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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/02/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 6-7, 10, 13 & 19 are amended. Claim 15 is canceled. Claims 1-14 & 16-20 are currently pending.
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 1-3, 5-14 & 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2012/0231341 A1) in view of Zaghib (US 2009/0155689 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-14 & 18-20, Kim teaches a secondary battery comprising a positive electrode sheet comprising a current collector and an electrode sheet material layer provided on at least one surface of the current collector ([0039]-[0046]), wherein the positive electrode sheet comprises a positive electrode active material including an A material which is a single crystal or single crystal-like material comprising a lithium iron phosphate such as LiFePO4 (LFP) having a Dv50 of 0.05 microns to 2 microns ([0021]-[0025] & [0035]; Table 1); and a B material, which can be primary particle or a secondary particle, comprising a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (NCM) such as LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 having a Dv50 ranging from 0.5 microns to 7 microns ([0028]-[0030] & [0037]; Table 1), wherein the A material is present in a mixing ratio m of 65 wt% to 97 wt% based on a total weight of the positive electrode active material with the corresponding mixing ratio of the B material being 3 wt% to 35 wt% ([0020]). Kim is silent as to the A material having a Dv99 between 4.2 microns and 31 microns. Zaghib teaches a positive electrode active material comprising a lithium iron phosphate in the form of a single particle and having Dv50 of 1 micron to 5 microns, a Dv97 of less than 10 microns and a Dv100 less than 15 microns ([0035]-[0036], [0038] & [0102]) such that a resulting value of Dv99 would be between 5 microns and less than 15 microns. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to limit Dv99 to a range of 5 microns to less than 15 microns in order to achieve high performance utilization of the lithium iron phosphate as taught by Zaghib ([0102]).
Claims 4 & 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2012/0231341 A1) and Zaghib (US 2009/0155689 A1), as applied to claims 1-3, 5-14 & 18-20 above, and further in view of Fujii (US 2011/0223482 A1) and Theivanayagam (US 2016/0149205 A1).
Regarding claims 4 & 16-17, Kim teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 1 but is silent as to the A material having a specific surface area of 12 m2/g to 24 m2/g (claims 4 & 16) and 20 m2/g to 24 m2/g (claim 17).
Fujii teaches a positive electrode active material comprising a mixture of NCM and LFP, wherein the LFP has a specific surface area of 5 m2/g to 100 m2/g ([0027]-[0047]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to set a specific surface area of Kim’s A material to a range of 5 m2/g to 100 m2/g as a known result effective variable which affects the high-rate charge-discharge characteristics of the positive electrode as taught by Fujii ([0036]).
Theivanayagam teaches a positive electrode active material comprising a mixture of NCM and lithium metal phosphate (where the metal can include at least one of Mn and Fe), wherein the lithium metal phosphate has a specific surface area of 24 m2/g in exemplary embodiments ([0017]-[0019]; Table 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use a specific surface area of 24 m2/g for Kim’s lithium metal phosphate as a suitable surface area for a lithium metal phosphate used in a positive electrode active material further NCM as taught by Theivanayagam.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 & 16-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The amendment to claim 1 has prompted a new ground of rejection in view of the newly cited Zaghib reference. As instantly claimed, the subject matter of claims 1-3, 5-14 & 18-20 is found to be obvious over the combined teachings of Kim and Zaghib with claims 4 & 16-17 being found obvious further in view of Fujii and Theivanayagam. Thus, in view of the foregoing, claims 1-20 stand rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bie (US 2022/0359874 A1) teaches a positive electrode active material comprising a mixture of a lithium metal phosphate and a lithium metal composite oxide.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL T ZEMUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm (EST).
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, BARBARA GILLIAM can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/NATHANAEL T ZEMUI/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights