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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received July 7, 2026:
Claims 1 and 3-28 are pending. Claim 2 has been cancelled as per applicant’s request.
The previous prior art rejection has been withdrawn in light of the amendment. However, a new prior art rejection has been made below in light of the amendment. All changes to the rejection are necessitated by 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, 4-5, 8, 10-14, 17-18, 23-24 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 2022/0293921A) as in view of Liang (US 2010/0323245A) and Kitagawa et al. (US 2019/0305307).
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 explicitly teach the plurality of the primary particles of the first positive-electrode active substance are not agglomerated, 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 forming the secondary particles of the second positive-electrode active substance ranges from 20 nm to 500 nm.
However, Liang et al. 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) (Para. [0139]) wherein the elementary nanoparticles (i.e. primary particles) that are not agglomerated have a size between 5 nm and 900 nm (Para. [0092]) (i.e. the plurality of primary particles of the first positive-electrode active substance are not agglomerated and a median particle size Dv50 of the first positive-electrode active substance is 0.005 to 0.9 µm, 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 not agglomerated median 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. [0139], [0141]). 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 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 forming the secondary particles of the second positive-electrode active substance ranges from 20 nm to 500 nm.
However, Kitagawa et al. teaches an electrode active material including LiFePO4 (Para. [0077]) wherein the electrode material is formed by agglomerating a plurality of electrode materials including at least one of crystal grains (Para. [0096]) (i.e. the second positive electrode active material includes a plurality of secondary particles, each of the secondary particles is an agglomerate of a plurality of primary particles, each primary particles of the agglomerate of the plurality of primary particles is monocrystalline) wherein the average secondary particle diameter is 10 micrometers (i.e. within the claimed range of median particle size Dv50 of the second positive-electrode active substance is 2.5 micrometers to 10.5 micrometers) and an average primary particle diameter of 0.08 micrometers (i.e. 80 nm, within the claimed particle size d of the primary particles forming the secondary particles of the second positive-electrode active substance ranges from 20 m to 500 nm) (Table 1, Example 1) .
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 median particle size and particle size d of the primary particles forming the secondary particles, as such structure would provide increased discharge capacity and sufficient charge and discharge performance (Para. [0052]), sufficient adhesion strength and prevent the generation of a difference in the deterioration rate of the electrode material (Para. [0099]).
Regarding Claim 4, Lim et al. as modified by Liang et al. and Kitagawa 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 Liang et al. and Kitagawa 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 8, Lim et al. as modified by Liang et al. and Kitagawa 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 Liang et al. and Kitagawa 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 Liang et al. and Kitagawa 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 Liang et al. and Kitagawa 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 Liang et al. and Kitagawa 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, Kitagawa et al. further teaches wherein the average secondary particle diameter is 1 micrometer or more and 30 micrometers or less (Para. [0098]) (i.e. overlapping with the claimed median particle size Dv50 of the second positive-electrode active substance is 4.5 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 the second positive-electrode active substance of Lim et al. to incorporate the teaching of median particle size and particle size d of the primary particles forming the secondary particles, as such structure would provide increased discharge capacity and sufficient charge and discharge performance (Para. [0052]), sufficient adhesion strength and prevent the generation of a difference in the deterioration rate of the electrode material (Para. [0099]). 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 14, Lim et al. as modified by Liang et al. and Kitagawa 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, Kitagawa et al. further teaches wherein the average secondary particle diameter is 1 micrometer or more and 30 micrometers or less (Para. [0098]) (i.e. overlapping with the claimed median particle size Dv50 of the second positive-electrode active substance is 6 micrometers to 7 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 median particle size and particle size d of the primary particles forming the secondary particles, as such structure would provide increased discharge capacity and sufficient charge and discharge performance (Para. [0052]), sufficient adhesion strength and prevent the generation of a difference in the deterioration rate of the electrode material (Para. [0099]). 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 17, Lim et al. as modified by Liang et al. and Kitagawa 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 Liang et al. and Kitagawa 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 Liang et al. and Kitagawa 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 Liang et al. and Kitagawa 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 27, Lim et al. as modified by Liang et al. and Kitagawa et al. teaches all of the elements of the positive electrode material in claim 1 as explained above.
Liang et al. 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) (Para. [0139]) wherein the elementary nanoparticles (i.e. primary particles) that are not agglomerated have a size between 5 nm and 900 nm (Para. [0092]) (i.e. a median particle size Dv50 of the first positive-electrode active substance is 0.005 to 0.9 µm).
Kitagawa et al. teaches an electrode active material including LiFePO4 (Para. [0077]) wherein the electrode material is formed by agglomerating a plurality of electrode materials including at least one of crystal grains (Para. [0096]) (i.e. the second positive electrode active material includes a plurality of secondary particles, each of the secondary particles is an agglomerate of a plurality of primary particles, each primary particles of the agglomerate of the plurality of primary particles is monocrystalline) wherein an average primary particle diameter of 0.08 micrometers (i.e. 80 nm, within the claimed particle size d of the primary particles forming the secondary particles of the second positive-electrode active substance ranges from 20 m to 500 nm) (Table 1, Example 1) .
See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Liang et al. and Kitagawa et al. cited herein.
Therefore, the claimed limitation would be obvious to try as the limitation is choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions as the median particle size Dv50 of the first positive-electrode active substance is either (1) greater than, (2) less than or (3) equal to the particle size d of the primary particles forming the secondary particles of the second positive-electrode active substance. An "obvious to try" rationale may support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious where one skilled in the art is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. " [A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). See MPEP § 2143(I)(E).
Regarding Claim 28, Lim et al. as modified by Liang et al. and Kitagawa 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 particle size d of the primary particle forming the secondary particles of the second positive-electrode active substance ranges from 20 nm to 100 nm.
However, Kitagawa et al. teaches an electrode active material including LiFePO4 (Para. [0077]) wherein the electrode material is formed by agglomerating a plurality of electrode materials including at least one of crystal grains (Para. [0096]) (i.e. the second positive electrode active material includes a plurality of secondary particles, each of the secondary particles is an agglomerate of a plurality of primary particles, each primary particles of the agglomerate of the plurality of primary particles is monocrystalline) wherein an average primary particle diameter of 0.08 micrometers (i.e. 80 nm, within the claimed particle size d of the primary particles forming the secondary particles of the second positive-electrode active substance ranges from 20 nm to 100 nm) (Table 1, Example 1) .
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 median particle size and particle size d of the primary particles forming the secondary particles, as such structure would provide increased discharge capacity and sufficient charge and discharge performance (Para. [0052]), sufficient adhesion strength and prevent the generation of a difference in the deterioration rate of the electrode material (Para. [0099]).
Claims 3, 6, 15-16 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 2022/0293921A) as in view of Liang (US 2010/0323245A) and Kitagawa et al. (US 2019/0305307) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nozoe et al. (US 2019/0267623).
Regarding Claim 3, Lim et al. as modified by Liang et al. and Kitagawa 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 6, Lim et al. as modified by Liang et al. and Kitagawa 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 15, Lim et al. as modified by Liang et al., Kitagawa et al. and Nozoe 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 Liang et al., Kitagawa et al. and Nozoe 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 25, Lim et al. as modified by Liang et al. and Kitagawa 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 Liang et al. and Kitagawa 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.
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 Liang (US 2010/0323245A) and Kitagawa et al. (US 2019/0305307) 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 Liang et al. and Kitagawa 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, 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 Liang et al., Kitagawa 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 Liang (US 2010/0323245A) and Kitagawa et al. (US 2019/0305307) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Toyoshima (US 2015/0194655).
Regarding Claim 9, Lim et al. as modified by Liang et al. and Kitagawa 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 Liang et al., Kitagawa 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 Liang et al., Kitagawa 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 Liang (US 2010/0323245A), Kitagawa et al. (US 2019/0305307) 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 Liang et al., Kitagawa 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 July 7, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments (regarding the particle sizes) do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection in light of the amendment.
Applicant’s arguments are drawn to a previous prior art combination and thus, are not persuasive in light of the newly cited prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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