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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/6/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges amended Claims 1 and 4, canceled Claims 2, 3, 7, and 10, and withdrawn Claim 12 in the response filed on 7/6/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 9, 11, and 13-15 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 9, 11, and 13-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11804601 (“Chen et al.”) in view of US Pub. No. 20160149205 (“Theivanayagam et al.”) and US Pub. No. 20140096375 (“Hampel et al.”).
Chen et al. discloses an electrode comprising a blend of lithium manganese iron phosphate and lithium oxide of transition metals.
Chen et al. does disclose the electrode having a porosity of less than 40% and a current collector undergoing chemical pickling to obtain a hallowing rate of less than 10%.
Theivanayagam et al. teaches an electrode having a porosity of 15-60% and comprising a current collector formed by a metal strip and two faces, in which at least one of the faces is coated with a composition of electrochemically active materials (Abstract, [0013], and [0060]), said composition comprising a blend of a lithium metal phosphate compound of LiaMnbFecDdPO4 and lithium metal oxide compound of LiaCobMnc(M)dNi1-(b-c+d)O2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an electrode with a low porosity as claimed to achieve an electrode with a high density of active materials [0060].
Hampel et al. teaches a 15 to 25 μm thick current collector that has undergone chemical pickling of at least one of the faces thereof (Abstract and [0012]). The pickling rate is set in such a way that the removed thickness is less than 1 μm, in particular less than 0.5 μm or preferably 0.01 to 0.1 μm [0010]. Therefore, Hampel et al. teaches a hallowing rate that overlaps with the claimed range of less than 10%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a current collector undergo chemical pickling with a hallowing rate of less than 10% in order to degrease the current collector and produce a current collector with much better electrical and mechanical properties ([0011] and [0018]).
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, 4-6, 8, 9, 11, and 13-15 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.
Claims 1 and 4 recite a lithium manganese iron phosphate having the following formula: LixMn1-y-zFeyMzPO4, with 2/3≤1-y-z≤0.9, 0.05≤y≤0.5, and 0≤z≤0.2. That is, the concentration of Mn is dependent on the concentrations of Fe and M, such that increase Fe and/or M directly decreases the Mn fraction. Therefore, the full claimed ranges of Fe and M cannot be satisfied while simultaneously maintaining the specified Mn content of 2/3 to 0.9, making some compositions within the stated ranges mathematically impossible (e.g. y=0.5 and z=0, Mn is 0.5, which will not meet the Mn range of 2/3 to 0.9).
Further clarification and/or correction is required in the next response.
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, 4-6, 8, 9, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20140138591 (“Yoon et al.”), in view of US Pub. No. 20160149205 (“Theivanayagam et al.”), and in view of US Pub. No. 20140096375 (“Hampel et al.”).
With regards to Claims 1, 4, and 8, Yoon et al. teaches an electrode having a porosity of 10-90 vol % and comprising a current collector formed by a metal strip and two faces, in which at least one of the faces is coated with a composition of electrochemically active materials ([0156] and [0157]), said composition comprising:
from 90% to 99% by weight of lithium manganese iron phosphate relative to the total weight of all the electrochemically active materials of the composition, said lithium manganese iron phosphate having the following formula: LiaFe1-x-yMnxDy(PO4)z, wherein 1.0<a≤1.10, 0<x≤0.5, 0≤y≤0.10, 1.0<z≤1.10 and D is selected from the group consisting of Co, Ni, V, Nb, and combinations thereof (e.g. Li1.000Fe0.460Mn0.500Co0.040PO4 [0061]), (Abstract, [0053], [0061], [0062], [0064], [0067], and [0077]) and
from 1 to 10% by weight of lithium oxide of transition metals relative to the total weight of all the electrochemically active materials of the composition, said lithium oxide having the following formula: Li1±δNipCoqAl(1-p-q)O2, where 0<δ<0.1, p≥0.3, and q≤0.5 ([0062], [0064], [0077], [0144], [0145], and [0147]).
Yoon et al. does not teach its lithium manganese iron phosphate having a Mn content from 2/3 to 0.9, and its current collector undergoing chemical pickling to at least one the faces thereof.
Theivanayagam et al. teaches an electrode comprising lithium manganese iron phosphate having the following formula: LiaMnbFecDdPO4, wherein a is a number from 0.85 to 1.15, b is from 0.51 to 0.95, c is from 0.05 to 0.49, d is from 0.000 to 0.1, and D is one or more of Mg, Al, Ca, Ti, V, Cr, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Zr, Nb, and Mo ([0041]-[0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Mn content to be 2/3 to 0.9 in order to improve cycle life with desirable voltage discharge profiles [0051].
Hampel et al. teaches a 15 to 25 μm thick current collector that has undergone chemical pickling of at least one of the faces thereof (Abstract and [0012]). The pickling rate is set in such a way that the removed thickness is less than 1 μm, in particular less than 0.5 μm or preferably 0.01 to 0.1 μm [0010]. Therefore, Hampel et al. teaches a hallowing rate that overlaps with the claimed range of less than 10%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Yoon et al.’s current collector undergo chemical pickling with a hallowing rate of less than 10% in order to degrease the current collector and produce a current collector with much better electrical and mechanical properties ([0011] and [0018]).
With regards to Claim 5, Yoon et al. teaches the current collector is a strip made of aluminum or aluminum alloy [0156].
With regards to Claim 6, Yoon et al. teaches the current collector is coated on both faces with said composition of electrochemically active materials [0156].
With regards to Claim 9, Yoon et al. teaches a method of depositing the active material composition on a current collector by preparing a paste comprising the active material composition. The amount of active material is typically loaded at about 10-20 mg/cm2 [0157]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
With regards to Claims 11 and 13, Yoon et al. teaches the current collector is solid, and therefore should not have a through hole [0156].
With regards to Claims 14 and 15, Yoon et al. teaches a lithium-ion type electrochemical cell comprising the at least one electrode ([0005] and [0007]).
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 9, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20160149205 (“Theivanayagam et al.”), in view of US Pub. No. 20140138591 (“Yoon et al.”), and in view of US Pub. No. 20140096375 (“Hampel et al.”).
With regards to Claims 1, 4, and 8, Theivanayagam et al. teaches an electrode having a porosity of 15-60% and comprising a current collector formed by a metal strip and two faces, in which at least one of the faces is coated with a composition of electrochemically active materials (Abstract, [0013], and [0060]), said composition comprising:
Lithium metal phosphate having the following formula: LiaMnbFecDdPO4, wherein a is a number from 0.85 to 1.15, b is from 0.51 to 0.95, c is from 0.05 to 0.49, d is from 0.000 to 0.1, and D is one or more of Mg, Al, Ca, Ti, V, Cr, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Zr, Nb, and Mo ([0041]-[0050]), and
Lithium metal oxide having the following formula: LiaCobMnc(M)dNi1-(b-c+d)O2, wherein (M) is preferably Al, a is greater than 0 to 1.2, b is 0.1 to 0.5, c is 0.05 to 0.4, d is 0 to 0.4, and b+c+d is 0.15 to 0.5 ([0030] and [0031]).
While Theivanayagam et al. teaches any useful amount to mix the lithium metal phosphate and lithium metal oxide may be used [0040], Theivanayagam et al. does not explicitly teach from 90% to 99% by weight of lithium metal phosphate and from 1 to 10% by weight of a lithium metal oxide relative to a total weight of all the electrochemically active materials of the composition. Theivanayagam et al. does not teach its current collector undergoing chemical pickling to at least one the faces thereof.
Yoon et al. teaches an electrode having a porosity of 10-90 vol % and comprising a current collector formed by a metal strip and two faces, in which at least one of the faces is coated with a composition of electrochemically active materials ([0156] and [0157]), said composition comprising: from 90% to 99% by weight of lithium manganese iron phosphate LiaFe1-x-yMnxDy(PO4)z, and from 1 to 10% by weight of lithium oxide of transition metals Li1±δNipCoqAl(1-p-q)O2 relative to a total weight of all the electrochemically active materials of the composition (Abstract, [0053], [0061], [0062], [0064], [0067], [0077], [0144], [0145], and [0147]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a weight ratio of Theivanayagam et al.’s lithium metal phosphate to lithium metal oxide be 90:10 to 99:1 in order to achieve desirable electrochemical performance characteristics, such as high energy density and capacity [0087].
Hampel et al. teaches a 15 to 25 μm thick current collector that has undergone chemical pickling of at least one of the faces thereof (Abstract and [0012]). The pickling rate is set in such a way that the removed thickness is less than 1 μm, in particular less than 0.5 μm or preferably 0.01 to 0.1 μm [0010]. Therefore, Hampel et al. teaches a hallowing rate that overlaps with the claimed range of less than 10%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Theivanayagam et al.’s current collector undergo chemical pickling with a hallowing rate of less than 10% in order to degrease the current collector and produce a current collector with much better electrical and mechanical properties ([0011] and [0018]).
With regards to Claim 5, Theivanayagam et al. teaches the current collector is a strip made of aluminum or aluminum alloy [0056].
