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 .
POSITIIVE ELECTRODE ACTIVE MATERIAL, A PREPARATION METHOD THEREOF, AND A POSITIVE ELECTRODE PLATE, A SECONDARY BATTERY, AND A POWER CONSUMING DEVICE CONTAINING THE SAME
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/337,127 Art Unit: 1727 April 14, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response to Restriction filed on March 25, 2026 has been received. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species A and D in the reply filed on March 09, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Accordingly, claim 2 is withdrawn from consideration.
Specification
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 8-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites an optional structure and it is unclear as to what structure applicant intends to claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation for the mass ratio, and the claim also recites an optional mass ratio which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation of ratios, and the claim also recites an optional ratios which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites an optional broad recitation for the molar ratio, and the claim also recites an optional molar ratio which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation for each of the coating amounts, and the claim also recites an optional coating amount for each coating layer which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation for each of the contents of the elements of manganese and phosphorus and the weight ratio between the two, and the claim also recites an optional content and weight ratio which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation for the lattice change rate, and the claim also recites optional lattice change rates that are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation for the antisite defect concentration, and the claim also recites optional antisite defect concentrations that are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation for the compacted density, and the claim also recites an optional an optional compacted density that is the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation for the surface oxygen valence state, and the claim also recites an optional the surface oxygen valence state that is the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 1, 4-6, 9 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa et al. (US 2012/0315512 A1) in view of Zhang (CN 103872320 A; using machine translation for citation purposes), Gao et al. (CN 106058225 A; using machine translation for citation purposes) and Wu et al. (CN 109301174 A; using machine translation for citation purposes).
As to Claims 1, 5-6 and 17, Kitagawa discloses a lithium ion battery comprising: positive electrode plate comprising two or more types of active material, such as carbon-coated LiFePO4 and carbon-coated LiMn0.5Fe0.5PO4 which are mixed in a weight ratio of 80:20 (reads on a first active material having a core-shell structure, comprising an inner core and a first coating layer covering the inner core; and wherein a slurry is prepared having 85 wt% of the mixed active material, 7.5 wt% acetylene black, and 7.5 wt% polyacrylonitrile, and wherein the slurry is coated onto an aluminum collector to obtain the positive electrode plate (Abstract, paragraphs [0063-0070, 0081-0082 and 0085). Kitagawa does not specifically disclose wherein the first active material comprises a second coating layer covering the first coating layer and a third coating layer coating the second coating layer; the specific composition of the first and second coating layers, and wherein the inner core comprises a doping element R and the specific composition of the inner core.
However, Zhang teaches of a phosphate such as LiMn1-x-yNixNdyP1-zBzO4; where x=0.15-0.2; y=-0.025-0.04; and z= 0.07-0.13 (paragraphs [0011 and 0018]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the core of Kitagawa to comprise the claimed material because Zhang teaches that the doping of P with B improves the electron migration rate and the activity of the material (paragraph [0018]).
In addition, Gao discloses a positive electrode material having a core-shell structure, wherein the core comprises: LiMn1-xFexPO4 and the shell comprises a mixture of carbon and lithium-metal phosphate and lithium metal pyrophosphate such as LiFeP2O7, LiAlP2O7, and Li3V2(PO4)3 (paragraphs [0011-0013). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the active material of Kitagawa to comprise the claimed lithium metal pyrophosphate coating layer on the core because Gao teaches that the lithium ion diffusion path can be shortened and therefore the ion transmission performance is improved (Abstract).
In addition, Wu taches of having an intermediate transition layer comprising lithium pyrophosphate provided between lithium vanadium phosphate inner core and a carbon surface layer (paragraphs [0016]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the active material of modified Kitagawa to comprise a mixed shell layer of a pyrophosphate layer/a phosphate layer/ and a carbon layer arranged in sequence because Wu teaches that a rate performance of the battery is improved and direct contact between the electrolyte and the core is prevented (paragraph [0020]).
As to Claim 4, Kitagawa teaches wherein the coating of a conducive carbon is a result-effective variable for improving the low conductivity of the olivine (and without hampering the intended purpose of the active material, thereby negative effecting the energy density) (paragraph [0066]). Kitagawa does not specifically disclose the claimed amount of carbon coating. However, the courts have held that a parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, see MPEP 2144.05, II, B. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of carbon coating because Kitagawa teaches that the conductivity can be improved (paragraph [0066]).
As to Claim 9, the courts have held that generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical, see MPEP 2144.05, II, A. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coating amounts to read on the claim because Wu teaches that a rate performance of the battery is improved and direct contact between the electrolyte and the core is prevented (paragraph [0020]).
As to Claim 11, the amounts of manganese and phosphorus overlap with the claimed amounts, as shown in the rejections above. In addition, the courts have held that generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical, see MPEP 2144.05, II, A. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the amounts of manganese and phosphorus to read on the claim because Zhang teaches the electron migration rate and the activity of the material is improved (paragraph [0018]).
As to Claims 12-15, it is the position of the Office that the active material of modified Kitagawa intrinsically satisfies the claimed conditions given that the structure and materials used in the prior art and the claimed invention are the same, see MPEP 2112.
As to Claim 16, Kitagawa teaches wherein the sum of the mass of the active materials is 85 wt %, which is very close to the claimed range. The courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985), see MPEP 2144.05, I. In addition, the courts have held that generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical, see MPEP 2144.05, II, A. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the positive electrode of Kitagawa to comprise the claimed amount of active material because Kitagawa teaches that a battery which can prevent overcharging and over-discharging is provided (paragraph [0013]).
As to Claims 18-20, Zhang teaches of using a battery in a device such as a vehicle (reads on battery module and battery pack) (paragraph [0004]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of Kitagawa to be used in a module/pack in a device because Zhang teaches that a device can be powered electrically (paragraph [0004]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa et al. (US 2012/0315512 A1) in view of Zhang (CN 103872320 A; using machine translation for citation purposes), Gao et al. (CN 106058225 A; using machine translation for citation purposes) and Wu et al. (CN 109301174 A; using machine translation for citation purposes) as applied to claims 1, 4-6, 9 and 11-20 above and in further view of Shirakata et al. (US 2010/0248022 A1).
As to Claim 3, modified Kitagawa does not specifically disclose wherein both surfaces of the collector comprise the active material.
However, Shirakata teaches of a battery comprising a positive active material of lithium iron phosphate that is applied to both surfaces of the collector (paragraph [0027]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrode of modified Kitagawa because Shirakata teaches that a battery with improved high output characteristics and excellent safety is provided (Abstract).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa et al. (US 2012/0315512 A1) in view of Zhang (CN 103872320 A; using machine translation for citation purposes), Gao et al. (CN 106058225 A; using machine translation for citation purposes) and Wu et al. (CN 109301174 A; using machine translation for citation purposes) as applied to claims 1, 4-6, 9 and 11-20 above and in further view of Matsuda et al. (US 2013/0295463 A1).
As to Claim 8, modified Kitagawa does not specifically disclose the claimed carbon material.
However, Matsuda teaches of a cathode active material comprising a carbon coating comprising SP2 and SP3 carbon (paragraph [0026]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the carbon coating of modified Kitagawa to comprise the claimed material because Matsuda teaches that electron conductivity of the cathode is improved and a high-capacity material is provided (paragraph [0044]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa et al. (US 2012/0315512 A1) in view of Zhang (CN 103872320 A; using machine translation for citation purposes), Gao et al. (CN 106058225 A; using machine translation for citation purposes) and Wu et al. (CN 109301174 A; using machine translation for citation purposes) as applied to claims 1, 4-6, 9 and 11-20 above and in further view of Jiao et al. (CN 106558698 A; using machine translation for citation purposes).
As to Claim 10, Jiao teaches wherein the thickness of the positive active material can be 50 microns and is also a result-effective variable in providing an active material that prevents manganese dissolution and is not too expensive (paragraph [0038]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the thickness of the active material components because Jiao teaches that an active material that prevents manganese dissolution and minimizes cost is provided (paragraph [0038]).
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 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/337,127 in view of Kitagawa. The claims of the copending application and the teachings of the prior at as discussed in the rejections above teach the elements of the claimed invention. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the active material of the copending application with the second active material of Kitagawa because Kitagawa teaches that a conductive cathode with improved rate characteristics can be provided (paragraph [0068]).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADAM A ARCIERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights