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 .
Status of the Claims
The amendment/remarks submitted 03/16/2026 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1, 4, 6, 17, and 21-27 are pending. Claims 2-3, 5, 7-16, and 18-20 are cancelled. Claims 25-27 are new. Claims 1, 4, 6, 17, and 21-27 are examined herein.
Claim Objections
Claims 21-26 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims are inconsistent with their use of subscripts and superscripts in the median volume diameter (i.e. claim 1 recites Dv501 and Dv502, while claims 21-26 recite Dv501 and Dv502). As the specification uses the format in claim 1, it is believed this should be repeated in claims 21-26. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 17, and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/066909 A1 (“Tamaki” – US 2022/0037663 A1 cited herein as an English language equivalent) in view of US 2018/0019504 A1 (“Kim”) and KR 10-2017-0111740 A (“Lee” – machine translation of record dated 09/15/2025 cited herein).
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 23-27, Tamaki discloses a positive electrode for secondary batteries including a positive electrode mixture layer comprising positive electrode active materials which consist of a blend of an olivine-based positive electrode active material and a layered oxide-based positive electrode active material (Abstract). In Example 2, LiFe0.3Mn0.7PO4 (LMFP) and LiNi0.85Co0.1Al0.05O2 (NCA) are provided as the olivine-based and layered oxide-based positive electrode active material, respectively ([0058], [0089], Table 1). The LMFP has a particle size Db of 3.2 µm and the NCA has a particle size Da of 10 µm (Table 1); therefore, the ratio Db/Da is 0.32. The LMFP and NCA are provided in a weight ratio of 1:1 (Table 1).
While Tamaki is silent regarding the particle sizes Db and Da being a volume average particle size, Kim discloses average particle diameter (D50) of the positive electrode active material is defined as a particle diameter at 50% in a cumulative particle diameter distribution may be measured by electron microscopy using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) or field emission scanning electron microscope (FE-SEM) (i.e. a number average method), or using a laser diffraction method (i.e. a volume average method) ([0058]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure the Da and Db in a volume average method (analogous to Dv501 and Dv502, respectively) as Kim shows it is one of a limited number of methods by which the particle size may be measured, and in view of Kim one would expect this to yield predictable results.
It is deemed that the cathode porosity is an inherent characteristic and/or property of the specifically disclosed blend, including the Dv502/Dv501. In this respect, MPEP 2112 sets forth the following:
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
“When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id.
However, even if the cathode porosity is not inherently present in Tamaki, it would have been obvious over Lee. Lee discloses a cathode active material composition consisting of a first positive electrode active material and a second positive electrode active material (Abstract; [0030]-[0036], [0144]-[0149]). The first positive electrode active material is a lithium iron phosphate represented by LiFe1-xMxPO4, wherein M contains Mn ([0032]-[0036]). Examples of the second positive electrode active material include lithium nickel oxides ([0148]). The first positive electrode active material and the second positive electrode active material are blended.
Lee discloses the porosity of the positive electrode active material layer is 20% to 50% by volume ([0169]). The claimed porosity would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the porosity disclosed by Lee overlaps the porosity as claimed. 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). Furthermore, “[t]he normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Tamaki discloses the method of claim 1. As discussed above, Tamaki discloses an LMFP material having the composition LiFe0.3Mn0.7PO4 ([0058]). Tamaki discloses the layered oxide-based positive electrode active material may be a ternary system in which nickel is partially substituted with manganese and cobalt (LiNixMnyCo1-x-yO2), but does not expressly disclose the NMC material having the particular claimed composition.
Lee discloses lithium nickel oxides of second positive electrode active material include LiNi0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2, LiNi0.7Mn0.15Co0.15O2, or LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2 because these materials can increase the capacity characteristics and stability of the battery ([0148]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the materials to increase the capacity characteristics and stability of the battery.
Regarding claim 17, Tamaki discloses the method of claim 1. While Tamaki does not expressly disclose the lithium secondary electrochemical cell is part of a battery providing electric energy to an electric vehicle or a hybrid electric vehicle, Tamaki discloses it is known in the art that lithium ion batteries are used in various applications such as automobile applications including hybrid automobiles and electric automobiles ([0002]-[0003]). It would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the electrochemical cell is part of a battery providing electric energy to an electric vehicle or a hybrid electric vehicle because Tamaki teaches this is a known use of lithium ion batteries.
Regarding claims 21-22, Tamaki discloses the method of claim 1. Tamaki discloses in order to improve the packing density in the positive electrode mixture, a structure in which the olivine-based positive electrode active material is inserted between the layered oxide-based positive electrode active materials is preferable. Therefore, the ratio (Db/Da) of the particle size Db of the olivine-based positive electrode active material to the particle size Da of the layered oxide-based positive electrode active material is preferably 0.1 or more and 0.5 or less ([0025]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the claimed Dv502/ Dv501 ratio to improve the packing density in the positive electrode mixture as taught by Tamaki.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 17, and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2017-0111740 A (“Lee” – machine translation of record dated 09/15/2025 cited herein) in view of WO 2020/066909 A1 (“Tamaki” – US 2022/0037663 A1 cited herein as an English language equivalent) and US 2018/0019504 A1 (“Kim”).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 21-24, and 27, Lee discloses a cathode active material composition consisting of a first positive electrode active material and a second positive electrode active material (Abstract; [0030]-[0036], [0144]-[0149]). The first positive electrode active material is a lithium iron phosphate represented by LiFe1-xMxPO4, wherein M contains Mn ([0032]-[0036]). Examples of the second positive electrode active material include lithium nickel oxides ([0148]). The first positive electrode active material and the second positive electrode active material are blended.
Lee discloses the porosity of the positive electrode active material layer is 20% to 50% by volume ([0169]). The claimed porosity would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the porosity disclosed by Lee overlaps the porosity as claimed. 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). Furthermore, “[t]he normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and MPEP 2144.05.
Lee further discloses the first and second positive electrode active materials are provided in a weight ratio of 50:50 ([0149]).
Lee does not expressly disclose 0.3 ≤ Dv502/ Dv501 ≤ 0.6 and Dv502 ≥ 500 nm [claim 1], 0.4 ≤ Dv502/ Dv501 ≤ 0.6 [claim 21], 0.5 ≤ Dv502/ Dv501 ≤ 0.6 [claim 22], 0.3 ≤ Dv502/ Dv501 ≤ 0.5 [claim 23], or 0.3 ≤ Dv502/ Dv501 ≤ 0.4 [claim 24]
Tamaki discloses a positive electrode mixture layer containing, as positive electrode active materials, at least an olivine-based positive electrode active material and a layered oxide-based positive electrode active material (Abstract). Tamaki discloses in order to improve the packing density in the positive electrode mixture, a structure in which the olivine-based positive electrode active material is inserted between the layered oxide-based positive electrode active materials is preferable. Therefore, the ratio (Db/Da) of the particle size Db of the olivine-based positive electrode active material to the particle size Da of the layered oxide-based positive electrode active material is preferably 0.1 or more and 0.5 or less ([0025]).
While Tamaki is silent regarding the particle sizes Db and Da being a volume average particle size, Kim discloses average particle diameter (D50) of the positive electrode active material is defined as a particle diameter at 50% in a cumulative particle diameter distribution may be measured by electron microscopy using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) or field emission scanning electron microscope (FE-SEM) (i.e. a number average method), or using a laser diffraction method (i.e. a volume average method) ([0058]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the claimed Dv502/ Dv501 ratio to improve the packing density in the positive electrode mixture as taught by Tamaki and to measure the Da and Db in a volume average method (analogous to Dv501 and Dv502, respectively) as Kim shows it is one of a limited number of methods by which the particle size may be measured, and in view of Kim one would expect this to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, modified Lee discloses the method of claim 1. Lee discloses the first positive electrode active material is a lithium iron phosphate represented by LiFe1-xMxPO4, wherein M contains Mn, and 0≤x<0.05 ([0032]-[0036]). This anticipates the claimed formula for lithium manganese iron phosphate when x=1, 0≤y<0.05, and z=0. Lee discloses an example of the second positive electrode active material including LiNi0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2 ([0148], [0238], [0241]). This anticipate the claimed NMC material when w=1, x=0.6, y=0.2, z=0.2, and t=0.
Regarding claim 17, modified Lee discloses the method of claim 1. Lee further discloses an electric vehicle comprising a secondary battery comprising the cathode ([0223]-[0226]).
Regarding claims 25-26, modified Lee discloses the method of claim 1. Tamaki discloses the LMFP has a particle size Db of 3.2 µm (analogous to Dv502) and the NCA has a particle size Da of 10 µm (analogous to Dv501) (Table 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 6-7, filed 06/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 4, 23, and 24 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 2018/0019504 A1 (“Kim”).
Applicant argues that the references do not mention or suggest that a Dv502/ Dv501 ratio is critical for lowering porosity of a cathode at less than 30%. The Office would like to note that Tamaki teaches the ratio (Db/Da) of the particle size Db of the olivine-based positive electrode active material to the particle size Da of the layered oxide-based positive electrode active material is preferably 0.1 or more and 0.5 or less to improve the packing density in the positive electrode mixture ([0025]). As applicant’s specification as filed recognizes ([0018]), the packing density is used to calculate the porosity:
Porosity=1-
d
bulk
/
d
true
This is recognized by the prior art as well. See, for example, US 10,270,088 B2 at col. 14, lines 12-30 in particular at Equations 1 and 2:
Packing density
g/
cm
2
=
actual density
/
true density
Equation 1
Porosity
%
=
1-
actual density
/
true density
×100
Equation 2
Moreover, the same materials in the same ratios are used in the prior art as noted in the rejection above. Therefore, the Office respectfully submits that the prior art does recognize the effect on porosity by way of the effect on packing density.
In view of the new grounds of rejection, this Office action is made NON-FINAL.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Scott Carrico whose telephone number is (571)270-5504. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:15AM-6PM ET.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
Robert Scott Carrico
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/Robert S Carrico/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights