DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
1. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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
3. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
4. In response to the amendment received on 1/22/2026:
Claims 13, 17-24, and 26 are pending in the current application. Claim 13 has been amended, Claims 1-12, 14-16, and 25 are cancelled.
The double patenting rejection is withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The previous prior art-based rejections have been overcome in light of the amendment and new rejections are laid out below. All changes made to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
5. All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. Claims 13, 17, 19-21, 23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Tonegawa US PG Publication 2014/0199475.
Regarding Claims 13 and 26, Tonegawa discloses an active cathode material for a lithium ion battery, the active cathode material comprising particles having an core-shell structure, each of the particles having a core formed of a core material and a shell formed of shell material, wherein the core material is a compound having an olivine structure represented by Lix1M1y1Pz1O4 (para 0015) where M1 represents one type or two or more types of elements selected from the group consisting of Mg, Ca, Fe, Mn, Ni, Co, Zn, Ge, Cu, Cr, Ti, Sr, Ba, Sc, Y, Al, Ga, In, Si, B and rare earth elements, and 0< x1<2, 0< y1<1.5, and 0.9< z1<1.1, where the range of x1 also anticipates the range of Claim 26, 0.5≤x≤0.9, the shell material consists of an olivine compound Lix2M1y2Pz2O4 where M2 represents one type or two or more types of elements selected from the group consisting of Mg, Fe, Ni, Co and Al, and 0< x2<2, 0< y2<1.5, and 0.9< z2<1.1 (para 0016) and the skilled artisan would recognize that values of x2, y2, and z2 can be selected to result in a formula for the shell being e.g. LixFePO4 when y2=1 and z2=1 (both within their respective claimed ranges) where Tonegawa teaches a range for x2 that falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of x≤0.9, or e.g. LixFeyMn1-yPO4 when M2 is Fe and Mn (the skilled artisan would understand that the Mn and Fe would balance to 1 mol) and since Tonegawa teaches that in both formulae, Li can be present in an amount less than 1 mol, then either component could be delithiated (see entire disclosure and especially paras 0078-0080).
Regarding Claim 17, Tonegawa teaches wherein the particles have a diameter of 0.02 µm to 0.2 µm (para 0082), which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding Claims 19-20, Tonegawa discloses in para 0083 wherein the shell has a thickness of preferably 50% or less of the particle radius (which is half of the diameter of 0.02 µm to 0.2 µm), so the shell has a thickness of e.g. 0.005 µm to 0.05 µm, which overlaps the claimed ranges of 0.01 µm to 5 µm inclusive, and 0.05 µm to 1 µm inclusive, and therefore renders the claimed ranges of shell thickness obvious. 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) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that 'suitable protection' is provided if the protective layer is 'about' 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant's] claimed range.").
Regarding Claim 21, Tonegawa teaches wherein the core material is Lix1M1y1Pz1O4 (para 0015) where M1 represents one type or two or more types of elements selected from the group consisting of Mg, Ca, Fe, Mn, Ni, Co, Zn, Ge, Cu, Cr, Ti, Sr, Ba, Sc, Y, Al, Ga, In, Si, B and rare earth elements, and 0< x1<2 and when x1=1 or greater (which is in the taught range), then the core would be fully lithiated.
Regarding Claim 23, Tonegawa discloses lithium ion battery comprising a cathode (positive electrode active material) having an active cathode material according to Claim 13 (paras 0085-0104).
7. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonegawa US PG Publication 2014/0199475, as applied to Claim 17, and further in view of Liu CN105895856.
Regarding Claim 18, Tonegawa discloses the claimed active cathode material as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Tonegawa fails to specifically disclose wherein the particles have a diameter of from 1 µm to 20 µm inclusive. However, in the same field of endeavor of core-shell lithium metal phosphate active material particle design, Liu discloses an active cathode material for a lithium ion battery, the active cathode material comprising particles having a core-shell structure, each of the particles having a core 11 comprising a core material 111/112/113 being a combination of layered oxide, olivine structure compound, and spinel structure compound (para 0032) and a shell 10 comprising a shell material, wherein the core material 111/112/113 comprises an compound having an olivine structure such as lithium iron phosphate, i.e. olivine LiMPO4 where M can be Mn or Fe (para 0032) (this material being fully lithiated since there is 1 mol Li in LiMPO4), the shell material comprises e.g. olivine LiMPO4 where M can be Mn or Fe (para 0030) (see entire disclosure and especially paras 0009-0010, 0013-0020, 0030-0033, Fig 1), and further discloses wherein the particles of the active cathode material have a diameter of from 0.1 µm to 10 µm , which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range of 1 µm to 20 µm, and teaches in para 0005 that using core-shell structures having reduced particle size in a suitable range are known to optimize electron and lithium-ion transport and other performance. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the active cathode material of Tonegawa such that the particles have a diameter of from 1 µm to 20 µm inclusive because Lin teaches an overlapping range of particle sizes for similar particles, with a design advantage of optimization of electron and lithium-ion transport and other performance factors. 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) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that 'suitable protection' is provided if the protective layer is 'about' 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant's] claimed range.").
8. Claims 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonegawa US PG Publication 2014/0199475, as applied to Claim 13, and further in view of Sasaki US PG Publication 2014/0342226.
Regarding Claims 22 and 24, Tonegawa discloses claimed lithium ion battery and cathode but fails to specifically disclose a process for producing a cathode having the active material of Claim 13 and wherein the cathode contains at least one aqueously processable electrode binder. However, in the same field of endeavor of lithium ion battery design including e.g. olivine LiFePO4 active material and layered lithium oxide positive electrode active materials, Sasaki teaches that a positive electrode is advantageously formed in aqueous solution with a water-soluble binder composition and electrode mixture forming process that improves adhesion of the electrode active material to the current collector and results in a battery having excellent storage property and cycle property in a high temperature environment (see entire disclosure and especially paras 0011-0013, 0040-0047, 0077-0078, 0298-0299). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use an aqueously processible electrode binder in the cathode of the battery of Tonegawa, and to produce the cathode such that the cathode is produced with at least one electrode binder and water as a carrier solvent, because Sasaki teaches that this type of binder and this method of forming a cathode (including use of the binder and water as the carrier solvent) forms an electrode mixture that is better adhered to the current collector and results in a battery having excellent storage property and cycle property in a high temperature environment.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims are based on the claims as amended. The amended claims have been addressed in the new rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA S PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3597. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30a to 3p Eastern Time.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached on 5712721481. 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.
/LISA S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729