With regards to Claim 6, Theivanayagam et al. teaches the current collector is coated on both faces with said composition of electrochemically active materials [0013].
With regards to Claim 9, Theivanayagam et al. teaches its electrode having a density of about 3 g/cc of the composition of active materials ([0075] and Table 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
With regards to Claims 11 and 13, Theivanayagam et al. teaches the current collector is solid, and therefore should not have a through hole [0056].
With regards to Claims 14 and 15, Theivanayagam et al. teaches a lithium-ion type electrochemical cell comprising the at least one electrode (Abstract and [0001]).
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 9, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20160149205 (“Theivanayagam et al.”), in view of US Pub. No. 20150270544 (“Yoshida et al.”), and in view of US Pub. No. 20140096375 (“Hampel et al.”).
With regards to Claims 1, 4, and 8, Theivanayagam et al. teaches an electrode having a porosity of 15-60% and comprising a current collector formed by a metal strip and two faces, in which at least one of the faces is coated with a composition of electrochemically active materials (Abstract, [0013], and [0060]), said composition comprising:
Lithium metal phosphate having the following formula: LiaMnbFecDdPO4, wherein a is a number from 0.85 to 1.15, b is from 0.51 to 0.95, c is from 0.05 to 0.49, d is from 0.000 to 0.1, and D is one or more of Mg, Al, Ca, Ti, V, Cr, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Zr, Nb, and Mo ([0041]-[0050]), and
Lithium metal oxide having the following formula: LiaCobMnc(M)dNi1-(b-c+d)O2, wherein (M) is preferably Al, a is greater than 0 to 1.2, b is 0.1 to 0.5, c is 0.05 to 0.4, d is 0 to 0.4, and b+c+d is 0.15 to 0.5 ([0030] and [0031]).
While Theivanayagam et al. teaches any useful amount to mix the lithium metal phosphate and lithium metal oxide may be used [0040], Theivanayagam et al. does not explicitly teach from 90% to 99% by weight of lithium metal phosphate and from 1 to 10% by weight of a lithium metal oxide relative to a total weight of all the electrochemically active materials of the composition. Theivanayagam et al. does not teach its current collector undergoing chemical pickling to at least one the faces thereof.
Yoshida et al. teaches an electrode comprising a blend of a lithium manganese iron phosphate compound of LiαFeβM1-βXO4-γZy including LMFP (LiFe0.2Mn0.8PO4) ([0047], [0058], and Table 1) blended with a lithium oxide of transition metals compound of LiγM’zO2 including NMC (LiNi0.5Mn0.3Co0.2O2) ([0047], [0064]-[0067], and Table 2). Yoshida et al. teaches the amount of NMC is 40% or less [0069], so it follows that the balance of LMFP is 60% or more, which overlaps the claimed range of greater than 90% to 99% by weight of lithium manganese iron phosphate. Examiner notes that product claims with numerical ranges which overlap prior art ranges were held to have been obvious under 35 USC 103. In re Wertheim 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974); In re Fields 134 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1962); In re Nehrenberg 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). Also see MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Theivanayagam et al.’s lithium metal phosphate be from 90% to 99% by weight and lithium metal oxide be from 1 to 10% by weight in order to achieve desirable cycle characteristics [0069].
Hampel et al. teaches a 15 to 25 μm thick current collector that has undergone chemical pickling of at least one of the faces thereof (Abstract and [0012]). The pickling rate is set in such a way that the removed thickness is less than 1 μm, in particular less than 0.5 μm or preferably 0.01 to 0.1 μm [0010]. Therefore, Hampel et al. teaches a hallowing rate that overlaps with the claimed range of less than 10%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Theivanayagam et al.’s current collector undergo chemical pickling with a hallowing rate of less than 10% in order to degrease the current collector and produce a current collector with much better electrical and mechanical properties ([0011] and [0018]).
With regards to Claim 5, Theivanayagam et al. teaches the current collector is a strip made of aluminum or aluminum alloy [0056].
With regards to Claim 6, Theivanayagam et al. teaches the current collector is coated on both faces with said composition of electrochemically active materials [0013].
With regards to Claim 9, Theivanayagam et al. teaches its electrode having a density of about 3 g/cc of the composition of active materials ([0075] and Table 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
With regards to Claims 11 and 13, Theivanayagam et al. teaches the current collector is solid, and therefore should not have a through hole [0056].
With regards to Claims 14 and 15, Theivanayagam et al. teaches a lithium-ion type electrochemical cell comprising the at least one electrode (Abstract and [0001]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM-5 PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/LC/
Lisa Chau
Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights