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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 24, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received March 24, 2026:
Claims 1 and 3-27 are pending. Claim 2 has been cancelled as per applicant’s request.
The previous 112 rejections and claim objections have been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The core of the previous rejection is maintained with slight changes made in light of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-18 and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 2022/0293921A) as in view of Nozoe et al. (US 2019/0267623) and Liang (US 2010/0323245A).
Regarding Claim 1, Lim et al. teaches a cathode material (i.e. a positive-electrode material) comprising a lithium iron phosphate material including LiFexMn--1-xPO4 wherein 0≤x≤1.0 (reading on formula I and II of the instant claim wherein M1 and M2 are Mn and overlapping with x1 and x2 of the claimed formulas) comprising a combination of secondary and primary particles and one or more of a single crystalline (i.e. monocrystalline) primary particles (Para. [0058]) (i.e. a first and second positive-electrode active substance represented by the claimed formulas I and II, the first positive-electrode active substance includes a plurality of primary particles, each of the plurality of the primary particles is a monocrystalline particle and the second positive-electrode active substance include a plurality of secondary particles) wherein nano-sized particles (i.e. nanoparticles) form conglomerates and generate a strong agglomerated secondary particle (Para. [0039]) (i.e. wherein the secondary particle is an agglomerate of a plurality of primary particles) wherein the primary particles shape is a sphere and the secondary particles shape is a sphere (i.e. in a pomegranate-like morphology) wherein the primary particle is a primary single crystalline particle (i.e. each of the primary particles of the agglomerate of the plurality of primary particles is a monocrystalline nanoparticle) (Para. [0058]).
Lim et al. does not teach a median-particle size Dv50 of the first positive-electrode active substance is 0.5 micrometers to 2.0 micrometer, a median-particle size Dv50 of the second positive-electrode active substance is 2.5 micrometers to 10.5 micrometers, nor the particle size d of the primary particle ranges from 20 nm to 500 nm.
However, Nozoe et al. teaches an electrode material for a lithium ion secondary battery (Para. [0021]) having a formula of LixA-yDzPO4 wherein A may be Mn or Fe, z may equal zero, and 0<y≤1.0 (Para. [0012]), e.g. LiFePO4, wherein the active material is formed of particles including single crystals (Para. [0022]) (i.e. includes a plurality of primary particles, including monocrystalline particles) having an average particle diameter of secondary particles of 0.5 or more and 60 micrometers or less (Para. [0037]) (i.e. a range overlapping with the claimed median particle size of the first positive-electrode active substance) wherein the average particle diameter of the secondary particles refers to a volume-average particle diameter (Para. [0038]) (i.e. a median-particle size Dv50 of the first positive-electrode active substance overlapping with the claimed range).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first positive-electrode active substance Lim et al. to incorporate the teaching of the particle size of Nozoe et al. as such an average particle diameter would provide increased battery capacity of the lithium ion secondary battery per unit mass of a cathode mixture layer for a lithium ion battery and enhance dispersibility of conductive agents and binding agents in the mixture layer (i.e. in the slurry), increasing discharge capacities and high-speed charge and discharge (Para. [0037]). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Nozoe et al. further teaches an electrode material for a lithium ion secondary battery (Para. [0021]) which is LiFePO4 having an average particle diameter of secondary particles of 5.5 micrometers (Table 1, Example 10) wherein the average particle diameter of the secondary particles refers to a volume-average particle diameter (Para. [0038]) (i.e. a median-particle size Dv50 of the second positive-electrode active substance is within the claimed range of 2.5 micrometers to 10.5 micrometers).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second positive-electrode active substance of Lim et al. to incorporate the teaching of the secondary particle size of Nozoe et al. as such an average particle diameter would provide increased battery capacity of the lithium ion secondary battery per unit mass of a cathode mixture layer for a lithium ion battery and enhance dispersibility of conductive agents and binding agents in the mixture layer (i.e. in the slurry), increasing discharge capacities and high-speed charge and discharge (Para. [0037]). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Lim et al. does not teach the particle size d of the primary particle ranges from 20 nm to 500 nm.
