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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner will go through arguments in order and explain why they are not found persuasive:
First, applicant argues that Yasumiishi fails to teach the limitation (A) from claim 1, and proceeds to cite Yasumiishi paragraph [0023] for why. However, as examiner originally cited, Yasumiishi paragraph [0011] clearly meets the limitation of (A) and in the exact same kind of language. Claim 1 recites “a pore volume in a range of a pore size of 60 nm or more and 200 nm or less determined by a BJH method from a desorption isotherm using a nitrogen gas adsorption method is 0.05 cm3/g or more and 0.25 cm3/g or less, and a pore specific surface area in a range of a pore size of 10 nm or more and 200 nm or less using a nitrogen gas adsorption method is 5 m2/g or more;” Yasumiishi states “and a volume of micropores in a micropore diameter range of 2 nm or more and 200 nm or less is 3×10.sup.−2 cm.sup.3/g [0.03 cm3/g] or more and 3×10.sup.−1 cm.sup.3/g [0.3 cm3/g] or less.” [Yasumiishi [0011]. In this case, if Yasumiishi teaches the same material (same chemical composition of positive active material, olivine structure, coated in carbon) having the same pore size and pore volume, it would be obvious that the pore surface area would also be the same as claimed, as these are all related characteristics and the pores of the same material would be the same if the material were the same. Specifically, the surface area of a pore is dependent on its shape, but if the material were the same, the pore size/diameter were the same, and the pore volume were the same, there is no reason to believe that the pores would be a different shape and therefore have a significantly different surface area.
Second, applicant argues that since Yasumiishi does not teach the exact dropwise method of synthesis as the instant application, that immersing the inorganic particle of Yasumiishi in NH3 would not have the same results as immersing the instant precursor in NH3. Examiner finds that this is not convincing as table 2 of the instant application only cites the concentration of NH3 present in the synthesis of the active material, and Yasumiishi also teaches the presence of NH3 present in the synthesis of the active material. Examiner additionally notes that in the synthesis method of Yasumiishi, the inorganic particle, having been immersed in the aqueous solution containing NH3 and within the pH range as taught by the instant specification, is then mixed with a carbonaceous film precursor to form a slurry. Therefore, the inorganic particle of Yasumiishi could be considered a precursor as it is only part of a mixture that then becomes the positive active material.
Examiner finds, most importantly, that the claims presented by applicant are not commensurate in scope to the instant specification, specifically regarding the importance of the synthesis method regarding a specific precursor being treated a specific way in order to slightly alter the crystal structure and therefore impact battery characteristics. Examiner finds that, unless applicant amends claims to be product-by-process claims and provide proof of how the specific process used impacts the crystal structure of the positive active material, that the claims are currently not allowable. See MPEP2112.01 and 2112 I [SOMETHING WHICH IS OLD DOES NOT BECOME PATENTABLE UPON THE DISCOVERY OF A NEW PROPERTY]. There is no mention of the pH, the presence of ammonia, or the precursor for the positive active material in the claims, and therefore as they currently stand, they are unpatentable of Yasumiishi, and the previous rejections remain in place.
Regarding dependent claims 2-6, since no arguments were made, given that the rejection for claim 1 is upheld, the rejections for claims 2-6 are upheld as well and remain unchanged. Thus, there is currently considered to be no allowable subject matter present in 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasumiishi (US 20180277838 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yasumiishi teaches all of the following elements:
A positive active material for an energy storage device, (“A lithium-ion secondary battery including: a cathode; an anode; and a non-aqueous electrolyte, in which the cathode is the electrode for a lithium-ion secondary battery according to [5].” Yasumiishi [0016])
having an olivine-type crystal structure, (“Among these cathode materials, LiFePO4 having an olivine structure is attracting attention as a cathode material that is not only safe but also has no problem from the resource and cost viewpoint.” Yasumiishi [0005] and “An electrode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery including: an inorganic particle represented by General Formula LiFexMn1-x-yMyPO4 (0.5≤x≤1.0, 0≤y≤0.14,)” Yasumiishi [0011])
having a surface at least partially coated with carbon, (“and a carbonaceous film that coats a surface of the inorganic particle, in which an amount of carbon is 0.8% by mass or more and 2.5% by mass or less,” Yasumiishi [0011])
and satisfying either (A) or (B) below:
(A) a pore volume in a range of a pore size of 60 nm or more and 200 nm or less determined by a BJH method from a desorption isotherm using a nitrogen gas adsorption method is 0.05 cm3/g or more and 0.25 cm3/g or less, and a pore specific surface area in a range of a pore size of 10 nm or more and 200 nm or less using a nitrogen gas adsorption method is 5 m2/g or more; (“and a volume of micropores in a micropore diameter range of 2 nm or more and 200 nm or less is 3×10-2 cm3/g or more and 3×10-1 cm3/g or less.” Yasumiishi [0011])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art ranges of 0.03 to 0.3 cm3/g for the pore volume and 2nm or more and 200nm or less as the pore diameter encompass the claimed ranges of 0.05-0.25 cm3/g and 60-200nm for the same parameters. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
(B) a full width at half maximum ratio (200)/(131) of a peak corresponding to a (200) plane to a peak corresponding to a (131) plane by a powder X-ray diffraction method using a CuKa ray in a charged state is 1.10 or less. (This limitation would be met due to the fact that the composition of the active material is the same as in the instant application, and it is prepared using an aqueous solution of NH3, as taught in the instant specification and argued in the applicant’s arguments as the key element for determining the desired FWHM ratio. “An electrode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery including: an inorganic particle represented by General Formula LiFexMn1-x-yMyPO4 (0.5≤x≤1.0, 0≤y≤0.14,)” Yasumiishi [0011] and “The aqueous solution is, for example, an aqueous solution including at least one element selected from the group consisting of LiOH and NH3” Yasumiishi [0060] and “The aqueous solution in which the inorganic particle is immersed is not particularly limited as long as the pH of the aqueous solution is 7.3 or more and 10.0 or less, preferably 7.5 or more and 9.5 or less, and more preferably 7.6 or more and 9.2 or less.” Yasumiishi [0060]. This is compared to the instant specification, which states that “The pH range is preferably 8 or more and 11 or less.” and “the full width at half maximum of the peak corresponding to the (131) plane and the full width at half maximum of the peak corresponding to the (200) plane by a powder X-ray diffraction method using a CuKa ray in a charged state of the positive active material can be obtained by controlling the NH3 concentration.” Instant spec [0038]. In the case of Yasumiishi, the concentration of NH3 in the aqueous solution would be controlled in order to optimize the pH from 7.3 or more to 10.0 or less.
Regarding claim 2, Yasumiishi teaches all of the following elements:
The positive active material for an energy storage device according to claim 1, wherein the positive active material satisfies the (B), and a full width at half maximum of a peak corresponding to the (131) plane by a powder X-ray diffraction method using a CuKa ray in a discharged state is 0.110 or more and 0.155 or less. (This limitation would be met due to the fact that the composition of the active material is the same as in the instant application, and it is prepared using an aqueous solution of NH3, as taught in the instant specification and argued in the applicant’s arguments as the key element for determining the desired FWHM ratio. “An electrode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery including: an inorganic particle represented by General Formula LiFexMn1-x-yMyPO4 (0.5≤x≤1.0, 0≤y≤0.14,)” Yasumiishi [0011] and “The aqueous solution is, for example, an aqueous solution including at least one element selected from the group consisting of LiOH and NH3” Yasumiishi [0060] and “The aqueous solution in which the inorganic particle is immersed is not particularly limited as long as the pH of the aqueous solution is 7.3 or more and 10.0 or less, preferably 7.5 or more and 9.5 or less, and more preferably 7.6 or more and 9.2 or less.” Yasumiishi [0060]. This is compared to the instant specification, which states that “The pH range is preferably 8 or more and 11 or less.” and “the full width at half maximum of the peak corresponding to the (131) plane and the full width at half maximum of the peak corresponding to the (200) plane by a powder X-ray diffraction method using a CuKa ray in a charged state of the positive active material can be obtained by controlling the NH3 concentration.” Instant spec [0038]. In the case of Yasumiishi, the concentration of NH3 in the aqueous solution would be controlled in order to optimize the pH from 7.3 or more to 10.0 or less.
Regarding claim 3, Yasumiishi teaches all of the following elements:
The positive active material for an energy storage device according to claim 1 or 2, wherein the positive active material is a compound represented by formula 1 below: LiFexMn1-xPO4 (0 ≤ x ≤ 1) (“An electrode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery including: an inorganic particle represented by General Formula LiFexMn1-x-yMyPO4 (0.5≤x≤1.0, 0≤y≤0.14,)” Yasumiishi [0011]. In this case, if x were 1 and y were 0, the formula would be LiFePO4, which is within the claimed range of possible compositions.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art ranges of 0.5-1 and 0-1 for the atomic ratio of Iron and Manganese, respectively, in the positive electrode material anticipate the claimed ranges for the same parameters. However, Yasumiishi also teaches an additional metal in an amount of 0-0.14 by atomic ratio. This would overlap the claimed range for the same parameter, as if 0 were chosen in Yasumiishi it would not be present in the compound, and would therefore be the same as in the instant invention. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, Yasumiishi teaches all of the following elements:
A positive electrode for an energy storage device, comprising the positive active material according to any one of claims 1 to 3. (“A lithium-ion secondary battery including: a cathode; an anode; and a non-aqueous electrolyte, in which the cathode is the electrode for a lithium-ion secondary battery according to [5].” Yasumiishi [0016])
Regarding claim 5, Yasumiishi teaches all of the following elements:
An energy storage device comprising the positive electrode according to claim 4. (“A lithium-ion secondary battery including: a cathode; an anode; and a non-aqueous electrolyte, in which the cathode is the electrode for a lithium-ion secondary battery according to [5].” Yasumiishi [0016])
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasumiishi (US 20180277838 A1) in view of Hoshina (US 20150099159 A1)
Regarding claim 6, Yasumiishi teaches all of the limitations of claims 1-5, as shown above. Yasumiishi fails to teach the following:
• An energy storage apparatus comprising a plurality of energy storage devices and comprising one or more of the energy storage devices according to claim 5
However, Hoshina teaches all of the elements of claim 6 that are not found in Yasumiishi. Specifically, Hoshina teaches
An energy storage apparatus comprising a plurality of energy storage devices (“A battery pack according to a third embodiment has one or a plurality of the nonaqueous electrolyte batteries (unit cells) of the above-described second embodiment.” Hoshina paragraph 0107, figures 5 and 6)
Yasumiishi and Hoshina are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of electrode materials containing olivine crystal structured active materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the active material, electrode, and battery of Yasumiishi to include in the energy storage apparatus comprising a plurality of energy storage devices of Hoshina in order to fabricate a device which can discharge at a high rate in a low temperature environment, which is more possible with an apparatus containing a plurality of batteries rather than just a single device. This would be desirable in order to make a more versatile product that can perform in multiple environments.
Conclusion
The following pieces of art were discovered in updated search are considered to be relevant but were not used in the rejection, as it still stands unchanged:
Hoshina (US 20160190586 A1) –teaches a lithium manganese phosphate active material for an electrode which explicitly states the pore specific surface area is within the claimed range, for a pore size that is also within the claimed range: (“A pore diameter appearing at highest frequency in pore diameter distribution of the electrode layer obtained by mercury porosimetry falls within a range of 10 nm to 50 nm. A pore specific surface area of the electrode layer is from 12 m.sup.2/g to 30 m.sup.2/g.” Hoshina [0019] and “satisfying the above conditions both of pore diameter distribution and pore specific surface area can provide a nonaqueous electrolyte battery excellent in rate characteristics.” Hoshina [0021])
Chang (US 20200161643 A1) – Teaches the use of an olivine lithium iron phosphate or lithium manganese phosphate used as a positive electrode active material, the synthesis of which involves mixing a metal hydroxide precursor in a solution containing NH3 (“The positive active material is a material capable of intercalating lithium ions, and may be … an olivine-type or NASICON-type phosphate (such as lithium iron phosphate (Li.sub.xFePO.sub.4), lithium manganese phosphate (Li.sub.xMnPO.sub.4), and/or the like)” Chang [0004] and “The metal hydroxide precursor may be prepared through first, second, and third processes of forming a core, an intermediate layer, and a shell. In the first, second, and third processes, conditions such as a concentration and an input of a metal-containing raw material, a concentration and an input of ammonia water as a complex (complexing) agent, an input of a pH controlling agent, and/or the like may be changed or varied as described herein.” Chang [0076])
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 BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET whose telephone number is (571)272-0156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm except for the first Friday of bi-week.
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, NICHOLAS SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752