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 .
Response to Amendment
Per Applicant’s response dated 7/28/2026, Claims 1 and 5-6 are amended. Claims 4 and 8 are canceled. Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-14 are pending and examined. Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection of claim 6, thus, the rejection is withdrawn. In view of Applicant’s Response dated 7/28/2026, the rejections provided in the Office Action dated 04/28/2026 are modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1-3, 5-6, 9, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. [CN115020678A, as provided on the IDS dated 06/11/2024 and the EPO, machine translation relied upon provided], hereinafter Wu.
Regarding Claim 1, Wu discloses a cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery [Wu n0004 and throughout] comprising a plurality of a lithium metal oxide particle that comprises a core containing a lithium iron phosphate-based compound and being doped with at least one metal element of Ti and V [Wu n0004-n0008, n0039 and throughout, LixMnyFe1-y-zMzPO4 where the dopant M is Ti and/or V]; and
a carbon coating formed on the core [Wu n0010-n0011, n0022-n0023 and throughout, The broadest reasonable interpretation of Wu is that the lithium metal oxide particles, which includes the Ti and/or V doped core particle, are coated with carbon [n0010-n0011] and are further coated by the conductive agent, which is carbon, when used in a battery [n0022-n0023],
wherein a ratio of an intensity of a peak corresponding to PO4 relative to an intensity of a D band measured by a Raman spectroscopy analysis is necessarily in a range from 0.10 to 0.33, and a ratio of the intensity of the peak corresponding to PO4 relative to an intensity of a G band measured by the Raman spectroscopy analysis is in a range from 0.10 to 0.33 [Per MPEP 2112.01, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The claimed ratio of intensity of peaks PO4 and D band and PO4 and G band would be inherent since the limitation merely recites a property of a lithium iron phosphate compound doped with at least on of Ti and V and coated with carbon. Thus, Wu anticipates the claim.].
Regarding Claim 2, Wu discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the intensity of the D band is a maximum value of a peak intensity measured at a Raman shift from 1200 cm-1 to 1400 cm-1, and the intensity of the peak corresponding to PO4 is a maximum value of a peak intensity measured at a Raman shift from 945 cm-1 to 955 cm-1 [Per MPEP 2112.01, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The claimed ranges of Raman shifts for the maximum value of a peak intensity of the D band and the intensity of a peak corresponding to PO4 would be inherent since the claim merely recites a property of the cathode active material of claim 1 and thus Wu anticipates the claim.].
Regarding Claim 3, Wu discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the ratio of the intensity of the peak corresponding to PO4 relative to the intensity of the D band measured by the Raman spectroscopy analysis is greater than 0.10 and less than or equal to 0.30 [Per MPEP 2112.01, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The claimed ratio of intensity of peaks PO4 and D band would be inherent since the limitation merely recites a property of the cathode active material of claim 1 and thus Wu anticipates the claim.].
Regarding Claim 5, Wu discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 4, wherein the intensity of the G band is a maximum value of a peak intensity measured at a Raman shift from 1,500 cm-1 to 1,700 cm-1 1 [Per MPEP 2112.01, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The claimed range of Raman shift for the maximum value of a peak intensity of the G band would be inherent since the limitation merely recites a property of the cathode active material of claim 1 and thus Wu anticipates the claim.].
Regarding Claim 6, Wu discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 4, wherein a ratio of the intensity of the D band relative to the intensity of the G band measured by the Raman spectroscopy analysis is in a range from 0.7 to 1.1 [Per MPEP 2112.01, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The claimed ratio of intensity of D band and G band would be inherent since the limitation merely recites a property of the cathode active material of claim 1 and thus Wu anticipates the claim.].
Regarding Claim 9, Wu discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the core further contains another doping metal other than Ti, V and Mn [Wu n0004-n0008, n0039 and throughout, Wu teaches LixMnyFe1-y-zMzPO4 where the dopant M includes any one or at least two combinations of Mg, Co, Ni, Ti, V, Cr and Zr].
Regarding Claim 14, Wu discloses a lithium secondary battery, comprising: a cathode comprising the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1; and an anode facing the cathode [Wu n0021-n0032 and throughout].
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.
Claim(s) 7, 10-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, as provided for claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 7, Wu discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein a doping content of the metal element in the core is in a range from 300 ppm to 8,000ppm based on a total weight of the core [Wu n0008, Wu teaches Li x Mn y Fe 1-yz M z PO 4 , wherein 0.9≤x≤1.1, 0.5≤y≤0.95, 0.0005≤z≤0.01, where the dopant is M. The range of M (0.0005≤z≤0.01) is 500 ppm to 10,000 ppm, which overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding Claim 10, Wu discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the core includes a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 below: [Chemical Formula 1] LixFeyM1aM2bPzO4 wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, M1 includes at least one of Ti, V and Mn, and M2 includes at least one of Mg, Ca, Sr, Y, Zr, Ba, Ni and Co, and 0.9≤x≤1.1, 0.1≤y≤1.01, 0.96≤z≤1.04, 0<a≤0.9, 0≤b<0.9 and 0<a+b≤0.9 [Wu n0004-n0008, n0039 and throughout, Wu teaches LixMnyFe1-y-zMzPO4 , where 0.9≤x≤1.1, 0.5≤y≤0.95, 0.0005≤z≤0.01, and where the dopant M includes any one or at least two combinations of Mg, Co, Ni, Ti, V, Cr and Zr. Thus, the claimed x is Wu’s x with overlapping ranges, the claimed y is Wu’s 1-y-z with overlapping ranges, the claimed M1 is Mn in Wu’s formula where the claimed a is y is 0.5 to 0.95 with overlapping ranges, the claimed M2 is one or more of Wu’s dopants and the claimed b is Wu’s z with overlapping ranges, and the claimed z is 1. Thus, Wu’s formula overlaps and obviates the claimed ranges. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.].
Regarding Claim 11, Wu discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein a content of the carbon coating is in a range from 0.5 wt% to 2.3 wt% based on a total weight of the lithium metal oxide particle [Wu n0011 and throughout, Wu teaches 1 wt% to 3 wt%, which overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.].
Regarding Claim 13, Wu discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein an average particle diameter (D50) of the plurality of lithium metal oxide particle is in a range from 0.2 μm to 15 μm [Wu n0013 and throughout, Wu teaches 0.7 to 3 µm, which overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.].
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9-11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Yamashita et al. US20170301919A1 [provided on the IDS dated 09/01/2023 as KR20170063540A], hereinafter Yamashita, in view of Wu et al. [CN115020678A, as provided on the IDS dated 06/11/2024 and the EPO, machine translation relied upon previously provided], hereinafter Wu.
Regarding Claim 1, Yamashita discloses a cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery [Yamashita abstract and throughout] comprising a plurality of a lithium metal oxide particle that comprises a core containing a lithium iron phosphate-based compound and being doped with at least one metal element [Yamashita 0036, 0038, 0077, and throughout, formula A, where Mc is the dopant and the amount of Mc can be near 0 (0≦c≦0.02 in formula A), which reads on a dopant level]; and
a carbon coating formed on the core [Yamashita 0041-0042, The broadest reasonable interpretation of Yamashita is that the lithium metal oxide particles are coated with carbon.],
wherein a ratio of an intensity of a peak corresponding to PO4 relative to an intensity of a D band measured by a Raman spectroscopy analysis is in a range from 0.10 to 0.33, and a ratio of an intensity of a peak corresponding to PO4 relative to an intensity of a G band measured by a Raman spectroscopy analysis is in a range greater than 0.10 and less than or equal to 0.33 [Per MPEP 2112.01, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Thus, the claimed ratio of intensity of peaks PO4 and D band and PO4 and G band would be inherent since the limitation merely recites a property of the recited cathode active material. Further, for all the samples shown in Figs. 1 and 5, the ratio of IPO4/ID and IPO4/IG appears to overlap the claimed range or be merely close. Thus, it would be expected that the ratio can be met for Yamashita’s compositions. Further, Yamashita explicitly teaches IPO4/IG is 0.11 to 0.25 when the carbon is derived from cellulose fiber having a diameter more than 1000 nm is carbonized and supported on the positive active material, which overlaps and obviates the claimed range [Yamashita 0049]. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" or are “merely close” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.].
Yamashita teaches LiFeaMnbMcPO4 with dopants M where M is Mg, Ca, Sr, Y, Zr, Mo, Ba, Pb, Bi, La, Ce, Nd or Gd [Yamashita 0019 and throughout] but is silent to the dopant element is at least one of Ti and V. Wu teaches LixMnyFe1-y-zMzPO4 with M as a dopant that can be at least one of Ti and V [Wu n0004-n0008, n0039 and throughout, Wu teaches LixMnyFe1-y-zMzPO4 where the dopant M includes any one or at least two combinations of Mg, Co, Ni, Ti, V, Cr and Zr]. Yamashita and Wu would be considered analogous art and they teach the overlapping dopants Mg and Zr. Thus, Wu’s dopants would be considered art recognized dopants for suitable for doping lithium metal phosphate, which the skilled artisan would expect could be substituted or combined with Yamashita’s dopants as dopants for Yamashita’s lithium metal phosphate.
Per Yamashita’s teaching, the ratios of intensity of the peaks corresponding to PO4 , D band, and G band are similar except for when the carbon coating applied used carbon nanotubes [Yamashita 0105-0134, Figs. 1-2 and 5]. Also, Yamashita does not teach that composition or doping species affects the ratios. Thus, the skilled artisan would expect Yamashita’s peak intensity ratios would be similar for all compositions taught by Yamashita and that dopants, including the substitution of Ti or V as the dopant, would not affect the ratio or the intensities. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Wu’s dopant elements in Yamashita’s cathode active material for the predictable result of a lithium iron phosphate-based cathode material with known dopants for supporting the electronic/ionic conductivity of the positive electrode active material and enhance its capacity and rate performance [Wu n0009]. See MPEP 2143 (A).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Yamashita discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the intensity of the D band is a maximum value of a peak intensity measured at a Raman shift from 1200 cm-1 to 1400 cm-1, and the intensity of the peak corresponding to PO4 is a maximum value of a peak intensity measured at a Raman shift from 945 cm-1 to 955 cm-1 [Per MPEP 2112.01, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The claimed ranges of Raman shifts for the maximum value of a peak intensity of the D band and the intensity of a peak corresponding to PO4 would be inherent since the limitation merely recites a property of the cathode active material of claim 1. Further, Yamashita teaches the peak position for the D band is near 1350 cm-1, which anticipates the claimed range and the PO4 peak position is near 950 cm-1, which anticipates the claimed range [Yamashita 0047]. For all the samples shown in Figs. 1 and 5, the ranges for the D band and the peak corresponding to PO4 appear to overlap both claimed ranges or be merely close. Thus, it would be expected that the claimed ranges can be met for Yamashita’s compositions. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" or are “merely close” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. ].
Regarding Claim 3, modified Yamashita discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the ratio of the intensity of the peak corresponding to PO4 relative to the intensity of the D band measured by the Raman spectroscopy analysis is greater than 0.10 and less than or equal to 0.30 [Per MPEP 2112.01, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The claimed ratio of intensity of peaks PO4 and D band would be inherent since the limitation merely recites a property of the cathode active material of claim 1. For all the samples shown in Figs. 1 and 5, the ratio of IPO4/ID appears to overlap the claimed range or be merely close. Thus, it would be expected that the ratio can be met for all compositions. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" or are “merely close” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.].
Regarding Claim 5, modified Yamashita discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 4, wherein the intensity of the G band is a maximum value of a peak intensity measured at a Raman shift from 1,500 cm-1 to 1,700 cm-1 1 [Per MPEP 2112.01, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Further, Yamashita teaches the peak position is near 1590 cm-1, which anticipates the claimed range [Yamashita 0047]. The claimed range of Raman shift for the maximum value of a peak intensity of the G band would be inherent since the limitation merely recites a property of the cathode active material of claim 1. Alternatively, for all the samples shown in Figs. 1 and 5, the range for the G band appears to overlap the claimed range or be merely close. Thus, it would be expected that the claimed range can be met for all Yamashita’s compositions. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" or are “merely close” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.].
Regarding Claim 6, modified Yamashita discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the ratio of the intensity of the D band relative to the intensity of the G band measured by the Raman spectroscopy analysis is in a range from 0.7 to 1.1 [Per MPEP 2112.01, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The claimed ratio of intensity of D band and G band would be inherent since the limitation merely recites a property of the cathode active material of claim 1. Alternatively, for all the samples shown in Figs. 1 and 5, the ratio of ID/IG appears to overlap the claimed range or be merely close. Thus, it would be expected that the ratio can be met for all compositions. Further, Yamashita explicitly teaches the range of 0.5 to 1.8 for carbon derived from cellulose fiber having a diameter more than 1000 nm and carbonized [Yamashita 0049], which overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" or are “merely close” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.].
Regarding Claim 7, modified Yamashita discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein a doping content of the metal element in the core is in a range from 300 ppm to 8,000ppm based on a total weight of the core [Yamashita 0036, 0038, formula A, where M is the dopant and the amount of M can be near 0 (0≦c≦.02 in formula A), which overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.].
Regarding Claim 9, modified Yamashita discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the core further contains another doping metal other than Ti, V and Mn [Yamashita 0036, 0078, formula A, where M represents Mg, Ca, Sr, Y, Zr, Mo, Ba, Pb, Bi, La, Ce, Nd or Gd and c in the formula A can be close to zero (0≦c≦0.2) reads on the limitation.] .
Regarding Claim 10, modified Yamashita discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the core includes a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 below: [Chemical Formula 1] LixFeyM1aM2bPzO4 wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, M1 includes at least one of Ti, V and Mn, and M2 includes at least one of Mg, Ca, Sr, Y, Zr, Ba, Ni and Co, and 0.9≤x≤1.1, 0.1≤y≤1.01, 0.96≤z≤1.04, 0<a≤0.9, 0≤b<0.9 and 0<a+b≤0.9 [Yamashita 0036, formula A= LiFeaMnbMcPO4, where Mc represents Mg, Ca, Sr, Y, Zr, Ba, and 0≦a≦1, 0≦b≦1, 0≦c≦0.2, 2a+2b+(valence of M)×c=2 and a+b≠0. Yamashita Mnb where b is 0 to 1 as a dopant is represented in the claimed chemical formula 1 by M1a and Yamashita Mc is represented in the claimed chemical formula 1 by M2b. Further, as provided in Claim 1 above, Wu’s dopants Ti and V can be substituted or combined as the Mc dopant. Yamashita formula A overlaps and obviates the claimed ranges. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Yamashita discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein a content of the carbon coating is in a range from 0.5 wt% to 2.3 wt% based on a total weight of the lithium metal oxide particle [Yamashita 0042 and throughout, Yamashita teaches 0.3 to 20 wt %, which overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.].
Regarding Claim 13, modified Yamashita discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein an average particle diameter (D50) of the plurality of lithium metal oxide particle is in a range from 0.2 μm to 15 μm [Yamashita 0098, Yamashita teaches 1 to 15 µm, which overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.].
Regarding Claim 14, modified Yamashita discloses a lithium secondary battery, comprising: a cathode comprising the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1; and an anode facing the cathode [Yamashita 0100-0101 and throughout, The broadest reasonable interpretation of Yamashita is a separator is between the positive electrode with the positive active material (cathode) and the negative electrode (anode) such that the anode faces the cathode.].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu and or Yamashita in view of Wu, as provided for claim 1 above, and in further view of Kitagawa et al. [US20140322613A1], hereinafter Kitagawa.
Regarding Claim 12, Wu or modified Yamashita discloses the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1 above but neither teaches the thickness of the carbon coating.
Kitagawa teaches lithium metal oxide active materials as cathode materials, such as lithium iron phosphate [Kitagawa 0006 and throughout] coated with a carbon coating [Kitagawa abstract and throughout], wherein a thickness of the carbon coating is in a range from 1 nm to 10 nm [Kitagawa 0055 and throughout], which overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Kitagawa’s coating thickness with either Wu’s or Yamashita’s lithium metal oxide active material with a carbon coating for the predictable result of a workable range of internal resistance [Wu 0055-0056 and throughout].
Further, for purpose of compact prosecution, Kitagawa teaches that the coating thickness is a result effective variable. If the thickness is too thin, the total transfer resistance of electrons in the carbon coating increases; thus, the internal resistance of a battery is increased and a decrease in voltage at a high charge-discharge rate becomes significant [Kitagawa 0055]. If the thickness is too thick, lithium ion transfer resistance is increased due to steric hindrance during the diffusion of lithium ions in the carbon coating; thus, the internal resistance of a battery is increased, and a decrease in voltage at a high charge-discharge rate becomes significant. Determining the workable range of thickness can be achieved by balancing the variables as discussed above through routine experimentation, which is obvious per MPEP 2144.05II. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Kitagawa’s teachings about the coating thickness with either Wu’s or Yamashita’s lithium metal oxide active material with a carbon coating for the predictable result of a workable range of internal resistance [Wu 0055-0056 and throughout].
Response to Arguments
The Examiner has fully considered Applicant arguments of distinction over the prior art of record on pgs. 8-16 of Applicant Response dated 7/28/2026 and finds them unpersuasive. On pgs. 8-10, MPEP sections and case law are recited, and no specific arguments are provided. On pgs. 11-12, the Applicant references portions of the instant specification in support of the amended claims.
On pgs. 13-15, Applicant argues that the claimed PO4/D and PO4/G ratios cannot be inherent in Wu’s cathode active material as provided in the Office Action dated 4/28/2026. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed cathode active material of claim 1 merely requires a lithium iron phosphate active material with Ti and V dopants and a carbon coating. Wu anticipates the cathode active material as claimed. Per MPEP 2112.01, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Since there is no distinction between the claimed structure and the prior art, MPEP 2112.01 applies and the claimed properties are considered inherent.
On pgs. 13-14, Applicant argues that Wu and the instant application do not disclose “identical or substantially” identical products and provides Wu example 1, which contains Mn in addition to Fe, as compared to the instant application where LiFePO4 based compositions contain Fe as the major transition metal component. First, a single recited example in the prior art cannot demonstrate what Applicant argues when Wu discloses a cathode active material meeting the structure of the claim. Respectfully, Claim 1 only requires the cathode active material to be lithium iron phosphate based with Ti and/or V dopants and a carbon coating. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Fe-rich lithium iron phosphate as compared to Mn-rich lithium iron phosphate) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since the distinctions between Wu and the present application are not recited in the claims, the prior art of Wu applies. Further, as described below, Applicant arguments are incommensurate with the instant specification and the instant claim 10, which includes Mn-rich lithium iron phosphate with the claimed ratios.
Applicant argues on pgs. 14-15 that the relative intensity of the PO4/D and PO4/D ratios of the Mn-rich system of Wu cannot be equivalent to the PO4/D and PO4/G ratios of the Fe rich system of the present invention. Such arguments are in opposition to instant specification and the instant invention of claim 10, which depends on claim 1, and does not require Fe-rich lithium iron phosphate as argued. For example, “Mn-rich” Wu example 1 argued by the Applicant, anticipates instant chemical formula 1. Thus, the Applicant cannot argue there is a difference between PO4/D and PO4/G ratios in a Fe-rich lithium iron phosphate and a Mn-rich lithium iron phosphate and at the same time not claim a Fe-rich lithium iron phosphate. Additionally, the Applicant provides no evidence of the assertion that the claimed ratios are different for an Fe-rich lithium iron phosphate as compared to a Mn-rich lithium iron phosphate.
Even further, claim 10 recites chemical formula 1, which allows for a Mn-rich lithium iron phosphate with the same PO4/D and PO4/G ratios of claim 1. Thus, the Applicant cannot argue that there is a difference between PO4/D and PO4/G ratios in a Fe-rich lithium iron phosphate and a Mn-rich lithium iron phosphate, and yet claim a potentially Mn-rich lithium phosphate in claim 10. In other words, Applicant’s arguments regarding a Fe-rich lithium iron phosphate are not commensurate with the instant specification or the instant claims.
For these reasons, arguments regarding distinction between the Wu and the instant invention are not persuasive. Thus, evidence of anticipation and obviousness outweighs evidence of distinction over Wu.
On pg. 15, Applicant argues distinction over Yamashita. While the Examiner agrees that Yamashita does not teach Ti or V as doping elements, Wu is relied upon for teaching that Ti and V can be dopants in the lithium iron phosphate based compound as described above.
Regarding Applicant arguments that Yamashita discloses the PO4/G ratio is 0.01 to 0.10 in paragraph [0047], Yamashita also teaches that the ratio is affected by the type of carbon material used for coating [0047-0049]. Yamashita explicitly teaches IPO4/IG is 0.11 to 0.25 when the carbon is derived from cellulose fiber having a diameter more than 1000 nm is carbonized and supported on the positive active material [Yamashita 0049], which overlaps and obviates the claimed range of 0.1 to 0.33. Thus, the teachings of Yamashita show that the ratios are affected by the carbon coating. Further, Yamashita does not teach the ratios are sensitive to doping or composition. Thus, it would be expected that the ratios taught by Yamashita apply to all compositions taught by Yamashita.
For these reasons, evidence of obviousness over the combination of Yamashita and Wu outweighs evidence of nonobviousness.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. T. LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1681. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, Thursday 9:00-5:00 EST.
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.
/M. T. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights