DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted Claims 17 and 19 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Newly submitted Claims 17 and 19 are directed towards a fluorinated phosphate wherein B denotes one or more of Rb, Cs, and Ba.
Previously presented Claim 10 required the fluorinated phosphate to comprise one or more of LiPO2F2, NaPO2F2, KPO2F2, Li2PO3F, Na2PO3F, and K2PO3F. Accordingly, Claim 10 requires B to be one or more of Li, Na or K. This is understood to constitute an election by original presentation.
The previously performed search was directed towards fluorinated phosphate compounds wherein B denoted by specific alkali metals limited to one or more of Li, Na or K.
Based on the current evidence of record, fluorinated phosphate compounds of Rb, Cs and Ba are not obvious variants of fluorinated phosphate compounds wherein B is one or more of Li, Na or K.
For instance, Miyaji et al. (JP-2014192069-A; see also English translation provided 03/27/2026) discloses LiPO2F2 as the fluorinated phosphate compound (i.e. B = Li) [0044]. Miyaji does not teach fluorinated compounds of Rb, Cs, or Ba as obvious variants.
Searching the newly added claims drawn to patentably distinct, non-elected species which require divergent chemical structure queries and imposes a serious search and examination burden. Because claim 1 is not allowable, the newly added claims directed to the non-elected species of Rb, Cs, and Ba are hereby withdrawn from consideration as an improper shift in claimed subject matter.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, Claims 17 and 19 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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) 1-6, 8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimori et al. (US-20180048014-A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 8 and 10, Sugimori discloses a secondary battery [0005, 0014], comprising:
a positive electrode sheet having a positive electrode active material [0009, 0019-0020]; and a non-aqueous electrolyte [0050-0056]; wherein:
the positive electrode active material comprises a central core material (i.e. lithium transition metal oxide; [0019-0020]) and a modification layer (i.e. high quality protective film formed by phosphoric acid compound) disposed on a surface of the central core material [0019, 0032],
the modification layer comprising an orthophosphate (phosphoric acid compound; [0032]).
Sugimori discloses that the orthophosphate can be selected from a group which includes potassium phosphate (i.e. K3PO4) and sodium phosphate (i.e. Na3PO4) [0032]. Therefore, although not disclosed in a specific embodiment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the modification layer to include potassium phosphate (i.e. K3PO4) and/or sodium phosphate (i.e. Na3PO4) with a reasonable expectation that such an orthophosphate compound would result in a successful positive electrode active material. These orthophosphates read on the claimed molecular formula of Claim 1 and correspond to the claimed orthophosphate compounds of Claim 10. Furthermore, these compounds have A = K or Na, which reads on the claimed limitations of Claim 8.
Sugimori further discloses that the non-aqueous electrolyte can comprise an electrolyte salt such as LiPO2F2 [0056]. Therefore, although not disclosed in a specific example, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included LiPO2F2 in the non-aqueous electrolyte with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful nonaqueous electrolyte. The use of LiPO2F2 as a fluorinated phosphate corresponds to the claimed molecular formula of Claim 1 and corresponds to one of the claimed fluorinated phosphate compounds of Claim 10. Additionally, these compounds have B = Li, which reads on the recited limitations of Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 2, Sugimori renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Sugimori further discloses that the concentration of electrolyte salt (i.e. fluorinated phosphate LiPO2F2) is preferably 0.8 to 1.8 M [0056]. Although Sugimori does not explicitly disclose that a mass percentage D% of the fluorinated phosphate based on a total mass of the non-aqueous electrolyte is 0.1-3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any concentration of the electrolyte salt within the claimed range, including a concentration which results in a mass ratio within the claimed range of 0.1-3 (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 3, Sugimori renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above. Sugimori discloses that the content of phosphoric acid compound (i.e. orthophosphate) is preferably 0.1 to 5.0% by mass [0033]. Such a content of orthophosphate is understood to inherently result in a ratio of a mass of element P in the modification layer to a total mass of the positive electrode active material which overlaps the claimed range of 0.05-6, as evidenced by the instant specification (instant specification: Table 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any portion of the content of orthophosphate, including contents which result in a content of element P which falls within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation that such contents of orthophosphate would result in a successful positive electrode material (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claims 4 and 6, Sugimori renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above. Sugimori discloses that the lithium transition metal oxide can be lithium manganese oxide (i.e. LiMn2O4) or a lithium nickel manganese oxide having a spinel structure, or an oxide having an olivine structure represented by LiMPO4, wherein M can be selected to be Mn from a list of possible candidates [0022]. Therefore, although not disclosed in a specific embodiment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the positive electrode active material to be lithium manganese oxide (i.e. LiMn2O4), or a spinel structured lithium nickel manganese oxide (e.g. LiNiMnO4) or a lithium phosphate (i.e. LiMnPO4) with a reasonable expectation that such materials would result in a successful positive electrode active material. These compounds read on the claimed central core material as recited in Claim 6.
