view of Yoon’s teachings. Further Yoon’s teaching of instability risk at high temperatures is specifically directed towards vehicular use cases and high power applications (Paragraph 0203, “high Mn content in the LFMP may not be needed for practical automotive use and for high power applications”). As neither Yoon nor Kim are entirely restricted towards vehicle use or high power applications, this teaching of instability does not broadly apply towards all possible combinations of Yoon and Kim, and accordingly one ordinarily skilled in the art could find reason to combine Yoon and Kim for a purpose outside of Vehicle use or high power applications.
Additionally, the applicant asserts that in regards to their figures 2 and 3, and paragraphs 5 and 6 of the declaration, their embodiments of claim 1 present a synergistic effect presenting low DCR over a wide SOC, and that this is not taught by Yoon alone or in view of Kim. This has been fully considered but is not persuasive, as the statements herein do not constitute an argument of unexpected results that meets the requirements of MPEP section 716.02(d).
Additionally, the applicant asserts that in regards to claims 5 and 9, Yoshida does not cure the issues presented in claim 1, and that further Yoshida teaches an NCM content different than the value required by claim 1. This argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive. The scope of claims 5 and 9 is directed towards LFMP particle sizes and NCM particle sizes respectively, and the teaching of Yoshida applied to Yoon and Kim does not involve the NCM content. Accordingly, the applicant has not presented any reason why Yoshida should not be a valid prior art to teach the particle sizes of LFMP and NCM as discussed in the previous office action of record and presented below.
Response to Amendment
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 03/16/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-14, and 22 based upon Yoon in view of Kim as set forth in the last Office action because:
The declarant presents that Figure 2 of the present application is an example of the unexpected benefits of the synergistic blend amounts and Mn concentration. The declarant further presents that only a cathode 100% LFMP with 0.65 Mn (Figure 2’s lines 204 and 254) shows a large DCR increase at 30% SOC, compared to an example with 20% LFMP and 80% NCM (Figure 2’s lines 208 and 258, and 100% NCM (Figure 2’s lines 206 and 256). This evidence has been fully considered, but it cannot be taken as proof of unexpected results as it is not commensurate in scope with the claims.
It is not clear, based on the presented data, that the effects presented as unexpected results would be in effect over the entire scope of the blend ratio of LFMP and NCM. The claim requires that LFMP vary from 0 to 40 percent, and that the NCM vary from 60 to 100 percent. In comparison, the data includes only examples with 20% LFMP and 80% NCM, as presented in figures 2. Without any indication that the LFMP:NCM ratio would be equally effective across the entirety of the claimed range at demonstrating the unexpected results, the examples presented are not commensurate in scope with the claims.
Additionally, the declarant presents that figure 3 demonstrates unexpected synergy as blended cathodes with 80% NCM and 20% LFMP unexpectedly have reduced DCR when Mn in LFMP is increased from 0.45 (Line 308) to 0.65 (Line 310), and the DCR remains lower when Mn is at 0.65 (Line 310) than when Mn is at 1.0 (Line 306). The declarant further discloses that the amount of Mn is not a direct predictor of DCR in the blended cathode, and that the Mn content in LFMP has a different and unexpected effect on DCR that is synergistic with the blended cathode at 20% LFMP and 80% NCM111.
The data presented herein is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. The examples presented comprise only a use of NCM111, whereas the claimed invention is not restricted towards a specific NCM composition. As NCM compositions other than NCM111 exist, and where the declarant presents that as an electroactive component NCM has an effect on DCR, varied NCM compositions could have differing effects on the synergistic effect.
Additionally, the data presented includes only Mn with 0.65, whereas the claims require an Mn content ranging from 0.6 to 0.7. Here, it is not clear that the synergistic effect would be present across the entire claimed range.
The declarant presents that where Yoon teaches a blend composition of LFMP:NCM in a range of 1:99 to 99:1, the declarant would not consider, based on Yoon that changing the blend composition would have any significant effect on the performance of the battery with the blended cathode. This is not persuasive, as Yoon’s figure 4, though showing similar cures, does present variation in regards to the different blends of LFMP:NCM, demonstrating superior performance in the 50:50 blend over the 70:30 blend over an SOC range of 50-90 percent. Based on this Yoon does present evidence that differing blends can have a significant effect on battery performance.
Additionally, the declarant presents that Yoon only measures DCR of LFP and LFMP with 0.5 Mn, and does not measure DCR of blended cathodes, and does not consider potential increases to DCR that can be caused by changing the Mn concentration in the blended cathode, let alone that the selection of Mn concentration is synergistic with the blend composition for decreasing DCR of the battery with a blended cathode. This evidence has been considered but is not persuasive as it is not directed towards any aspect of the rejection made herein.
Additionally, the declarant presents that they would not include LFMP with Mn content greater than 0.5 in the blended cathode based on what is disclosed by Yoon, stating that Yoon’s disclosure teaches that there is no blended cathode with LFMP for which the Mn content of LFMP should be increased above 0.5. This evidence has been fully considered but is not persuasive, as the declarant’s presentation of an absolute statement is not consistent with the statement made by Yoon, where Yoon’s teaching of instability risk at high temperatures is specifically directed towards vehicular use cases and high power applications (Paragraph 0203, “high Mn content in the LFMP may not be needed for practical automotive use and for high power applications”). As neither Yoon nor Kim are entirely restricted towards vehicle use or high power applications, this teaching of instability does not broadly apply towards all possible combinations of Yoon and Kim, and LFMP with Mn content greater than 0.5 in a blended cathode could be used for use cases outside of those discussed by Yoon as having instability effects.
Additionally, the declarant presents that in regards to the combination of Yoon and Kim to increase average voltage, they would consider that Yoon teaches benefits of Mn concentration of less than 0.5, and that increasing the Mn concentration results in instability at high temperature, and for that reason they would not combine the High Mn LFMP taught by Kim with Yoon. This evidence has been considered but is not persuasive for the reasons discussed above regarding the combinations of Yoon and Kim.
Additionally, the declarant presents that the blended cathode of the instant application results in an unexpected improvement over the blended cathode of Yoon, and that the synergy of the claimed blend composition of LFMP with NCM and Mn concentration is not taught by Yoon or by the combination of Yoon and Kim. This evidence has been fully considered but is not persuasive, as the assertion of unexpected results does not meet the requirements of unexpected results as discussed in MPEP section 716.02, as well as discussed above in regards to the commensurate in scope requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-8, 10, 12-14, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (US 20140138591 A1), in further view of Kim (US 20170225952 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yoon is an analogous art to the instant application, discloses structure which comprises an active material (Abstract, “A positive electroactive material is described,”) which comprises a lithium iron manganese phosphate (Abstract, “a lithium iron manganese phosphate compound”) and a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide compound (Abstract “and a lithium metal oxide”; Paragraph 0021, “In certain embodiments, the lithium metal oxide is a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (NCM).”), where there is less of the lithium iron manganese phosphate than the nickel cobalt manganese oxide by weight (Paragraph 0077, “A variety of LFMP:lithium metal oxide weight ratios can be used. The LFMP:lithium metal oxide ratio can vary from 1:99 to 99:1. In some embodiments, the LFMP: lithium metal oxide weight ratio is about 1:99, 5:95, 10:90, 15:85, 20:80, 25:75, 30:70, 35:65; 40:60, 45:55…”). However, Yoon fails to disclose structure where a molar ratio of Mn is greater than 0.60 and less than 0.70.
Therefore, we look to Kim, which is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing a cathode active material which comprises a lithium iron manganese phosphate (Abstract, “An olivine cathode material having the formula LiaFe1−x−y−zMnxD(y+z)(PO4)c, wherein a, c, x, y and z represent molar amounts,”). Additionally, Kim discloses that the lithium iron manganese phosphate comprises a content of manganese greater than 0.60 (Abstract, “wherein 0.6<x<1−y−z;”). Additionally, Kim discloses that an increase in Mn can only be obtained at the expense of a lower energy density (Paragraph 0065, “However, with undoped cathode product, an increase in Mn can only be obtained at the expense of a lower energy density.”) and that a Mn content greater than 0.60 within the scope of their formula is necessary for an increased average voltage (Paragraph 0062, “As MF raises, the higher plateau extends and lower one shrinks. As a result, the average voltage increases with increased MF.”). Accordingly, one ordinarily skilled in the art would find it obvious to select a ratio of manganese which is both greater than, and within the range of 0.60. Additionally, where this content of Mn results in an increased average voltage, one ordinarily skilled in the art would find it obvious to apply the manganese content of Kim to the invention of Yoon, thereby reading upon and making obvious the limitation of the shared technical feature which requires that the ratio of manganese is greater than 0.6 and less than 0.7.
