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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 03/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-13 are now withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement of 02/05/2026 in the reply filed on 03/23/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: "x is between 0-0.8" makes the endpoints of the range unclear, whether to be interpreted as Appropriate correction is required.
For examination purposes below, Examiner is interpreting this limitation as: “0 ≤ x ≤ 0.8” (which is consistent with dependent claim 4, since exemplary “lithium iron phosphate” does not include Mn, which is the case when x = 0).
Claims 2-7 are similarly objected to for their incorporation of the subject matter of base claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshinobu et al. (JP 2008034218 A, cited in 01/17/2025 IDS, with machine translation attached to present Office action).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshinobu teaches a positive electrode plate (a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery in which the positive electrode active material is a mixture of lithium iron phosphate and lithium cobaltate; lines 87-88; “the positive electrode”, line 399), comprising:
a first active material selected from a lithium iron phosphate-based material (“lithium iron phosphate” per line 92) represented by a formula LiFe1-xMnxPO4, wherein x is between 0-0.8 (see lines 113-125 teaching overlapping formula; see specifically [Example 4] in lines 427-429 wherein LiFePO4 is the first material; LiFePO4 is an example in the prior art which meets instant claim in which x=0 and thereby anticipates the claimed range per MPEP 2131.03 I); and
a second active material comprising one or more of … lithium cobaltate (“lithium cobaltate” per line 92; LiCoO2 listed in [Example 4] in lines 427-429 as second material) …;
wherein an amount of the second active material used accounts for, by mass, 10-70%, on the basis of a total mass of the first active material and the second active material (LiFePO4 and LiCoO2 were mixed at a mass ratio of 70:30, per [Example 4] in lines 427-429, such that the amount of LiCoO2 by mass on the basis of a total mass of LiFePO4 and LiCoO2 is 30/(70+30) = 30/100 = 30%; 30% falls within the range of 10-70%, and an example in the prior art which meets instantly claimed range anticipates the range per MPEP 2131.03 I).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshinobu teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and an amount of the first active material used accounts for, by mass, 30-90%, on the basis of the total mass of the first active material and the second active material (LiFePO4 and LiCoO2 were mixed at a mass ratio of 70:30, per [Example 4] in lines 427-429, such that the amount of LiFePO4 by mass on the basis of a total mass of LiFePO4 and LiCoO2 is 70/(70+30) = 70/100 = 70%; 70% falls within the range of 30-90%, and an example in the prior art which meets instantly claimed range anticipates the range per MPEP 2131.03 I).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshinobu teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and a mass ratio of the first active material to the second active material is between 3 : 7 and 9 : 1 (LiFePO4 and LiCoO2 were mixed at a mass ratio of 70:30, per [Example 4] in lines 427-429, which is equivalent to the claimed endpoint of “3:7”; an example in the prior art which meets instantly claimed range anticipates the range per MPEP 2131.03 I).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshinobu teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and the first active material is lithium iron phosphate (“lithium iron phosphate” per line 92; [Example 4] in lines 427-429 uses LiFePO4 is the first material) … (only one of list necessary to meet the claim).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshinobu et al. (JP 2008034218 A, cited in 01/17/2025 IDS, with machine translation attached to present Office action) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jin et al. (US 2020/0161641 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Yoshinobu teaches the limitations of claim 1 above but fails to explicitly teach (in the above-cited [Example 4]) that the second active material comprises at least one of nickel cobalt lithium manganate or nickel cobalt lithium aluminate.
However, Yoshinobu does teach in lines 25-28 that lithium cobaltate (LiCoO2), lithium nickelate (LiNiO2), and lithium manganate (LiMn2O4) are known lithium-containing transition metal oxides which are commonly known for use as positive electrode active materials for lithium ion secondary batteries.
Jin is analogous in the art of positive electrodes containing two active materials and teaches the first positive active material may be lithium iron phosphate ([0064]) like that of Yoshinobu (cited above). Jin further teaches toward the second positive active material being “lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide” and specifically NCM811 with the formula LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 (see [0084, 0116]), which reads on “nickel cobalt lithium manganate”. Jin [0084] explicitly teaches LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 being an alternative for LiCoO2, LiNiO2, and LiMn2O4.
From such teachings of Jin, person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Yoshinobu such that the second positive active material was LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 instead of LiCoO2 and expect desired functionality of the positive electrode. See MPEP 2144.07 and 2143 I(B) regarding known material suitable for intended use and obviousness of substitution of one known element for another.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshinobu et al. (JP 2008034218 A, cited in 01/17/2025 IDS, with machine translation attached to present Office action) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2011/0300446 A1).
Regarding claim 6 and claim 7, Yoshinobu teaches the limitations of claim 1 above but fails to explicitly teach
Claim 6: a geometric center of a distribution of the first active material is not higher than a geometric center of a distribution of the second active material in a thickness direction of the positive electrode plate.
Claim 7: a geometric center of a distribution of the first active material coincides with a geometric center of a distribution of the second active material in a thickness direction of the positive electrode plate; or the geometric center of the distribution of the first active material is below the geometric center of the distribution of the second active material.
In regards to the claim 7 limitations, Examiner notes that “or” is interpreted as exclusive or, such that only one of the two alternate limitations (recited before / after “or”) need be met to satisfy the claim.
Yoshinobu does teach that in forming the positive electrode, the positive electrode mixture undergoes physical mixing to achieve ideal uniform mixing (lines 254-256) and then such mixture is applied as a coating onto a current collector at any thickness (lines 260-265) with an exemplary thickness being 20 microns (lines 380-381).
Yang is analogous in the art of cathode composite material having two active materials, wherein a lithium iron phosphate layer is disposed on a surface of each lithium vanadium phosphate particle, and lithium iron phosphate layer includes a number of uniformly disposed lithium iron phosphate particles (abstract). Yang teaches the resulting composite mix has a weight ratio between the lithium iron phosphate layer 104 and the lithium vanadium phosphate particle 102 that is larger than 1.5 ([0036]), and the lithium iron phosphate layer 104 includes a plurality of lithium iron phosphate particles 1042 such that the plurality of lithium iron phosphate particles 1042 is disposed on an outer surface of the lithium vanadium phosphate particle 102 ([0036] and Fig. 1). As such, the lithium iron phosphate layer reads on a first positive electrode active material while the lithium vanadium phosphate reads on a second positive electrode active material (examiner also notes that “lithium vanadium phosphate” is listed among options of second active materials in instant claim 1). Yang teaches toward agitating a mixed slurry to ensure uniform coating of each of the lithium vanadium phosphate particles by the lithium iron phosphate (abstract and [0094]). Yang teaches that the lithium iron phosphate and lithium vanadium phosphate are two widely used cathode active materials, with the tradeoffs of lithium iron phosphate having high specific capacity but bad performance at low temperatures and lithium vanadium phosphate having good performance at low temperatures but low specific capacity, and teaches that it is necessary to ensure that the lithium iron phosphate and the lithium vanadium phosphate are disposed orderly so that the lithium iron phosphate can contact with the electrolyte when used in a lithium battery in order to achieve desired electrochemical properties of the electrode material ([0006]). Yang shows that such resultant composite material, with said uniform coating and orderly disposition of the lithium iron phosphate particles on the lithium vanadium phosphate particles, achieves alignment of the geometric centers of each particle (see Yang Fig. 1 in the vertical direction – reading on “a thickness direction”, where the average midpoint of all 1042 particles – reading on “a geometric center of a distribution of the first active material” – is vertically aligned with the average midpoint of all 102 particles – reading on “a geometric center of a distribution of the second active material” – by nature of the uniform coating and ordered disposition of the particles as taught toward by Yang).
From this teaching of Yang, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Yoshinobu to uniformly coat the first active material (lithium iron phosphate) as a particle layer on the outer surfaces of the second active material particles and orderly dispose such composite particles to ensure that the lithium iron phosphate can contact with the electrolyte when used in a lithium battery in order to achieve desired electrochemical properties of the electrode material, as taught toward by Yang. Such also agrees with Yoshinobu’s teaching of the ideal being uniform mixing, as cited above. Therefore, the resultant structure of the positive electrode active material layer in Yoshinobu in view of Yang (with aligned first and second geometric centers, as explained above) would meet the instant claim 6 structure of “a geometric center of a distribution of the first active material is not higher than a geometric center of a distribution of the second active material in a thickness direction of the positive electrode plate” and instant claim 7 structure of “a geometric center of a distribution of the first active material coincides with a geometric center of a distribution of the second active material in a thickness direction of the positive electrode plate”.
Thereby, claims 6-7 are rendered obvious.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jin et al. (US 2020/0161641 A1, as cited above in the 103 section) teaches the alternate embodiment of instant claim 7, wherein: the geometric center of the distribution of the first active material (underlying positive active material layer 12 in Fig. 1; preferable to use the first positive active material in the underlying positive active material layer, in particular lithium iron phosphate, [0173]) is below the geometric center of the distribution of the second active material (upper positive active material layer 14 in Fig. 1).
Konishi et al. (US 2010/0081055 A1) teaches first cathode active material having a composition ratio of Ni:Mn:Co=70:15:15, second cathode active material having a composition ratio of Ni:Mn:Co=40:30:30, the composite first cathode active material and the composite second cathode active material were mixed at a mass ratio of 30:70, the slurry uniformly mixed was applied to an aluminum foil current collector having a thickness of 20 micron ([0060-0062]), and shows approximately that the geometric centers of the first and second composite active materials align/coincide (Fig. 1).
Lee (US 2022/0216466 A1) teaches when the positive electrode active material layer is equally divided into five in the thickness-wise direction, the five equal divisions may be referred to as a first positive electrode active material layer, a second positive electrode active material layer, a third positive electrode active material layer, a fourth positive electrode active material layer and a fifth positive electrode active material layer in an order of from the surface portion of the positive electrode active material layer farthest away from the current collector to the positive electrode active material layer portion in contact with the current collector ([0058], Fig. 2) and studied a gradual change of the distribution of the atomic layer deposition coating layer from the surface to the current collector ([0059]); the atomic layer deposition coating layer may comprise at least one of oxide, … or phosphate of metal ([0017]); the positive electrode active material may include at least one of lithium cobalt oxide, lithium nickel oxide, lithium manganese oxide, lithium cobalt-nickel oxide, lithium cobalt-manganese oxide, lithium manganese-nickel oxide, lithium cobalt-nickel-manganese oxide, lithium cobalt-nickel-manganese-aluminum oxide ([0043]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessie Walls-Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-1664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, typically 10-4.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/JESSIE WALLS-MURRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights