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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner notes the following amendments made to the claims:
Claim 3 amended
New claims 7-11 added
Response to Arguments
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 04/17/2026 is sufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 1 based upon 35 USC 103.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 04/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the affidavit declared on 04/17/2025 in combination with the presented arguments overcomes the previously applied prior art as it currently stands Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made further in view of Chang (US 20200161643 A1), which teaches a formation method for an olivine positive active material using a similar method to Yasumiishi, also including ammonia as a PH tuning agent, and explicitly states that the formation method occurs with a NH3 concentration which correlates to the desired characteristics in table 1 of the instant specification. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected in further view of Chang. Claims 2-6 remain rejected and unchanged other than being further view of Chang, as no arguments are presented regarding the patentability of the dependent claims other than their dependence of claim 1.
However, examiner acknowledges that the method of producing the positive active material involving an NaOH solution, a NH3 solution, and an NH2NH2 solution, dropwise such that the pH maintains a constant value, additionally mixing the precursor with LiH2PO4 and a carbon source, and firing the prepared mixture, is not found in any of the closest discovered prior art. Thus, claim 7 is considered to contain allowable subject matter. Claims 8-11 are also considered to contain allowable subject matter via their dependence on claim 7. If the limitations of claim 7 were combined with those of claim 1 in a single independent claim, that claim would be allowable. If all dependent claims were to dependent on that claim, then the application would be in condition for allowance.
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) in view of Chang (US 20200161643 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])
In view of the submitted affidavit teaching that the same compound with the same pore size and pore volume would not necessarily produce the same pore surface area, the remaining limitations are no longer considered to be met solely via the teachings of Yasumiishi.
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;
(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.
However, the primary argument made by applicant is that the difference between the method of Yasumiishi and the instant invention is the concentration of NH3 used in the formation process. By combining the teachings of Yasumiishi with those of Chang, the following limitations would be met, and each and every limitation of claim 1 would be rendered obvious:
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]. Yasumiishi teaches the claimed pore size and pore volume in accordance to claim 1.)
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.
Yasumiishi is silent on the desired concentration of NH3. However, Chang teaches the missing limitations: “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], “In some embodiments, the complex agent may have (be added at) a concentration of about 0.1 M to about 0.7 M, for example, about 0.2 M to about 0.5 M,” Chang [0079] and “First, ammonia water with a concentration of 0.50 mol/L was added to the reactor. The reactor was programmed with an agitation power of 250 kW/m.sup.3 and a reaction temperature of 50° C., and then, the metal-containing raw materials and ammonia water were added to the reactor at 6.0 mL/min and 1.35 mL/min, respectively. Subsequently, NaOH was added thereto in order to maintain pH (e.g., maintain a pH between 11.4-11.6), and the reaction was performed for 33 hours.” Chang [0126])
By using the ammonia concentration of Chang in the method of forming a positive electrode active material of Yasumiishi, all of the elements of limitation (A) would be met. Specifically, by having the same chemical composition, pore size, heat treatment, AND NH3 concentration, all of the parameters would be the same as those provided in table 1 of the instant specification as well as in the provided affidavit, which have both the claimed pore specific surface area as well as the FWHM ratio required for limitation (B).
(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. (See above—if the material and formation process of Yasumiishi were modified to use the NH3 concentration of Chang, the FWHM of claim 1 would be achieved given that all of the parameters shown in table 1 of the instant specification would be met, thus overcoming applicant arguments that the difference is caused by the specific NH3 concentration used by applicant.)
Chang and Yasumiishi are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of positive electrode active materials comprising an olivine lithium iron phosphate, and which include a method of producing the active material including mixing a precursor in the present of ammonia to maintain pH. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yasumiishi to use the specific NH3 concentration of Chang as Chang both teaches this concentration used in the same field, and also explicitly teaches that altering the concentration of NH3 is part of routine experimentation and can be altered to whatever level is needed to maintain the pH of the reaction (“First, the complex agent and the pH controlling agent (e.g., ammonia water) are put in a reactor, and the metal-containing raw materials are added thereto and reacted. If the pH of the reaction mixture in the reactor changes as the reaction progresses, additional amounts of the pH controlling agent may be added thereto to control the pH. In some embodiments, the complex agent may have (be added at) a concentration of about 0.1 M to about 0.7 M, for example, about 0.2 M to about 0.5 M” Chang [0079]). One of ordinary skill would be capable of drawing from these teachings and using a NH3 concentration in this range in the method of Yasumiishi, thus meeting all of the limitations of claim 1.
By modifying Yasumiishi with Chang, all limitations of claim 2-5 would be met without requiring any further modification or motivation.
Regarding claim 2, modified 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. (As described above in claim 1, if the method of production for a positive electrode material of Yasumiishi were modified to have the NH3 concentration of Chang, which overlaps that of the instant specification, then the FWHM would also be the same, as all parameters shown in table 1 in the instant specification would be met. Thus, by making this modification, all limitations of claim 2 would be met without requiring any further modification or motivation.)
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 Chang (US 20200161643 A1) and further in view of Hoshina (US 20150099159 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-11 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: While the combination of Yasumiishi (the closest discovered prior art) and Chang (which renders obvious the tuning of ammonia concentration) would present a case of obviousness for all of the limitations of claim 1, the combination fails to teach the additional limitations of claim 7. Specifically, neither piece of prior art teaches a positive electrode active material comprising an olivine material that is coated in carbon, and is produced via a method that involved adding dropwise a NaOH solution, an NH3 solution, and an NH2NH2 solution to a FexMn1-x(OH)2 precursor, mixing the prepared precursor with LiH2PO4 and a carbon source, and then firing the mixture to prepare the desired electrode material. As is discussed in the applicant affidavit and arguments, the specific production process is what leads to the desired characteristics, and the same exact composition can have different characteristics based on the production method. Upon further search and consideration, there was no other prior art discovered that teaches or would render obvious the additional limitations presented in claim 7, and thus, claim 7 is considered to contain allowable subject matter. Claims 8-11 are also considered to contain allowable subject matter given their dependency on claim 7. If the subject matter of claim 7 were cancelled and incorporated into claim 1, then all claims would be considered allowable, and the application would be in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
The following references were considered to be relevant in an updated search, but were not included in the above rejection and would not render obvious the subject matter of claims 7-11:
Nagai (US 20150207147 A1)—teaches ammonia concentration in desired range in process of preparing a precursor (“ the ammonia concentration is not particularly limited. It is usually suitably 25 g/L or lower (3 g/L to 25 g/L, preferably 10 g/L to 25 g/L).” Nagai [0121] and “Other preferable examples of a material usable as the positive electrode active material include olivine-type lithium phosphates as well as polyanionic materials For example, the olivine-type lithium phosphate can be an olivine-type lithium phosphate (LiFePO.sub.4, LiMnPO.sub.4, etc.) represented by a general formula LiMPO.sub.4 (M is at least one species among Co, Ni, Mn and Fe).” Nagai [0105] and “
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
Prosecution Insights