However, Liang teaches a particle composition as an active electrode material (Para. [0035]) wherein the composition may be LiFe1-xMnxPO4 0≤x≤0.5 (Para. [0059]) wherein each primary particle is a single crystal (i.e. monocrystalline) and the crystallite size is about 190 nm (i.e. within the particle size d of the primary particle of the instant claim, which ranges from 20 nm to 500 nm) (Para. [0139]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the primary particle Lim et al. to incorporate the teaching of the particle size of Liang et al., as it would provide grain growth and restored structure and/chemistry in order to achieve good chemical performance (Para. [0141]).
Regarding Claim 3, Lim et al. as modified by Nozoe et al. and Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the positive electrode material in claim 1 as explained above.
Lim et al. does not teach wherein a specific surface area of the second positive-electrode active substance is 3.5 m2/g to 10.5 m2/g.
However, Nozoe et al. teaches an electrode material for a lithium ion secondary battery (Para. [0021]) which is LiFePO4 having a specific surface area of 7.0 m2/g (Table 1, Example 10) (i.e. a specific surface area of the second positive-electrode active substance is within the claimed range of 3.5 m2/g to 10.5 m2/g).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second positive-electrode active substance Lim et al. to incorporate the teaching of the specific surface area of Nozoe et al. as the specific surface area would provide increase electron conductivity and improved battery characteristics (Para. [0039]).
Regarding Claim 4 , Lim et al. as modified by Nozoe et al. and Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the positive electrode material in claim 1 as explained above.
Lim et al. further teaches a cathode material comprising a lithium iron phosphate material including LiFexMn--1-xPO4 wherein 0≤x≤1.0 (comprising a combination of secondary and primary particles and one or more of a single crystalline (i.e. monocrystalline) primary particles (Para. [0058]) wherein a single crystalline particle morphology is without grain boundaries (Para. [0115]) (i.e. wherein each monocrystalline particle is an independent particle with continuous internal lattice with no grain boundary separation).
Regarding Claim 5, Lim et al. as modified by Nozoe et al. and Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the positive electrode material in claim 1 as explained above.
Lim et al. does not explicitly teach a powder resistivity of the first positive-electrode active substance.
However, Lim et al. teaches a cathode material (i.e. a positive-electrode material) comprising a lithium iron phosphate material including LiFexMn--1-xPO4 wherein 0≤x≤1.0 (i.e. teaches the composition of the first positive-electrode active material) . Accordingly, the first positive-electrode active substance of Lim et al. would either (a) be expected to satisfy the powder resistivity under 12 MPa below 150 Ω*cm , or (b) differences in the powder resistivity set forth in the instant claim, having a powder resistivity under 12 MPa below 150 Ω*cm would be slight differences in ranges that would be obvious. With respect to (a): The reasons regarding expectedness are that the composition of the first positive-electrode active substance is substantially identical to that of the instant claim, therefore it is expected that the first positive-electrode active substance of Lim et al. would satisfy this condition. 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. "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." See MPEP 2112.01. With respect to (b): If it is shown that such characteristics are not present, then any differences (regarding the powder resistivity) would be small and obvious. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 6, Lim et al. as modified by Nozoe et al. and Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the positive electrode material in claim 1 as explained above.
Lim et al. does not teach wherein a specific surface area of the first positive-electrode active substance is 6.0 m2/g to 20 m2/g.
However, Nozoe et al. teaches an electrode material for a lithium ion secondary battery (Para. [0021]) having a formula of LixA-yDzPO4 wherein A may be Mn or Fe, z may equal zero, and 0<y≤1.0 (Para. [0012]), e.g. LiFePO4, wherein the active material is formed of particles including single crystals (Para. [0022]) (i.e. includes a plurality of monocrystalline particles) having a specific surface area of 6 m2/g or more and 25 m2/g or less (Para. [0039]) (i.e. a specific surface area of the first positive-electrode active substance overlapping with the claimed range).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first positive-electrode active substance of Lim et al. to incorporate the teaching of the specific surface area of Nozoe et al. the specific surface area would provide increase electron conductivity and improved battery characteristics (Para. [0039]). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 8, Lim et al. as modified by Nozoe et al. and Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the positive electrode material in claim 1 as explained above.
Lim et al. further teaches cathode sheets (i.e. a positive electrode plate) which comprise cathode material disposed in a sheet like manner (i.e. comprising a positive-electrode active substance layer, wherein the positive-electrode active substance layer comprises the positive-electrode material according to claim 1) (Para. [0127]).
Regarding Claim 10, Lim et al. as modified by Nozoe et al. and Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the positive electrode material in claim 8 as explained above.
