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 .
POSITIVE ELECTRODE AND BATTERY EMPLOYING THE SAME
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/357,000 Art Unit: 1727 September 28, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed on May 11, 2026 has been received. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claim 1 has been amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ko on claims 1-7, 9 and 11-12 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the independent claim.
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ko and Takashi on claims 8 and 10 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the independent claim.
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) 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 12, 14, 16 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang et al. (US 2019/0198864 A1; as found in IDS dated 12/04/2023).
As to Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 12, 14, 16 and 18-19, Chang discloses a battery, comprising: a positive electrode, separator, and a negative electrode (intrinsically having a current collector and active material), wherein the positive electrode comprises: a current collector 102; a first electrode layer 104 comprising lithium manganese iron phosphate compound represented by LiMnxFe1-xPO4 (also reads on stabilized lithium metal particle of claims 9 and 12), a binder and a conductive additive such as graphite (reads on claimed first inorganic powder); a second electrode layer 106 comprising a metal containing lithium oxide (Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs [0019-0022, 0025 and 0054]). It is the position of the Office that the claimed electrical resistance ratio is intrinsically present in the prior art given that the structure and materials are the same, see MPEP 2112.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 11, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2019/0198864 A1; as found in IDS dated 12/04/2023).
As to Claims 3, 5 and 13, Chang teaches wherein the binder can be 0.5-20 wt%; the conductive materials 0.5-20 wt%; and the lithium manganese iron phosphate material is 80-99 wt% (paragraphs [0023]). These ranges overlap with the ranges in the original disclosure of the present invention. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), see MPEP 2144.05, I. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the amounts of each of the components in the active material layers to read on the claims and original disclosure because Chang teaches that a battery with improved rate charge-discharge performance is provided (paragraph [0018]).
As to Claims 11 and 15, Chang teaches wherein the second layer comprises a second binder int eh amount of 0.5-20 wt% with an active material in an amount of 80-99 wt% (paragraph [0027]). These ranges overlap with the ranges in the original disclosure of the present invention. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), see MPEP 2144.05, I. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the amounts of each of the components in the active material layers to read on the claims and original disclosure because Chang teaches that a battery with improved rate charge-discharge performance is provided (paragraph [0018]).
Claim(s) 8, 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Chang et al. (US 2019/0198864 A1; as found in IDS dated 12/04/2023) in view of Takashi et al. (JP 2012-204278; as found in IDS dated 02/21/2025 and using machine translation for citation purposes).
As to Claims 8 and 10, Chang does not specifically disclose the claimed metal oxides.
However, Takashi teaches of an electrode material for a battery, comprising a conductive additive such as graphite or an inorganic metal oxide powders such as Sn (paragraph [0023]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the inorganic metal oxide of Takashi for the conductor of Chang because Takashi teaches that high electrical conductivity can be achieved with a small amount added (paragraph [0023]). In addition, Takashi recognizes the conductor materials are functionally equivalent in providing increase electrical conductivity to an electrode. The courts have held that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results, see KSR, MPEP 2143, I, B.
As to Claim 17, Chang does not specifically disclose a liquid electrolyte.
However, Takashi teaches of a battery comprising a liquid nonaqueous electrolyte (paragraph [0030]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of Chang to comprise a liquid electrolyte because Takashi teaches that such an electrolyte is suitable for lithium battery systems and flame retardants can be used to suppress flammability (paragraph [0030]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Chang et al. (US 2019/0198864 A1; as found in IDS dated 12/04/2023) in view of Fujikawa et al. (US 2012/0321965 A1).
As to Claim 20, Chang does not specifically disclose the claimed metal oxide layer.
However, Fujikawa teaches of a lithium secondary battery comprising a metal oxide layer provided between the separator and the positive electrode (paragraph [0095]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of Chang to comprise the claimed metal oxide layer because Fujikawa teaches that battery with high capacity, excellent cycle characteristics and high safety is provided (paragraph [0016]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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
