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’s amendment filed on 9/30/2025 was received. Claims 1, 5, 7, 15 were amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued on 7/1/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The claim rejection 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inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention, on claim 7 is withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 7.
Claim 18 is 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.
Regarding to Claims 18: the limitation of “ultra-fine” is unclear as the specific size limitation is not the provided. For compact prosecutions, Examiner considers a particle size in a range of nanometers as ultra-fine particle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Katsuhiko et al. (WO 2015050254 A1) on claims 1, 2, 5-11 are withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 1. The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tamura et al. (US 20190067691 A1) on claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 10 are withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 1. The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ise et al. (US 20180277835 A1) on claims 1-4, 12-14 are withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 1. The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Katsuhiko et al. (WO 2015050254 A1) on claims 15, 16, 19, 20 are withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 15. The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tamura et al. (US 20190067691 A1) on claims 15, 19, 20 are withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuhiko et al. (WO 2015050254 A1) in view of Chung et al. (US 20130299735 A1) and Xu et al. (WO2022237642 A1) on claim 17 is withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 15. The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuhiko et al. (WO 2015050254 A1) in view of Xu et al. (WO2022237642 A1) on claim 18 is withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 15.
Claims 1, 2, 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuhiko et al. (WO 2015050254 A1) and in view of lkenuma (US 20170062819 A1).
Regarding to claim 1: Katsuhiko et al. disclose a lithium-ion secondary battery and its manufacturing method (pg. 1). A positive electrode of the lithium-ion secondary battery comprising:
a current collector (pg. 18); and
a positive electrode active material (equivalent to a positive electrode active layer) on the current collector (pg. 6, 18).
The positive electrode active material is one or more selected from a group consisting of LiMn2-xMaxO4 (Ma represents one or more metals selected from the group consisting of transition metals, and 0.2≦x≦0.7) (equivalent to LMFP), LiMO2 (M represents one or more selected from transition metals and Al) (equivalent to NCA and NCMA), and LiMdO2 (Md represents one or more selected from transition metals) (equivalent to NCM) (one material selected from the group is equivalent to a first positive electrode active material) (pg. 6-7). The method for manufacturing the lithium ion secondary battery comprises a charging process and an aging process. The aging process is performed for a period of 24 hours or more and 240 hours or less (equivalent to a first predetermined time period) (pg. 8-9).
Katsuhiko et al. fail to explicitly disclose aging under compression. However, Ikenuma discloses a positive electrode active material of a secondary battery (abstract). Ikenuma further teaches aging under pressing (par. 279, 282). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add pressing of Ikenuma into the aging process of Katsuhiko et al. because Ikenuma teaches aging under pressing can release gas (par. 282) and avoid effectual resistance increase (par. 276).
Regarding to claim 2: Katsuhiko et al. disclose the positive electrode active material is one or more selected from the group consisting of LiMn2-xMaxO4 (Ma represents one or more metals selected from the group consisting of transition metals, and 0.2≦x≦0.7) (equivalent to LMFP), LiMO2 (M represents one or more selected from transition metals and Al) (equivalent to NCA and NCMA), LiMdO2 (Md represents one or more selected from transition metals) (equivalent to NCM) (pg. 6-7).
Regarding to claim 5: Katsuhiko et al. disclose the positive electrode active material is one or more selected from the group consisting of LiMn2-xMaxO4 (Ma represents one or more metals selected from the group consisting of transition metals, and 0.2≦x≦0.7) (equivalent to LMFP), LiMO2 (M represents one or more selected from transition metals and Al) (equivalent to NCA and NCMA), LiMdO2 (Md represents one or more selected from transition metals) (equivalent to NCM) (pg. 6-7) (the second material selected from the group is equivalent to a second positive electrode active material). The method for manufacturing the lithium ion secondary battery comprises a charging process and an aging process. The aging process is performed for a period of 24 hours or more and 240 hours or less (equivalent to a second predetermined time period) (pg. 8-9).
While Katsuhiko et al. do not explicitly disclose the second predetermined time period is greater than the first predetermined time period, it is the position of the examiner that disclosure provides no evidence of criticality and unexpected results with regard to the relative aging time periods between the first positive electrode active material and the second positive electrode active material. In addition, the limitation of relative aging time period is a product-by-process limitation. “Even though product-by-process limitations are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F. 2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding to claim 6: Katsuhiko et al. disclose the positive electrode active material is one or more selected from the group consisting of LiMn2-xMaxO4 (Ma represents one or more metals selected from the group consisting of transition metals, and 0.2≦x≦0.7) (equivalent to LMFP), LiMO2 (M represents one or more selected from transition metals and Al) (equivalent to NCA and NCMA), LiMdO2 (Md represents one or more selected from transition metals) (equivalent to NCM) (pg. 6-7). Katsuhiko et al. further disclose the positive electrode active materials, a conductive assistant, a binder, and the like are mixed to form a positive electrode mixture (equivalent to the first positive electrode active material is intermixed with the second positive electrode active material) (pg. 18).
Regarding to claim 7: Katsuhiko et al. disclose the positive electrode active material is one or more selected from the group consisting of LiMn2-xMaxO4 (Ma represents one or more metals selected from the group consisting of transition metals, and 0.2≦x≦0.7) (equivalent to LMFP, the first positive electrode active material) (pg. 6), and LiMdO2 (Md represents one or more selected from transition metals) (equivalent to NCM, the second positive electrode active material) (pg. 6-7).
Regarding to claim 8: Katsuhiko et al. disclose the aging process is performed at a temperature of 35 °C or more and 60 °C or less (pg. 8-9). During the aging process, the electrolyte acts on the positive electrode active materials to form a coating (equivalent to the first positive electrode active material and the second positive electrode active material are each independently aged as each active material independently acts with the electrolyte during the aging process) (pg. 8 and 52).
Regarding to claim 9: Katsuhiko et al. disclose an electrolyte contains the ethylene carbonate (equivalent to a passivating agent) (pg. 24). The aging process is performed after a charging process (equivalent to the first positive electrode active material and/or the second positive electrode active material are aged in the presence of an electrolyte) (pg. 8-9). During the aging process, the electrolyte acts on the positive electrode active materials to form a coating (equivalent to the first positive electrode active material and the second positive electrode active material are each independently aged as each active material independently acts with the electrolyte during the aging process) (pg. 8 and 52).
Regarding to claim 10: Katsuhiko et al. disclose an electrolyte contains the ethylene carbonate (equivalent to a vinylene carbonate as an example shown in the specification par. 45 in the instant application) (pg. 24).
Regarding to claim 11: Katsuhiko et al. disclose the aging process is performed at a temperature of 35 °C or more and 60 °C or less (pg. 8-9). During the aging process, the electrolyte acts on the positive electrode active materials to form a coating (equivalent to the first positive electrode active material and the second positive electrode active material are each independently aged during formation as each active material independently acts with the electrolyte during the aging process) (pg. 8 and 52).
Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura et al. (US 20190067691 A1) and in view of lkenuma (US 20170062819 A1).
Regarding to claim 1: Tamura et al. disclose a positive electrode for a lithium ion secondary battery (abstract). The positive electrode comprising:
a positive electrode current collector (12) (par. 6, 41, fig. 1)
a positive electrode active material layer on a surface of the positive electrode current collector (par. 6, 41, fig. 1). The positive electrode active material layer includes a positive electrode active material (par. 6). The positive electrode active materials is one to three kinds of these positive electrode active materials, NCM622, NCM523, NCM433, and NCM [4.5]2[3.5], mixed (a first selected material is equivalent to a first positive electrode active material) (par. 43, table 1). After the initial charging-discharging is performed, the battery is aged at 45 °C for several days (the time period of charging-discharging and the time period of aging at 45 °C for several days equivalent to a first predetermined time period) (par. 49).
Tamura et al. fail to explicitly disclose aging under compression. However, Ikenuma discloses a positive electrode active material of a secondary battery (abstract). Ikenuma further teaches aging under pressing (par. 279, 282). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add pressing of Ikenuma into the initial charging-discharging and the aging process of Tamura et al. because Ikenuma teaches aging under pressing can release gas (par. 282) and avoid effectual resistance increase (par. 276).
Regarding to claim 5: Tamura et al. disclose the positive electrode active materials is one to three kinds of these positive electrode active materials, NCM622, NCM523, NCM433, and NCM [4.5]2[3.5], mixed (a second selected material is equivalent to a second positive electrode active material (par. 43, table 1). After the initial charging-discharging is performed, the battery is aged at 45 °C for several days (the time period of charging-discharging and the time period of aging at 45 °C for several days equivalent to a second predetermined time period) (par. 49).
While Tamura et al. do not explicitly disclose the second predetermined time period is greater than the first predetermined time period, it is the position of the examiner that disclosure provides no evidence of criticality and unexpected results with regard to the relative aging time periods between the first positive electrode active material and the second positive electrode active material. In addition, the limitation of relative aging time period is a product-by-process limitation. “Even though product-by-process limitations are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F. 2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding to claim 6: Tamura et al. disclose the positive electrode active materials is one to three kinds of these positive electrode active materials, NCM622, NCM523, NCM433, and NCM [4.5]2[3.5], mixed (par. 43, table 1).
Regarding to claim 9: Tamura et al. disclose an electrolyte contains a cyclic carbonate compound (equivalent to a passivating agent) (par.38). During the process of charging and discharging, a protective film on the positive electrode is formed by the cyclic carbonates (equivalent to the first positive electrode active material and the second positive electrode active material are each independently aged as each active material independently acts with the cyclic carbonates in the electrolyte) (par. 38).
Regarding to claim 10: Tamura et al. disclose the cyclic carbonate includes vinylene carbonate (par.38).
Claims 1-4, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ise et al. (US 20180277835 A1) and in view of lkenuma (US 20170062819 A1).
Regarding to claim 1: Ise et al. disclose an electrode including active material particles (abstract). A positive electrode for a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising:
a positive electrode current collector (par. 171); and
a positive electrode active material-containing layer (par. 171). The positive electrode active material-containing layer may be formed on one surface or both of reverse surfaces of the positive electrode current collector (171). The positive electrode active material can be one or plural compounds in combination of these compounds: lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxides, lithium phosphates having an olivine structure, and/or lithium manganese composite oxides (any compound can be considered as a first positive electrode active material when multiple compounds are used as positive active materials) (par. 173). In example 1, after a secondary battery is produced, the battery is charged at a rate of 0.2 C until the battery voltages reached 3.5 V, maintained for 10 hours, aged for 24 hours, and then discharged at a rate of 0.2C until the battery voltage reached 1.5 V (par. 296-298) (the process time of charging, aging, and discharging is equivalent to a first predetermined aging time period).
Ise et al. fail to explicitly disclose aging under compression. However, Ikenuma discloses a positive electrode active material of a secondary battery (abstract). Ikenuma further teaches aging under pressing (par. 279, 282). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add pressing of Ikenuma into the charging, aging, and discharging processes of Ise et al. because Ikenuma teaches aging under pressing can release gas (par. 282) and avoid effectual resistance increase (par. 276).
Regarding to claim 2: Ise et al. disclose the positive electrode active material can be one or plural compounds in combination of these compounds: lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxides (equivalent to NCM), and/or lithium phosphates having an olivine structure (equivalent to LMFP) (par. 173).
Regarding to claim 3: Ise et al. disclose the primary particle size of the positive electrode active material is preferably within a range of from 100 nm to 1 μm (par. 175).
Regarding to claim 4: Ise et al. disclose the examples of such compounds for positive electrode active material including lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxides (LiNi1−x−yCoxMnyO2; 0<x<1, 0<y<1, x+y<1) (par. 173). Nickel weights more than 48 % when using LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 as an example.
Regarding to claim 12: Ise et al. disclose after a secondary battery is produced in example 1, the battery is charged at a rate of 0.2 C until the battery voltages reached 3.5 V, maintained for 10 hours, aged for 24 hours, and then discharged at a rate of 0.2C until the battery voltage reached 1.5 V (par. 296-298).
Regarding to claim 13: Ise et al. disclose after a secondary battery is produced in example 1, the battery is charged at a rate of 0.2 C (equivalent to a charge rate of C/20 or higher) until the battery voltages reached 3.5 V, maintained for 10 hours, aged for 24 hours, and then discharged at a rate of 0.2 C until the battery voltage reached 1.5 V (par. 296-298).
Regarding to claim 14: Ise et al. disclose the aging process is performed after a secondary battery is produced (equivalent to a battery module level) (par. 296). The disclosure of Ise et al. improves the battery capable of performing rapid charge-and-discharge (equivalent to higher throughput efficiency) (par. 4).
Claims 15, 16, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuhiko et al. (WO 2015050254 A1) and in view of lkenuma (US 20170062819 A1).
Regarding to claim 15: Katsuhiko et al. disclose a lithium-ion secondary battery and its manufacturing method (pg. 1). A positive electrode of the lithium-ion secondary battery comprising:
a current collector (pg. 18); and
a positive electrode active material (equivalent to a positive electrode active layer) on the current collector (pg. 6, 18).
The positive electrode active material is one or more selected from a group consisting of LiMn2-xMaxO4 (Ma represents one or more metals selected from the group consisting of transition metals, and 0.2≦x≦0.7) (equivalent to LMFP), LiMO2 (M represents one or more selected from transition metals and Al) (equivalent to NCA and NCMA), and LiMdO2 (Md represents one or more selected from transition metals) (equivalent to NCM) (a first material selected from the group is equivalent to a first positive electrode active material and a second material selected from the group is equivalent to a second positive electrode active material) (pg. 6-7). The method for manufacturing the lithium ion secondary battery comprises a charging process and an aging process. The aging process is performed for a period of 24 hours or more and 240 hours or less (equivalent to a first predetermined time period and a second predetermined time period) (pg. 8-9).
Katsuhiko et al. further disclose the positive electrode active materials, a conductive assistant, a binder, and the like are mixed to form a positive electrode mixture (equivalent to the first positive electrode active material is intermixed with the second positive electrode active material) (pg. 18).
While Katsuhiko et al. do not explicitly disclose the second predetermined time period is greater than the first predetermined time period, it is the position of the examiner that disclosure provides no evidence of criticality and unexpected results with regard to the relative aging time periods between the first positive electrode active material and the second positive electrode active material. In addition, the limitation of relative aging time period is a product-by-process limitation. “Even though product-by-process limitations are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F. 2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Katsuhiko et al. fail to explicitly disclose aging under compression. However, Ikenuma discloses a positive electrode active material of a secondary battery (abstract). Ikenuma further teaches aging under pressing (par. 279, 282). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add pressing of Ikenuma into the aging process of Katsuhiko et al. because Ikenuma teaches aging under pressing can release gas (par. 282) and avoid effectual resistance increase (par. 276).
Regarding to claim 16: Katsuhiko et al. disclose the positive electrode active material is one or more selected from the group consisting of LiMn2-xMaxO4 (Ma represents one or more metals selected from the group consisting of transition metals, and 0.2≦x≦0.7) (equivalent to LMFP), LiMO2 (M represents one or more selected from transition metals and Al) (equivalent to NCA and NCMA), LiMdO2 (Md represents one or more selected from transition metals) (equivalent to NCM) (pg. 6-7).
Regarding to claim 19: Katsuhiko et al. disclose an electrolyte contains the ethylene carbonate (equivalent to a passivating agent) (pg. 24). The aging process is performed after a charging process (equivalent to the first positive electrode active material and/or the second positive electrode active material are aged in the presence of an electrolyte) (pg. 8-9). During the aging process, the electrolyte acts on the positive electrode active materials to form a coating (equivalent to the first positive electrode active material and the second positive electrode active material are each independently aged as each active material independently acts with the electrolyte during the aging process) (pg. 8 and 52).
Regarding to claim 20: Katsuhiko et al. disclose an electrolyte contains the ethylene carbonate (equivalent to a vinylene carbonate as an example shown in the specification par. 45 in the instant application) (pg. 24).
Claims 15, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura et al. (US 20190067691 A1) and in view of lkenuma (US 20170062819 A1).
Regarding to claim 15: Tamura et al. disclose a positive electrode for a lithium ion secondary battery (abstract). The positive electrode comprising:
a positive electrode current collector (12) (par. 6, 41, fig. 1)
a positive electrode active material layer on a surface of the positive electrode current collector (par. 6, 41, fig. 1). The positive electrode active material layer includes a positive electrode active material (par. 6). The positive electrode active materials is one to three kinds of these positive electrode active materials, NCM622, NCM523, NCM433, and NCM [4.5]2[3.5], mixed (a first selected material is equivalent to a first positive electrode active material and a second selected material is equivalent to a second positive electrode active material) (par. 43, table 1). After the initial charging-discharging is performed, the battery is aged at 45 °C for several days (the time period of charging-discharging and the time period of aging at 45 °C for several days equivalent to a first predetermined time period and a second predetermined time period) (par. 49).
While Tamura et al. do not explicitly disclose the second predetermined time period is greater than the first predetermined time period, it is the position of the examiner that disclosure provides no evidence of criticality and unexpected results with regard to the relative aging time periods between the first positive electrode active material and the second positive electrode active material. In addition, the limitation of relative aging time period is a product-by-process limitation. “Even though product-by-process limitations are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F. 2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Tamura et al. fail to explicitly disclose aging under compression. However, Ikenuma discloses a positive electrode active material of a secondary battery (abstract). Ikenuma further teaches aging under pressing (par. 279, 282). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add pressing of Ikenuma into the initial charging-discharging and the aging process of Tamura et al. because Ikenuma teaches aging under pressing can release gas (par. 282) and avoid effectual resistance increase (par. 276).
Regarding to claim 19: Tamura et al. disclose an electrolyte contains a cyclic carbonate compound (equivalent to a passivating agent) (par.38). During the process of charging and discharging, a protective film on the positive electrode is formed by the cyclic carbonates (equivalent to the first positive electrode active material and the second positive electrode active material are each independently aged as each active material independently acts with the cyclic carbonates in the electrolyte) (par. 38).
Regarding to claim 20: Tamura et al. disclose the cyclic carbonate includes vinylene carbonate (par.38).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuhiko et al. (WO 2015050254 A1) and lkenuma (US 20170062819 A1) as applied in claim 15 above and further in view of Chung et al. (US 20130299735 A1) and Xu et al. (WO2022237642 A1).
Regarding to claim 17: Katsuhiko et al. disclose a lithium ion secondary battery comprising a positive electrode as described in claim in paragraph 9 above. Katsuhiko et al. and lkenuma fail to explicitly disclose the first positive electrode active material and the second positive electrode active material each independently have a particle size from about 10 to 150 nm. However, Chung et al. disclose a method of producing a nanocomposite cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery (abstract). The nanocomposite cathode active includes LiMO2 (equivalent to the first positive electrode active material), wherein M is Nia-Mnb-Coc, and a, b and c are independently a decimal number from 0.05 to 0.9, with the proviso that the sum of a, b and c is equal to 1 (par. 16-17). The nanocomposite cathode active material produced has an average particle diameter of 10 to 100 nm (par. 27). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the 10-100 nm particle size of the LiMO2 of Chung et al. as the LiMdO2 of Katsuhiko et al. because Chung et al. teach that nanocomposite cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery has improved electrochemical properties, such as stability, electrode capacity, and cycle life in the high-voltage region (par. 15).
Furthermore, Xu et al. disclose a method for preparing lithium iron phosphate positive electrode materials (par. 3). In example 4, LiFe0.99Mn0.01PO4 (equivalent to the second positive electrode active material) is obtained after it is sintered at 720° C for 8 hours (par. 99 and 113). The particle size of example 4 is 38-137nm (table 1). The unit of particle size in table 1 is not described. However, the scale bare in figures 1-3 shows 200nm. The particle size can be deduced to be in the range of nanometers. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use 38-137nm particle size of the LFMP of Xu et al. as LiMn2-xMaxO4 of Katsuhiko et al. because Xu et al. teach that the lithium iron phosphate positive electrode materials provided by this method can overcome the problems of poor low temperature performance and poor rate performance (par. 8).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuhiko et al. (WO 2015050254 A1) and lkenuma (US 20170062819 A1) as applied in claim 15 above and further in view of Xu et al. (WO 2022237642 A1).
Regarding to claim 18: Katsuhiko et al. disclose the positive electrode active material is one or more selected from the group consisting of LiMn2-xMaxO4 (Ma represents one or more metals selected from the group consisting of transition metals, and 0.2≦x≦0.7) (equivalent to the first positive electrode active material, LMFP), LiMO2 (M represents one or more selected from transition metals and Al) (equivalent to NCA and NCMA), and LiMdO2 (Md represents one or more selected from transition metals) (equivalent to the second positive electrode active material, NCM) (pg. 6-7). Katsuhiko et al. fail to explicitly disclose the ultra-fine lithium manganese-doped iron phosphate (LMFP). However, Xu et al. disclose a method for preparing lithium iron phosphate positive electrode materials (par. 3). In example 4, LiFe0.99Mn0.01PO4 is obtained after it is sintered at 720° C for 8 hours (par. 99 and 113). The particle size of example 4 is 38-137nm (table 1). The unit of particle size in table 1 is not described. However, the scale bare in figures 1-3 shows 200nm. The particle size can be deduced to be in the range of nanometers from figures 1-3. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use 38-137nm particle size of the LFMP of Xu et al. as the first positive electrode active materials of Katsuhiko et al. because Xu et al. teach that the lithium iron phosphate positive electrode materials provided by this method can overcome the problems of poor low temperature performance and poor rate performance (par. 8).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed on 09/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues:
Katsuhiko, Tamura, and Ise do not disclose or suggest aging under compression.
Katsuhiko does not teach physical intermixing.
Katsuhiko fundamentally fails to disclose the claimed limitation of materials aged for different predetermined time periods.
In response:
Applicant’s arguments are moot because the newly cited lkenuma reference teaches aging under pressing.
Katsuhiko teaches the positive electrode active materials, a conductive assistant, a binder, and the like are mixed to form a positive electrode mixture as described in paragraph 5 above. When two positive electrode active materials are selected, the mixture include the two positive electrode active materials. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
While Katsuhiko et al. do not explicitly disclose the second predetermined time period is greater than the first predetermined time period, it is the position of the examiner that disclosure provides no evidence of criticality and unexpected results with regard to the relative aging time periods between the first positive electrode active material and the second positive electrode active material. In addition, the limitation of relative aging time period is a product-by-process limitation. “Product-by-process limitations do not impart structural features to the claim and thus as long as the structure is the same as that claimed, the claimed structure is met. The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature” than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Ex parte Gray, 10 USPQ2d 1922 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). See MPEP section 2113. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PIN JAN WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/PIN JAN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729