Lim et al. teaches the structure of the positive electrode plate of claim 8. Accordingly, the positive electrode plate of modified Lim et al. would either (a) be expected to satisfy the membrane resistance or (b) differences in the membrane resistance set forth in the instant claim, having a value of less than 2,000 mΩ would be slight differences in ranges that would be obvious. With respect to (a): The reasons regarding expectedness are that the structure is substantially identical to that of the instant claim, therefore it is expected that the positive electrode plate of modified Lim et al. would satisfy these conditions. 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. "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." See MPEP 2112.01. With respect to (b): If it is shown that such characteristics are not present, then any differences (regarding the membrane resistance) would be small and obvious. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 11, Lim et al. as modified by Nozoe et al. and Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the positive electrode plate in claim 8 as explained above.
Lim et al. further teaches a battery including the cathode material (Para. [0056]) for an Li-ion battery (Para. [0162]) (i.e. a lithium secondary battery comprising the positive electrode plate according to claim 8).
Regarding Claim 12, Lim et al. as modified by Nozoe et al. and Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the lithium secondary battery in claim 11 as explained above.
Lim et al. further teaches providing the invention in Li-ion battery systems (Para. [0122]) (i.e. a battery module comprising the lithium secondary battery according to claim 11).
Regarding Claim 13, Lim et al. as modified by Nozoe et al. and Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the positive electrode material in claim 1 as explained above.
Lim et al. does not teach wherein the median-particle size Dv50 of the second positive-electrode active substance is 4.5 micrometers to 8.5 micrometers.
However, Nozoe et al. teaches an electrode material for a lithium ion secondary battery (Para. [0021]) which may be LiFePO4 having an average particle diameter of secondary particles of 5.5 micrometers (Table 1, Example 10) wherein the average particle diameter of the secondary particles refers to a volume-average particle diameter (Para. [0038]) (i.e. a median-particle size Dv50 of the second positive-electrode active substance is 4.5 micrometers to 8.5 micrometers).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lim et al. to incorporate the teaching of the secondary particle size of Nozoe et al. as such an average particle diameter would provide increased battery capacity of the lithium ion secondary battery per unit mass of a cathode mixture layer for a lithium ion battery and enhance dispersibility of conductive agents and binding agents in the mixture layer (i.e. in the slurry), increasing discharge capacities and high-speed charge and discharge (Para. [0037]).
Regarding Claim 14, Lim et al. as modified by Nozoe et al. and Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the positive electrode material in claim 1 as explained above.
Lim et al. does not teach wherein the median-particle size Dv50 of the second positive-electrode active substance is 6 micrometers to 7 micrometers.
However, Nozoe et al. teaches an electrode material for a lithium ion secondary battery (Para. [0021]) having a formula of LixA-yDzPO4 wherein A may be Mn or Fe, z may equal zero, and 0<y≤1.0 (Para. [0012]), e.g. LiFePO4, having an average particle diameter of secondary particles of 1 or more and 10 micrometers or less (Para. [0037]) (i.e. a range overlapping with the claimed median particle size) wherein the average particle diameter of the secondary particles refers to a volume-average particle diameter (Para. [0038]) (i.e. a median-particle size Dv50 of the second positive-electrode active substance overlapping with the claimed range).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lim et al. to incorporate the teaching of the secondary particle size and specific surface area of Nozoe et al. as such an average particle diameter would provide increased battery capacity of the lithium ion secondary battery per unit mass of a cathode mixture layer for a lithium ion battery and enhance dispersibility of conductive agents and binding agents in the mixture layer (i.e. in the slurry), increasing discharge capacities and high-speed charge and discharge (Para. [0037]). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 15, Lim et al. as modified by Nozoe et al. and Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the positive electrode material in claim 3 as explained above.
Lim et al. does not teach wherein the specific surface area of the second positive-electrode active substance is 5 m2/g to 9 m2/g.
However, Nozoe et al. teaches an electrode material for a lithium ion secondary battery (Para. [0021]) which is LiFePO4 having a specific surface area of 7.0 m2/g (Table 1, Example 10) (i.e. the specific surface area of the second positive-electrode active substance is within the claimed range of 5 m2/g to 9 m2/g).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lim et al. to incorporate the teaching of the secondary particle specific surface area of Nozoe et al. as such a specific surface area would provide increase electron conductivity and improved battery characteristics (Para. [0039]).
Regarding Claim 16, Lim et al. as modified by Nozoe et al. and Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the positive electrode material in claim 3 as explained above.
Lim et al. does not teach wherein the specific surface area of the second positive-electrode active substance is 6.5 m2/g to 7.5 m2/g.
However, Nozoe et al. teaches an electrode material for a lithium ion secondary battery (Para. [0021]) which is LiFePO4 having a specific surface area of 7.0 m2/g (Table 1, Example 10) (i.e. the specific surface area of the second positive-electrode active substance is within the claimed range of 6.5 m2/g to 7.5 m2/g).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lim et al. to incorporate the teaching of the secondary particle specific surface area of Nozoe et al. as such a specific surface area would provide increase electron conductivity and improved battery characteristics (Para. [0039]).
Regarding Claim 17, Lim et al. as modified by Nozoe et al. and Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the positive electrode material in claim 5 as explained above.
Lim et al. does not explicitly teach a powder resistivity of the first positive-electrode active substance.
However, Lim et al. teaches a cathode material (i.e. a positive-electrode material) comprising a lithium iron phosphate material including LiFexMn--1-xPO4 wherein 0≤x≤1.0 (i.e. teaches the composition of the first positive-electrode active material) . Accordingly, the first positive-electrode active substance of modified Lim et al. would either (a) be expected to satisfy the powder resistivity under 12 MPa below 80 Ω*cm , or (b) differences in the powder resistivity set forth in the instant claim, having a powder resistivity under 12 MPa below 80 Ω*cm would be slight differences in ranges that would be obvious. With respect to (a): The reasons regarding expectedness are that the composition of the first positive-electrode active substance is substantially identical to that of the instant claim, therefore it is expected that the first positive-electrode active substance of modified Lim et al. would satisfy this condition. 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. "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." See MPEP 2112.01. With respect to (b): If it is shown that such characteristics are not present, then any differences (regarding the powder resistivity) would be small and obvious. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 18, Lim et al. as modified by Nozoe et al. and Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the positive electrode material in claim 5 as explained above.
Lim et al. does not explicitly teach a powder resistivity of the first positive-electrode active substance.
However, Lim et al. teaches a cathode material (i.e. a positive-electrode material) comprising a lithium iron phosphate material including LiFexMn--1-xPO4 wherein 0≤x≤1.0 (i.e. teaches the composition of the first positive-electrode active material) . Accordingly, the first positive-electrode active substance of modified Lim et al. would either (a) be expected to satisfy the powder resistivity under 12 MPa below 30 Ω*cm , or (b) differences in the powder resistivity set forth in the instant claim, having a powder resistivity under 12 MPa below 30 Ω*cm would be slight differences in ranges that would be obvious. With respect to (a): The reasons regarding expectedness are that the composition of the first positive-electrode active substance is substantially identical to that of the instant claim, therefore it is expected that the first positive-electrode active substance of modified Lim et al. would satisfy this condition. 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. "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." See MPEP 2112.01. With respect to (b): If it is shown that such characteristics are not present, then any differences (regarding the powder resistivity) would be small and obvious. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 23, Lim et al. as modified by Nozoe et al. and Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the positive electrode material in claim 8 as explained above.
Lim et al. as modified above teaches the structure of the positive electrode plate of claim 8. Accordingly, the positive electrode plate of modified Lim et al. would either (a) be expected to satisfy the membrane resistance or (b) differences in the membrane resistance set forth in the instant claim, having a value of less than 800 mΩ would be slight differences in ranges that would be obvious. With respect to (a): The reasons regarding expectedness are that the structure is substantially identical to that of the instant claim, therefore it is expected that the positive electrode plate of modified Lim et al. would satisfy these conditions. 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. "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." See MPEP 2112.01. With respect to (b): If it is shown that such characteristics are not present, then any differences (regarding the membrane resistance) would be small and obvious. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 24, Lim et al. as modified by Nozoe et al. and Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the positive electrode material in claim 8 as explained above.
Lim et al. as modified above teaches the structure of the positive electrode plate of claim 8. Accordingly, the positive electrode plate of modified Lim et al. would either (a) be expected to satisfy the membrane resistance or (b) differences in the membrane resistance set forth in the instant claim, having a value of less than 200 mΩ would be slight differences in ranges that would be obvious. With respect to (a): The reasons regarding expectedness are that the structure is substantially identical to that of the instant claim, therefore it is expected that the positive electrode plate of modified Lim et al. would satisfy these conditions. 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. "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." See MPEP 2112.01. With respect to (b): If it is shown that such characteristics are not present, then any differences (regarding the membrane resistance) would be small and obvious. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 25, Lim et al. as modified by Nozoe et al. and Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the positive electrode material in claim 1 as explained above.
Lim et al. further teaches the lithium iron phosphate material including LiFexMn1-xPO4 wherein 0 ≤ x ≤1.0 (i.e. overlapping with formula (I) and (II) 0<x1≤ 0.1 wherein M1 and M2 are Mn) (Para. [0058]).
Lim et al. does not teach M1 and M2 are each independently selected form at least one of Cu, Cr, Zn, Pb, Ca, Co, Ni, Sr or Ti.
However, Nozoe et al. teaches an electrode active material represented by LixAyDzPO-4 wherein A is Fe, D is Ti, 0.9<x<1.1, 0<y≤1.0, 0≤z<1.0 and 0.9<y+z<1.1 (Para. [0012]) and thus at the very least is overlapping with claimed formula as the formula of Nozoe et al. may be, e.g., LiFe0.9Ti0.1PO4.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lim et al. to incorporate the teaching of formula of including titanium of Nozoe et al., as such a formula would produce a cathode (i.e. positive) mixture layer capable of realizing a high discharge potential and high safety, wherein Ti is preferred and has an abundant amount of resources (Para. [0026]). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I). As LiFe0.9Ti0.1PO4 is at once envisaged, the claimed compound is anticipated by Nozoe et al. If one of ordinary skill in the art is able to "at once envisage" the specific compound within the generic chemical formula, the compound is anticipated. See MPEP 2144.08.
Regarding Claim 26, Lim et al. as modified by Nozoe et al. and Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the positive electrode material in claim 25 as explained above.
Lim et al. further teaches the lithium iron phosphate material including LiFexMn1-xPO4 wherein 0 ≤ x ≤1.0 (i.e. overlapping with formula (I) and (II) 0<x1≤ 0.1 wherein M1 and M2 are Mn) (Para. [0058]).
Lim et al. does not teach M1 and M2 are each independently selected form at least one of Cu, Cr, Zn, Pb, Ca, Co, Ni, Sr or Ti.
However, Nozoe et al. teaches an electrode active material represented by LixAyDzPO-4 wherein A is Fe, D is Ti, 0.9<x<1.1, 0<y≤1.0, 0≤z<1.0 and 0.9<y+z<1.1 (Para. [0012]) (i.e. wherein M1 and M2 are each independently Ti).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lim et al. to incorporate the teaching of formula of including titanium of Nozoe et al., as such a formula would produce a cathode (i.e. positive) mixture layer capable of realizing a high discharge potential and high safety, wherein Ti is preferred and has an abundant amount of resources (Para. [0026]). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I). As LiFe0.9Ti0.1PO4 is at once envisaged, the claimed compound is anticipated by Nozoe et al. If one of ordinary skill in the art is able to "at once envisage" the specific compound within the generic chemical formula, the compound is anticipated. See MPEP 2144.08.
Regarding Claim 27, Lim et al. as modified by Nozoe et al. and Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the positive electrode material in claim 1 as explained above.
Lim et al. does not teach the median particle size Dv50 of the first positive-electrode active substance is greater than the particle size d of the primary particles forming the secondary particles of the second positive-electrode active substance.
However, Nozoe et al. teaches an electrode material for a lithium ion secondary battery (Para. [0021]) having a formula of LixA-yDzPO4 wherein A may be Mn or Fe, z may equal zero, and 0<y≤1.0 (Para. [0012]), e.g. LiFePO4, wherein the active material is formed of particles including single crystals (Para. [0022]) (i.e. includes a plurality of monocrystalline particles) having an average particle diameter of secondary particles of 0.5 or more and 60 micrometers or less (Para. [0037]) (i.e. a range overlapping with the claimed median particle size of the first positive-electrode active substance) wherein the average particle diameter of the secondary particles refers to a volume-average particle diameter (Para. [0038]) (i.e. a median-particle size Dv50 of the first positive-electrode active substance overlapping with the claimed range).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first positive-electrode active substance Lim et al. to incorporate the teaching of the particle size of Nozoe et al. as such an average particle diameter would provide increased battery capacity of the lithium ion secondary battery per unit mass of a cathode mixture layer for a lithium ion battery and enhance dispersibility of conductive agents and binding agents in the mixture layer (i.e. in the slurry), increasing discharge capacities and high-speed charge and discharge (Para. [0037]).
Lim et al. does not teach the particle size d of the primary particle.
However, Liang teaches a particle composition as an active electrode material (Para. [0035]) wherein the composition may be LiFe1-xMnxPO4 0≤x≤0.5 (Para. [0059]) wherein each primary particle is a single crystal (i.e. monocrystalline) and the crystallite size is about 190 nm (i.e. within the particle size d of the primary particle of the instant claim, which ranges from 20 nm to 500 nm) (Para. [0139]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the primary particle Lim et al. to incorporate the teaching of the particle size of Liang et al., as it would provide grain growth and restored structure and/chemistry in order to achieve good chemical performance (Para. [0141]). Thus, the natural result of the combination would result in the median particle size Dv50 of the first positive-electrode active substance (0.5 to 60 micrometers) is greater than the particle size d of the primary particles (190 nm) forming the secondary particles of the second positive-electrode active substance.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 2022/0293921A) as in view of Nozoe et al. (US 2019/0267623) and Liang (US 2010/0323245A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yura et al. (US 2011/0003206).
Regarding Claim 7, Lim et al. as modified by Nozoe et al. and Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the positive electrode material in claim 1 as explained above.
Lim et al. does not teach a mass percentage of the second positive-electrode active substance is greater than a mass percentage of the first positive-electrode active substance.
However, However, Yura et al. teaches a positive electrode active material which is lithium iron phosphate (Para. [0092]) comprising a proportion of single particle (i.e. monocrystalline particles, i.e. a first positive-electrode active substance) is 40% or more and the remainder forming a polycrystalline structure (i.e. a second positive-active material substance) (Para. [0058]) (i.e. a mass percentage of the second positive-electrode active substance is greater than a mass percentage of the first positive-electrode active substance, if the single crystals are present in a 40% proportion).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active material of Lim et al. to incorporate the teaching of having a proportion of 40% single crystals and the remainder forming a polycrystalline structure as taught by Yura, as such a proportion/ratio provides superior rate characteristics (Para. [0155]). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active material of Lim et al. to incorporate the teaching of having a proportion of 60% or less of a polycrystalline structure as taught by Yura, as such a proportion/ratio provides superior rate characteristics (Para. [0155]). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 19, Lim et al. as modified by Nozoe et al., Liang et al. and Yura et al. teaches all of the elements of the positive electrode material in claim 7 as explained above.
Lim et al. does not teach wherein the mass percentage of the second positive-electrode active substance is 55% to 90%.
However, Yura et al. teaches a positive electrode active material which is lithium iron phosphate (Para. [0092]) comprising a proportion of single particle (i.e. monocrystalline particles, i.e. a first positive-electrode active substance) is 40% or more and the remainder forming a polycrystalline structure (i.e. a second positive-active material substance) (Para. [0058]) (i.e. a mass percentage of the second positive-electrode active substance is 60% or less, overlapping with the claimed range of 55% to 90% and the mass percentage of the first positive-electrode active substance is 40% or more, overlapping with the claimed range of 10% to 45%).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active material of Lim et al. to incorporate the teaching of having a proportion of 60% or less of a polycrystalline structure as taught by Yura, as such a proportion/ratio provides superior rate characteristics (Para. [0155]). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claims 9 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 2022/0293921A) as in view of Nozoe et al. (US 2019/0267623) and Liang (US 2010/0323245A) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Toyoshima (US 2015/0194655).
Regarding Claim 9, Lim et al. as modified by Nozoe et al. and Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the positive electrode material in claim 8 as explained above.
Lim et al. does not teach a coating weight per unit area on a single surface of the positive electrode plate is 140 g/m2 to 390 g/m2.
However, Toyoshima teaches a positive electrode active material which may be LiFePO4 (Para. [0041], [0044]) wherein the coating weight of the positive electrode material layer per unit surface area of the positive current collector is 6 mg/cm2 to 28 mg/cm2 or less (i.e. a coating weight per unit area on a single surface of the positive electrode plate is 60 g/m2 to 280 g/m2, overlapping with the claimed range) (Para. [0054]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lim et al. to incorporate the teaching of the coating weight as taught by Toyoshima as such a coating weight obtains sufficient conductive paths (Para. [0054]). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 21, Lim et al. as modified by Nozoe et al., Liang et al. and Toyoshima et al. teaches all of the elements of the positive electrode material in claim 9 as explained above.
Lim et al. does not teach a coating weight per unit area on a single surface of the positive electrode plate is 190 g/m2 to 320 g/m2.
However, Toyoshima teaches a positive electrode active material which may be LiFePO4 (Para. [0041], [0044]) wherein the coating weight of the positive electrode material layer per unit surface area of the positive current collector is 6 mg/cm2 to 28 mg/cm2 or less (i.e. a coating weight per unit area on a single surface of the positive electrode plate is 60 g/m2 to 280 g/m2, overlapping with the claimed range) (Para. [0054]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lim et al. to incorporate the teaching of the coating weight as taught by Toyoshima as such a coating weight obtains sufficient conductive paths (Para. [0054]). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 22, Lim et al. as modified by Nozoe et al., Liang et al. and Toyoshima et al. teaches all of the elements of the positive electrode material in claim 9 as explained above.
Lim et al. does not teach a coating weight per unit area on a single surface of the positive electrode plate is 230 g/m2 to 280 g/m2.
However, Toyoshima teaches a positive electrode active material which may be LiFePO4 (Para. [0041], [0044]) wherein the coating weight of the positive electrode material layer per unit surface area of the positive current collector is 6 mg/cm2 to 28 mg/cm2 or less (i.e. a coating weight per unit area on a single surface of the positive electrode plate is 60 g/m2 to 280 g/m2, overlapping with the claimed range) (Para. [0054]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lim et al. to incorporate the teaching of the coating weight as taught by Toyoshima as such a coating weight obtains sufficient conductive paths (Para. [0054]). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 2022/0293921A) as in view of Nozoe et al. (US 2019/0267623), Liang (US 2010/0323245A) and Yura et al. (US 2011/003206), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Yue (US 2023/0042151).
Regarding Claim 20, Lim et al. as modified by Nozoe et al., Liang et al. and Tura et al. teaches all of the elements of the positive electrode material in claim 7 as explained above.
Lim et al. does not teach wherein the mass percentage of the second positive-electrode active substance is 65% to 80%, the mass percentage of the first positive-electrode active substance is 20% to 35%.
However, Yue teaches a positive electrode active material comprising particles A and particles B (Para. [0017]) wherein a mixture of the particles A (polycrystalline) in the positive active material (i.e. second positive-electrode active substance) have a ratio to the total area percent of the particles B (monocrystalline) (i.e. first positive-electrode active substance) of 1:9 to 8:2 (Para. [0131]) (i.e. overlapping with the claimed ranges if the ratio is e.g. 7:3, as the second positive-electrode active substance would be 70% and the first positive-electrode active substance would be 30%).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lim et al. to incorporate the teaching of the proportion of polycrystalline particles as taught by Yue et al., as such a ratio can provide optimized electrochemical performance (Para. [0033]). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Nozoe fails to teach or suggest the claimed median particle size Dv50 of the first positive electrode active material substance (e.g. monocrystalline particles as the primary particles of the first-electrode positive electrode active substance) as the cited Nozoe teaching is a particle diameter of secondary particles.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant claim 1 requires the first positive-electrode active substance including a plurality of primary particles and a median particle size of the first positive-electrode substance is 0.5 to 2 micrometers. Nozoe teaches the median particle size Dv50 of secondary particles wherein the secondary particles are aggregates of the primary particles (Para. [0021])
(i.e. a plurality of primary particles) formed of particles mainly including single crystals (Para. [0022]) (i.e. the plurality of primary particles are monocrystalline). Thus, the teaching of Nozoe is regarding a median particle size of a plurality of primary particles. There is nothing in the claim that precludes the first-positive electrode substance plurality of primary particles from being a secondary particle. Thus, the argument is not persuasive and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are distinct from the prior art of record for the same reason as the independent claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection with respect to the independent claim has been maintained, and thus the rejections to the dependent claims are maintained as well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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 Ruddock 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights