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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/30/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 4/30/26 has been entered. By this amendment, claims 12, 21, 23, 25 and 26 are canceled and claim 28 is added.
All previous rejections under 35 USC 103 are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment.
New rejections follow.
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.
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 and 9-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hideaki et al. (US 2017/0352876 A1) in view of Fujii et al. (US 2011/0223482 A1) and Kim et al. (US20120231341A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hideaki et al. teaches a mixed positive electrode material comprising a mixed component consisting of a material of lithium iron phosphate chemical system and a material of ternary chemical system (Para 0008, 0009, 0015-0019, and 0031; para 0096 teaches mixing the oxide and phosphate material prior to mixing with further components), the material of the lithium iron phosphate chemical system being secondary particles (Para 0053-0055). The reference further teaches typical phosphate secondary particle size ranges with D10 up to 1.0 µm, D50 up to 3.5 µm and D90 up to 15 µm. (Para 0055) Selection of the upper limits of these typical ranges, for example, will lead to a value of Dv50/(Dv90-Dv10) of 0.25, which is within the claimed range. Therefore, the range of potential values of Dv50/(Dv90-Dv10) suggested by the typical particle sizes disclosed by Hideaki are considered to overlap the instantly claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)
Hideaki et al does not explicitly teach a specific surface area of the secondary particles.
Fujii et al teaches a similar positive electrode material comprising a mixed lithium manganese iron phosphate secondary particle and a lithium nickel manganese cobalt composite oxide, further teaching that selection of a BET specific surface area of the phosphate secondary particle between 1 to 100 m2/g will result in improved high-rate charge-discharge characteristics. (Para 0036)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the phosphate secondary particles of Hideaki et al. to provide a specific surface area between 1 to 100 m2/g in order to provide improved high-rate charge-discharge characteristics. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Hideaki et al does not explicitly teach the average particle size of the primary particles.
Kim, related to lithium ion batteries, teaches a lithium iron phosphate and lithium nickel composite (¶[0020]-[0022]) with lithium iron phosphate primary particles in the range of 50-2000 nm to provide highly efficient intercalation and deintercalation of lithium ions(¶[0035]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the phosphate primary particles of Hideaki et al. to provide primary particles in the range of 50-2000 nm to provide highly efficient intercalation and deintercalation of lithium ions. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 9, Hideaki et al. further teaches typical D10 ranging between 0.1 and 1.0 µm and typical D90 being less than or equal to 15 µm (Para 0055), which overlap the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Hideaki et al. further teaches typical D50 ranging between 0.1 and 3.5 µm (Para 0055), which overlaps the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)
Regarding claim 13, modified Hideaki et al. teaches a positive electrode material as described above in addressing claim 1. Hideaki et al further teaches the secondary particles of lithium iron phosphate chemical system are formed of lithium iron manganese phosphate. (Para 0036-0040) Fujii et al recognizes that resistance of the electrode can be optimized by varying the composition of the lithium manganese iron phosphate (Para 0033), and it would have been recognized that the resistance characteristics of the electrode will depend on the resistivity of the powder used to make the particles comprising the electrode. Accordingly, the examiner’s position is that one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the powder resistivity of the secondary particles of lithium iron phosphate as an optimizable result-effective variable. A skilled artisan would have arrived at an optimal value for powder resistivity within the claimed range while performing routine experimentation varying the composition and other properties of the particles taught by Fujii et al. to optimize the resistance. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Hideaki et al. further discloses the secondary particles (i.e. the lithium metal phosphate) being preferably from 10-50 wt. % of the total weight of the cathode material (Para 0069), which overlaps the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)
Regarding claim 16, Hideaki et al. further discloses the material of the ternary chemical system being lithium nickel cobalt manganate having a general formula of LixCoyMnzCo(2-x-y-z)O2, with x preferably from 0.98 to 1.08, y preferably from 0.3 to 0.95, z preferably from 0.05 to 0.7, and (2-x-y-z) preferably from 0.5 to 0.7. (Para 0061-0066) This overlaps the composition ranges specified for the lithium nickel cobalt manganate option recited in the claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) Note that the repeated use of “and/or” is understood to be open to optionally just one of the listed compositions. (i.e. only one of the specified lithium iron phosphate, lithium nickel cobalt manganate, or lithium nickel cobalt aluminate compositions is required to meet the claim.
Regarding claim 17, Hideaki et al. further teaches a positive electrode plate comprising the mixed positive electrode material. (Para. 0031)
Regarding claim 18, Hideaki et al. further teaches a compacted density of the positive electrode material layer being about 3 g/cm3. (Para 0102)
Regarding claim 19, Hideaki et al. teaches that the positive electrode material layer further contains a conductive agent and binder, with mass ratio of the mixed positive electrode material : conductive agent : binder is 93:3:4 (Para 0102)
Regarding claim 20, modified Hideaki et al. is relied upon to teach the positive electrode material of claim 1. Hideaki et al further teaches a method of making a positive electrode plate comprising mixing the positive electrode material; collecting a slurry; applying the slurry onto a current collector; removing a solvent; rolling; and cutting to obtain the positive electrode plate. (Para 0096-0097, 0102)
Hideaki et al does not explicitly disclose a step of filtering as recited in the claim.
Fujii et al teach using a sieve as a classifier to aid in obtaining active material particles of a desired shape. (Para 0072, 0074) A sieve is considered to correspond to a filter.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method of Hideaki et al. by explicitly using a sieve to select desired particles, as taught by Fujii, in order to ensure particles of the desired shape and size are included in the electrode.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hideaki et al (US 2017/0352876) in view of Fujii et al (US 2011/0223482), Kuzuoka et al (US 2020/0235397 A1), and Kim et al. (US20120231341A1).
Hideaki et al. teaches a mixed positive electrode material comprising a mixed component consisting of a material of lithium iron phosphate chemical system and a material of ternary chemical system (Para 0008, 0009, 0015-0019, and 0031; para 0096 teaches mixing the oxide and phosphate material prior to mixing with further components), the material of the lithium iron phosphate chemical system being secondary particles (Para 0053-0055). The reference further teaches typical phosphate secondary particle size ranges with D10 up to 1.0 µm, D50 up to 3.5 µm and D90 up to 15 µm. (Para 0055) Selection of the upper limits of these typical ranges, for example, will lead to a value of Dv50/(Dv90-Dv10) of 0.25, which is within the claimed range. Therefore, the range of potential values of Dv50/(Dv90-Dv10) suggested by the typical particle sizes disclosed by Hideaki are considered to overlap the instantly claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)
Hideaki et al does not explicitly teach a specific surface area of the secondary particles.
Fujii et al teaches a similar positive electrode material comprising a mixed lithium manganese iron phosphate secondary particle and a lithium nickel manganese cobalt composite oxide, further teaching that selection of a BET specific surface area of the phosphate secondary particle between 1 to 100 m2/g will result in improved high-rate charge-discharge characteristics. (Para 0036)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the phosphate secondary particles of Hideaki et al. to provide a specific surface area between 1 to 100 m2/g in order to provide improved high-rate charge-discharge characteristics. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)
Hideaki et al also does not explicitly teach the material of the ternary chemical system being a lithium nickel cobalt aluminate chemical system. Hideaki et al teaches any lithium metal oxide that is capable of insertion and extraction of Li can be used (Para 0059), and suggests one desirable oxide is a lithium nickel manganese cobaltate. (Para 0066)
Kuzuoka teaches lithium nickel cobalt aluminate and lithium nickel manganese cobaltate (i.e. a lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide) as alternatives among positive electrode active materials having desirably large capacity density. (Para 0006)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the positive electrode material of Hideaki et al by replacing the lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide with lithium nickel cobalt aluminate, as taught by Kuzuoka et al, as an art-recognized equivalent high-capacity cathode material. (See MPEP 2144.06(II) Selection from among such known materials would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Hideaki et al also does not explicitly teach the average primary particle size but rather that the primary particles are greater than 0.1 µm(¶[0056]).
Kim, related to lithium ion batteries, teaches a lithium iron phosphate and lithium nickel composite (¶[0020]-[0022]) with primary particles in the range of 50-2000 nm to provide highly efficient intercalation and deintercalation of lithium ions(¶[0035]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the phosphate primary particles of Hideaki et al. to provide primary particles in the range of 50-2000 nm to provide highly efficient intercalation and deintercalation of lithium ions. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hideaki et all, Fujii et al and Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barker et al. (US 6528033)
Modified Hideaki et al teaches a mixed positive electrode material as described above in addressing claim 1.
Modified Hideaki et al does not explicitly teach a general formula of the material of lithium iron phosphate chemical system being LiFe1-xPbxPO4 wherein 0<x≤0.1. Hideaki et al teaches any lithium metal phosphate that is capable of insertion and extraction of Li can be used, suggesting those described in several patent documents. (Para 0034)
Barker et al is one of the patents listed by Hideaki et al as describing a useful lithium metal phosphate. Barker et al teaches a general formula of phosphate usable for positive electrode active materials in lithium batteries (Col 2, Lines 25-29), the general formula being LiMI1-yMIIyPO4, where MI can be Fe, among other potential transition metals and MII can be Pb, among a total of 8 potential elements. (Col. 2, lines 36-37 and Col 2, line 59 – Col 3, line 6) Barker et al does not specify particular values for y in the general formula, but example compounds set y=0.1 or 0.2 (See e.g. Col 19, line 36 – Col 20, line 65). Example compounds uniformly use Fe as MI, though they use metals other than Pb as MII.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the lithium metal phosphate material of Hideaki et al to specifically be LiMI1-yMIIyPO4 with y=0.1, Fe ad MI and Pb as M2, as suggested by Barker et al, because Barker et al teaches this compound as suitable for use in a lithium battery positive electrode active material and Hideaki et al specifically suggests selection of the phosphate materials taught in this patent for use as the required lithium metal phosphate. Though the examples of Barker et al show Mg or Ca as MII within the disclosed LiFe0.9MII0.1PO4 compounds. (See e.g. Col 19, lines 36-38; Col 20, line 66 – Col 21, line 3), selection of Pb as an alternative MII is considered to have been obvious based on the direct suggestion of Barker et al (Col 2, lines 59-62)
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hideaki et al, Fujii et al, Kuzuoka et al, and Kim et. al. as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Barker et al. (US 6528033)
Modified Hideaki et al teaches a mixed positive electrode material as described above in addressing claim 22.
Modified Hideaki et al does not explicitly teach a general formula of the material of lithium iron phosphate chemical system being LiFe1-xPbxPO4 wherein 0<x≤0.1. Hideaki et al teaches any lithium metal phosphate that is capable of insertion and extraction of Li can be used, suggesting those described in several patent documents. (Para 0034)
Barker et al is one of the patents listed by Hideaki et al as describing a useful lithium metal phosphate. Barker et al teaches a general formula of phosphate usable for positive electrode active materials in lithium batteries (Col 2, Lines 25-29), the general formula being LiMI1-yMIIyPO4, where MI can be Fe, among other potential transition metals and MII can be Pb, among a total of 8 potential elements. (Col. 2, lines 36-37 and Col 2, line 59 – Col 3, line 6) Barker et al does not specify particular values for y in the general formula, but example compounds set y=0.1 or 0.2 (See e.g. Col 19, line 36 – Col 20, line 65). Example compounds uniformly use Fe as MI, though they use metals other than Pb as MII.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the lithium metal phosphate material of Hideaki et al to specifically be LiMI1-yMIIyPO4 with y=0.1, Fe ad MI and Pb as M2, as suggested by Barker et al, because Barker et al teaches this compound as suitable for use in a lithium battery positive electrode active material and Hideaki et al specifically suggests selection of the phosphate materials taught in this patent for use as the required lithium metal phosphate. Though the examples of Barker et al show Mg or Ca as MII within the disclosed LiFe0.9MII0.1PO4 compounds. (See e.g. Col 19, lines 36-38; Col 20, line 66 – Col 21, line 3), selection of Pb as an alternative MII is considered to have been obvious based on the direct suggestion of Barker et al (Col 2, lines 59-62)
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii et al. (US 2011/0223482 A1) in view of Huang et al. (CN109103434, reference made to attached English translation).
Regarding claim 28, Fujii et al teaches a mixed positive electrode material (Para 0027) comprising a mixed component consisting of a material of lithium iron phosphate chemical system (i.e. lithium manganese iron phosphate; Para 0027) and a material of ternary chemical system (i.e. lithium nickel manganese cobalt composite oxide; Para 0027), the material of lithium iron phosphate chemical system being secondary particles having average specific surface area between 1 to 100 m2/g. (Para 0034-0036) This overlaps the claimed range of “equal to or smaller than 6 m2/g. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Fujii does not teach a particle size distribution including values for D10 and D50.
Huang, related to lithium batteries, teaches lithium iron phosphate secondary particles as cathode materials with a D10 greater than 1 µm and a D90 less than 50 µm that provide a good conductive network and abundant lithium ion diffusion channels(para 0089).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the phosphate secondary particles of Fujii to provide secondary particles with a D10 greater than 1 µm and a D90 less than 50 µm that provide a good conductive network and abundant lithium ion diffusion channels. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 14 July 2026
Prosecution Insights