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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 30, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received December 30, 2025:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The previous claim objections are withdrawn in light of the amendment. However, new claim objections have been made in light of the amendment.
The previous prior art rejection has been withdrawn. However, a new prior art rejection has been made below in view of newly cited prior art.
Claim Objections
Claims 15 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15, lines 7 recites “NaVPO4F” twice and should recite “NaVPO4F” only once.
Claim 18, lines 7 recites “KVPO4F” twice and should recite “KVPO4F” only once.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 4-8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Solan et al. (US 2018/0138495).
Regarding Claim 1, Solan et al teaches an active electrode material comprises at least one element (Para. [0035]) (i.e. a positive electrode composite material) for an alkali metal ion battery (Para. [0025]) wherein the alkali metal is lithium (Para. [0044]) (i.e. for a lithium-ion secondary battery), wherein the positive electrode material comprises LiFePO4 and K3V2(PO4)-3 (Para. [0036]) (i.e. a positive electrode active material is a lithium iron phosphate and at least one compound represented by formula AaMb(PO4)cXd which is K3V2(PO4)-3.).
Regarding Claim 4, Solan et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Solan et al. further teaches an active electrode material comprises at least one element (Para. [0035]) of LiFePO4 and K3V2(PO4)-3 (Para. [0036]) (i.e. a compound represented by formula AaMb(PO4)cXd which is K3V2(PO4)-3.).
Regarding Claim 5, Solan et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Solan et al. further teaches an active electrode material comprises at least one element (Para. [0035]) of LiFePO4 and K3V2(PO4)-3 (Para. [0036]) (i.e. a lithium iron phosphate material is LiFePO4).
Regarding Claim 6,Solan et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Solan et al. further teaches an active electrode material comprises at least one element (Para. [0035]) of LiFePO4 and K3V2(PO4)-3 (Para. [0036]) (i.e. a lithium iron phosphate material). Since the instant claim is being interpreted as defining “the nickel cobalt lithium manganate material” without requiring the presence thereof, the presence of the lithium iron phosphate meets the limitations of claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7, Solan et al. teaches all of the elements of the positive electrode composite material in claim 1 as explained above.
Solan et al. further teaches a positive electrode (Para. [0073]) for an alkali metal ion battery (Para. [0025]) wherein the alkali metal is lithium (Para. [0044]) (i.e. of a lithium-ion secondary battery) wherein the positive electrode comprises a current collector to which the extruded gel is formed on (Para. [0134]) (i.e. a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode membrane comprising a positive electrode composite material disposed on at least one surface of the current collector).
Regarding Claim 8, Solan et al. teaches all of the elements of the positive electrode composite material in claim 7 as explained above.
Solan et al. further teaches a positive electrode (Para. [0073]) for an alkali metal ion battery (Para. [0025]) wherein the alkali metal is lithium (Para. [0044]) (i.e. a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising the positive electrode according to claim 7)
Regarding Claim 13, Solan et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Solan et al. further teaches an active electrode material comprises at least one element (Para. [0035]) of LiFePO4 and K3V2(PO4)-3 (Para. [0036]) (i.e. a compound represented by formula AaMb(PO4)cXd which is K3V2(PO4)-3.).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solan et al. (US 2018/0138495).
Regarding Claim 2, Solan et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Solan et al. teaches an active electrode material comprises at least one element (Para. [0035]) of LiFePO4 and K3V2(PO4)-3 (Para. [0036]) (i.e. the composite material structure as claimed). Accordingly, the positive electrode composite material of Solan et al. would either (a) inherently satisfy the reversible charge-discharge plateau in a voltage range of below 3.0 V when a discharge rate of the lithium-ion secondary battery is 0.33 C, or (b) differences in the reversible charge-discharge plateau range set forth in the instant claim, at a voltage range of below 3.0V, would be slight differences in ranges that would be obvious.
With respect to (a): The reasons regarding inherency are that the characteristic of the reversible charge-discharge plateau voltage range is a material property, therefore it is inherent that the positive electrode composite material of Solan et al., which has the same structure/composition as claimed, would satisfy this condition. An inherent feature does not need to be recognized by the art at the time of the invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. See MPEP §2112(II).
With respect to (b): If it is shown that such characteristics are not present, then any differences (regarding the reversible charge-discharge plateau voltage range) 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).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solan et al. (US 2018/0138495), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0350582A).
Regarding Claim 9, Solan et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 8 as explained above.
Solan et al. does not teach a battery module comprising the lithium-ion secondary battery.
However, Kim et al. teaches a battery structure (i.e. battery module) comprising a lithium ion battery (Para. [0101]) (i.e. a battery pack).
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 battery as taught by Solan et al. to incorporate the teaching of providing the battery module taught by Kim et al., as a battery module may be used for all devices requiring high capacity and high power (Para. [0101]), i.e. increasing applicability.
Regarding Claim 10, Solan et al. as modified by Kim et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 9 as explained above.
Solan et al. does not teach a battery pack comprising a battery module comprising the lithium-ion secondary battery.
However, Kim et al. teaches a battery structure (i.e. battery module) comprising a lithium ion battery, wherein a plurality of battery structures is stacked and thus forms a battery pack (Para. [0101]) (i.e. a battery pack comprising a battery module).
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 battery as taught by Solan et al. to incorporate the teaching of providing the battery module in battery pack as taught by Kim et al., as a battery pack may be used for all devices requiring high capacity and high power (Para. [0101]), i.e. increasing applicability.
Regarding Claim 11, Solan et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 8 as explained above.
Solan et al. does not teach an electrical apparatus comprising at least one of the lithium ion secondary battery according to claim 8.
However, Kim et al. teaches a battery structure (i.e. battery module) comprising a lithium ion battery, wherein a plurality of battery structures is stacked and thus forms a battery pack (Para. [0101]) (i.e. a battery pack comprising a battery module) that may be used in an electrical vehicle or smart phone (Para. [0101]).
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 battery as taught by Solan et al. to incorporate the teaching of providing the battery module in battery pack in an electrical apparatus as taught by Kim et al., as a battery pack may be used for electrical devices requiring high capacity
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solan et al. (US 2018/0138495), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Narita et al. (US 2019/0280337).
Regarding Claim 14, Solan et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Solan et al. does not teach the at least one compound is selected from NaVPO4---F and KVPO4F.
However, Narita et al. teaches a positive electrode material for a lithium ion battery (Para. [0003]) comprising LiFePO4 (Para. [0216]) and NaVPO4F (Para. [0227]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the positive electrode active material NaVPO4F as taught by Narita et al. for its use in lithium iron phosphate containing lithium secondary battery, as combing equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose. See MPEP §2144.06(I).
Claims 1, 3, 15, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyama et al. (US 2017/0250399) in view of Solan et al. (US 2018/0138495).
Regarding Claim 1, Oyama et al. teaches cathode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery which comprises a cathode material A and a cathode material B (Para. [0022]) (i.e. a positive electrode composite material for a lithium-ion secondary battery) wherein the cathode material A is LiFePO4 having a conductive carbon coating (Para. [0136]) (i.e. a positive electrode active material comprising a lithium iron phosphate material which is LiFePO4 coated with carbon) and a cathode material B (Para. [0154]) is LiMnPO4 (i.e. and at least one compound which is LiMnPO4, ---reading on AaMb(PO4)cXd as A is Li, M is Mn, a is 1, b is 1, c is 1 and d is 0) where the mass ratio of cathode material B/cathode material A is 0.053 (see Table 1) (i.e. where a content of the at least one compound is about 5 wt% to 10 wt% relative to a total of the positive electrode active material and the at least one compound; as B/A = 0.053 and A+B=100wt%, B = 0.053A, A+0.053A=100wt%, 1.053A=100wt%, A = ~95wt%, B = ~5wt%).
Oyama et al. does not teach the at least one compound is selected from at least one of K3V2(PO4)3, Na3V(PO4)2, K3V(PO4)2, KVPO4F, NaVPO4F and CaV4(PO4)6--.
However, Solan et al. teaches the positive electrode active material may be K3V2(PO4)-3 and LiMPO4 wherein M is Mn (Para. [0085]).
The substitution of K3V2(PO4)-3 as taught by Solan et al., for the LiMnPO4 of Oyama et al. would achieve the predictable result of providing a cathode material for a lithium ion battery (see Solan et al. – Para. [0085], [0044]) & Oyama – Para. [0038]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to substitute K3V2(PO4)-3 as taught by Solan et al., for the LiMnPO4 of Oyama et al., as the substitution would achieve the predictable result of providing a cathode material for a lithium ion battery (see Solan et al. – Para. [0085], [0044]) & Oyama – Para. [0038]). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 3, Oyama et al. as modified by Solan et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Oyama further teaches a cathode material B (Para. [0154]) is LiMnPO4 (i.e. and at least one compound which is LiMnPO4, ---reading on AaMb(PO4)cXd as A is Li, M is Mn, a is 1, b is 1, c is 1 and d is 0) where the mass ratio of cathode material B/cathode material A is 0.053 (see Table 1) (i.e. where a content of the at least one compound is about 3 wt% to 10 wt% relative to a total of the positive electrode active material and the at least one compound; as B/A = 0.053 and A+B=100wt%, B = 0.053A, A+0.053A=100wt%, 1.053A=100wt%, A = ~95wt%, B = ~5wt%).
Regarding Claim 15, Oyama et al. teaches cathode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery which comprises a cathode material A and a cathode material B (Para. [0022]) (i.e. a positive electrode composite material for a lithium-ion secondary battery) wherein the cathode material A is LiFePO4 having a conductive carbon coating (Para. [0136]) (i.e. a positive electrode active material comprising a lithium iron phosphate material which is LiFePO4 coated with carbon) and a cathode material B (Para. [0154]) is LiMnPO4 (i.e. and at least one compound which is LiMnPO4) where the mass ratio of cathode material B/cathode material A is 0.053 (see Table 1) (i.e. where a content of the at least one compound is about 5 wt% to 10 wt% relative to a total of the positive electrode active material and the at least one compound; as B/A = 0.053 and A+B=100wt%, B = 0.053A, A+0.053A=100wt%, 1.053A=100wt%, A = ~95wt%, B = ~5wt%).
Oyama et al. does not teach the at least one compound is selected from at least one of K3V2(PO4)3, Na3V(PO4)2, K3V(PO4)2, KVPO4F, NaVPO4F and CaV4(PO4)6--.
However, Solan et al. teaches the positive electrode active material may be K3V2(PO4)-3 and LiMPO4 wherein M is Mn (Para. [0085]).
The substitution of K3V2(PO4)-3 as taught by Solan et al., for the LiMnPO4 of Oyama et al. would achieve the predictable result of providing a cathode material for a lithium ion battery (see Solan et al. – Para. [0085], [0044]) & Oyama – Para. [0038]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to substitute K3V2(PO4)-3 as taught by Solan et al., for the LiMnPO4 of Oyama et al., as the substitution would achieve the predictable result of providing a cathode material for a lithium ion battery (see Solan et al. – Para. [0085], [0044]) & Oyama – Para. [0038]). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 18, Oyama et al. teaches cathode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery which comprises a cathode material A and a cathode material B (Para. [0022]) (i.e. a positive electrode composite material for a lithium-ion secondary battery) wherein the cathode material A is LiFePO4 having a conductive carbon coating (Para. [0136]) (i.e. a positive electrode active material comprising a lithium iron phosphate material which is LiFePO4 coated with carbon) and a cathode material B (Para. [0154]) is LiMnPO4 (i.e. and at least one compound which is LiMnPO4) where the mass ratio of cathode material B/cathode material A is 0.053 (see Table 1) (i.e. where a content of the at least one compound is about 5 wt% to 10 wt% relative to a total of the positive electrode active material and the at least one compound; as B/A = 0.053 and A+B=100wt%, B = 0.053A, A+0.053A=100wt%, 1.053A=100wt%, A = ~95wt%, B = ~5wt%).
Oyama et al. does not teach the at least one compound is selected from at least one of K3V2(PO4)3, Na3V(PO4)2, K3V(PO4)2, KVPO4F, and CaV4(PO4)6--.
However, Solan et al. teaches the positive electrode active material may be K3V2(PO4)-3 and LiMPO4 wherein M is Mn (Para. [0085]).
The substitution of K3V2(PO4)-3 as taught by Solan et al., for the LiMnPO4 of Oyama et al. would achieve the predictable result of providing a cathode material for a lithium ion battery (see Solan et al. – Para. [0085], [0044]) & Oyama – Para. [0038]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to substitute K3V2(PO4)-3 as taught by Solan et al., for the LiMnPO4 of Oyama et al., as the substitution would achieve the predictable result of providing a cathode material for a lithium ion battery (see Solan et al. – Para. [0085], [0044]) & Oyama – Para. [0038]). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 19, Oyama et al. as modified by Solan et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 18 as explained above.
Oyama et al. further teaches the cathode material A is LiFePO4 having a conductive carbon coating (Para. [0136]) (i.e. a positive electrode active material comprising a lithium iron phosphate material which is LiFePO4 coated with carbon).
Regarding Claim 19, Oyama et al. as modified by Solan et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 18 as explained above.
Oyama et al. further teaches the cathode material A is LiFePO4 having a conductive carbon coating (Para. [0136]) (i.e. a positive electrode active material comprising a lithium iron phosphate material which is LiFePO4 coated with carbon).
Claims 16, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyama et al. (US 2017/0250399) in view of Solan et al. (US 2018/0138495) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0350582A).
Regarding Claim 16, Oyama et al. as modified by Solan et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 15 as explained above.
Oyama et al. et al. does not teach the positive electrode active material further comprises a nickel cobalt lithium manganate material, wherein the nickel cobalt lithium manganate material is wherein 0.3≤m≤0.9, and 0≤n≤0.3.
However, Kim et al. teaches a cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery (i.e. a lithium-ion secondary battery) (Para. [0016]) wherein the cathode active material may be LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O-2, LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O-2, or LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O-2 (Para. [0051]).
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 nickel cobalt lithium manganese oxide of Hua et al. to incorporate the teaching of LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O-2, LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O-2, or LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O-2, as taught by Kim et al., as such a material is capable of providing a lithium secondary battery with improved charge and discharge capacity, efficiency and cycle-life characteristics (Para. [0016]).
Regarding Claim 17, Oyama et al. as modified by Solan et al. and Kim et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 16 as explained above.
Oyama et al. et al. does not teach the positive electrode active material further comprises a nickel cobalt lithium manganate material, wherein the nickel cobalt lithium manganate material is LiNi0.65Co0.07Mn0.37O2.
However, Kim et al. teaches a cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery (i.e. a lithium-ion secondary battery) (Para. [0016]) wherein the cathode active material may be LiaNi1-x-y-zCoxMnyMzO-2 (Para. [0043]) wherein z may be zero (Para. [0049]), 0.95≤a≤1.3, 0<x≤0.33 and 0≤y≤0.5, and 0.33≤(1-x-y-z)≤0.95 (Para. [0047]) and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage LiNi0.65Co0.07Mn0.37O2.
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 nickel cobalt lithium manganese oxide of Hua et al. to incorporate the teaching LiaNi1-x-y-zCoxMnyMzO-2 (Para. [0043]) wherein z may be zero (Para. [0049]), 0.95≤a≤1.3, 0<x≤0.33 and 0≤y≤0.5, and 0.33≤(1-x-y-z)≤0.95 (Para. [0047]), as taught by Kim et al., as such a material is capable of providing a lithium secondary battery with improved charge and discharge capacity, efficiency and cycle-life characteristics (Para. [0016]). A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination. See MPEP 2131.02(III).
Regarding Claim 20, Oyama et al. as modified by Solan et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 19 as explained above
Oyama et al. et al. does not teach the positive electrode active material further comprises a nickel cobalt lithium manganate material, wherein the nickel cobalt lithium manganate material is LiNi0.65Co0.07Mn0.37O2.
However, Kim et al. teaches a cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery (i.e. a lithium-ion secondary battery) (Para. [0016]) wherein the cathode active material may be LiaNi1-x-y-zCoxMnyMzO-2 (Para. [0043]) wherein z may be zero (Para. [0049]), 0.95≤a≤1.3, 0<x≤0.33 and 0≤y≤0.5, and 0.33≤(1-x-y-z)≤0.95 (Para. [0047]) and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage LiNi0.65Co0.07Mn0.37O2.
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 nickel cobalt lithium manganese oxide of Hua et al. to incorporate the teaching LiaNi1-x-y-zCoxMnyMzO-2 (Para. [0043]) wherein z may be zero (Para. [0049]), 0.95≤a≤1.3, 0<x≤0.33 and 0≤y≤0.5, and 0.33≤(1-x-y-z)≤0.95 (Para. [0047]), as taught by Kim et al., as such a material is capable of providing a lithium secondary battery with improved charge and discharge capacity, efficiency and cycle-life characteristics (Para. [0016]). A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination. See MPEP 2131.02(III).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, teach, suggest or render obvious the invention of claim 12.
Claim 12 teaches the positive electrode composite material comprising the elements therein. Notably, the claim requires the at least one compound represented by AaMb(PO4)cXd- is CaV4(PO4)6. There is no teaching in the prior art of a positive electrode composite material for a lithium-ion battery comprising CaV4(PO4)6. Thus, the claim contains allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed December 30, 2025 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination 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
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