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 .
Examiner’s Comments
Applicants’ response filed on 12/12/2025 has been fully considered. Claims 1-8 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futamura (US 2015/0125751 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Futamura discloses a lithium-containing composite oxide active material for a positive electrode of a lithium-ion secondary battery (paragraphs [0044], [0057] and [0069] and the claims), that has a olivine crystal structure (claim 1, paragraph [0044]), wherein single crystal particle has a flat shape having a first side in an a-axis direction, a second side in a b-axis direction, and a third side in a c-axis direction, wherein a length of the second side (b-axis direction) is shorter than each of lengths of the first and third sides (claim 1 and [0048-54].) The length of the side in the b-axis direction for the lithium-containing composite oxide is 5 nm to 20 nm and the migration of lithium ions for electric conduction in this direction is considered to be short. The lithium-containing composite oxide is covered with a carbon layer having a thickness of less than 10 nm (active material having a carbon layer on its surface; claims 12 and 19, paragraph [0069]). See Figure 3 of Futamura.
PNG
media_image1.png
790
846
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Futamura does not disclose the active material having a ratio of an average thickness of the carbon layer present on a plane perpendicular to a crystal b-axis to an average thickness of the carbon layer not perpendicular to the crystal b-axis being 0.30 or more and 0.80 or less. This ratio would require an average thickness of the carbon layer not perpendicular to the crystal b-axis to be larger than the thickness of the of the carbon layer present on a plane perpendicular to a crystal b-axis. Futamura teaches the length of the side in the b-axis direction for the lithium-containing composite oxide is 5 nm to 20 nm (a square shape or substantially square shape ([0046+]) and that the migration of lithium ions for electric conduction in this direction is considered to be short (as taught by the reference). In the olivine-type lithium iron phosphate, lithium ions are unidimensionally arranged in the b-axis direction and diffused in the b-axis direction. For this reason, when the length of the side in the b-axis direction of the single crystal particle is short, the lithium ions can be easily diffused ([0053]). Therefore, the use of the lithium-containing composite oxide taught by Futamura for a positive electrode active material in a lithium-ion secondary battery allows reduction in internal resistance of the lithium-ion secondary battery, so that the lithium-ion secondary battery can have higher power and the discharge capacity thereof can be as high as theoretical discharge capacity.
Based on these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the ratio of an average thickness of the carbon layer present on a plane perpendicular to a crystal b-axis to an average thickness of the carbon layer not perpendicular to the crystal b-axis to be 0.30 or more and 0.80 or less in order to have a thicker, more conductive carbon surface on the side not perpendicular to the crystal b-axis in order to conduct electrons in and out of the active material during the charging and discharging processes. The thickness of the carbon layer on the length of the side in the b-axis direction being higher compared to the lengths of the side in the a-axis direction and the c-axis direction would result in improved conduction and improved discharge capacity as carbon is a known conductive material for providing electron conduction while not causing a chemical reaction with other materials in the lithium-ion secondary battery (paragraphs [0054] and [0067]). While there is no specific teaching of a ratio of 0.30 or more and 0.80 or less, it would have been obvious to determine the optimal thickness by routine experimentation in order to improve the conductivity into and out of the electrode material (MPEP 2144.05IIA).
Regarding claim 2, Futamura discloses the lithium-containing composite oxide covered with a carbon layer having a thickness of less than 10 nm (average thickness of the carbon layer present on a plane perpendicular to the crystal b-axis; paragraph [0069]). The thickness of the carbon layer overlaps the claimed range for the average thickness of the carbon layer on the plane that is perpendicular to the crystal b-axis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to have desired electron conduction while not causing a chemical reaction with other materials in the lithium-ion secondary battery as carbon-based materials are known auxiliary agents for providing electron conduction (paragraph [0067]). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3, Futamura discloses the lithium-containing composite oxide covered with a carbon layer having a thickness of less than 10 nm (average thickness of the carbon layer present on a plane perpendicular to the crystal b-axis; paragraph [0069]).
Futamura does not disclose the active material comprising a standard deviation of a thickness of the carbon layer which is present on the plane that is perpendicular to the crystal b-axis being 0.3 nm or less.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the standard deviation of a thickness of the carbon layer which is present on the plane that is perpendicular to the crystal b-axis to be 0.3 nm or less because one of ordinary skill in the art would desire a uniform coating thickness to have uniform transfer of electrons and ions during the charge/discharge cycles and would provide the desired electron conduction while not causing a chemical reaction with other materials in the lithium-ion secondary battery (paragraph [0067]).
Regarding claim 4, Futamura discloses the lithium-containing composite oxide comprising a length of a side in the b-axis direction being 5 nm to 50 nm (crystallite diameter; paragraph [0047])
Regarding claim 5, Futamura discloses the lithium-containing composite oxide comprising LiFeaMnbPO4 where a + b ≤ 1, 0 < a <1 and 0 <b < 1 (olivine crystal structure where A is lithium, B is iron and manganese and X is phosphorus; paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claim 6, Futamura discloses the lithium-containing composite oxide comprising LiFeaMnbPO4 where a + b ≤ 1, 0 < a <1 and 0 <b < 1 (active material being lithium manganese iron phosphate; paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claim 7, since the lithium-containing composite oxide having an olivine crystal structure comprises LiFeaMnbPO4 where a + b ≤ 1, 0 < a <1 and 0 <b < 1 having a length of a side in the b-axis direction being 5 nm to 50 nm is the same as the structure of the claimed active material, the lithium-containing composite oxide would inherently have a ratio I20/I29 of a peak intensity at 20° to a peak intensity at 29 °C obtained by X-ray diffraction being 0.88 or more and 1.05 or less and a ratio I35/I29 of a peak intensity at 35° to a peak intensity at 29° being 1.05 or more and 1.20 or less.
Regarding claim 8, Futamura discloses a lithium-ion secondary battery (paragraph [0057]) comprising a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material layer comprising the lithium-containing composite oxide (active material; paragraphs [0058] and [0069]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the ratio of an average thickness of the carbon layer present on a plane perpendicular to a crystal b-axis to an average thickness of the carbon layer not perpendicular to the crystal b-axis to be 0.30 or more and 0.80 or less and that the Office’s assertions are based on improper hindsight.
This argument is not persuasive as it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the ratio of an average thickness of the carbon layer present on a plane perpendicular to a crystal b-axis to an average thickness of the carbon layer not perpendicular to the crystal b-axis to be 0.30 or more and 0.80 or less in order to have a thicker, more conductive carbon surface on the side not perpendicular to the crystal b-axis in order to conduct electrons in and out of the active material during the charging and discharging processes.
Also, the thickness of the carbon layer on the length of the side in the b-axis direction being higher compared to the lengths of the side in the a-axis direction and the c-axis direction would result in improved conduction and improved discharge capacity as carbon is a known conductive material for providing electron conduction while not causing a chemical reaction with other materials in the lithium-ion secondary battery (paragraphs [0054] and [0067]). While there is no specific teaching of a ratio of 0.30 or more and 0.80 or less, it would have been obvious to determine the optimal thickness by routine experimentation in order to improve the conductivity into and out of the electrode material (MPEP 2144.05IIA).
Based on these reasons, it would have been obvious to adjust the ratio of an average thickness of the carbon layer present on a plane perpendicular to a crystal b-axis to an average thickness of the carbon layer not perpendicular to the crystal b-axis to be 0.30 or more and 0.80 or less.
Applicants argue that it would not be obvious to control the thickness of the carbon coating to match crystallinity and there is no mention of adjusting the thickness of the carbon coating to match crystallinity.
This argument is not persuasive as the motivation to adjust the thickness of the carbon coating is not required to be the same as matching crystallinity
The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed.Cir. 2006); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662,1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). MPEP 2144 IV.
Applicants argue that adjusting the mixing ratio of the carbon sources each having a different melting point would result in the average thickness ratio of the carbon layer to the crystal b-axis direction being adjusted.
This argument is not persuasive as Futamura teaches the length of the side in the b-axis direction for the lithium-containing composite oxide is 5 nm to 20 nm and that the migration of lithium ions for electric conduction in this direction is considered to be short. This disclosure suggests that the average thickness ratio of the carbon layer to the crystal b-axis direction can be adjusted.
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 SATHAVARAM I REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)-272-1291. 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.
/SATHAVARAM I REDDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1785