DETAILED ACTION
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 1-14, 19 and 20 in the reply filed on March 23, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 23, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on June 27, 2023, April 29, 2025 and January 30, 2026 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 11-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0190584, hereinafter Wu in view of Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 103682266, hereinafter Xiao and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0294474, hereinafter Zhamu.
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches a positive electrode active material, which is a doped lithium metal phosphate with the general formula: LiMnxFe1-xP1-aSibMcO4-dFd (paragraph [0005]). The formula corresponds to the instantly claimed formula as follows:
Fe stands for the instantly claimed B;
(1-x) corresponds to the instantly claimed y, x is in the range 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 0.9 (paragraph [0005]) – therefore (1-x) is in the range 0.1 to 0.9;
Si and M stand for the instantly claimed C, M may be B (boron) or S (paragraph [0005]);
(b+c) corresponds to the instantly claimed z, (b+c) is in the range 0 < (b+c) < 0.25 (paragraph [0005]);
F stands for the instantly claimed D;
d corresponds to the instantly claimed n and is in the range d < 2(b+c) (paragraph [0005]) – therefore d < 0.5.
Wu teaches that the compound is electrically neutral (paragraph [0006]).
Wu fails to teach: 1) an element A doped on the lithium site; and 2) a coating layer comprising a polymer comprising a polysiloxane.
Regarding 1), it is recognized in the art that doping on the lithium site of a lithium manganese phosphate can improve the mobility of lithium ions. See, e.g. Xiao, who teaches the compound Li1-xAxMn1-yByPO4 (paragraphs [0009, 0010, 0020]). In Xiao’s compound:
A corresponds to the instantly claimed A and may be Zn or Mg (paragraphs [0009, 0010]);
x corresponds to the instantly claimed x and is in the range 0.01 ≤ x ≤ 0.15 (paragraph [0009]);
(1-x) corresponds to the instantly claimed a and is in the range 0.85 ≤ (1-x) ≤ 0.99 (paragraph [0009]);
B corresponds to the instantly claimed B and may be Fe (paragraph [0010]);
y corresponds to the instantly claimed y and is in the range 0.01 ≤ y ≤ 0.15 (paragraph [0009]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dope at the lithium site in Wu’s material with Zn or Mg as taught by Xiao for the purpose of accelerating the rate of lithium insertion and extraction.
Regarding 2), Zhamu teaches a positive electrode active material comprising an inner core (18) and a coating layer (22) coating the inner core (18) (paragraphs [0016, 0069] and figure 2B). The inner core (18) is a lithium metal phosphate (paragraph [0076]) and the coating layer comprises a vinyl methyl silicone (VMQ) (“polymethylvinylsiloxane”) (paragraph [0088]). Vinyl methyl silicone is a polysiloxane with a linear structure. Zhamu teaches that the coating layer improves the cycling behavior and capacity of the material while also protecting it from the electrolyte (paragraph [0122]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a coating layer comprising VMQ on the positive active material taught by Wu as modified by Xiao for the purpose of improving its cycling behavior and capacity while also protecting it from the electrolyte.
The optimum ranges for the values equivalent to the instant x, y, z and n in Wu as modified by Xiao overlap the instant application's optimum ranges of 0.001 to 0.1, 0.001 to 0.5, 0.001 to 0.1 and 0.001 to 0.1, respectively. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Wu as modified by Xiao and Zhamu teaches VMQ (Zhamu’s paragraph [0088]).
VMQ comprises a structure unit with the claimed formula with R1 and R2 being methyl groups (C1 aliphatic hydrocarbon groups).
Regarding claim 3, Wu as modified by Xiao and Zhamu teaches VMQ (Zhamu’s paragraph [0088]). VMQ has a linear structure and a methyl capping group.
Regarding claim 4, Wu as modified by Xiao and Zhamu teaches VMQ (“polymethylvinylsiloxane”) (Zhamu’s paragraph [0088]).
Regarding claim 5, Wu as modified by Xiao and Zhamu teaches VMQ (Zhamu’s paragraph [0088]). VMQ has a linear structure.
Regarding claim 7, Wu as modified by Xiao and Zhamu teaches VMQ (“polymethylvinylsiloxane”) (Zhamu’s paragraph [0088]).
VMQ does not have polar functional groups and therefore has a polar functional group mass content percentage of zero.
Regarding claim 9, Wu as modified by Xiao and Zhamu teaches a carbon coating layer between the inner core and the polymer coating layer (Wu’s paragraph [0010], Xiao’s paragraph [0026] and Zhamu’s paragraph [0069] and figure 2B).
Regarding claim 11, Wu as modified by Xiao teaches that:
(1-x) (this is instant y) is in the range 0.1 ≤ 1-x ≤ 0.9 (Wu’s paragraph [0005]);
(b+c) (this is instant z) is in the range (b+c) ≤ 0.25 (Wu’s paragraph [0005]);
D (this is instant n) is in the range d < 0.5 (Wu’s paragraph [0005]).
The optimum ranges for the values equivalent to the instant y, z and n in Wu as modified by Xiao overlap the instant application's optimum ranges of 0.01 to 0.5, 0.001 to 0.005 and 0.001 to 0.005, respectively. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 12, in the compound of Wu as modified by Xiao:
the instantly claimed ratio (1-y) : y is given by Wu’s x : (1-x), which is in the range 0.11 to 9 (Wu’s paragraph [0005]);
the instantly claimed ratio a : x is given by Xiao’s (1-x) : x, which is in the range 5.7 to 99 (Xiao’s paragraph [0009]).
The optimum ranges for the values equivalent to the instant (1-y) : y and a : x in Wu as modified by Xiao overlap the instant application's optimum ranges of 1 to 4 and 9 to 1100, respectively. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 13, Wu as modified by Xiao teaches the instantly claimed positive electrode active material.
Wu as modified by Xiao does not report on the lattice change rate of the material.
It is noted that applicant attributes the lattice change rate to doping at the lithium and manganese sites at the claimed ranges.
The material of Wu as modified by Xiao has the claimed doping at the lithium and manganese sites, it is thus expected to have the claimed lattice change rate.
Regarding claim 14, Wu as modified by Xiao and Zhamu teaches a secondary battery comprising the positive electrode active material of claim 1 (Wu’s paragraphs [0034, 0035]).
Regarding claim 19, Wu teaches a positive electrode plate. The positive electrode plate comprises an aluminum foil current collector and a positive electrode film layer provided on both surfaces of the aluminum foil current collector (paragraph [0061]).
The positive electrode film layer includes a positive electrode active material, which is a doped lithium metal phosphate with the general formula: LiMnxFe1-xP1-aSibMcO4-dFd (paragraph [0005]). The formula corresponds to the instantly claimed formula as follows:
Fe stands for the instantly claimed B;
(1-x) corresponds to the instantly claimed y, x is in the range 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 0.9 (paragraph [0005]) – therefore (1-x) is in the range 0.1 to 0.9;
Si and M stand for the instantly claimed C, M may be B (boron) or S (paragraph [0005]);
(b+c) corresponds to the instantly claimed z, (b+c) is in the range 0 < (b+c) < 0.25 (paragraph [0005]);
F stands for the instantly claimed D;
d corresponds to the instantly claimed n and is in the range d < 2(b+c) (paragraph [0005]) – therefore d < 0.5.
Wu teaches that the compound is electrically neutral (paragraph [0006]).
The positive electrode active material is present at 94 wt% based on a total weight of the positive electrode film layer (paragraph [0061]).
Wu fails to teach: 1) an element A doped on the lithium site; and 2) a coating layer comprising a polymer comprising a polysiloxane.
Regarding 1), it is recognized in the art that doping on the lithium site of a lithium manganese phosphate can improve the mobility of lithium ions. See, e.g. Xiao, who teaches the compound Li1-xAxMn1-yByPO4 (paragraphs [0009, 0010, 0020]). In Xiao’s compound:
A corresponds to the instantly claimed A and may be Zn or Mg (paragraphs [0009, 0010]);
x corresponds to the instantly claimed x and is in the range 0.01 ≤ x ≤ 0.15 (paragraph [0009]);
(1-x) corresponds to the instantly claimed a and is in the range 0.85 ≤ (1-x) ≤ 0.99 (paragraph [0009]);
B corresponds to the instantly claimed B and may be Fe (paragraph [0010]);
y corresponds to the instantly claimed y and is in the range 0.01 ≤ y ≤ 0.15 (paragraph [0009]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dope at the lithium site in Wu’s material with Zn or Mg as taught by Xiao for the purpose of accelerating the rate of lithium insertion and extraction.
Regarding 2), Zhamu teaches a positive electrode active material comprising an inner core (18) and a coating layer (22) coating the inner core (18) (paragraphs [0016, 0069] and figure 2B). The inner core (18) is a lithium metal phosphate (paragraph [0076]) and the coating layer comprises a vinyl methyl silicone (VMQ) (paragraph [0088]). Vinyl methyl silicone is a polysiloxane with a linear structure. Zhamu teaches that the coating layer improves the cycling behavior and capacity of the material while also protecting it from the electrolyte (paragraph [0122]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a coating layer comprising VMQ on the positive active material taught by Wu as modified by Xiao for the purpose of improving its cycling behavior and capacity while also protecting it from the electrolyte.
The optimum ranges for the values equivalent to the instant x, y, z and n in Wu as modified by Xiao overlap the instant application's optimum ranges of 0.001 to 0.1, 0.001 to 0.5, 0.001 to 0.1 and 0.001 to 0.1, respectively. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0190584, hereinafter Wu in view of Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 103682266, hereinafter Xiao and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0294474, hereinafter Zhamu as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Ceram. Int., 42, pp11348-11354, hereinafter Huang.
Regarding claim 10, Wu as modified by Xiao teaches that:
instantly claimed A may be Mg or Zn (Xiao’s paragraphs [0009, 0010]);
instantly claimed B is Fe (Wu’s paragraph [0005] and Table 2 and Xiao’s paragraph [0010]);
instantly claimed C is Si (Wu’s paragraph [0005] and Table 2);
instantly claimed D is F (Wu’s paragraph [0005] and Table 2).
Wu as modified by Xiao fails to teach that the instantly claimed B includes two of the enumerated elements.
It is well-known in the art to dope at the Mn site of a lithium manganese phosphate with two elements. See, e.g. Huang who enumerates studies that have shown that doping at the Mn site with Fe and Mg improves the performance of the material compared to just doping at the Mn site with Fe (Huang’s Introduction section, 2nd paragraph).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in addition to the Fe another element such as Mg as a dopant at the Mn site of the material of Wu as modified by Xu for the purpose of improving the performance of the material.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0190584, hereinafter Wu in view of Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 103682266, hereinafter Xiao and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0294474, hereinafter Zhamu as applied to claim 19 above and further in view of over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0330623, hereinafter Matsushita.
Regarding claim 20, Wu as modified by Xiao and Zhamu teaches a positive electrode film layer comprising a doped lithium metal oxide, conductive material and binder (Wu’s paragraph [0061]).
Wu as modified by Xiao and Zhamu fails to report the porosity of the positive electrode film layer.
Matsushita teaches a positive electrode film layer comprising a doped lithium metal oxide, conductive material and binder (paragraphs [0056-0061]). Matsushita teaches that a preferred porosity for this type of layer is in the range 30% to 50% (abstract, paragraph [0073]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure that the positive electrode film layer of Wu as modified by Xiao and Zhamu has a porosity in the range 30% to 50% for the purpose of achieving optimal performance.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0204415, hereinafter Takanashi in view of Japanese Patent Publication No. 2002-198050, hereinafter Nakamura.
Regarding claim 1, Takanashi teaches a positive electrode active material comprising an inner core and a coating layer coating the inner core. The coating layer comprises a polymer. The polymer comprises a polysiloxane such as polydimethylsiloxane (paragraph [0074]). Polydimethylsiloxane has a linear structure.
Takanashi teaches that the positive electrode active material may be any known positive electrode active material (paragraph [0077]). Takanashi specifically mentions lithium-manganese composite oxides (paragraph [0077]).
Takanashi fails to teach that the positive electrode active material satisfies the instantly claimed formula.
Nakamura teaches that lithium metal phosphate compounds are preferred positive active materials relative to lithium oxides such as lithium manganese oxides (paragraphs [0003-0005]). Nakamura further teaches multi-doping the lithium metal phosphates to achieve superior battery performance (paragraph [0008]).
Nakamura’s material has the general formula: Li1-xAxFe1-y-zMyMezP1-mXmO4-nZn (paragraphs [0013, 0014]). The formula corresponds to the instantly claimed formula as follows:
A corresponds to the instantly claimed A and may be Na or K (paragraph [0015]);
x corresponds to the instantly claimed x and is in the range 0 ≤ x ≤ 0.1 (paragraph [0015]);
Fe stands for the instantly claimed B;
M may be Mn (paragraph [0016]);
1-y-z corresponds to the instantly claimed y, z may be zero, y is in the range 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.5 (paragraphs [0016-0018]) - therefore 1-y-z is in the range 0.5 ≤ 1-y-z ≤ 1;
X corresponds to the instantly claimed C and may be S, Si or N (paragraph [0019]);
m corresponds to the instantly claimed z and is in the range 0 ≤ m ≤ 0.3 (paragraph [0019]);
Z corresponds to the instantly claimed D and may be F, Cl or Br (paragraph [0020]).
n corresponds to the instantly claimed n and is in the range 0 ≤ n ≤ 0.5 (paragraph [0020]);
The compound is electrically neutral.
It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Nakamura’s positive active material as the inner core of Takanashi’s material for the purpose of taking advantage of its superior performance.
The optimum ranges for the values equivalent to the instant x, y, z and n in Takanashi as modified by Nakamura overlap the instant application's optimum ranges of 0.001 to 0.1, 0.001 to 0.5, 0.001 to 0.1 and 0.001 to 0.1, respectively. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Takanashi teaches polydimethylsiloxane (paragraph [0074]). Polydimethylsiloxane includes a repeating unit with the claimed formula and with R1 and R2 being methyl groups (C1 aliphatic hydrocarbon groups).
Regarding claim 4, Takanashi teaches polydimethylsiloxane (paragraph [0074]).
Regarding claim 5, Takanashi teaches polydimethylsiloxane (paragraph [0074]). Polydimethylsiloxane has a linear structure.
Regarding claim 8, Takanashi teaches that a coating amount of the polymer is 0.1 to 5 parts by mass based on a weight of the core (paragraph [0075]).
Takanashi further teaches that a coating amount of the whole coating layer based on a weight of the core is in the range 0.42 to 2.7 parts by mass (Table 1).
Regarding claim 11, Takanashi as modified by Nakamura teaches that:
x is in the range 0 ≤ x ≤ 0.1 (Nakamura’s paragraph [0015]);
1-y-z (this is instant y) is in the range 0.5 ≤ 1-y-z ≤ 1 (Nakamura’s paragraphs [0016-0018]);
m (this is instant z) is in the range 0 ≤ m ≤ 0.3 (Nakamura’s paragraph [0019]);
n is in the range 0 ≤ n ≤ 0.5 (Nakamura’s paragraph [0020]).
The optimum ranges for the values equivalent to the instant x, y, z and n in Takanashi as modified by Nakamura overlap the instant application's optimum ranges of 0.001 to 0.005, 0.01 to 0.5, 0.001 to 0.005 and 0.001 to 0.005, respectively. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 12, Takanashi as modified by Nakamura teaches the general formula: Li1-xAxFe1-y-zMyMezP1-mXmO4-nZn (Nakamura’s paragraphs [0013, 0014]).
The instantly claimed ratio (1-y) : y is given by Nakamura’s y : (1-y-z).
As already detailed above, y is in the range 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.5, z may be zero, (Nakamura’s paragraphs [0016-0018]) - therefore 1-y-z is in the range 0.5 ≤ 1-y-z ≤ 1.
As such, y : (1-y-z) is in the range 0 to 1.
The instantly claimed ratio a : x is given by Nakamura’s (1-x) : x.
As already detailed above, x is in the range 0 ≤ x ≤ 0.1 (Nakamura’s paragraph [0015]).
As such, (1-x) : x is in the range 9 to infinity.
The optimum ranges for the values equivalent to the instant (1-y) : y and a : x in Takanashi as modified by Nakamura overlap the instant application's optimum ranges of 1 to 4 and 9 to 1100, respectively. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 14, Takanashi as modified by Nakamura teaches a secondary battery comprising the positive electrode active material of claim 1 (Takanashi’s paragraph [0083]).
Regarding claim 19, Takanashi teaches a positive electrode plate. The positive electrode plate includes a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode film layer provided on a surface of the positive electrode current collector (paragraph [0086]).
The positive electrode film layer includes a positive electrode active material comprising an inner core and a coating layer coating the inner core. The coating layer comprises a polymer. The polymer comprises a polysiloxane such as polydimethylsiloxane (paragraph [0074]). Polydimethylsiloxane has a linear structure.
A content of the positive electrode active material in the positive electrode film layer is in the range 60% to 95% by mass of the total weight of the positive electrode film layer (paragraph [0085]).
Takanashi teaches that the positive electrode active material may be any known positive electrode active material (paragraph [0077]). Takanashi specifically mentions lithium-manganese composite oxides (paragraph [0077]).
Takanashi fails to teach that the positive electrode active material satisfies the instantly claimed formula.
Nakamura teaches that lithium metal phosphate compounds are preferred positive active materials relative to lithium oxides such as lithium manganese oxides (paragraphs [0003-0005]). Nakamura further teaches multi-doping the lithium metal phosphates to achieve superior battery performance (paragraph [0008]).
Nakamura’s material has the general formula: Li1-xAxFe1-y-zMyMezP1-mXmO4-nZn (paragraphs [0013, 0014]). The formula corresponds to the instantly claimed formula as follows:
A corresponds to the instantly claimed A and may be Na or K (paragraph [0015]);
x corresponds to the instantly claimed x and is in the range 0 ≤ x ≤ 0.1 (paragraph [0015]);
Fe stands for the instantly claimed B;
M may be Mn (paragraph [0016]);
1-y-z corresponds to the instantly claimed y, z may be zero, y is in the range 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.5 (paragraphs [0016-0018]) - therefore 1-y-z is in the range 0.5 ≤ 1-y-z ≤ 1;
X corresponds to the instantly claimed C and may be S, Si or N (paragraph [0019]);
m corresponds to the instantly claimed z and is in the range 0 ≤ m ≤ 0.3 (paragraph [0019]);
Z corresponds to the instantly claimed D and may be F, Cl or Br (paragraph [0020]).
n corresponds to the instantly claimed n and is in the range 0 ≤ n ≤ 0.5 (paragraph [0020]);
It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Nakamura’s positive active material as the inner core of Takanashi’s material for the purpose of taking advantage of its superior performance.
The optimum ranges for the values equivalent to the instant x, y, z and n in Takanashi as modified by Nakamura overlap the instant application's optimum ranges of 0.001 to 0.1, 0.001 to 0.5, 0.001 to 0.1 and 0.001 to 0.1, respectively. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0204415, hereinafter Takanashi in view of Japanese Patent Publication No. 2002-198050, hereinafter Nakamura, with evidence from U.S. Patent No. 5,464,689, hereinafter Matsumura.
Regarding claim 3, Takanashi teaches polydimethylsiloxane (paragraph [0074]). Polydimethylsiloxane has a linear structure.
In an example, Takanashi teaches the polysiloxane with commercial name KPN3504 (paragraph [0116]). This compound has a methyl capping group – see, Matsumura (col. 7, lines 11-20).
Regarding claim 7, Takanashi teaches in an example the polysiloxane with commercial name KPN3504 (paragraph [0116]). This compound includes an amine group (polar functional group) at one end of the polymer chain – see, Matsumura (col. 7, lines 11-20). The mass content percentage of the amine group is less than 50%.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0204415, hereinafter Takanashi in view of Japanese Patent Publication No. 2002-198050, hereinafter Nakamura, with evidence from U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0071604, hereinafter Takei.
Regarding claim 6, Takanashi teaches in an example the polysiloxane with commercial name PRX413 (paragraph [0112]). This compound has a weight-average molecular weight of 6,000 – see, Takei (paragraph [0193]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0204415, hereinafter Takanashi in view of Japanese Patent Publication No. 2002-198050, hereinafter Nakamura as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Ceram. Int., 42, pp11348-11354, hereinafter Huang.
Regarding claim 10, Takanashi as modified by Nakamura teaches that:
instantly claimed A is one of Na and K (Nakamura’s paragraph [0015]);
instantly claimed C is one of Si, S and N (Nakamura’s paragraph [0019]);
instantly claimed D is one of S, F, Cl and Br (Nakamura’s paragraph [0020]).
Instantly claimed B may be Mn (Nakamura’s paragraph [0016]).
Takanashi as modified by Nakamura fails to teach that the instantly claimed B includes two of the enumerated elements.
It is well-known in the art to dope at the Mn site of a lithium manganese phosphate with two elements. See, e.g. Huang who enumerates studies that have shown that doping at the Mn site with Fe and Mg improves the performance of the material compared to just doping at the Mn site with Fe (Huang’s Introduction section, 2nd paragraph).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in addition to the Fe another element such as Mg as a dopant at the Mn site of the material of Takanashi as modified by Nakamura for the purpose of improving the performance of the material.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0204415, hereinafter Takanashi in view of Japanese Patent Publication No. 2002-198050, hereinafter Nakamura as applied to claim 19 above and further in view of over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0330623, hereinafter Matsushita.
Regarding claim 20, Takanashi as modified by Nakamura teaches a positive electrode film layer comprising a doped lithium metal oxide, conductive material and binder (Takanashi’s paragraphs [0085, 0086]).
Takanashi as modified by Nakamura fails to report the porosity of the positive electrode film layer.
Matsushita teaches a positive electrode film layer comprising a doped lithium metal oxide, conductive material and binder (paragraphs [0056-0061]). Matsushita teaches that a preferred porosity for this type of layer is in the range 30% to 50% (abstract, paragraph [0073]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure that the positive electrode film layer of Takanashi as modified by Nakamura has a porosity in the range 30% to 50% for the purpose of achieving optimal performance.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14, 19 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13, 19 and 20 of copending Application No. 18/772,071 in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0294474, hereinafter Zhamu.
Claims 1-13, 19 and 20 of the copending application include all of the limitations of instant claims 1-14, 19 and 20 except for requiring that the polysiloxane compound is comprised within a coating layer on the positive electrode active material and a secondary battery.
Zhamu teaches applying a coating layer comprising polysiloxane on a positive electrode active material for the purpose of protecting the material from the electrolyte and enhancing its performance. Zhamu also teaches a secondary battery including the positive electrode active material. Therefore it would have been obvious to include the polysiloxane in a coating layer on the positive electrode active material and to form a battery using the positive electrode active material.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILIA V NEDIALKOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-1538. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 - 5.00 PM.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
LILIA V. NEDIALKOVA
Examiner
Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights