POSITIVE ACTIVE MATERIAL FOR ENERGY STORAGE DEVICE, POSITIVE ELECTRODE FOR ENERGY STORAGE DEVICE, ENERGY STORAGE DEVICE, AND ENERGY STORAGE APPARATUS
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/2/2023 and 10/29/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “peak corresponding to a (131) plane observed by powder X-ray diffraction” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “… 1” at the end of the claimed formula is not an appropriate label. Consider revising or removing altogether. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fujii et al. (JP 2009-218205 A).
Regarding claim 1, Fujii et al. teach a positive active material for energy storage device (Abstract discloses a cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery.), wherein
at least part of a surface is coated with carbon (Paragraphs 0028; 0039; Example 1 disclose a carbon coating on the surface of the cathode material.), and
the positive active material for energy storage device is a compound represented by the following Formula 1:
LiFexMn(1-x)PO4 (0≤x≤1) (Example 1 discloses synthesizing LiMn0.875Fe0.125PO4 wherein x=0.125.).
However, Fujii et al. do not specifically teach a ratio of full width at half maximum of a peak in a charged state to a peak in a discharged state is 0.85 or more and 1.13 or less in a peak corresponding to a (131) plane observed by powder X-ray diffraction using CuKα radiation.
Fujii et al. teach the composition of the active material is the same as in the instant application, and it is prepared using an aqueous solution of NH3 (See example 1, paragraph 0039 which discloses aqueous ammonia is added to the precursor of the cathode active material). In paragraphs 0040 and 0101 of the as-filed specification, it is disclosed that the addition of NH3 to the precursor of the active material is used to adjust the pH into a range between 8.5-10 in order to observe the desired full width at half maximum results in the (131) peaks of the X-ray diffraction pattern. The desired results are shown in Table 1 of the specification. Both the Applicant and Fujii et al. desire the pH of the precursor solution to reach 9.5. Indeed, the Applicant in paragraph 0040 discloses “the full widths at half maximum in a discharged state and a charged state in the peak corresponding to the (131) plane of the positive active material observed by powder X-ray diffraction using CuKα radiation can be adjusted by controlling the respective concentrations of the aqueous NH3 solution in the method of producing the positive active material”. Table 1 shows the favorable pH range to be 8.5-10 and Fujii discloses a pH of 8.5-12 is desirable (Paragraph 0012).
MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims
I. PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS — WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT
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). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
II. COMPOSITION CLAIMS — IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES
"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.
Regarding claim 2, Fujii et al. teach the positive active material for the energy storage device according to claim 1. However, they do not specifically teach wherein the ratio of full width at half maximum is 0.85 or more and 1.10 or less.
Fujii et al. teach the composition of the active material is the same as in the instant application, and it is prepared using an aqueous solution of NH3 (See example 1, paragraph 0039 which discloses aqueous ammonia is added to the precursor of the cathode active material). The specification in paragraphs 0040; 0101 discloses that the addition of NH3 to the precursor of the active material is used to adjust the pH into a range between 8.5-10 in order to observe the desired full width at half maximum results in the (131) peaks of the X-ray diffraction pattern. The desired results are shown in Table 1 of the specification. Both the Applicant and Fujii et al. desire the pH of the precursor solution to reach 9.5. Indeed, the Applicant in paragraph 0040 discloses “the full widths at half maximum in a discharged state and a charged state in the peak corresponding to the (131) plane of the positive active material observed by powder X-ray diffraction using CuKα radiation can be adjusted by controlling the respective concentrations of the aqueous NH3 solution in the method of producing the positive active material”. Table 1 shows the favorable pH range to be 8.5-10 and Fujii discloses a pH of 8.5-12 is desirable (Paragraph 0012).
MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims
I. PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS — WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT
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). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
II. COMPOSITION CLAIMS — IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES
"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.
Regarding claim 3, Fujii et al. teach a positive electrode for energy storage device, comprising a positive composite layer containing the positive active material according to claim 1 (Paragraphs 0032;0039 disclose the making of a cathode active material layer comprising a lithium iron manganese phosphate material.).
Regarding claim 4, Fujii et al. teach the positive electrode for energy storage device according to claim 3. However, they do not specifically teach wherein a peak differential pore volume of the positive composite layer is 5 x 10-3 cm3/(g-nm) or more and 8 x 10-3 cm3/(g-nm) or less.
Fujii et al. teach the composition of the active material is the same as in the instant application, and it is prepared using an aqueous solution of NH3 (See example 1, paragraph 0039 which discloses aqueous ammonia is added to the precursor of the cathode active material). The specification in paragraphs 0058; 0101 discloses that the addition of NH3 to the precursor of the active material is used to adjust the pH into a range between 8.5-10 in order to observe the desire peak differential pore volume range. The desired results are shown in Table 1. Both the Applicant and Fujii et al. desire the pH of the precursor solution to reach 9.5. Indeed, the Applicant in paragraph 0058 discloses “the peak differential pore volume of the positive composite layer can be adjusted by controlling the pH during the production of the precursor in the method of producing the positive active material”. Table 1 shows the favorable pH range to be 8.5-10 and Fujii discloses a pH of 8.5-12 is desirable (Paragraph 0012).
MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims
I. PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS — WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT
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). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
II. COMPOSITION CLAIMS — IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES
"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.
Regarding claim 5, Fujii et al. teach an energy storage device comprising the positive electrode according to claim 3 (Abstract discloses a cathode active material to be used in a lithium secondary battery.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii et al. (JP 2009-218205 A).
Regarding claim 6, Fujii et al. teach the energy storage device according to claim 5. However, they do not teach an energy storage apparatus comprising two or more energy storage devices.
However, Fujii et al. disclose the cathode active material being used in applications such as electric vehicles, computers, and large-sized batteries (Paragraphs 0002;0003). These are apparatuses that require multiple energy storage devices (cells, packs, etc). Further, this is merely an example of duplication of parts. MPEP 2144.04 VI B: In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the cathode active material in an apparatus containing more than one energy storage device in order to be properly used in larger-sized batteries.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu et al. (CN 104037413): while Liu discloses a method of synthesizing a lithium iron manganese phosphate which includes a pH adjustment step via an ammonia addition, there is no disclosure for a general chemical formula as required by the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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 at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 December 5th, 2025