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 .
The Applicant has amended independent claims 9 and 14; and added new claims 23-29. The pending claims are claims 9, 10, 14, 15, 23-29.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/22/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 14, 15, 23-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Song et al., US 20130316240.
Regarding claim 9, Song et al., teaches cathode active material (abstract; 0008; 0019) comprising: a core phase of formula LiFePO4 (abstract; 0008).
Song does not teach a secondary phase of a compound of formula LiM2zPpOp' at or near the surface of the core phase; wherein: z is 1, 2, or 3;p is 1, 2, 3, or 4;p' is an integer from about 1 to about 16;M2 is Co, Cr, Gd, In, Mn, V, Zr, or a mixture of any two or more thereof; M2 is present in the cathode active material from about 0.1 to about 15 mol%; the cathode active material exhibits an increased ionic conductivity compared to LiFePO4 without the secondary phase; and the cathode active material has a particle size distribution characterized by a D5o of 1 um to 5 um, a D10 of 0.1 um to 0.6 um, and a D90 of 1.7 um to 25 um. (0014; 0032); wherein particle size distribution refers to individual non-agglomerated particles (0014; 0032); cathode active material is a particulate material (0014) and a concentration of the secondary phase is greater at a surface of each individual particle than at a core portion of the individual particle (0008).
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Additionally, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 10, Song et al., teaches wherein the compound of formula LiM2zPpOp' is Li3Mn3(PO4)4, LiVP207, LiGd(P03)4, LiMn(P03)4, LiCo(PO3)4,Li3Cr2(PO4)3, LiCo(PO3)3, LiCoPO4, LiV(P03)4, LiZr2(P04)3, LiCrP207, LiVPO5,LiInP207, LiFePO4, or a mixture of any two or more thereof (0008-0009; 0019-0030).
Regarding claim 14, Song et al., teaches lithium ion battery cell (0067-0068) comprising: an anode layer (0033); a cathode layer (0033); and a separator (0033) between the anode layer and the cathode layer (0033); wherein the cathode layer comprises a particulate cathode active material (agglomerated particle) (0014) comprising: a compound of formula LiM27PpOp' (0019-0021); wherein: z is 1, 2, or 3;p is 1, 2, 3, or 4; p' is an integer from about 1 to about 16; M2 is Co, Cr, Gd, In, Mn, V, Zr, or a mixture of any two or more thereof ; 0019-0030); M2 is present in the cathode active material from about 0.1 to about 15 mol% (0070; 0072-0075); the cathode active material exhibits an increased ionic conductivity (0007; 0036-42); and the cathode active material has with a particle size distribution characterized by a D50 of 1 um (0014; 0032); cathode active material is a particulate material (0014) and a concentration of the secondary phase is greater at a surface of each individual particle than at a core portion of the individual particle (0008); wherein particle size distribution refers to individual non-agglomerated particles (0014; 0032).
Song does not teach a core phase of formula LiFePO4; and a secondary phase of a compound of formula LiM27PpOp' at or near the surface of the core phase; compared to LiFePO4 without the secondary phase and the cathode layer has a loading level on the current collector of greater than 15 mg/cm2.
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Additionally, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 15, Song et al., teaches lithium ion battery cell (0067-0068) of claim 14.
Song does not teach wherein the cathode layer has an electrode loading level from 15 mg/cm2 to 25 mg/cm2.
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 23, Song et al., teaches wherein the compound of formula LiM²₇PₚOₚ⁺ is Li₃Mn₃(PO4)4 or LiMn(PO₃)4 (0008-0011).
Regarding claim 24, Song et al., teaches wherein the compound of formula LiM²²PₚOₚ⁺ comprises LiVP2O7 or LiGd(PO₃)4 (0008-0011).
Regarding claim 25, Song et al., teaches wherein the compound of formula LiM²₂PₚOₚ· comprises LiCo(PO₃)₄ (0008-0011).
Regarding claim 26, Song et al., teaches wherein the compound of formula LiM²₂PₚOₚ⁺ comprises Li₃Cr₂(PO₄)₃ (0008-0011).
Regarding claim 27, Song et al., teaches wherein the compound of formula LiM²zPₚOₚ⁺ comprises LiCo(PO₃)₃ or LiCoPO4 (0008-0011).
Regarding claim 28, Song et al., teaches wherein the compound of formula LiM²zPₚOₚ· comprises LiV(PO₃)₄, LiVPO₅, LiInP₂O⁷ (0008-0011).
Regarding claim 29, Song et al., teaches wherein the compound of formula LiM²₂PₚOₚ⁺ comprises LiZr₂(PO4)₃, LiCrP₂O₇, or LiFePO4. (0008-0011).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that “The particles of the present claims are individual particles having a concentration gradient that simply cannot apply to the agglomerates described by Song…While there is no breakdown in Song of these size ranges and there is no indication of overall distribution, it is clear that the sizes of Song only reach the sizes as claimed through agglomeration. Accordingly, a "primary particle size" in Song must mean that the particles are all from about 50 nm to about 1 um, and preferably about 50 nm to about 200 nm. While Song describes larger particles, they are agglomerations of the primary particles.”
However, Song et al., teaches a primary particle size in a range of about 50 nm to about 1000 nm (0014). “The primary particles of the lithium-containing compound may be agglomerated, and the agglomerated particles may have a size in the range of about 5 um to about 30 um” (0014; 0032).
Additionally, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1288. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
ANGELA J. MARTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/ANGELA J MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1727