DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 .
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.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneda et al. (US 2018/0013151 A1) in view of “Lithium chloride, anhydrous, chunks, 99.99% trace metals basis”, herein known as Lithium, “Phosphoric acid, 85 wt. % in H2O, 99.99% trace metals basis”, herein known as Phosphorus, and “Iron(II) chloride tetrahydrate, 99.99% trace metals basis”, herein known as Iron(II), as evidenced by Light (“Temperature Dependence and Measurement of Resistivity of Pure Water”).
With regard to Claim 1, Yoneda teaches a method for manufacturing a positive electrode active material including lithium and a transition metal (Abstract, Claim 16).
Yoneda teaches the method comprising a first step of preparing a lithium compound, a phosphorus compound, and water (Paragraph 0303, As lithium compound, LiCl was weighed to be 6.359 g in Step S201a. As the phosphorus compound, H3PO4 was weighed to be 3.41 ml in Step S201b. The number of moles of lithium was set to be three times that of phosphorus. As the solvent, pure water was weighed to be 50 ml in Step S201d).
Yoneda teaches the method comprising a second step of forming a first mixture by mixing the lithium compound, the phosphorus compound, and the water (Claim 16, Paragraph 0304, LiCl and H3PO4 were put into pure water, so that the mixed solution A was formed in Step S205).
Yoneda teaches the method comprising a third step of forming a second mixture by adding a first aqueous solution to the first mixture to adjust a pH (Claim 16, Paragraph 0306, the solution Q was dropped into the mixed solution A and pH measurement was performed in Step S207. The solution Q is dropped until pH becomes a desired one, so that the mixed solution B was formed).
Yoneda teaches the method comprising a fourth step of forming a third mixture by mixing an iron(II) compound with the second mixture (Claim 16, Paragraph 0308, each of the several types of mixed solutions B with different pH was mixed with the mixed solution B, FeCl2.4H2O, and pure water, so that the mixed solution C was formed in Step S209).
Yoneda teaches the method comprising a fifth step of forming a fourth mixture by heating the third mixture (Claim 16, Paragraph 0309, the mixed solution C was put into an autoclave including an inner glass cylinder and was shut in and mixed).
Yoneda teaches the method comprising a sixth step of obtaining a positive electrode active material by filtering, washing, and drying the fourth mixture (Paragraph 0108, The solution in the heat and pressure resistant container is then filtered, followed by washing and drying).
Yoneda teaches the method wherein in the fourth step, a pH of the third mixture is greater than or equal to 3.5 and less than or equal to 5.0 (Claim 16, pH of the third mixed solution is more than or equal to 3.5 and less than or equal to 5.0).
Yoneda teaches the method wherein the heating in the fifth step is performed under a pressure higher than or equal to 0.11 MPa and lower than or equal to 2 MPa at a temperature higher than or equal to 150 °C and lower than or equal to 250 °C for longer than or equal to 1 hour and shorter than or equal to 10 hours (Claim 16, a step of heating the third mixed solution under a pressure higher than or equal to 0.1 MPa and lower than or equal to 2 MPa at a highest temperature higher than 150° C. and lower than or equal to 250° C; Paragraph 0108, Heating is performed…for more than or equal to 0.5 hours and less than or equal to 24 hours, preferably more than or equal to 1 hour and less than or equal to 10 hours, and further preferably more than or equal to 1 hour and less than 5 hours).
Yoneda is silent to the method wherein a material having a purity higher than or equal to 99.99 % is prepared as the lithium compound, a material having a purity higher than or equal to 99 % is prepared as the phosphorus compound, pure water having a resistivity higher than or equal to 15 MΩ.cm is prepared as the water, and a material having a purity higher than or equal to 99.9 % is used as the iron(II) compound.
However, the lithium, phosphorus, and iron(II) compounds of 99.99%, 99%, and 99.9% purities are known and widely available from distributors, such as Sigma-Aldrich (see Lithium, Phosphorus, and Iron(II) references). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the purest chemicals available to produce a purer product. Furthermore, pure water is known in the art as having a resistivity higher than or equal to 15 MΩ.cm, as evidenced by Light (Table VI; 18.25 MΩ.cm for water, pure).
With regard to Claim 2, Yoneda teaches the method wherein lithium chloride is used as the lithium compound, phosphoric acid is used as the phosphorus compound, and iron(II) chloride tetrahydrate is used as the iron(II) compound (Paragraph 0303, As lithium compound, LiCl was weighed to be 6.359 g in Step S201a. As the phosphorus compound, H3PO4 was weighed to be 3.41 ml in Step S201b; Paragraph 0307, as the M(II) compound, FeCl2.4H2O was weighed to be 9.941 g in Step S208).
With regard to Claim 3, Yoneda does not disclose using pure water having a resistivity higher than or equal to 15 MΩ.cm for the washing.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use pure water in order to produce a purer product. Furthermore, pure water is known in the art as having a resistivity higher than or equal to 15 MΩ.cm, as evidenced by Light (Table VI; 18.25 MΩ.cm for water, pure).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 4 of Applicant’s arguments, with regard to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant argues that there is “no reasoning as to why it would have been preferable to use "the purest chemicals available"”. The Examiner maintains the rejection, as the reactants disclosed in the instant invention are known and widely available at the disclosed purities from distributors such as Sigma-Aldrich, in view of the Lithium, Phosphorus, and Iron(II) references. The Examiner contends that it is well established in the field of chemistry to use the purest reactants commercially available. As set forth in MPEP 2144.07, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Furthermore, impurities are known to cause issues with the electrode material performance, as evidenced by Huang et al. (“Magnetic impurity effects on self-discharge capacity, cycle performance, and rate capability of LiFePO4/C composites”) (Abstract; Poor reproducibility of self-discharge capacity, cycle performance, and rate capability seriously affects the balance of battery packs. We have found that the above properties strongly depend on the level of magnetic impurities present).
Furthermore, with regard to Applicant’s assertions that there would be “increased time and effort (or cost) necessary to use "the purest chemicals available"” and that there is “no reasoning as to how the "purer product" would have differed from a product formed from reagents with a lower purity”, The Examiner notes that arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984), see MPEP 716.01(c).II.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7302. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5, F 7:30-4.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736