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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1B (electrochemical apparatus comprising a lithium manganese oxide and a lithium transition metal phosphate compound) in the reply filed on 03/18/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that members of Species 1A (an electrochemical apparatus comprising a lithium manganese oxide and a lithium transition metal composite oxide) and Species 1B are not mutually exclusive but rather represent combinable embodiments within the scope of the same invention.
Upon further search and consideration, the requirement for restriction has been reconsidered such that Species 1A and 1B are being fully examined together for patentability under 37 CFC 1.104; i.e., restriction of this species is withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP 804.01.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0037] of the instant specification recites “The lattice parameter a of the lithium manganese oxide in the positive negative active material is controlled within a range of lower than or equal to 8.2008Å” (pp. 15 ln. 5-7). Other portions of paragraph [0037] (see pp. 15 ln. 3-6) are directed to a lithium manganese oxide in the positive electrode. As such, it is interpreted that the emphasized portion is intended to refer to the positive electrode active material as a typographical error.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,8,11-13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tamura et al. (JP-2010033924-A; see attached machine translation)
Regarding claims 1 and 11-13, Tamura discloses an electrochemical apparatus (“lithium ion secondary battery”, [0018]), anticipating the preamble of claim 1, and an electronic apparatus (a charging apparatus, [0078]) comprising an electrochemical apparatus, anticipating the preamble of claim 13.
Tamura’s electrochemical apparatus comprises a positive electrode plate (“positive electrode region”) and a negative electrode plate (“negative electrode region”) ([0040], FIG. 1),
wherein the negative electrode plate comprises a negative electrode active material layer (12), and the negative electrode active material layer comprises a negative electrode active material ([0040], FIG. 1);
the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode active material layer (11), the positive electrode active material layer comprises a positive electrode active material ([0040], FIG. 1), and the positive electrode active material comprises a lithium manganese oxide (“LiMn2O4”, [0043]).
Tamura fails to explicitly indicate when the electrochemical apparatus is at a 15% SOC, a lattice parameter a of the lithium manganese oxide is lower than or equal to 8.2008Å.
However, Tamura produces experimental examples of the positive electrode active material comprising lithium manganese oxide, lithium iron phosphate, and lithium transition metal composite oxide in mass ratios of 80:15:5 (Examples 2, 101; Tamura [0082], pp. 18 Table 1) and 80:10:10 (Examples 3, 102) ([0084], pp.23 Table 5), these active material compositions appearing substantially similar to Applicant’s Example 1-3, having a ratio of these materials being 80:15:5, and Example 1-4 with 80:10:10 (Instant specification [0085-0086], pp. 24-25 Table 1). Consequently, a lattice parameter of the positive electrode active material in Tamura’s cited examples is inherently similar or identical to that of Applicant’s examples (Example 1-3, 8.1619 Å; Example 1-4, 8.1289 Å; inst. spec. pp. 24-25 Table 1), and at least appreciably within the limit of 8.2008Å or less at 15% SOC as claimed in claims 1 and 13 (MPEP 2112.01).
Supporting this evidence of inherency, Applicant’s experimental data (Examples 1-1 to 1-8, inst. spec. [0070-0090]; Comparative Example 1-1, [00104]; pp. 24-25 Table 1) indicates a significant effect on the lattice parameter from the mass percentage of lithium iron phosphate (LFP) in the positive electrode active material composition (see Comparison FIG. 1, below). Tamura’s Examples 3 and 102 comprising 15% LFP and Examples 2 and 101 comprising 10% LFP (Tamura [0082], [0084], Tables 1, 5) would therefore be expected to have a significant reduction in lattice parameter below 8.2008Å from the inclusion of LFP in the positive electrode active material composition.
[Chart]
Comparison FIG. 1
Furthermore, Tamura’s experimental examples (Examples 2, 101, [0082], pp. 18 Table 1; Examples 3, 102, [0084], pp.23 Table 5) comprise a lithium manganese oxide comprising LiMn1.95Al0.05O4 ([0082]) or LiMn1.95Mg0.05O4 ([0084]) and further comprise a lithium transition metal composite oxide and a lithium transition metal phosphate compound.
Therefore, these examples anticipate an electrochemical apparatus wherein the lithium manganese oxide comprises LixMn2-yMyO4 where 0.9≤x≤1.1 (x=1), 0≤y≤0.05 (y=0.05), and M comprises at least one of Al, Mg, Ti, Cr, Cu, Fe, Co, W, Zn, Ga, Zr, Ru, Ag, Sn, Au, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Nb, or Gd (M = Al, Mg) as recited in characteristic (f) of claim 11, and wherein the positive electrode active material further comprises at least one of a lithium transition metal composite oxide or a lithium transition metal phosphate compound as recited in characteristic (g) of claim 11.
Additionally, Tamura’s experimental examples comprise a lithium iron phosphate (LiFe0.9Mn0.1PO4 [0082], LiFe0.9Ni0.1PO4 [0084]) and a lithium transition metal composite oxide (LiNi0.95Al0.05O2, [0082], LiNi0.95Co0.05O2 [0084]).
The examples therefore anticipate an electrochemical apparatus wherein the positive electrode active material comprises the lithium transition metal composite oxide and the lithium transition metal composite oxide comprises Lix1Niy1Coz1MnkZqO2±aTa, where Z comprises at least one of B, Mg, Al, Si, P, S, Ti, Cr, Fe, Cu, Zn, Ga, Y, Zr, Mo, Ag, W, In, Sn, Pb, Sb, or Ce (Z = Al or is not positively recited), T is a halogen which is not positively recited, 0.2≤x1≤1.2 (x1=1), 0≤y1≤1 (y1=0.95), 0≤z1≤1 (z1 = 0 or 0.05), 0≤k≤1 (k=0), 0≤q≤1 (q = 0.05 or 0), y1, z1 and k are not 0 at a same time; and 0≤a≤1 (a=0) as recited in characteristic (h) of claim 12, and
wherein the positive electrode active material further comprises the lithium transition metal phosphate compound; the lithium transition metal phosphate compound comprises Lix2Ry2Nz2PO4 wherein R comprises at least one of Fe or Mn (Fe and Mn); N comprises at least one of Al, Ti, V, Cr, Co, Li, Ni, Cu, Zn, Mg, Ga, Zr, Nb, or Si and is not positively recited; and 0.6≤x2≤1.2 (x=1), 0.95≤y2≤1 (y2=1), and 0≤z2≤0.05 (z2=0) as recited in characteristic (i) of claim 12.
Regarding claims 8, 18, Tamura discloses the electrochemical apparatus and electronic apparatus of claims 1 and 13. While Tamura fails to disclose a start position of an exothermic peak on a DSC curve of the positive electrode plate is between 260°C and 280°C when the electrochemical apparatus is at a 100% SOC, Tamura’s experimental examples of the electrochemical apparatus (Tamura Examples 2, 101, [0082], pp. 18 Table 1; Examples 3, 102, [0084], pp.23 Table 5) comprise a positive electrode active material appearing substantially similar or identical to the electrode active material in Applicant’s Examples 1-3 and 1-4 (inst. spec. [0085-0086]), and would likewise be expected to comprise a start position of an exothermic peak in a DSC curve of the positive electrode plate appreciably similar to 275 °C (Example 1-3, pp. 24-25 Table 1) or 270 °C (Example 1-4, pp. 24-25 Table 1) as a material property of the positive electrode active material, thus inherently anticipating claims 8 and 18 (MPEP 2112.01).
Supporting this conclusion of inherency, Tamura recognizes improvements to the thermal stability in the positive electrode plate from addition of the lithium transition metal phosphate compound (Tamura [0029], [0086]), correlating to Applicant’s observations of improved thermal stability with a DSC exothermic peak in a range of 260-280 °C (inst. spec. [0024]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this section can be found in section Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102.
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 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tamura (JP-2010033924-A) as applied to claims 1 and 13.
Regarding claims 2, 14, Tamura discloses the electrochemical apparatus and electronic apparatus of claims 1 and 13. Tamura fails to numerically indicate a mass percentage W1 of Mn in the positive electrode active material as ranging from 42% to 47% based on a mass of the positive electrode active material as according to characteristic (a) or indicate a mass percentage W2 of Mn in the negative electrode active material as being less than or equal to 0.1% based on a negative electrode active material mass according to characteristic (b) or indicate a mass percentage difference of Mn ΔV/V in the negative electrode as being ≤20% as defined in limitations of characteristic (c) of claims 2, 14.
However, Applicant’s disclosure indicates Mn deposition in the negative electrode is an effect of the positive electrode active material’s lithium manganese oxide lattice parameter and composition (inst. spec. [0006], [0011]). Thus, Tamura’s experimental examples of the electrochemical apparatus (Tamura Examples 2, 101, [0082], pp. 18 Table 1; Examples 3, 102, [0084], pp.23 Table 5) comprising a positive electrode active material substantially similar or identical to that of Applicant’s Examples 1-3 and 1-4 (inst. spec. [0085-0086]), particularly with respect to the lattice parameter a, would be expected to comprise a similar or identical negative electrode Mn mass percentage W2 of about 0.0280% or 0.0265% respectively and a ΔV/V of about 11.0 or 10.8% respectively (inst. spec. pp. 24-25, Table 1), anticipating characteristics (b) where W2≤0.1% and (c) where ΔV/V≤20% of claims 2 and 14 (see MPEP 2112.01).
Assuming arguendo that Applicant convincingly proves that Tamura does not necessarily or inherently produce an electrochemical apparatus or electronic apparatus where W2≤0.1% or ΔV/V≤20% according to characteristics (b) and (c), Tamura discloses considerations of preventing Mn ionization and elution to minimize Mn deposition on the negative electrode active material (i.e., to reduce mass percentage W2 to 0%), where Mn deposition increases the internal impedance of the electrochemical apparatus (Tamura [0015]). As such, in seeking to avoid this increase in impedance, a skilled artisan would seek to utilize a range of W2 approaching 0% such that one skilled in the art would have routinely selected within the overlap (W2=0% to 0.1%) according to Tamura’s disclosure (MPEP 2144.05 I), thus rendering obvious characteristic (b) of claims 2 and 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this section can be found in section Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103.
Claims 3,6-7, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura (JP-2010033924-A) as applied to claims 1 and 13.
Regarding claims 3, 15, Tamura discloses the electrochemical apparatus and electronic apparatus of claims 1 and 13, where experimental examples where the lithium manganese oxide comprises Al or Mg as a doping element M (LiMn1.95Al0.05O4, [0082]; LiMn1.95Mg0.05O4 [0084]), thus rending obvious the selection of Al and Mg from the group of doping elements M including Nb, Al, Mg, Ti, Cr, Mo, Zr, Y, or B recited in claims 3 and 15.
Tamura further discloses optimizing molar percentage of the doping element M to Mn within a range of at least 0% to provide sufficient effects of the dopant ([0020-0021]) and less than 30% to prevent interference with Li ion occlusion and release during charging ([0021]).
As such, in seeking to balance the above effects, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the molar percentage of the doping element within a range of 0-30%, this range encompassing the range of 0.01-2% claimed in claims 3 and 15 such that a skilled artisan would have selected within the encompassed range through routine optimization under Tamura’s disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Tamura discloses the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 1. Tamura further discloses that a density of the manufactured positive electrode active material layer (i.e., the compacted density) is preferably at least 2 g/cm3 to provide a sufficiently high energy density of the electrochemical apparatus, and less than 4 g/cm3 to form a sufficient number of voids in the positive electrode active material layer which are filled with electrolyte solution to enable Li ion movement ([0058]).
As such, in seeking to balance improving the energy density of the electrochemical apparatus without impacting the Li ion movement, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the compacted density of Tamura’s positive electrode active material layer within a range of 2-4 g/cm3, this range encompassing the range of 2.8-3.05 g/cm3 recited in characteristic (d) of claim 6 such that a skilled artisan would have selected within the encompassed range through routine optimization under Tamura’s disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Additionally, while Tamura does not numerically indicate a porosity α of the positive electrode plate, Tamura’s disclosure of providing a sufficient number of voids in the positive electrode active material layer with respect to the density ([0058]) plainly a sufficient porosity (i.e., void fraction) of the material, porosity as a measurement being necessarily limited to a range of 0-100%. This consideration is balanced with improving the energy density by increasing the positive electrode density ([0058]), which results in a reduction of voids and a decrease in porosity.
As such, in seeking to balance improving the energy density of the electrochemical apparatus without impacting the Li ion movement, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the porosity α of Tamura’s positive electrode active material layer within a range of 0%-100%, encompassing the range of 15% to 40% claimed in claim 7 such that a skilled artisan would have selected within the encompassed range through routine optimization under Tamura’s disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura (JP-2010033924-A) as applied to claim 1 and 13, further in view of Wang et al. (CN-109449446-A; see attached machine translation).
Regarding claims 4, 16, Tamura discloses the electrochemical apparatus and electronic apparatus of claims 1 and 13. Tamura envisions considerations in optimizing the positive electrode plate density to improve the energy density while providing sufficient void space in the positive electrode plate ([0058]), where the void space is known in the art to be affected by the particle size distribution of the active material, but fails to numerically indicate a particle size distribution of the positive electrode active material that satisfies 1.2≤(Dv90–Dv10)/Dv50≤2.2 for this purpose.
Wang, directed to an electrochemical apparatus (“secondary battery”) (Wang [0013]), teaches optimizing a particle size distribution of the positive electrode active material Dv90-Dv10/Dv50 ((D90positive-D10positive )/D50positive, where D10, D50, and D90 are cumulative volume percentages [0025]) within a range of 1.2≤Dv90-Dv10/Dv50≤3.5 ([0028]). Wang teaches that excessively large values of Dv90-Dv10/Dv50 (i.e., 3.5) cause pores of the positive electrode active material to be occupied after the positive electrode is formed, blocking the electrolyte solution and impairing ion diffusion ([0023]).
On the other hand, a skilled artisan would recognize some amount of increase to packed density would be desirable to improve the positive electrode energy density (Tamura [0058]), where increasing the width of the particle size distribution (Dv90-Dv10)/Dv50 beyond 1.2 and thus filling at least some amount of the pores in the electrode plate (Wang [0023]) would be apparent to an ordinary skill in the art as a means of increasing the packed density.
Thus, in seeking to balance improving the energy density of the electrochemical apparatus without blocking the pores and preventing ion diffusion, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the particle size distribution of Tamura’s positive electrode active material within a range of 1.2≤Dv90-Dv10/Dv50≤3.5 according to considerations disclosed by Wang and Tamura, encompassing the range of 1.2≤(Dv90–Dv10)/Dv50≤2.2 claimed in claims 4 and 16 such that a skilled artisan would have selected within the overlap through routine optimization with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura (JP-2010033924-A) as applied to claim 1 and 13, further in view of Imachi et al. (US-6482550-B1).
Regarding claims 5, 17, Tamura discloses the electrochemical apparatus and electronic apparatus of claims 1 and 13. Tamura discloses that the potential of the negative electrode needs to be at least 0 V or more with respect to the potential of Li ([0065]), this range broadly overlapping with the range of potential claimed in claims 5 and 17. However, Tamura fails to further specify a potential of the negative electrode plate with respect to Li as being less than 0.6V at 0% SOC with sufficient specificity to render these claims obvious.
Imachi, directed to an analogous electrochemical apparatus with a positive electrode active material mainly comprising lithium manganese oxide (Imachi, abstract), teaches a desirability to limit the potential of the negative electrode in order to prevent electrolyte decomposition reactions on the negative electrode (col. 11 ln. 20-23), particularly when almost discharged (i.e., when SOC approaches 0), where Mn ions are eluted from the positive electrode active material and deposited on the negative electrode active material and when less lithium is present in the negative electrode (col. 11 ln. 23-27).
As Tamura [0065] requires the negative electrode potential must be at least 0 V, a skilled artisan seeking to prevent electrolyte decomposition by decreasing the negative electrode potential when almost discharged according to Imachi’s teaching would seek to utilize a range of negative electrode potential approaching 0V with respect to Li, and in doing so, select within a portion of the range overlapping with the range of <0.6V recited in claims 5 and 17 between 0-0.6 V according to Tamura and Imachi’s disclosure (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Furthermore, with a sufficiently small value of SOC approaching 0% for an almost discharged electrochemical apparatus, the negative electrode plate potential would become appreciably similar to the potential at 0% SOC as claimed in claims 5, 17, such that the selection of the negative electrode range between 0-0.6 V when almost discharged would necessarily result in a negative electrode with this potential at 0% SOC.
Claims 9-10, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura (JP-2010033924-A) as applied to claim 1 and 13, further in view of Kim (US-20230299348-A1).
Regarding claims 9-10, 19-20, Tamura discloses the electrochemical apparatus and electronic apparatus of claims 1 and 13 wherein the electrochemical apparatus further comprises an electrolyte ([0060]). Tamura further discloses a finite list of organic solvents ([0061]), wherein some species of the list (dimethyl sulfoxide, sulfolane, methylsulfolane, 1,3-propane sultone) are sulfur-oxygen double bond-containing compounds.
As a skilled artisan would need to select some identity of solvent to successfully form Tamura’s electrolyte, where Tamura’s finite group of solvents are identified, predictable solutions within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art, it would be obvious for a skilled artisan to explore selecting at least one of the named solvents containing a sulfur-oxygen double bond with a reasonable expectation of successfully producing Tamura’s electrolyte (MPEP 2143 I. E), thus rendering obvious claims 9 and 19.
Assuming arguendo that Applicant convincingly proves that one having ordinary skill in the art selecting an electrolyte solvent according to Tamura’s disclosure would not necessarily use at least one of the solvents containing a sulfur-oxygen double bond, Kim, directed to an electrochemical apparatus comprising a sulfur-oxygen double bond-containing compound (a sultone-based compound, Kim [0012], see [0049] Formulas 1-1 to 1-6), teaches use of the compound as an electrolyte additive to form a robust low-resistance SEI layer, improving high-temperature characteristics and lifespan characteristics of the electrochemical apparatus ([0034-0035]).
As such, in seeking to improve the high-temperature characteristics and lifespan characteristics of a SEI layer formed in Tamura’s electrochemical apparatus, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Tamura’s electrolyte to further include one of the additives taught by Kim, thus providing an electrochemical apparatus comprising an electrolyte further comprising a sulfur-oxygen double bond-containing compound (a sultone) as according to claims 9 and 19.
Furthermore, the above modification would be done with a reasonable expectation of success because Tamura and Kim are materially compatible; Tamura envisions the use of other sultone compounds such as 1,3-propane sultone in the electrolyte (Tamura [0061]) and Kim teaches compatibility of the electrolyte additive with lithium-manganese-based oxides (Kim [0075]).
Kim further teaches a preferable mass percentage of the sultone-based compound additive as being within 0.1 to 1% by mass of the electrolyte to suitably improve the SEI layer stability and internal resistance (Kim [0055]).
As such, in seeking to suitably improve the SEI layer stability and internal resistance in the electrochemical apparatus of Tamura in view of Kim, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to select a mass percentage of the sulfur-oxygen double bond-containing compound within a range of 0.1% to 1.00% based on the electrolyte mass, this range falling within and rendering obvious the claimed range of 0.01% to 1.00% claimed in claims 10 and 20 (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVERETT T CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-8:00.
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, Jonathan G Leong can be reached on (571) 270 1292. 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.
/E.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 4/30/2026
Prosecution Insights