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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed 07/28/2026 have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1-2, 12-14 is/are amended; and claim(s) 3, 5, 11, 15, and 17 has/have been canceled. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Office action mailed 05/05/2026 has/have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection below.
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.
Claims 1-2,6-8,12-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura et al. (JP-2010033924-A; copy with 05/05/2026 Office action), as evidenced by Teng et al. (Failure mechanism and voltage regulation strategy of low N/P ratio lithium iron phosphate battery; see attached copy) and Klein et al. (Synergetic effects of LiFe0.3Mn0.7PO4–LiMn1.9Al0.1O4 blend electrodes; see attached copy):
Regarding claims 1 and 12-13, Tamura discloses an electrochemical apparatus (“lithium ion secondary battery”, [0018]), reading on the preamble of claim 1, and an electronic apparatus (a charging apparatus, [0078]) comprising an electrochemical apparatus, reading on the preamble of claim 13; the electrochemical apparatus comprises a positive electrode plate (“positive electrode region”) and a negative electrode plate (“negative electrode region”) ([0040], FIG. 1), 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, i.e., LMO (“LiMn2O4”, [0043]), which is recognized as a spinel structure as evidenced by Klein (see Klein, abstract)
Tamura’s positive electrode active material is a blend of LMO:LFP:LTMO, with an experimental example using a weight ratio of 80:15:5 (Ex. 2, with LiMn1.95Al0.05O4, LiFe0.9Mn0.1PO4, LiNi0.95Al0.05O2, [0082], pp. 18 Table 1). Tamura fails to expressly indicate that when the electrochemical apparatus is at a 15% SOC, a lattice parameter a of the lithium manganese oxide ranges from 8.1170 A to 8.1908 A as claimed in claims 1 and 13, but Applicant’s experimental data evidences that this 80:15:5 LMO:LFP:LTMO blend inherently results in an a of roughly 8.1619 A (see Applicant Ex. 1-3; see FIG. A, below, comparing Applicant Ex. 1-1 to 1-8 and Comp. Ex. 1-1; inst. spec. [0070-0090, 0104], pp. 24-25 Table 1).
[Chart]
FIG. A
Tamura’s positive electrode active material (Ex. 2, 80 wt% LiMn1.95Al0.05O4, 15 wt% LiFe0.9Mn0.1PO4, 5 wt% LiNi0.95Al0.05O2, [0082], pp. 18 Table 1) further comprises both of (i.e., at least one of) a lithium transition metal composite oxide and a lithium transition metal phosphate compound as claimed in claims 1 and 13.
Theoretically, Tamura’s Ex.2 comprises 48.8% Mn based on a mass of the positive electrode active material, i.e., W1, which is greater than the claimed W1 range of 42% to 47%. However, Applicant measures the W1 values after assembling, charging, and discharging the battery at least once (inst. spec. [0046]), which significantly lowers the Mn mass percentage from the theoretical value (about 49-52 wt% Mn in the compositions of Applicant Ex. 1-1 to 1-8, [0070-0090]) to the measured values (41.5% to 46.9%, p. 24-25, Table 1). Thus, at some time between the initial manufacture and competed discharge of the electrochemical apparatus, Tamura’s W1 is inherently decreased to a value between 42% to 47% as claimed in claims 1 and 13, since these claims do not specifically recite when W1 is measured.
Tamura’s lithium manganese oxide (LiMn1.95Al0.05O4, [0082]) comprises Al as a doping element M as claimed in claims 1 and 13, where the molar percentage of the doping element M relative to Mn in the lithium manganese oxide is 2.56 mol%. While Tamura does not expressly provide examples with a doping element M relative to Mn in the LMO between 0.01-2% as claimed in claims 1 and 13, Tamura suggests substituting greater than 0 mol% M to reduce structural distortion and less than 30 mol% M to maintain the ability to occlude and release Li without an increase in impedance ([0020-0021]); the experimental example of 2.56 mol% is also appreciably similar to the claimed 2% upper endpoint.
It would therefore be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the encompassed claimed range of 0.01-2 mol% M relative to Mn through seeking to reduce the structural distortion without also increasing the impedance by optimizing the proportion of M according to Tamura’s disclosure within the suitable range of 0-30 mol% M. Furthermore, Tamura’s exemplified 2.56 mol% M (LiMn1.95Al0.05O4, [0082]) specifically suggests use of the lower portion of the 0-30 mol% range, such as the claimed 0.01-2 mol%, where such optimization would be made with a reasonable expectation of success from being done within Tamura’s suitable range (MPEP 2144.05 II).
While Tamura does not expressly specify a potential of the negative electrode plate is ≤0.56V at 0% SOC as claimed, Tamura’s example electrochemical apparatus comprises a negative/positive (N/P) electrode capacity ratio of 11.6/8=1.45 ([0071, 0070]) with a graphite negative electrode ([0071]). Teng, a study on the effects of N/P ratio (Teng, abstract), evidences in similar cells that increasing an N/P ratio to 1.2 lowers the 0% SOC negative electrode potential to 0.14V in a materially analogous graphite electrode (Teng p. 2 col. 2 ¶3, p. 3 FIGs. 2c, 2d). Tamura’s negative electrode therefore inherently comprises a potential of about 0.14V or less at 0% SOC, within the claimed range of 0.56V or less, since Tamura’s example cell has an even larger N/P ratio of 1.45.
Additionally, modified Tamura Ex. 2 comprising 15 wt% LiFe0.9Mn0.1PO4 and 5 wt% LiNi0.95Al0.05O2, (Tamura [0082], pp. 18 Table 1) falls within the compositional ranges of claim 12 characteristics (h) and (i), specifically:
(h): 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)
(i) 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).
Regarding claims 2, 14, modified Tamura discloses the electrochemical apparatus and electronic apparatus of claims 1 and 13. While Tamura does not expressly indicate a 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) as claimed in claims 2 and 14, Tamura specifically formulates the LMO:LFP:LTMO mixture of the positive electrode active material composition to prevent the elution of Mn ions from the positive electrode to the negative electrode ([0013-0015]), and teaches the doping or substituting each of the LMO/LFP/LTMO materials to reduce distortion of the positive electrode active materials which is recognized to contribute to Mn dissolution ([0020-0025], [0014]). Additionally, Klein evidences that the presence of LFP significantly reduces the Mn dissolution effects (Klein p. 176 §3.7, Manganese dissolution, FIG. 7), further evidencing that the W2 caused by Mn dissolution and elution to the negative electrode is reduced through effects of LFP component in Tamura’s positive electrode active material.
Therefore, if the W2 of modified Tamura’s negative electrode active material is not inherently close to 0% and already within the claimed range of 0.1% or less in characteristic (b), it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize at least an upper portion of the claimed range through seeking to reduce the Mn dissolution and elution to the negative electrode through adjusting the positive electrode active material composition or dopants according to Tamura’s disclosure, necessarily decreasing the W2 to approach 0% with a reasonable expectation of success since this effect is one of Tamura’s primary inventive solutions (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, modified Tamura discloses the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 1 where 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 to fill 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 requires 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).
Regarding claims 8, 18, modified 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 specifically includes LFP in the positive electrode active material for its thermal stability ([0023]). Applicant’s examples using LFP (Ex. 1-3 to 1-5, [0086-0088], p. 24 Table 1) also demonstrate a particularly high DSC start position. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the start position of the exothermic peak in Tamura Ex. 2 positive electrode plate would inherently fall into a similarly high range of at least 260°C to 280°C since Tamura specifically includes the same LFP in the positive electrode active material at the same relative proportions as Applicant’s examples for purposes of improving the thermal stability.
Assuming arguendo that Applicant convincingly proves that modified Tamura Ex. 2 does not necessarily or inherently comprise an exothermic peak in the range of 260-280 °C, Tamura further discloses substituting greater than 0 parts of Fe in the LiFePO4 material with a dopant to reduce the internal impedance, but not more than 0.2 parts in order to provide sufficient thermal stability ([0024]). It would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize at least a portion of the claimed 260-280 °C exothermic peak range through adjusting the amount of dopants modified Taura’s LiFePO4 positive electrode active material component, and thus adjusting the thermal stability and exothermic peak of the positive electrode plate (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 evidenced by Teng (Low N/P ratio […]) and Klein ([…] blend electrodes) as applied to claims 1 and 13 in view of Wang et al. (CN-109449446-A; machine translation with 05/05/2026 Office action):
Regarding claims 4, 16, modified 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 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura (JP-2010033924-A) as evidenced by Teng (Low N/P ratio […]) and Klein ([…] blend electrodes) as applied to claims 1 and 13 in view of Kim et al. (US-20230299348-A1):
Regarding claims 9-10, 19-20, modified 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the specification to correct typographical errors overcome the objection to the specification in the previous Office action of 05/05/2026.
Applicant asserts that the compositional similarities between Tamura and the instant application’s examples fail to sufficiently establish that Tamura necessarily and inherently satisfies the claimed lattice parameter range from 8.1170 A to 8.1908 A at 15% SOC when this parameter is not expressly specified or established by Tamura (Remarks p. 12-13). Additionally, Tamura fails to recognize this relationship between lattice parameter and structural distortion and Mn dissolution (p. 14).
This argument has been respectfully considered but is not found persuasive. While not expressly stated, Tamura’s positive electrode active material necessarily comprises an a parameter, being a crystalline material (Tamura [0019]). Moreover, while Examiner acknowledges that Tamura does not have identical preparation conditions, lithium-to-manganese ratio, or doping conditions, Applicant’s experimental examples establish that the 15% SOC lattice parameter a depends far more strongly on the proportions of LFP and LTMO in the positive electrode active material than any other apparent parameter. In the composition of Applicant Ex. 1-3, i.e., 80:15:5 LMO:LFP:LTMO (inst. spec. [0085], p. 24 Table 1) with an a of 8.1619, the variation from differences in the parameters above is noticeably narrower than the width of claimed range of 8.1170 A to 8.1908 A at 15% SOC (see FIG. below), such that even accounting for this variation, one would still expect Tamura Ex. 2 having the same 80:15:5 mass ratio to inherently fall within this claimed range.
[Chart]
Applicant asserts that Tamura does not report a W1 value for the positive electrode active material, and for the examples relied upon in the Office action, the theoretical W1 value of 48% are above the recited upper limit of 47% and provide no basis to conclude that the cited examples necessarily satisfy the recited range of 42%-47% (p. 13).
This argument has been respectfully considered but is not found persuasive; Tamura Ex. 2 theoretically comprises a W1 of about 48%; however, the W1 necessarily decreases from its initial value at manufacture throughout charge/discharge such that at some point in the battery operation, such that a W1 which falls within the claimed range is necessarily present.
Notably, Applicant’s example compositions should theoretically comprise about 49-52 wt% Mn based on the compositions described in Examples 1-1 to 1-8 in [0070-0090] of the specification but are measured with significantly lower W1 values of 41.5% to 46.9% (p. 24-25, Table 1) after being fully discharged ([0046]). While the cycling or storage conditions prior to measurement and the discrepancy between theoretical and experimental Mn percentage (W1) does not appear to be explained in the specification, it can be inferred from the comparable positive electrode compositions that Tamura’s W1 would similarly decrease by a similar degree after manufacture such that Tamura’s positive electrode active material necessarily has a W1 reduced to some value within the claimed range at some point of storage or cycling.
Applicant asserts that Tamura does not disclose an embodiment which falls within and anticipates the claimed range of 0.01-2% recited in claims 1 and 13 (p. 13).
While this argument has been considered, it is moot under the new grounds of rejection of claims 1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103; Applicant amendment necessitated withdrawal of the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102. The claimed dopant ranges are addressed in pp. 4 of this Office action.
Applicant asserts that the previously cited combination of Tamura and Imachi et al. (US-6482550-B1) does not identify or suggest amended claim 1 and 13’s upper limit of negative electrode plate voltage of 0.56V at 0% SOC. Applicant cites unexpected improvements to high-temperature cycling performance from the claimed negative electrode potential range (p. 13-14).
This argument has been respectfully considered but is moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Imachi’s teaching with respect to the claimed negative electrode plate potential limit at 0% SOC; see p. 5 of this Office action. Withdrawal of the previous ground of rejection has been necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 9/21/2026
Prosecution Insights