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 .
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20160156027 A1, “Kim”) 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, Kim discloses a positive electrode plate (see [0164] “positive electrode plate”), comprising a current collector (see FIG. 1 & [0063] describes “current collector 20”), a first positive electrode active material layer (see FIG. 1 & [0063] “positive active material layer 30” & “first portion 31”) and a second positive electrode active material layer (see FIG. 1 & [0063] “positive active material layer 30” & “second portion 33”), wherein the first positive electrode active material layer is arranged between the current collector and the second positive electrode active material layer (see FIG. 1 describes “31” is between “20” and “33”).
PNG
media_image1.png
523
717
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim discloses the first positive electrode active material layer comprises a first positive electrode active material (see [0087] describes “positive active material layer formed on a current collector 20, and the positive active material layer includes a positive active material 35 and a coating layer 40 including the metal component”), a first binder and a first conductive agent (see [0118] describes “first positive active material composition” & “binder” & “conductive agent”), wherein the first positive electrode active material is selected from at least one of LiqCoO2, Li1+xCo1-y-zNiyMnzO2, wherein 0≤q≤1, 0≤x≤0.1, 0≤y≤0.95, 0≤z≤0.95 (see [0092]-[0093] describes “positive active material” in [0092] & “LiCoO2” in [0093] which reads on LiqCoO2 when q is equal to 1; see [0093] describes “LiNi1-x-yCoxMnyO2 (0≤x≤0.5 and 0≤y≤0.5)” & Formula 1 “Lia(NixCoyMnz)O2” in [0095] & “0.8<a≤1.2, 0.6 ≤x≤1, 0≤y≤0.4, 0≤z≤0.4, and x+y+z≤1.2” reads on Li1+xCo1-y-zNiyMnzO2) and the second positive electrode active material layer comprises a second positive electrode active material, a second binder and a second conductive agent, 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 or Co (see [0092] describes “second positive active material” & LiaE1-bBbO2-cDc (where 0.90≤a≤1 and 0≤b≤0.5, and 0≤c≤0.05)” & [0093] describes “E is Co, Mn” & “B is Fe” & “D is oxygen (O)” & “D is phosphorous (P), or any combination thereof” which reads on the claimed composition).
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°, Kim discloses a similar composition as the claimed invention and FIG. 13 describes peaks & [0047] describes “X-ray diffraction (XRD) of positive active materials”. Kim discloses X-ray diffraction of materials used from preparation examples 1 and 2 in FIG. 13.
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_image2.png
430
612
media_image2.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 Kim 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. Kim discloses “positive active material” & “an olivine structure” in [0064]. 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).
Kim 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 Kim 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 Kim 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.
Kim 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 claim 3, Kim discloses the positive electrode plate of claim 1 and regarding the limitation wherein a thickness D2 of the second positive electrode active material layer is in a range of 2 µm to 40 µm, Kim discloses 35 µm (see [0015] describes “thickness of the positive active material layer may be in a range of about 1 µm to about 50 µm” & see [0016] describes “second portion may be about 5% to about 70% of a total thickness of the positive active material layer” with 0.7*50 = 35 µm) which lies within the claimed range of 2 µm to 40 µm.
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses the positive electrode plate of claim 3 and regarding the limitation wherein the thickness D2 of the second positive electrode active material layer is in a range of 10 µm to 30 µm, Kim discloses 28 µm (see [0015] & [0016] with 0.7*40 = 28 µm) which lies within the claimed range of 10 µm to 30 µm.
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses the positive electrode plate of claim r and regarding the limitation wherein the thickness D2 of the second positive electrode active material layer is in a range of 15 µm to 25 µm, Kim discloses 21 µm (see [0015] & [0016] with 0.7*30 = 21 µm) which lies within the claimed range of 15 µm to 25 µm.
Regarding claims 6, 7 and 8, Kim discloses the positive electrode plate of claim 1. Kim 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, Kim discloses the positive electrode plate of claim 1 and further discloses wherein an average particle size of primary particles of the first positive electrode active material is 6 µm (equivalent to 6000 nm) in [0151] “diameter 6 µm” & “Li(Ni0.65Co0.20Mn0.15]O2” which is outside the claimed range 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 Kim because doing so provides “high electronic conductivity and lower internal resistance”, as suggested by Zhang (see [n0028]).
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses the positive electrode plate of claim 1 and regarding the limitation 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, Kim discloses ratio of positive active material, biner and conductive agent “90:5:5” (see [0162] “second positive active material composition”).
Regarding claims 11, 12 and 13, Kim discloses the positive electrode plate of claim 1 and regarding the limitation wherein a thickness D1 of the first positive electrode active material layer is in a range of 100 µm to 140 µm, for claim 11 and range 110 µm to 130 µm for claim 12, and range 115 µm to 125 µm for claim 13, Kim discloses “thickness of the first portion and the second portion may be adjusted such that a thickness of the second portion is about 5% to about 70% of the total thickness of the desired positive active material layer” & “when the thickness of the second portion is within any of the ranges described above, the positive electrode may have a high structural stability and excellent lifespan characteristics” in [0123].
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 thickness of the positive active material layer is a variable that achieves the recognized result of improving lifespan characteristics. That makes the thickness 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 thickness and come up with 100 µm to 140 µm, for claim 11 and range 110 µm to 130 µm for claim 12, and range 115 µm to 125 µm for claim 13, for the purpose of improving the lifespan characteristics.
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses the positive electrode plate of claim 1 and regarding the limitation wherein, based on a total mass of the first positive electrode active material layer, contents of the first positive electrode active material, the first biner and the first conductive agent are in ranges 90% to 95%, 2% to 8% and 2% to 8%, respectively, Kim discloses “first positive active material composition” in [0161] & positive active material, binder and conductive agent & weight ratio “90:5:5”.
Regarding claim 15, Kim discloses the positive electrode plate of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the first conductive agent and the second conductive agent are conductive carbon and acetylene black (see [0120] describes “conductive agent” & “carbonaceous material” & “acetylene black”) and the first binder and the second binder are each independently selected from at least one of polyvinylidene fluoride (see [0119] describes “binder” & “polyvinylidene fluoride”).
Regarding claim 16, Kim discloses the positive electrode plate of claim 1 and further discloses a secondary battery (see [0147] “lithium secondary batteries”).
Regarding claim 17, Kim discloses the secondary battery of claim 16 and further discloses a battery module (see [0148] “battery module”).
Regarding claim 18, Kim discloses the battery module of claim 17 and further discloses a battery pack (see [0146] describes “battery case” which reads on battery pack”).
Regarding claim 19, Kim discloses the secondary battery of claim 16 and further discloses a power consuming device (see [0148] describes “middle or large-sized devices include power tools; electric vehicles (EVs)” which reads on power consuming device).
Regarding claim 20, Kim discloses the power consuming device of claim 19 and further discloses wherein the power consuming device is an electric vehicle (see [0148] describes “electric vehicles”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s arguments on P2 “Kim does not necessarily or inherently have an intensity ratio IA/IB of the diffraction peaks that satisfies: 0.98 ≤ IA/IB ≤1.1” & on P3-P4 “Applicant respectfully submits that the cited art would not have rendered obvious claim 1 of the present application” and in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding the limitation and an intensity ratio IA/IB of the diffraction peaks satisfies: 0.98 ≤ IA/IB≤ 1.1 of claim 1, intensity ratio is a property of the positive electrode active material. Kim discloses “positive active material” & “an olivine structure” in [0064]. 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).
Kim 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 Kim 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 Kim 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 on P2.
Kim 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 01/21/2026
Prosecution Insights