Since Sugimori renders obvious a positive electrode active material which is substantially similar to the positive electrode active material of the instant specification (i.e. one of the claimed central core materials coated with one of the claimed orthophosphates), it is thereby understood that the resulting positive electrode active material is understood to inherently have a voltage plateau of ≥3.8V vs Li+/Li, as required by Claim 4, and as evidenced by the instant specification [instant specification: 0012-0013, 0071-0073, 0082] (MPEP 2112.01, I-II).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Sugimori renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Sugimori discloses that the lithium transition metal oxide (i.e. central core material) can include at least one transition metal such as, from a list of possible alternatives, Mn [0020-0022]. Therefore, although not disclosed in a specific embodiment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included Mn in the central core material with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful positive electrode active material.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Sugimori renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Sugimori discloses that the phosphoric acid compound (i.e. orthophosphate) forms a high-quality protective film on the surface of the lithium transition meal oxide (i.e. central core material) [0032]. Therefore, although Sugimori does not specifically disclose how much of the central core material is covered, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have maximized the coverage of the modification layer on the central core material in order to maximize the protective benefits of the film, including selecting the modification layer to be disposed on 50%-100% of a surface of the central core material (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Sugimori renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Sugimori discloses that the central core material (i.e. lithium transition metal oxide) has a Dv50 of 2-30 µm [0023], and the orthophosphate has a Dv50 of 50 nm to 10 µm [0032]. Therefore, it is understood that the positive electrode active material (i.e. the central core material coated with the orthophosphate) has a Dv50 of about 2.1 to 50 µm. This range overlaps the claimed range of 1-20 µm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the overlapping portion of the range with a reasonable expectation that such a Dv50 would result in a successful positive electrode active material (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimori et al. (US-20180048014-A1) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in view of Waki et al. (US-20070020171-A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Sugimori renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Sugimori discloses that the central core material can be lithium manganese oxide [0022]. Sugimori does not teach that the central core material has a monocrystalline morphology.
Waki teaches a spinel-type lithium-containing manganese dioxide having high purity and high crystallinity which can be used as an active material for a lithium secondary battery [0073-0075]. Waki teaches that conventional manganese dioxide has a polycrystalline structure with crystal defects or grain boundaries which interfere with the diffusion of ions, such as lithium, in the active material [0003, 0026]. Advantageously, by forming the manganese dioxide to have a monocrystalline structure with almost no crystal defects, the discharge characteristics of a battery are improved, and internal resistance during discharge is suppressed [0006, 0026]. Additionally, the material is stable and resistant to decomposition, thereby improving long-term reliability [0006, 0027].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed the lithium manganese oxide (i.e. central core material) of Sugimori to have a monocrystalline morphology with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful battery with improved discharge characteristics and long-term reliability.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimori et al. (US-20180048014-A1) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in view of Oshita et al. (JP-H1167270-A; see also attached English translation for citations).
Regarding Claim 9, Sugimori renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the fluorinated phosphate is LiPO2F2 (i.e. c = 1; see rejection of Claim 1; [000056]). Sugimori does not teach that the fluorinated phosphate includes a compound wherein c denotes 2.
Oshita teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery [0007]. The nonaqueous electrolyte includes either lithium monofluorophosphate (i.e. Li2PO3F) or lithium difluorophosphate (i.e. LiPO2F2) [0008]. Preferably, lithium monofluorophosphate (i.e. Li2PO3F) is added since it easily forms an optimal film on the positive and negative electrode, thereby suppressing self-discharge [0009]. Additionally, Li2PO3F results in increased capacity retention (86.1%) compared to using LiPO2F2 (84.3%) (see Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the LiPO2F2 additive disclosed by Sugimori for Li2PO3F with a reasonable expectation that such a substitution would result in a successful secondary battery with suppressed self-discharge and increased capacity retention. The use of Li2PO3F corresponds to a fluorinated phosphate wherein c denotes 2.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimori et al. (US-20180048014-A1) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in view of Park et al. (US-20170179484-A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Sugimori renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Although Sugimori discloses a secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1, above), Sugimori does not explicitly teach a battery module including the secondary battery.
Park teaches a similar positive electrode active material including a core material that is coated with a material comprising a phosphate compound (see Fig. 1; Abstract; [0013, 0044, 0054, 0075, 0077, 0089-0091]). Park teaches that the positive electrode active material can be used to form a battery assembly (reads on secondary battery; [0117]). Park further teaches that a plurality of battery assemblies can be stacked to form a battery pack to power a device [0118]. A battery module is understood to comprise multiple battery cells. Therefore, absent a special definition, a battery pack is interpreted as reading on a battery module.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided a battery module (i.e. battery pack) comprising the secondary battery according to claim 1 with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful battery module (battery pack) capable of powering a device.
Regarding Claims 14-15, Sugimori renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Although Sugimori discloses a secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1, above), Sugimori does not explicitly teach a battery module including the secondary battery.
Park teaches a similar positive electrode active material including a core material that is coated with a material comprising a phosphate compound (see Fig. 1; Abstract; [0013, 0044, 0054, 0075, 0077, 0089-0091]). Park teaches that the positive electrode active material can be used to form a battery assembly (reads on secondary battery; [0117]). Park further teaches that a plurality of battery assembled can be stacked to form a battery pack, which can be used to power a device which requires high capacity and high output [0118].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided a battery pack comprising the secondary battery according to claim 1, as required by Claim 14, with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful battery pack capable of powering a device.
It would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided an electrical device (corresponds to device) comprising the secondary battery according to claim 1, as required by Claim 15, with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful electrical device.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-11, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagawa et al. (JP-2006156317-A; see also attached English translation for citations) in view of Kato et al. (US-20080305402-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Tagawa discloses a secondary battery [0011, 0013], comprising a positive electrode having a positive electrode active material [0003-0005, 0010-0011, 0013-0014]. Tagawa discloses that the positive electrode is in the form of a pellet [0013-0014], and therefore does not explicitly teach that the positive electrode is provided as a positive electrode sheet.
Kato teaches a positive electrode including a similar positive electrode active material [0097-0098]. Kato teaches that the method of producing the positive electrode is not particularly limited, and the active material can be formed into a sheet electrode by rolling or formed into a pellet electrode by compression molding [0098]. The Examiner notes that this establishes an electrode active material formed as a sheet as a substitutable equivalent to an electrode active material formed as a pellet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed the positive electrode of Tagawa as a positive electrode sheet with a reasonable expectation that such configuration would result in a successful positive electrode (MPEP 2144.06, II).
Although Tagawa discloses a lithium-ion secondary battery [0001-0004], Tagawa does not specifically teach the type of electrolyte, and therefore does not teach a non-aqueous electrolyte.
Kato teaches a lithium ion secondary battery with a similar positive electrode active material and a nonaqueous electrolyte [0002, 0020-0023, 0062, 0097, 0119]. The nonaqueous electrolyte is a mixed solvent composed of both cyclic and linear carbonates, and further including at least hexafluorophosphate and lithium difluorophosphate (Claim 17; [0020]). Advantageously, such a nonaqueous electrolyte results in improved low-temperature discharge characteristics [0021, 0163].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the electrolyte of modified Tagawa to be a nonaqueous electrolyte comprising both cyclic and linear carbonates and hexafluorophosphate and lithium difluorophosphate as taught by Kato with a reasonable expectation that such an electrolyte would result in a successful lithium ion secondary battery with improved low-temperature discharge characteristics.
Tagawa further discloses:
the positive electrode active material comprises a central core material (lithium manganate particles; [0008, 0013-0014]) and a modification layer (sodium phosphate; [0008]) disposed on a surface of the central core material [0008],
the modification layer comprising an orthophosphate (sodium phosphate; i.e. Na3PO4) with a molecular formula Aa+x[PO4]3-y, where A denotes one or more of Na, K, Rb, Cs, Ba, and Cr, and 1≤a≤6, and ax=3y (i.e. A = Na; a = 1; x = 3; y = 1; and ax=3y).
Modified Tagawa renders obvious that the nonaqueous electrolyte comprises lithium difluorophosphate (see above; [Kato: 0020]). Accordingly, modified Tagawa renders obvious that the nonaqueous electrolyte comprises a fluorinated phosphate (i.e. lithium difluorophosphate; LiPO2F2) which reads on the claimed molecular formula (i.e. B = Li; b = 1; m = 1; c = 1; n = 1; and bm=cn).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Tagawa renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Tagawa discloses that the appropriate weight of sodium phosphate to lithium manganese oxide is 2% to 20% [0009]. Accordingly, the mass percentage (C%) of orthophosphate based on a total mass of the positive electrode active material is 2-20%, which encompasses the claimed range of 0.2-20.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Tagawa renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Although Tagawa does not explicitly disclose that a ratio of a mass of element P in the modification layer to a total mass of the positive electrode active material is 0.05-6, Tagawa discloses that the appropriate weight of sodium phosphate to lithium manganese oxide is 2% to 20% [0009]. This range is understood to inherently result in a ratio of a mass of element P in the modification layer to a total mass of the positive electrode active material is 0.05-6, as evidenced by the instant specification (instant specification: Table 1).
Assuming, arguendo, that Applicant is able to show by means of evidence of persuasive argument that the entire range of 2-20% disclosed by Tagawa does not inherently result in a ratio of a mass of element P in the modification layer to a total mass of the positive electrode active material which within the range of 0.05-6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any portion of the range disclosed in the prior art, including the portion of the range which results in a ratio of a mass of element P in the modification layer to a total mass of the positive electrode active material which is within the range of 0.05-6, with a reasonable expectation that such a content would result in a successful positive electrode material for use in a secondary battery (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claims 4 and 6, modified Tagawa renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Tagawa discloses that the central core material comprises spinel-type LiMn2O4 [0006, 0013-0014]. This corresponds to a central core material comprising spinel-type lithium manganate wherein p = 0; i.e. LiMn2O4, as required by Claim 6.
Since modified Tagawa renders obvious a substantially similar positive electrode active material (i.e. LiMn2O4 coated with sodium phosphate), the positive electrode active material is understood to inherently have a voltage plateau of ≥3.8V vs Li+/Li, as required by Claim 4, and as evidenced by the instant specification [instant specification: 0012-0013, 0071-0073, 0082] (MPEP 2112.01, I-II).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Tagawa renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the central core material comprises element Mn (i.e. lithium manganate; [0005-0006, 0013-0014]).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Tagawa renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that A denotes Na (i.e. sodium phosphate) [Tagawa: 0005] and B denotes Li [Kato: 0020].
Regarding Claim 9, modified Tagawa renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the fluorinated phosphate is lithium difluorophosphate (i.e. c = 1; see rejection of Claim 1; [Kato: 0020]). Although modified Tagawa does not explicitly teach that the fluorinated phosphate comprises lithium monophosphate (i.e. Li2PO3F), Kato teaches that it is known in the art to select the nonaqueous electrolyte to comprise at least one additive selected from lithium monofluorophosphate and lithium diflurorphosphate, and that such additives are known to form a coating film on the surface of the positive electrode and negative electrode, thereby inhibiting the electrolyte from decomposing due to contact with the electrode active materials, thus inhibiting self-discharge and improving storage performance [0005].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added lithium monophosphate (i.e. Li2PO3F) instead of / in addition to lithium difluorophosphate with a reasonable expectation that such an addition would result in a successful electrolyte and secondary battery with improved storage performance (MPEP 2144.06, I-II; MPEP 2123 I-II). Lithium monophosphate (i.e. Li2PO3F) corresponds to a fluorinated phosphate wherein c denotes 2.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Tagawa renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the orthophosphate comprises Na3PO4 (i.e. sodium phosphate; [Tagawa: 0005]) and the fluorinated phosphate comprises LiPO2F2 [Kato: 0020].
Regarding Claim 11, modified Tagawa renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Although Tagawa does not explicitly teach the coverage of the modification layer on the central core material, Tagawa does disclose that it is desirable that the sodium phosphate adheres evenly to the lithium manganate particles [0008-0009]. The sodium phosphate inhibits the dissolution of Mn from lithium manganate, thereby suppressing battery degradation [0011, 0015].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have maximized the coverage of the modification layer (i.e. layer comprising sodium phosphate) on the central core material, including covering 50-100% of a surface of the central core material, with a reasonable expectation that such a coverage would result in a successful positive electrode active material capable of suppressing battery degradation (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Tagawa renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Tagawa discloses that sodium phosphate (i.e. orthophosphate) inhibits Mn dissolution, thereby suppressing battery degradation [0015]. The appropriate weight of sodium phosphate to lithium manganese oxide (i.e. positive electrode active material) is 2% to 20% [0009]. This range encompasses the claimed range of 12% to 20%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed in the prior art with a reasonable expectation that such a mass percentage of orthophosphate would result in a successful positive electrode active material capable of suppressing battery degradation (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 18, Tagawa discloses a secondary battery [0011, 0013], comprising a positive electrode having a positive electrode active material [0003-0005, 0010-0011, 0013-0014]. Tagawa discloses that the positive electrode is in the form of a pellet [0013-0014], and therefore does not explicitly teach that the positive electrode is provided as a positive electrode sheet.
Kato teaches a positive electrode including a similar positive electrode active material [0097-0098]. Kato teaches that the method of producing the positive electrode is not particularly limited, and the active material can be formed into a sheet electrode by rolling or formed into a pellet electrode by compression molding [0098]. The Examiner notes that this establishes an electrode active material formed as a sheet as a substitutable equivalent to an electrode active material formed as a pellet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed the positive electrode of Tagawa as a positive electrode sheet with a reasonable expectation that such configuration would result in a successful positive electrode (MPEP 2144.06, II).
Although Tagawa discloses a lithium-ion secondary battery [0001-0004], Tagawa does not specifically teach the type of electrolyte, and therefore does not teach a non-aqueous electrolyte.
Kato teaches a lithium ion secondary battery with a similar positive electrode active material and a nonaqueous electrolyte [0002, 0020-0023, 0062, 0097, 0119]. The nonaqueous electrolyte is a mixed solvent composed of both cyclic and linear carbonates, and further including at least a hexafluorophosphate and lithium difluorophosphate (Claim 17; [0020]). Advantageously, such a nonaqueous electrolyte results in improved low-temperature discharge characteristics [0021, 0163].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the electrolyte of modified Tagawa to be the nonaqueous electrolyte taught by Kato with a reasonable expectation that such an electrolyte would result in a successful lithium ion secondary battery with improved low-temperature discharge characteristics.
Tagawa further discloses:
the positive electrode active material comprises a central core material (lithium manganate particles; [0008, 0013-0014]) and a modification layer (sodium phosphate; [0008]) disposed on a surface of the central core material [0008],
the modification layer comprising an orthophosphate (sodium phosphate; i.e. Na3PO4) with a molecular formula Aa+x[PO4]3-y, where A denotes one or more of Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, Ba, Ni, Fe, Co, Ti, Al, Cr, V, Nb, and W, and 1≤a≤6, and ax=3y (i.e. A = Na; a = 1; x = 3; y = 1; and ax=3y).
Modified Tagawa renders obvious that the nonaqueous electrolyte comprises lithium difluorophosphate (see above; [Kato: 0020]). Accordingly, modified Tagawa renders obvious that the nonaqueous electrolyte comprises a fluorinated phosphate (i.e. lithium difluorophosphate; LiPO2F2) which reads on the claimed molecular formula (i.e. B = Li; b = 1; m = 1; c = 1; n = 1; and bm=cn).
Tagawa discloses that sodium phosphate (i.e. orthophosphate) inhibits Mn dissolution, thereby suppressing battery degradation [0015]. The appropriate weight of sodium phosphate to lithium manganese oxide (i.e. positive electrode active material) is 2% to 20% [0009], which encompasses the claimed range of 12% to 20%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the overlapping portion of the range with a reasonable expectation that such a mass percentage of orthophosphate would result in a successful positive electrode capable of suppressing battery degradation (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagawa et al. (JP-2006156317-A; see also attached English translation for citations) in view of Kato et al. (US-20080305402-A1) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in view of Waki et al. (US-20070020171-A1).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Tagawa renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the positive electrode active material comprises lithium manganese oxide which can have the formula LiMnO2 [0006]. Tagawa does not teach that the central core material has a monocrystalline morphology.
Waki teaches a spinel-type lithium-containing manganese dioxide having high purity and high crystallinity which can be used as an active material for a lithium secondary battery [0073-0075]. Waki teaches that conventional manganese dioxide has a polycrystalline structure with crystal defects or grain boundaries which interfere with the diffusion of ions, such as lithium, in the active material [0003, 0026]. Advantageously, by forming the manganese dioxide to have a monocrystalline structure with almost no crystal defects, the discharge characteristics of a battery are improved, and internal resistance during discharge is suppressed [0006, 0026]. Additionally, the material is stable and resistant to decomposition, thereby improving long-term reliability [0006, 0027].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed the lithium manganese oxide (i.e. central core material) of modified Tagawa to have a monocrystalline morphology with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful positive electrode active material which results in a battery with improved discharge characteristics and long-term reliability.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagawa et al. (JP-2006156317-A; see also attached English translation for citations) in view of Kato et al. (US-20080305402-A1) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in view of Oshita et al. (JP-H1167270-A; see also attached English translation for citations).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Tagawa renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the fluorinated phosphate is lithium difluorophosphate (i.e. c = 1; see rejection of Claim 1; [Kato: 0020]). Modified Tagawa does not explicitly teach that the fluorinated phosphate includes a compound wherein c denotes 2.
Oshita teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery [0007]. In a specific embodiment, Oshita teaches that the nonaqueous electrolyte can comprise a combination of lithium monofluorophosphate (i.e. Li2PO3F) and lithium difluorophosphate (i.e. LiPO2F2) (Table 1; [0020]). Advantageously, using a combination of Li2PO3F and LiPO2F2 results in increased capacity retention (i.e. 85.1%) compared to using only LiPO2F2 (i.e. 84.3%) (see Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used a combination of lithium monofluorophosphate (i.e. Li2PO3F) and lithium difluorophosphate (i.e. LiPO2F2) as taught by Oshita instead of using only lithium difluorophosphate (i.e. LiPO2F2) with a reasonable expectation that using a combination of fluorinated phosphates would result in a successful electrolyte and a secondary battery with increased capacity retention. The use of lithium monofluorophosphate (i.e. Li2PO3F) corresponds to a fluorinated phosphate wherein c denotes 2.
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagawa et al. (JP-2006156317-A; see also attached English translation for citations) in view of Kato et al. (US-20080305402-A1) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in view of Park et al. (US-20170179484-A1).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Tagawa renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Tagawa discloses that preparing a mixture of sodium phosphate and lithium manganate can be achieved by mixing in powder form [0008]. Tagawa does not disclose the volume particle diameter (Dv50).
Park teaches a similar positive electrode active material including a core material that is coated with a material comprising a phosphate compound (see Fig. 1; Abstract; [0013, 0044, 0054, 0075, 0077, 0089-0091]). The core material can be a lithium transition metal oxide [0078-0079, 0089-0091]. Park teaches that the core can have an average particle diameter of 0.1 µm to 20 µm [0082], and that the coating layer can have a thickness of 10 to 900 nm [0076]. Therefore, Park renders obvious that the positive electrode active material has a total volume particle diameter of 0.11 µm to 20.9 µm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the particle diameter Dv50 of the positive electrode active material of modified Tagawa to be with the range of 0.11 µm to 20.9 µm with a reasonable expectation that such a particle diameter would result in a successful positive electrode active material.
This range overlaps the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any portion of the range rendered obvious by the prior art, including the overlapping portion, with a reasonable expectation that such a particle diameter would result in a successful positive electrode active material for use in a secondary battery (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Tagawa renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Although Tagawa discloses a secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1, above), modified Tagawa does not explicitly teach a battery module including the secondary battery.
Park teaches a similar positive electrode active material including a core material that is coated with a material comprising a phosphate compound (see Fig. 1; Abstract; [0013, 0044, 0054, 0075, 0077, 0089-0091]). Park teaches that the positive electrode active material can be used to form a battery assembly (reads on secondary battery; [0117]). Park further teaches that a plurality of battery assemblies can be stacked to form a battery pack to power a device [0118]. A battery module is understood to comprise multiple battery cells. Therefore, absent a special definition, a battery pack is interpreted as reading on a battery module.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided a battery module (i.e. battery pack) comprising the secondary battery according to claim 1 with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful battery module (battery pack) capable of powering a device.
Regarding Claims 14-15, modified Tagawa renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Although Tagawa discloses a secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1, above), modified Tagawa does not explicitly teach a battery module including the secondary battery.
Park teaches a similar positive electrode active material including a core material that is coated with a material comprising a phosphate compound (see Fig. 1; Abstract; [0013, 0044, 0054, 0075, 0077, 0089-0091]). Park teaches that the positive electrode active material can be used to form a battery assembly (reads on secondary battery; [0117]). Park further teaches that a plurality of battery assembled can be stacked to form a battery pack, which can be used to power a device which requires high capacity and high output [0118].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided a battery pack comprising the secondary battery according to claim 1, as required by Claim 14, with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful battery pack capable of powering a device.
It would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided an electrical device (corresponds to device) comprising the secondary battery according to claim 1, as required by Claim 15, with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful electrical device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/26/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection does not rely on any combination of references 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 DREW C NEWMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9873. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00 AM - 6:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/D.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights