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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 8/25/2025 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The cancellation of claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8 and addition of claims 9-12 is acknowledged.
The basis of the previous art rejections are maintained.
Additional new analysis follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argued one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify the battery of Miura with the Li3PO4 because the added Li3PO4 would have been decomposed in the battery of Miura by forming the coating film and thereby the functions and actions would have been destroyed.
The examiner respectfully disagrees that the all of the Li3PO4 would be decomposed during charging/coating formation and additionally disagrees that the functions and actions would be destroyed. In particular, the coating layer is formed after mixing of the materials in the positive electrode layer, during the charging process. As quoted in applicant’s remarks one benefit of Li3PO4 is in the precursor stage (i.e. before charging) for controlling the growth of primary particles and thus the benefit is still intact. Furthermore, the benefit of high stability and ion conductivity was measured by Chang after charging (i.e. after coating formation), supporting the conclusion the addition of the Li3P04 still provides a benefit even after at least some of the Li3PO4 is used for film formation. Furthermore, there is no evidence the entirety of the Li3PO4 within the interior of the active material mixture is used to form the film on the surface of the material and even if no Li3PO4 remaining the benefits of the initial Li3PO4 addition are present and measured after charging/film formation.
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 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation of three options “ the positive electrode active material layer includes a lithium-manganese-based composite oxide having a spinel-type crystal structure and including Mn, a lithium-nickel-based composite oxide including Li and Ni,, and the claim also recites further limitations which appear to read on only one or two of the afore mentioned three options such as “a content ratio of the lithium-nickel-based composite oxide to a total of the lithium- manganese-based composite oxide, the lithium-nickel-based composite oxide, and the lithium phosphate is 5% by mass or more and 30% by mass or less” and “a content ratio of the lithium phosphate to the total of the lithium-manganese-based composite oxide, the lithium-nickel-based composite oxide, and the lithium phosphate is less than 10% by mass” and “particles of the lithium-manganese-based composite oxide each have a coating film on a surface thereof, and the coating film includes a P component including a LiMnPO4 component and an F component” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura et. al. (US20080070119A1, cited in IDS dated 5/12/23) in view of Chang et. al. (US 20130171518 A1). Additional supporting evidence provided by Kawakami (US20160043395).
Regarding claim 7, Miura discloses a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode current
collector and a positive electrode active material layer supported by the positive electrode current collector(¶[0110]), wherein
the positive electrode active material layer includes a lithium-manganese-based composite oxide having a spinel-type crystal structure (¶[0108], LiMn2O4) and including Mn, a lithium-nickel- based composite oxide including Li and Ni (¶[0108], LiNi0.8CO0.15Al0.05O2) wherein the mass ratio of spinel lithium manganate and the Ni composite oxide was set at 7:3.
Miura also discloses carbon black was used as the conductive material, PVDF was used as the binder (¶[0109]), but does not disclose lithium phosphate or particles of the lithium-manganese-based composite oxide each have a coating film on a surface thereof, and the coating film includes a P component including a LiMnPO4 component and an F component.
Chang, related to positive electrodes, teaches adding lithium phosphate to the lithium manganese oxide active material layer at 3% by mass (¶[0045]) and that this addition increases charge and discharge efficiencies and leads to improved rate characteristics (¶[0051]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize during charging the added lithium phosphate converts to a coating of lithium manganese phosphate with an F component once the battery of modified Miura is charged in a substantially identical process as the instant specification(¶[0077] instant specification).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized adding lithium phosphate to the positive electrode active material mixture of Miura would have increased charge and discharge efficiencies and lead to improved rate characteristics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added the lithium phosphate to the electrode of Miura to increase charge and discharge efficiencies and improve rate characteristics.
In the alternative, Kawakami teaches particles of the lithium-manganese-based composite oxide (abstract, ¶[0054]) with a coating film of LiMnPO4 component (¶[0037]) but is silent as to the F component.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the adding the coating layer of Kawakami to the active material of Miura would inhibit resistance from increasing over time(¶[0021]) and that hydrofluoric acid produced by the electrolyte solution during charging of the battery of modified Miura reacts with the active material and coating to add a F component to the coating layer (as evidenced by ¶[(0013)] of Akiyama and the process of the instant specification ¶[0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have added to coating layer of Kawakami to the active material of Miura to inhibit resistance from increasing over time.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, modified Miura discloses a positive electrode according to claim 7 and Miura further teaches wherein the lithium-nickel-based composite oxide further includes Al and a molar ratio of Al to Ni (Al/Ni) is 0.06 or more and 0.43 or less (¶[0108], see LiNi0.8CO0.15Al0.05O2).
Regarding claim 11, modified Miura discloses a positive electrode according to claim 7 and Miura further discloses wherein the lithium-manganese-based composite oxide has a composition represented by the following formula: Li1-a(M3bMn2-a-b)O4- β wherein M3 is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Al and Mg, a satisfies 0≤a≤0.20, b satisfies 0≤b≤0.20, and β satisfies 0≤β≤0.20. In this case a=0, b=0, and β=0 (¶[0108], see LiMn2O4).
In the alternative, Claims 7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura et. al. (US20080070119A1, cited in IDS dated 5/12/23) in view of Chang et. al. (US 20130171518 A1) further in view of Kawakami (US20160043395). Additional supporting evidence provided by Akiyama (US20170125840).
Regarding claim 7, Miura discloses a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode current
collector and a positive electrode active material layer supported by the positive electrode current collector(¶[0110]), wherein
the positive electrode active material layer includes a lithium-manganese-based composite oxide having a spinel-type crystal structure (¶[0108], LiMn2O4) and including Mn, a lithium-nickel- based composite oxide including Li and Ni (¶[0108], LiNi0.8CO0.15Al0.05O2) wherein the mass ratio of spinel lithium manganate and the Ni composite oxide was set at 7:3.
Miura also discloses carbon black was used as the conductive material, PVDF was used as the binder (¶[0109]), but does not disclose lithium phosphate or particles of the lithium-manganese-based composite oxide each have a coating film on a surface thereof, and the coating film includes a P component including a LiMnPO4 component and an F component.
Chang, related to positive electrodes, teaches adding lithium phosphate to the lithium manganese oxide active material layer at 3% by mass (¶[0045]) and that this addition increases charge and discharge efficiencies and leads to improved rate characteristics (¶[0051]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize during charging the added lithium phosphate converts to a coating of lithium manganese phosphate with an F component once the battery of modified Miura is charged in a substantially identical process as the instant specification(¶[0077] instant specification).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized adding lithium phosphate to the positive electrode active material mixture of Miura would have increased charge and discharge efficiencies and lead to improved rate characteristics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added the lithium phosphate to the electrode of Miura to increase charge and discharge efficiencies and improve rate characteristics.
Kawakami, related to positive electrodes, teaches particles of the lithium-manganese-based composite oxide (abstract, ¶[0054]) with a coating film of LiMnPO4 component (¶[0037]) but is silent as to the F component.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the adding the coating layer of Kawakami to the active material of Miura would inhibit resistance from increasing over time(¶[0021]) and that hydrofluoric acid produced by the electrolyte solution during charging of the battery of modified Miura reacts with the active material and coating to add a F component to the coating layer (as evidenced by ¶[(0013)] of Akiyama and the process of the instant specification ¶[0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have added to coating layer of Kawakami to the active material of Miura to inhibit resistance from increasing over time.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, modified Miura discloses a positive electrode according to claim 7 and Miura further teaches wherein the lithium-nickel-based composite oxide further includes Al and a molar ratio of Al to Ni (Al/Ni) is 0.06 or more and 0.43 or less (¶[0108], see LiNi0.8CO0.15Al0.05O2).
Regarding claim 11, modified Miura discloses a positive electrode according to claim 7 and Miura further discloses wherein the lithium-manganese-based composite oxide has a composition represented by the following formula: Li1-a(M3bMn2-a-b)O4- β wherein M3 is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Al and Mg, a satisfies 0≤a≤0.20, b satisfies 0≤b≤0.20, and β satisfies 0≤β≤0.20. In this case a=0, b=0, and β=0 (¶[0108], see LiMn2O4).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KAREN J. ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am-6 pm EST.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/K.J.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1726 /RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726