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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/16/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
The amendment/remarks submitted 03/16/2026 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1, 4, 6, 17, and 21-24 are pending. Claims 2-3, 5, 7-16, and 18-20 are cancelled. Claim 24 is new. Claims 1 and 21-23 are amended. Claims 1, 4, 6, 17, and 21-24 are examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as anticipated by WO 2020/066909 A1 (“Tamaki” – US 2022/0037663 A1 cited herein as an English language equivalent) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over WO 2020/066909 A1 (“Tamaki” – US 2022/0037663 A1 cited herein as an English language equivalent) in view of KR 10-2017-0111740 A (“Lee” – machine translation of record dated 09/15/2025 cited herein).
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 23-24, 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 (analogous to the claimed Dv502/Dv501) is 3.2. The LMFP and NCA are provided in a weight ratio of 1:1 (Table 1).
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 6, 17, and 21-22 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 KR 10-2017-0111740 A (“Lee” – machine translation of record dated 09/15/2025 cited herein).
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 21-24 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).
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 21-24, 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) (analogous to the claimed Dv502/Dv501) 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.
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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 5-6, filed 03/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 17, and 21-23 under 35 USC 103 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 WO 2020/066909 A1 (“Tamaki” – US 2022/0037663 A1 cited herein as an English language equivalent).
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