Additionally, Yoon discloses structure wherein the blend ratio of LFMP to NCM is by mass greater than 0% and less than or equal to 40% LFMP, and greater than or equal to 60% and less than 100% NCM, through their disclosure of compositions which comprise 1 weight percent LFMP to 99 weight percent NCM, as well as 5:95, 10:90, 15:85, 20:80, 25:75, 30:70, 35:65; and 40:60 (Paragraph 0077, “A variety of LFMP:lithium metal oxide weight ratios can be used. The LFMP:lithium metal oxide ratio can vary from 1:99 to 99:1. In some embodiments, the LFMP: lithium metal oxide weight ratio is about 1:99, 5:95, 10:90, 15:85, 20:80, 25:75, 30:70, 35:65; 40:60…”).
Regarding Claim 2, Yoon and Kim make obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Yoon discloses structure wherein the LFMP has an overall composition of LiaFe1-x-yMnxDy(PO4)z, (Paragraph 0011) further disclosing structure wherein lithium is present in a ratio between 1 and 1.10 (Paragraph 0011, “wherein 1.0<a≦1.10”), component D is present within a ratio of 0 and 0.1 (Paragraph 0011, “0≦y≦0.10”), wherein the ratio of phosphorous is present within a ratio of 1.0 and 1.1 (Paragraph 0011, “1.0<z≦1.10”), and where the content of Fluorine falls within the range of 0 and 0.1, where a ratio of 0 is present.
Additionally, Yoon discloses structure where D is selected from the group consisting of Ni, V, Co, Nb and combinations thereof (Paragraph 0011, “and D is selected from the group consisting of Co, Ni, V, Nb and combinations thereof”).
Additionally, as discussed above in regards to Claim 1 Yoon fails to disclose structure where a molar ratio of Mn is greater than 0.60 and less than 0.70. Therefore, we once again look to Kim, which is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing a cathode active material which comprises a lithium iron manganese phosphate (Abstract, “An olivine cathode material having the formula LiaFe1−x−y−zMnxD(y+z)(PO4)c, wherein a, c, x, y and z represent molar amounts,”). Additionally, Kim discloses that the lithium iron manganese phosphate comprises a content of manganese greater than 0.60 (Abstract, “wherein 0.6<x<1−y−z;”). Additionally, Kim discloses that an increase in Mn can only be obtained at the expense of a lower energy density (Paragraph 0065, “However, with undoped cathode product, an increase in Mn can only be obtained at the expense of a lower energy density.”) and that a Mn content greater than 0.60 within the scope of their formula is necessary for an increased average voltage (Paragraph 0062, “As MF raises, the higher plateau extends and lower one shrinks. As a result, the average voltage increases with increased MF.”). Accordingly, one ordinarily skilled in the art would find it obvious to select a ratio of manganese which is both greater than, and within the range of 0.60. Additionally, where this content of Mn results in an increased average voltage, one ordinarily skilled in the art would find it obvious to apply the manganese content of Kim to the invention of Yoon, thereby reading upon and making obvious the limitation of the shared technical feature which requires that the ratio of manganese is greater than 0.6 and less than 0.7.
Regarding Claim 3, Yoon and Kim make obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Yoon discloses structure wherein the LFMP is lithium rich (Paragraph 0011, “wherein 1.0<a≦1.10”), where they disclose a lithium ratio greater than 1.
Regarding Claim 4, Yoon and Kim make obvious the invention of Claim 2. Additionally, in regards to the limitations of the instant claim, which requires structure wherein the blended cathode active material comprises Mn within a range of 0.65 (inclusive) to 0.70, Kim discloses structure which makes obvious the range of 0.6 to 0.7 as discussed above. Additionally, where Kim discloses that as manganese content raises, average voltage increases (Paragraph 0062, “As MF raises, the higher plateau extends and lower one shrinks. As a result, the average voltage increases with increased MF.”), and that said increase also results in a decrease in energy density (Paragraph 0065, “However, with undoped cathode product, an increase in Mn can only be obtained at the expense of a lower energy density.”). Accordingly, balancing these benefits, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to select a content of Mn within the scope of the instant claim, balancing the reduced energy density and increased voltage, thereby making obvious structure which has a content of Mn within range of 0.65 (inclusive) to 0.70.
Regarding Claim 7, Yoon and Kim make obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Yoon discloses structure wherein the NCM material has the chemical formula Li1±δNipCoqMn(1-p-q)O2, which satisfies the formula of the instant claim that requires that the NCM have an overall composition of Lia’Nix’Coy’Mn1-x’-y’(O2)b, here meeting the requirement where the content of lithium falls within an inclusive range of 1.0 and 1.10 (Paragraph 0146, “a typical NCM may include δ=0,”), where nickel and cobalt are both present in quantities greater than 0, and their sum is less than 1 (Paragraph 0146, “p=⅓, and q=⅓”), and where the content of O2 is present in a ratio of 1.0.
Regarding Claim 8, Yoon and Kim make obvious the invention of Claim 7. Additionally, Yoon discloses structure wherein the content of Ni and Co in the NCM are each 0.33 (Paragraph 0146, “ a typical NCM may include δ=0, p=⅓, and q=⅓.”), as is required by the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 10, Yoon and Kim make obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Yoon discloses structure wherein the NCM has a BET surface area of approximately 10 m2/g (Paragraph 0153, “In some specific embodiments, the lithium metal oxide has a BET (Brunauer-Emmett-Teller method) specific surface area of less than about 10 m2/g,”), satisfying the limitation of the instant claim which requires structure wherein the BET surface area is greater than 1 m2/g.
Regarding Claim 12, Yoon and Kim make obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, in regards to the limitations of the instant claim, which require structure wherein the LFMP:NCM ratio is 30:70, Yoon discloses said ratio (Paragraph 0077, “In some embodiments, the LFMP: lithium metal oxide weight ratio is [about] 30:70,”).
Regarding Claim 13, Yoon and Kim make obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Yoon discloses structure wherein the LFMP:NCM blend demonstrates a smooth discharge voltage profile (Paragraph 0186, “Additionally, as shown in FIG. 2, there was a smooth discharge voltage profile when using LFMP:NCM blend material in the mixed positive electrode material.”). Accordingly, the smooth profile indicates that the working voltages of the LFMP and the NCM overlap, as is required by the instant claim, as if they were not overlapping the profile would possess gaps.
Regarding Claim 14, Yoon and Kim make obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Yoon discloses structure wherein the specific capacities of LFMP and the NCM overlap, as is required by the instant claim, having a similar final capacity (Paragraph 0184, “Moreover, both the LFP:NCM and LFMP:NCM have similar final capacity (170 mAh/g and 168 mAh/g)”).
Regarding Claim 22, Yoon is an analogous art to the instant application, discloses structure which comprises an active material (Abstract, “A positive electroactive material is described,”) which comprises a lithium iron manganese phosphate (Abstract, “a lithium iron manganese phosphate compound”) and a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide compound (Paragraph 0021, “In certain embodiments, the lithium metal oxide is a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (NCM).”), where there is less of the lithium iron manganese phosphate than the nickel cobalt manganese oxide by weight (Paragraph 0077, “A variety of LFMP:lithium metal oxide weight ratios can be used. The LFMP:lithium metal oxide ratio can vary from 1:99 to 99:1. In some embodiments, the LFMP: lithium metal oxide weight ratio is about 1:99, 5:95, 10:90, 15:85, 20:80, 25:75, 30:70, 35:65; 40:60, 45:55…”). However, Yoon fails to disclose structure where a molar ratio of Mn is greater than 0.60 and less than 0.70.
Therefore, we look to Kim, which is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing a cathode active material which comprises a lithium iron manganese phosphate (Abstract, “An olivine cathode material having the formula LiaFe1−x−y−zMnxD(y+z)(PO4)c, wherein a, c, x, y and z represent molar amounts,”). Additionally, Kim discloses that the lithium iron manganese phosphate comprises a content of manganese greater than 0.60 (Abstract, “wherein 0.6<x<1−y−z;”). Additionally, Kim discloses that an increase in Mn can only be obtained at the expense of a lower energy density (Paragraph 0065, “However, with undoped cathode product, an increase in Mn can only be obtained at the expense of a lower energy density.”) and that a Mn content greater than 0.60 within the scope of their formula is necessary for an increased average voltage (Paragraph 0062, “As MF raises, the higher plateau extends and lower one shrinks. As a result, the average voltage increases with increased MF.”). Accordingly, one ordinarily skilled in the art would find it obvious to select a ratio of manganese which is both greater than, and within the range of 0.60. Additionally, where this content of Mn results in an increased average voltage, one ordinarily skilled in the art would find it obvious to apply the manganese content of Kim to the invention of Yoon, thereby reading upon and making obvious the limitation of the shared technical feature which requires that the ratio of manganese is greater than 0.6 and less than 0.7.
Additionally, in regards to the limitations of the instant claim, which require structure wherein there is less of the LFMP than the NCM by weight, Yoon discloses said structure, disclosing compositions which comprise 1 weight percent LFMP to 99 weight percent NCM, as well as 5:95, 10:90, 15:85, 20:80, 25:75, 30:70, 35:65; 40:60, and 45:55 (Paragraph 0077, “A variety of LFMP:lithium metal oxide weight ratios can be used. The LFMP:lithium metal oxide ratio can vary from 1:99 to 99:1. In some embodiments, the LFMP: lithium metal oxide weight ratio is about 1:99, 5:95, 10:90, 15:85, 20:80, 25:75, 30:70, 35:65; 40:60, 45:55…”).
Additionally, Yoon discloses structure wherein the LFMP has an overall composition of LiaFe1-x-yMnxDy(PO4)z, (Paragraph 0011) further disclosing structure wherein lithium is present in a ratio between 1 and 1.10 (Paragraph 0011, “wherein 1.0<a≦1.10”), component D is present within a ratio of 0 and 0.1 (Paragraph 0011, “0≦y≦0.10”), wherein the ratio of phosphorous is present within a ratio of 1.0 and 1.1 (Paragraph 0011, “1.0<z≦1.10”), and where the content of Fluorine falls within the range of 0 and 0.1, where a ratio of 0 is present.
Additionally, Yoon discloses structure where D is selected from the group consisting of Ni, V, Co, Nb and combinations thereof (Paragraph 0011, “and D is selected from the group consisting of Co, Ni, V, Nb and combinations thereof”).
Additionally, as discussed above Yoon fails to disclose structure where a molar ratio of Mn is greater than 0.60 and less than 0.70. Therefore, we once again look to Kim, which is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing a cathode active material which comprises a lithium iron manganese phosphate (Abstract, “An olivine cathode material having the formula LiaFe1−x−y−zMnxD(y+z)(PO4)c, wherein a, c, x, y and z represent molar amounts,”). Additionally, Kim discloses that the lithium iron manganese phosphate comprises a content of manganese greater than 0.60 (Abstract, “wherein 0.6<x<1−y−z;”). Additionally, Kim discloses that an increase in Mn can only be obtained at the expense of a lower energy density (Paragraph 0065, “However, with undoped cathode product, an increase in Mn can only be obtained at the expense of a lower energy density.”) and that a Mn content greater than 0.60 within the scope of their formula is necessary for an increased average voltage (Paragraph 0062, “As MF raises, the higher plateau extends and lower one shrinks. As a result, the average voltage increases with increased MF.”). Accordingly, one ordinarily skilled in the art would find it obvious to select a ratio of manganese which is both greater than, and within the range of 0.60. Additionally, where this content of Mn results in an increased average voltage, one ordinarily skilled in the art would find it obvious to apply the manganese content of Kim to the invention of Yoon, thereby reading upon and making obvious the limitation of the shared technical feature which requires that the ratio of manganese is greater than 0.6 and less than 0.7.
Claim(s) 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon and Kim, as in regards to figure 1 above, in further view of Yoshida (US 20150270544 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Yoon and Kim make obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, in regards to the limitation of the instant claim that requires structure wherein the LFMP is in the form of particles having a D50 size range of 800 nm to 5 microns, Yoon fails to disclose said structure, instead only disclosing structure which comprises primary particulates having a size of about 100 nm or less (Paragraph 0027, “In certain embodiments, the lithium iron manganese phosphate compound is in the form of particulates having a size of about 100 nm or less. Accordingly, we look to Yoshida, which is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing a lithium secondary battery which comprises a cathode active material comprising a first and second material (Abstract, “A lithium-ion secondary battery includes: a first cathode active material having a polyanion structure which stores and releases a lithium ion; and a second cathode active material having a lithium diffusion coefficient different from a lithium diffusion coefficient of the first cathode active material.”) where the first material is LFMP (Paragraph 0058, “The first cathode active material 142 is the most preferably LFMP.”) and the second material is NMC (Paragraph 0050, “In FIG. 3, the discharge curve referred to as "cathode" is a discharge curve of a cathode obtained by mixing LFMP and NMC.”).
Here, Yoshida discloses structure where their LFMP particles have a particle size less than 15 microns (Paragraph It is preferable that the first cathode active material 142 is granules obtained by granulating primary particles with a particle diameter of 100 nm or less, and that an average particle diameter (D50) of granules is 15 μm or less.”), and further discloses structure where nano size particles will result in coagulation which prevents mixing with the second active material particles (Paragraph 0062, “When the particle diameter of the primary particles reaches as small as a nano size (100 nm or less), coagulation of the primary particles occurs, and therefore, it becomes difficult to uniformly mix the particles with the second cathode active material 143.”). Additionally, Yoshida discloses that when the particle size increases, LI diffusion resistance also increases (Paragraph 0061, “In addition, when the diameter of the primary particles increases, the Li diffusion resistance of the first cathode active material 142 starts to excessively increase. In other words, this leads to generation of a gas on the anode of the lithium-ion secondary battery 1.”). Accordingly, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to make use of a particle size that balances these benefits, making use of a particle size that minimizes size while staying above a nano-size, thereby making obvious the range of the instant claim, wherein the particle size falls within a range of 800 nm to 5 microns.
Regarding Claim 9, Yoon and Kim make obvious the invention of Claim 1. In regards to the limitation of the instant claim wherein the NCM is in the form of particles having a D50 size range of 1 to 10 microns, Yoon is silent in regards to NCM particle size. Accordingly, we look to Yoshida, which is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing a lithium secondary battery which comprises a cathode active material comprising a first and second material (Abstract, “A lithium-ion secondary battery includes: a first cathode active material having a polyanion structure which stores and releases a lithium ion; and a second cathode active material having a lithium diffusion coefficient different from a lithium diffusion coefficient of the first cathode active material.”) where the first material is LFMP and the second material is NMC (Paragraph 0050, “In FIG. 3, the discharge curve referred to as "cathode" is a discharge curve of a cathode obtained by mixing LFMP and NMC.”).
Here, Yoshida discloses structure where their NMC particles have an average particle diameter D50 of 2 to 10 microns (Paragraph 0160, “Cathode active materials B1 to B3 shown in Table 2 were prepared. All of the prepared cathode active materials B1 to B3 had an average particle diameter (D50) of 2 to 10 μm”), where the particle diameter facilitates uniform mixing with the first material LFMP (Paragraph 0062, “When the particle diameter of the primary particles reaches as small as a nano size (100 nm or less), coagulation of the primary particles occurs, and therefore, it becomes difficult to uniformly mix the particles with the second cathode active material 143.”). Accordingly, based on a desire for effective and uniform mixing of the LFMP and NCM, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to select the particle size range of Yoshida, thereby reading upon and making obvious structure where the NCM particle size ranges from 2 to 10 microns, falling within the 1-to-10-micron range which is required by the instant claim.
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 JONATHAN W ESTES whose telephone number is (571)272-4820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:30.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 5712721453. 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.
/J.W.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights