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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/20/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 3 and 12 are cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, 13-20 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 6-9, 11, 13, 15-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 20170092943 A1, “Li”) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 113594412 A, “Zhang”) and evidenced by Lee et al. (Kyung Tae Lee, Kyung Sub Lee, Electrochemical properties of LiFe0.9Mn0.1PO4/Fe2P cathode material by mechanical alloying, Journal of Power Sources, Volume 189, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 435-439). The machine translation is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 1 and claim 2, Li discloses a positive electrode plate, comprising a current collector, a first positive electrode active material layer and a second positive electrode active material layer (see abstract “positive electrode comprises a positive electrode current collector and a first active material layer” & “a second active material layer”), wherein the second positive electrode active material layer is arranged between the current collector and the first positive electrode active material layer, or the first positive electrode active material layer is arranged between the current collector and the second positive electrode active material layer (see [0036] describes “first active material layer arranged on the positive electrode current collector, the buffer layer and the second active material layer, in which the buffer layer is located between the first active material layer and the second active material layer” & see [0045] “the preparing order of the first active material layer and the second active material layer can also be inverted, that is, the second active material layer is firstly prepared on the positive electrode current collector, then the buffer layer is formed on the second active material layer and at last the first active material layer is formed on the buffer layer”); the first positive electrode active material layer comprises a first positive electrode active material, a first binder and a first conductive agent (see [0051] “first positive electrode active material” & see [0054] “binder” & see [0053] “positive electrode conductive agent”; see [0027]), wherein the first positive electrode active material is LiqCoO2, wherein 0≤q≤1, 0≤x≤0.1, 0≤y≤0.95, 0≤z≤0.95, 0.2≤α≤ 1, 1 ≤β≤1.1, and M is selected from at least one of Cu, Mn, Cr, Zn, Pb, Ca, Co, Ni and Sr (see [0052] “LiCoO2 (LCO)”; see [0045]); the second positive electrode active material layer comprises a second positive electrode active material, a second binder and a second conductive agent (see [0052] “second positive electrode active material” & [0054] “positive electrode binder” & see [0053] “positive electrode conductive agent”; see [0027]), wherein the second positive electrode active material is selected from carbon-coated LiβFeαM(1-α)PO4, where 0.2≤α≤1, 1 ≤β≤ 1.1, M is Mn (see [0045] & [0051] “LiMn0.75Fe0.25PO4 (LMFP)" when α = 0.25 & 1-α = 0.75 & when M = Mn).
Regarding the limitation, and the second positive electrode active material has a diffraction peak A between 29° and 30° in the X-ray diffraction pattern, and a diffraction peak B between 25° and 26°, Li discloses a similar composition as the claimed invention.
Lee provides evidence in FIG. 1 XRD peaks of LiFeMnPO4 & describes a diffraction peak A between 29° and 30° and a diffraction peak B between 25° and 26° in annotated FIG. 1 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
430
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the second positive electrode active material of Li would exhibit the same properties as the claimed invention including a diffraction peak A between 29° and 30° and a diffraction peak B between 25° and 26°, as evidenced by Lee.
Regarding the limitation and an intensity ratio IA/IB of the diffraction peaks satisfies: 0.98 ≤ IA/IB≤ 1.1 of claim 1 and 1.05 ≤ IA/IB≤ 1.1 of claim 2, intensity ratio is a property of the positive electrode active material. The diffraction peak is a property of the material structure. Lee provides evidence in P2 col. 2 par. 3 “single phase LiFe0.9Mn0.1PO4 was achieved. It has an ordered olivine structure”.
Zhang teaches “lithium manganese iron phosphate material has a stable olivine structure, which does not change during the lithium ion insertion and extraction process, and has good high-temperature cycle performance and safety” in [n0002]. Zhang teaches battery (see abstract).
Li and Zhang are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the positive electrode active material of Li would exhibit the same properties as the claimed invention including intensity ratio IA/IB of the diffraction peaks because intensity ratio is a property of the material and Li teaches a similar material as the claimed invention. Further, Zhang teaches material with olivine structure & “does not change during the lithium ion insertion and extraction process, and has good high-temperature cycle performance and safety”. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious that the desirable structure exhibits good high temperature cycle performance and safety.
The specification of the instant invention provides evidence that an intensity ratio IA/IB of the diffraction peaks satisfies: 0.98 ≤ IA/IB≤ 1.1 & 1.05 ≤ IA/IB≤ 1.1 on P2.
Li in view of Zhang teaches a substantially similar positive electrode plate including LiFeMnPO4 and Lee provides evidence of x-ray diffraction of LiFeMnPO4.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the positive electrode plate of the prior art would have the same properties, including intensity ratio, as LiFeMnPO4 used in the instant specification.
Regarding the limitation and a thickness D1 of the first positive electrode active material layer is in a range of 100 um to 140 um and a thickness D2 of the second positive electrode active material layer is in a range of 2 um to 40 um, Li discloses thickness of the first layer & thickness of the second layer (see [0019] “Preferably, in the above-mentioned positive electrode, the thickness of the first active material layer is 0.1˜200 μm, further preferably, the thickness of the first active material layer is 0.5˜100 μm, furthermore preferably, the thickness of the first active material layer is 5˜50 μm.” & see [0026] “Preferably, in the above-mentioned positive electrode, the thickness of the second active material layer is 0.1˜250 μm, further preferably, the thickness of the second active material layer is 0.5˜200 μm, furthermore preferably, the thickness of the second active material layer is 50˜100 μm”. Li discloses the first and second layers “can also be inverted” (see [0045]).
Li discloses a range of 0.1˜200 μm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 100 μm to 140 μm. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Li discloses a range of 0.1˜250 μm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 2 µm to 40 µm. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Regarding claims 6, 7 and 8, Li discloses the positive electrode plate of claim 1. Li does not explicitly disclose wherein an average particle size of primary particles of the second positive electrode active material is in a range of 20 nm to 240 nm.
Zhang teaches “nano-crystallizing micron-sized lithium iron manganese phosphate” in [n0015] & “LiMn0.5Fe0.5PO4” in [n0020]. Zhang teaches “nano-sized lithium manganese iron phosphate particles make the lithium ion deintercalation path shorter and the ion diffusion coefficient higher” in [n0019].
A result effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious. MPEP §2144.05.
Thus, the particle size is a variable that achieves the recognized result of increasing the ion diffusion coefficient. That makes the particle size a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to routinely experiment with the particle size and come up with 20 nm to 240 nm regarding claim 6, 20 nm to 160 nm regarding claim 7, and 20 nm to 80 nm regarding claim 8 for the purpose of improving the ion diffusion coefficient.
Regarding claim 9, Li discloses the positive electrode plate of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein an average particle size of primary particles of the first positive electrode active material is in a range of 800 nm to 3000 nm.
Zhang teaches particle size of lithium manganese iron phosphate is 2.5 µm (equivalent to 2500 nm) in Example 1 (see [n0038]). Zhang teaches “the nanostructured lithium iron manganese phosphate has high electronic conductivity and lower internal resistance” in [n0028].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Zhang to include particle size of 2.5 (equivalent to 2500 nm) into the positive electrode plate of Li because doing so provides “high electronic conductivity and lower internal resistance”, as suggested by Zhang (see [n0028]).
Regarding claim 11 and claim 13, Li discloses the positive electrode plate of claim 1 and further regarding the limitations wherein a thickness D1 of the first positive electrode active material layer is in a range of 100 µm to 140 µm as required by claim 11 and wherein the thickness D1 of the first positive electrode active material layer is in a range of 115 µm to 125 µm as required by claim 13 Li discloses thickness of the first layer (see [0019] “Preferably, in the above-mentioned positive electrode, the thickness of the first active material layer is 0.1˜200 μm, further preferably, the thickness of the first active material layer is 0.5˜100 μm, furthermore preferably, the thickness of the first active material layer is 5˜50 μm.” & see [0026] “Preferably, in the above-mentioned positive electrode, the thickness of the second active material layer is 0.1˜250 μm, further preferably, the thickness of the second active material layer is 0.5˜200 μm, furthermore preferably, the thickness of the second active material layer is 50˜100 μm." & and Li discloses the first and second layers “can also be inverted” (see [0045]).
Li discloses a range of 50˜100 μm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 100 μm to 140 μm, as required by claim 11. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Li discloses a range of 0.1˜200 μm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 115 µm to 125 µm, as required by claim 13. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Regarding claim 15, Li discloses the positive electrode plate of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the first conductive agent and the second conductive agent each independently selected from at least one of carbon nanotubes and graphene (see [0055] “carbon material” & describes carbon nanotubes (CNTs), graphene (GP)); and the first binder and the second binder are each independently selected from at least one of polyvinylidene fluoride (see [0056] “binder: polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF)”).
Regarding claim 16, Li discloses the positive electrode plate of claim 1 and further discloses a secondary battery (see abstract “Li-ion battery”).
Regarding claim 19, Li discloses the secondary battery of claim 16 and further discloses a power consuming device (see [0003] “electric vehicles”).
Regarding claim 20, Li discloses the power consuming device of claim 19 and further discloses wherein the power consuming device is an electric vehicle (see [0003] “electric vehicles”).
Claims 4-5, 10, 14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 20170092943 A1, “Li”) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 113594412 A, “Zhang”) and evidenced by Lee et al. (Kyung Tae Lee, Kyung Sub Lee, Electrochemical properties of LiFe0.9Mn0.1PO4/Fe2P cathode material by mechanical alloying, Journal of Power Sources, Volume 189, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 435-439) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20160156027 A1, “Kim”).
Regarding claim 4, Li discloses the positive electrode plate of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the thickness D2 of the second positive electrode active material layer is in a range of 0.1˜250 μm (see [0026]) which overlaps the claimed range of 10 μm to 30 μm.
Kim teaches a thickness of 28 µm (see [0015] & [0016] with 0.7*40 = 28 µm) which lies within the claimed range of 10 µm to 30 µm.
Li and Kim are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrode active material layers to improve lifespan characteristics of a lithium battery (see Kim abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Kim to include a thickness of 28 µm (see [0015], [0016]) into the positive electrode plate of Li because doing so improves the lifespan characteristics of the lithium battery, as suggested by Kim (see abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Li discloses the positive electrode plate of claim 4 and further discloses wherein the thickness D2 of the second positive electrode active material layer is in a range of 0.1˜250 μm (see [0026]) which overlaps the claimed range of 15 μm to 25 μm.
Kim teaches a thickness of 21 µm (see [0015] & [0016] with 0.7*30 = 21 µm) which lies within the claimed range of 15 µm to 25 µm.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Kim to include a thickness of 28 µm (see [0015], [0016]) into the positive electrode plate of Li because doing so improves the lifespan characteristics of the lithium battery, as suggested by Kim (see abstract).
Regarding claim 10 and claim 14, Li discloses the positive electrode plate of claim 1 and further discloses composition of the positive electrode active material layer & positive electrode active material, binder and conductive agent (see Table 1 describes “positive electrode conductive agent content” & describes ranges from 2-15%” & “positive electrode binder content” & describes ranges 1-17%” which overlap the claimed ranges of 1% to 10% and 1% to 10%, as required by claim 10 & 2% to 8% and 2% to 8% as required by claim 14. Li does not explicitly disclose wherein, based on a total mass of the first positive electrode active material layer, contents of the first positive electrode active material, the first binder and the first conductive agent are in ranges of 90% to 95%, 2% to 8% and 2% to 8%, respectively as required by claim 14 nor wherein, based on a total mass of the second positive electrode active material layer, contents of the second positive electrode active material, the second binder and the second conductive agent are in ranges of 80% to 98%, 1% to 10% and 1% to 10%, respectively as required by claim 10.
Kim teaches a ratio of positive active material, binder and conductive agent “90:5:5” (see [0162] “second positive active material composition”) which lies within the claimed ranges of claim 10 and claim 14.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Kim to include a ratio of “90:5:5” (see [0162]) into the positive electrode plate of Li because doing so improves the lifespan characteristics of the lithium battery, as suggested by Kim (see abstract).
Regarding claim 17 and claim 18, Li discloses the secondary battery of claim 16, but does not explicitly disclose a battery module.
Kim teaches a battery module (see [0148] “The lithium secondary battery may be used not only as a power source for small-sized devices, but also as a unit battery of a battery module in middle or large-sized devices that include a plurality of batteries”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the battery module as suggested by Kim (see [0148]) into the secondary battery of Li because doing so provides more power to the device, as suggested by Kim (see [0148]).
Further regarding claim 18, Li does not explicitly disclose a battery pack.
Kim teaches a battery case (see [0146]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a battery pack, as suggested by Kim (see [0146]) into the battery of Li because a skilled artisan would recognize doing so protects the battery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 09/03/2026
Prosecution Insights