Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/17/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims has overcome the objections to the 112(a) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 8/20/2025.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The amendment filed 10/17/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 5, and 6 remain pending in this application. The examiner acknowledges the previous cancellation of claim 2 and the newly cancelled claims 4 and 5. The examiner acknowledges no new matter has been added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are 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 claim 1, lines 6-9 recite the limitation “the first inorganic phosphoric acid compound is a cyclic inorganic phosphoric acid compound including at least one selected from the group consisting of hexametaphosphoric acid and a salt thereof”. The phrasing of “includes” usually refers to a part of a whole such as “the mixture includes a salt” or “the compound includes lithium”, however an acid compound can’t include a salt because a salt is formed from an acid and a metal reacting.
It is unclear if this is supposed to mean as long as the art has hexametaphosphoric acid or a salt of it, then the first inorganic phosphoric acid compound limitation is met, if it’s referring to a first inorganic phosphoric acid compound that forms the acid (itself) or salt, or if it is referring to a potential mixture containing the acid and the salt.
Para. 19 refers to compound A includes a cyclic polyphosphoric acid such as hexametaphosphoric acid and a salt thereof. Para. 38 notes Li3PO4 and LiH2PO4 producing hexametaphosphoric acid, however this doesn’t clarify the clarity issue with the salt. Par. 86, 94, and 100 notes the positive electrode additive comprising hexametaphosphoric acid as compound A.
For compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret hexametaphosphoric acid and a salt thereof to meet the claim limitation of a first inorganic phosphoric acid compound.
Regarding claim 1, lines 10-12 recites the limitation “the second inorganic phosphoric acid compound includes Li3PO4, and Li4P2O7”. As best understood, these compounds are phosphoric salts, not acids. The phrasing of “includes” usually refers to a part of a whole such as “the mixture includes a salt” or “the compound includes lithium”, however an acid compound can’t include a salt because a salt is formed from an acid and a metal reacting.
It is unclear if this is supposed to mean as long as the art has Li3PO4, and Li4P2O7, then the second inorganic phosphoric acid compound limitation is met, if it’s referring to a second inorganic phosphoric acid compound that forms Li3PO4 and Li4P2O7, or if it is referring to a mixture containing a second inorganic phosphoric acid compound, Li3PO4, and Li4P2O7.
Par. 17 of the instant application repeats the claim language but does not elaborate. Par. 34 and 78 notes phosphoric acid compounds being used in the procedure and raw material, but doesn’t include any details leading one to believe they are the second inorganic phosphoric acid that forms the claimed salts. Par. 86, 94, and 100 notes the positive electrode additive comprising hexametaphosphoric acid, Li3PO4, and Li4P2O7, but does not mention the final product comprising an acid other than the hexametaphosphoric acid which is defined in the claim in lines 6-9 as being part of the first inorganic phosphoric acid.
For compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret Li3PO4 and Li4P2O7 as meeting the claim language requirements of “second inorganic phosphoric acid compound” considering the phrasing and the examples, however the examiner still finds the phrasing unclear.
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.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyama et al. (US 2012/0034503 A1) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2008/0131778 A1). Toyama et al. was cited in the Non-Final Rejection field 5/20/2025.
Regarding claim 1, Toyama et al. teaches a positive electrode (see e.g. positive electrode 1 in Para. 8, 24-25, 45, and Fig. 1) for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (see e.g. lithium-ion secondary battery 10 in Para. 8, 24-25, 37, and Fig. 1, and non-aqueous electrolyte solution in Para. 38) comprising a composite oxide containing lithium and a transition metal (see e.g. lithium-manganese composite oxide as part of the positive electrode in Para. 34 and 51 of which manganese is a known transition metal as noted in Para. 52), and an additive covering at least a portion of a surface of the composite oxide (see e.g. the coating layer formed on the surface of a lithium-manganese composite oxide in Para. 45), wherein
the second inorganic phosphoric acid compound includes Li3PO4, and Li4P2O7, (see e.g. phosphate compound forming a coating layer that may consist of Li3PO4 and Li4P2O7 in Para. 50 that are organic compounds. It’s worthwhile to note the labeling of “second” versus “first” is arbitrary).
Toyama et al. teaches the content of the phosphate compound is preferably 0.1% by weight to 5.0% by weight relative to the content of the lithium-manganese composite oxide (when the content of the lithium-manganese composite oxide is 100% by weight) in Para. 27.
Toyama et al. teaches the content of an oxide or fluoride containing A and forming the coating layer is preferably 0.2% by weight to 1.5% by weight relative to the content of the lithium-manganese composite oxide (when the content of the lithium-manganese composite oxide is 100% by weight) in Para. 28.
Toyama et al. teaches a phosphate compound forming a coating layer that may consist of Li3PO4 and Li4P2O7 in Para. 50.
Toyama et al. teaches the positive electrode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery of the present invention is characterized in that a coating layer comprising a phosphate compound and an oxide or fluoride containing A (where A denotes at least one element selected from the group consisting of Mg, Al, Ti, and Cu) is formed on the surface of a layered lithium-manganese composite oxide for a positive electrode
material in Para. 24. This is understood to make up the materials of the additive covering the composite oxide containing lithium and a transition metal that is used for the calculations below.
Below are calculations for the phosphorus content of Toyama et al. relative to the total of the composite oxide and additive of Toyama et al. based on the givens of Toyama et al. identified above and the known phosphorous wt.% of Li3PO4 and Li4P2O7 noted below.
The known Phosphorous wt.% of Li3PO4 Is 26.75%
The known Phosphorous wt.% of Li4P2O7 is 30.71%
Toyama et al. doesn’t teach specific ratios between the phosphate compounds so we must assume the Phosphorous wt.% of the mixture falls somewhere between the two compounds individual phosphorous wt.% compared to the individual compounds’ masses.
Calculations based upon highest possible LMCO wt.%
wt.% phosphate compound out of 100 wt.% LMCO
wt.% oxide or fluoride containing A out of 100 wt.% LMCO
This leads to 99.7 wt.% lithium-manganese composite oxide (LMCO) out of the composite oxide + additive
Therefore,
0.1
w
t
%
P
h
o
s
p
h
a
t
e
C
o
m
p
o
u
n
d
100
w
t
%
L
M
C
O
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
*
99.7
w
t
%
L
M
C
O
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
100
w
t
%
L
M
C
O
+
A
d
d
i
t
i
v
e
=
0.0997
w
t
%
P
h
o
s
p
h
a
t
e
C
o
m
p
o
u
n
d
o
u
t
o
f
L
M
C
O
+
A
d
d
i
t
i
v
e
If the Phosphorous wt.% is 26.75 < x < 30.71 out of the Phosphate-Compound Mixture,
0.0997
w
t
%
P
-
C
o
m
p
o
u
n
d
100
w
t
%
L
M
C
O
+
A
d
d
i
t
i
v
e
*
26.75
w
t
%
P
100
w
t
%
P
-
C
o
m
p
o
u
n
d
=
0.0267
w
t
%
P
o
u
t
o
f
L
M
C
O
+
A
d
d
i
t
i
v
e
0.0997
w
t
%
P
-
C
o
m
p
o
u
n
d
100
w
t
%
L
M
C
O
+
A
d
d
i
t
i
v
e
*
30.71
w
t
%
P
100
w
t
%
P
-
C
o
m
p
o
u
n
d
=
0.031
w
t
%
P
o
u
t
o
f
L
M
C
O
+
A
d
d
i
t
i
v
e
Calculations based upon lowest possible LMCO wt.%
5 wt.% phosphate compound out of 100 wt.% LMCO
1.5 wt.% oxide or fluoride containing A out of 100 wt.% LMCO
This leads to 93.5 wt.% lithium-manganese composite oxide out of composite oxide + additive
Thus,
5
w
t
P
h
o
s
p
h
a
t
e
C
o
m
p
o
u
n
d
100
w
t
L
M
C
O
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
*
93.5
w
t
L
M
C
O
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
100
w
t
L
M
C
O
+
A
d
d
i
t
i
v
e
=
4.675
w
t
%
P
h
o
s
p
h
a
t
e
C
o
m
p
o
u
n
d
o
u
t
o
f
L
M
C
O
+
A
d
d
i
t
i
v
e
If the Phosphorous wt.% is 26.75 < x < 30.71 out of the Phosphate-Compound Mixture,
4.675
w
t
%
P
-
C
o
m
p
o
u
n
d
100
w
t
%
L
M
C
O
+
A
d
d
i
t
i
v
e
*
26.75
w
t
%
P
100
w
t
%
P
-
C
o
m
p
o
u
n
d
=
1.25
w
t
%
P
o
u
t
o
f
L
M
C
O
+
A
d
d
i
t
i
v
e
4.675
w
t
%
P
-
C
o
m
p
o
u
n
d
100
w
t
%
L
M
C
O
+
A
d
d
i
t
i
v
e
*
30.71
w
t
%
P
100
w
t
%
P
-
C
o
m
p
o
u
n
d
=
1.43
w
t
%
P
o
u
t
o
f
L
M
C
O
+
A
d
d
i
t
i
v
e
Thus, the phosphorous content as defined by Toyama et al. ranges from 0.0267 to 1.43 wt.% out of the lithium-manganese composite oxide and additive of Toyama et al.
Toyama et al. fails to explicitly teach the additive includes a first inorganic phosphoric acid compound and a second inorganic phosphoric acid compound,
the first inorganic phosphoric acid compound is a cyclic inorganic phosphoric acid compound,
the cyclic inorganic phosphoric acid compound includes at least one selected from the group consisting of hexametaphosphoric acid and a salt thereof, and
a phosphorous content relative to a total of the composite oxide and the additive is 0.1 mass% or more and 0.75 mass% or less because it doesn’t include the hexametaphosphoric acid.
However, Watanabe et al. teaches a phosphoric acid used for the coating process that may be from a raw material salt of sodium hexametaphosphate in Para. 366. Watanabe et al. teaches this helps optimize capacitance and stability of the cathode active material in Para. 367. Additionally, the claim limitations do not recite any specific amount or ratio of the hexametaphosphoric acid. Watanabe et al. teaches in Para. 367: a coating weight of the phosphoric acid ranges, for example, from 0.00001 weight % to 1.0 weight % for a weight of the composite oxide particle, preferably, it ranges from 0.0001 weight % to 0.1 weight %. If the coating weight of the phosphoric acid increases to a value over such a range, the capacitance of the cathode active material decreases. If the coating weight of the phosphoric acid decreases to a value under such a range, the stability of the cathode active material deteriorates.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating layer of Toyama et al. to include a minimal amount, such as 0.00001% of the composite oxide particle mass, of the phosphoric acid from the raw material salt of sodium hexametaphosphate, as taught by Watanabe et al., in order to optimize capacitance and stability of the cathode active material as noted in Para. 367 of Watanabe et al..
The result of the combined teachings would not be expected to substantially change or significantly change the phosphorous content relative to the total composite oxide and additive calculated above because of the minimal amount of phosphoric acid that would be added, thus approximately overlapping the claimed range in a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 5, Toyama et al. in view of Watanabe et al. teaches the positive electrode for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery of claim 1, wherein
the composite oxide has a layered rock salt type crystal structure (see e.g. Toyama et al. teaches the crystal lithium-manganese composite oxide in Para. 51 that is layered in Para. 7. Considering it meets the composition within the rest of the claim, it would be inherent that it would also have the rock salt type property as well, lacking any explicitly distinction. See MPEP 2144), and has a composition represented by a general formula: LiNixCoyM1-x-yO2, in the general formula,0.3 ≤ x < 1, 0 < y ≤ 0.5, and 0 < 1-x-y ≤ 0.35 are satisfied, and M is at least one selected from the group consisting of Al and Mn (see e.g. Toyama et al. discloses LiMnxM1-xO2 in which 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 0.6 and M may be Co and Ni in Para. 51. The atomic percents of Li and O are both 1 and 2 respectively between the claim limitation and the compound of Toyama et al. It is best understood that 1-x of M when M is more than one element represents the total atomic % of the elements represented by M.
Based upon the examples of Toyama et al., the Ni and Co content will be split equally. See e.g. Li:Mn:Ni:Co of 1.04:0.20:0.38:0.38 in Para. 105, see Li:Mn:Ni:Co:Ti of 1.04:0.40:0.25:0.25:0.06 in Para. 149, see Li:Mn:Ni:Co:W of 1.04:0.33:0.30:0.30:0.03 in Para. 155, see Li:Mn:Ni:Co:Mg of 1.04:0.20:0.32:0.32:0.02 in Para. 161, see Li:Mn:Ni:Co:Al of 1.04:0.40:0.25:0.25:0.06 in Para. 167, and see Li:Mn:Ni:Co:W of 1.04:0.10:0.42:0.42:0.02 in Para. 185. The examiner will consider this another constraint of Toyama et al.
x of Toyama et al. may be 0.2, leading to the structure LiMn2Ni0.4Co0.4O2. This is also roughly shown in Example 1 of Toyama et al. in Para. 105. This overlaps with the claimed ranges as x may be 0.4, y may be 0.4, which leads to 1-x-y=0.2 which falls within the claimed range).
In conclusion, the lithium composite of Toyama et al. shown above overlaps the claimed range “LiNixCoyM1-x-yO2, in the general formula,0.3 ≤ x < 1, 0 < y ≤ 0.5, and 0 < 1-x-y ≤ 0.35” in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 6, Toyama et al. in view of Watanabe et al. teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (see e.g. Toyama et al. teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery 10 in Para. 8, 24-25, 37, and Fig. 1, and non-aqueous electrolyte solution in Para. 38) including a positive electrode (see e.g. Toyoma et al. discloses positive electrode 1 in Para. 8, 24-25, 45, and Fig. 1), a negative electrode (see e.g. Toyoma et al. teaches a negative electrode 2 in Para. 13, 25, 33, 38, and Fig. 1), and a nonaqueous electrolyte (see e.g. Toyoma et al. teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte solution in Para. 38), wherein the positive electrode is the positive electrode of claim 1 (see e.g. combined teachings of Toyama et al. positive electrode in view of Watanabe et al.’s hexametaphosphoric acid of claim 1 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1, 5, and 6 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2007/0207080 mentions phosphoric acid and lithium phosphate as alternatives and usable together
US 2011/0223469 mentions phosphoric acid and lithium phosphate as alternatives and usable together
US 20190273256 A1 mentions lithium phosphate such as Li3PO4 as a salt of a phosphoric acid
US 2018/0212269 A1 notes “wherein the phosphoric acid compound is lithium phosphate” in claim 5.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE J METZGER whose telephone number is (571)272-0170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (1st week) or Monday - Friday (2nd week) 7:30am-5:00am - 9-day biweekly schedule.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/KATHERINE J METZGER/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/TONG GUO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723