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
This is a final Office Action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on 07/29/2026. Claims 1-2, 6-7, 10, and 18 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in the current Office Action.
The objections to the specifications set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
The objections set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection set forth in the previous Office Action is maintained.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection set forth in the previous Office Action is maintained.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection set forth in the previous Office Action is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the claimed invention can be practiced without undue experimentation because one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the claimed LiNixCoyMz can suitably incorporate metal element M selected from Group IIIB to Group VA to provide structural and electrical properties (See Applicant’s Remarks, pg. 7-8, bridging paragraph).
As addressed in pages 4-6 of the previous Office Action, the claimed general formula LiNixCoyMnz is not found in the prior art and would not be known or able to be attained by one of ordinary skill in the art without further guidance. Transition metal oxide compounds with a general formula of LiNixCoyMzO2, however, are commonly used as positive active materials. Thus, Applicant’s argument is found not persuasive and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) of claims 7 and 18 is maintained.
Applicant further argues the definition of “ternary material” is provided in the instant specification such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “ternary material comprises lithium and three other metals (See Applicant’s remarks, pg. 8, first full para.) Similar to the discussion above, “ternary material”, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, is a compound consisting of three different elements or a lithium transition-metal oxide consisting of three transition metals (see previous Office Action, pg. 7, first para.). As Applicant’s claimed LiNixCoyMnz is neither a compound of three different elements, nor a lithium transition-metal oxide, “ternary material” remains unclear to a skilled artisan. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are found not persuasive and the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kawamura in view of Zhang, and Zhamu, Applicant argues that the Office has not shown how the proposed modification of Kawamura would result in α and β values within the claimed range (see Applicant’s remarks, pg. 9 second full para.), and that the cited references are silent as to ratio α and β, and could not have been obtained by routine optimization as they are not recognized as result-effective variables.
As addressed in pages 10-11 of the previous Office Action, active materials disclosed by modified Kawamura would necessarily exhibit the same values of M and η values, while modified Kawamura discloses mass ratios of the positive active materials, A1, A2, and A3 (see pg. 9-10, bridging paragraph of previous Office Action). Thus, the only variables in determining the values of α and β, are X and Y, which are established as result-effective variables in the previous Office Action (see pg. 10, para. 4). As a skilled artisan would want to optimize X and Y for desired volumetric density, in routinely optimizing X and Y, as well as α and β, a skilled artisan would have arrived at the claimed ranges of α and β.
Applicant further asserts that the references fail to recognize the parameters M1 to M4 and η1 to η4 as result-effective variables. As addressed in the previous office action (pg. 10, first full para.), the active materials disclosed by modified Kawamura would necessarily and inherently exhibit the same M, initial charging specific capacity, and η, initial efficiency, values as Applicant’s claimed invention, absent evidence to contrary (MPEP 2112.01).
Finally, Applicant argues that claim 1 requires α and β to be within very specific ranges and within very narrow ranges which achieves high energy density, reduces the risk of Li-plating, and increases discharging power (See Applicant’s Remarks, pg. 10, first para.). As established above and in the previous Office Action, while the cited references do not explicitly disclose α and β values, modified Kawamura’s active materials, absent evidence to the contrary, would still exhibit the same characteristics (i.e. M1 to M4 and η1 to η4) as Applicant’s claimed invention. Furthermore, for the variables X, Y, α, and β there is sufficient motivation such that one of ordinary skill in the art could have arrived within the claimed ranges through routine optimization to achieve a desired energy density.
Therefore, in light of the discussion above, the rejection of claim 1 established in the previous Office Action is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Evidentiary reference Li et al. (“30 Years of Lithium-Ion Batteries”) exemplifies ternary materials, including a ternary material with known general formula LiNixCoyMzO2 (see discussion, below).
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 7 and 18 recite “the ternary material has a general formula of LiNixCoyMz”. Although this limitation is found within the instant specification [0039], the instant specification does not reasonably provide enablement for the ternary material having “a general formula of LiNixCoyMz” as it fails to teach how one of ordinary skill in the art could attain the taught material.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have to engage in undue experimentation in order to make and use Applicant’s claimed invention. See In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988); see also MPEP 2164.01. MPEP 2164.01(a) sets forth the following factors, summarized from In re Wands, which should be considered when determining whether the claimed invention would require undue experimentation. The factors are as follows:
(A) The breadth of the claims; (B) The nature of the invention; (C) The state of the prior art; (D) The level of one of ordinary skill; (E) The level of predictability in the art; (F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor; (G) The existence of working examples; and (H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
The factors are addressed below:
Regarding factor A, Applicant claims a ternary material a general formula of LiNixCoyMz, in which M is at least a metal element selected from Group IIIB to Group VA, 0.33≤x≤y0.98, 0<y<1, 0<z<1, and x+y+z=1. The breadth of the claims is broad as M is inclusive of at least one of Mn, Al, Zr, Ti, Y, Sr and W.
Regarding factor B-D, the claimed invention is drawn to a lithium-ion battery consisting of a positive electrode plate consisting of a positive electrode material layer. Although the prior art and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize ternary materials as being common active material used in positive active materials in lithium ion batteries including materials with the general formula LiNixCoyMzO2-, as evidenced by Li et al. (pg. 13), the claimed general formula LiNixCoyMz is not found in the prior art and would not be known or able to be attained by one of ordinary skill in the art without further guidance.
Regarding factors F and G, the Applicant’s specification provides LiNi0.83Co0.12Mn0.05 in the example described in [0056] but does not disclose how one of ordinary skill could possibly arrive at the example compound. A person skilled in the art could not arrive at a compound with the general formula LiNixCoyMz as a whole without undue experimentation. The general formula LiNixCoyMz without any guidance from the disclosure militates against finding of enablement.
Regarding factors E and H, the fields of material science and electrochemical are unpredictable arts. Due to the unpredictability of the art, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to perform experimentation in order to achieve a material that satisfied the claimed general formula, LiNixCoyMz, that could successfully be used in as a positive electrode active material. Such a degree of testing is undue experimentation. This factor militates against a finding of enablement.
Appropriate correction is required.
Examination of claims 7 and 18 over the prior art will not be entertained until the 112(a) rejection is overcome.
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 1-20 is 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.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 18 and 20, the claim limitation “ternary material” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what Applicant is referring to as “ternary material” as the instant specification provides no special definition for “ternary material” and the general formula provided in [0039] of the instant specification LiNixCoyMz does not align with the meaning of “ternary material” as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art such as a compound consisting of three different elements, or a lithium transition-metal oxide consisting of three transition metals, e.g. lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NMC) or lithium cobalt aluminum oxide (NCA). For the purpose of this Office Action, “ternary material” is understood to be any ternary material as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 1-20 are similarly rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura (US 20220006076 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 104577194 A), and Zhamu et al. (US 20170098856 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kawamura discloses a lithium ion battery (Abstract), comprising a positive electrode plate (i.e. positive electrode, [0012]), a negative electrode plate (i.e. negative electrode, [0053]), an electrolyte (i.e. electrolytic solution, [53]), and a separator located between the positive electrode plate and negative electrode plate ([0053]),
wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode current collector ([0042]) and a positive electrode material layer (i.e. electrode paste, [0042]) provided on the positive electrode current collector ([0042]).
Kawamura discloses a negative electrode plate comprising a negative electrode active material wherein the negative electrode active material is artificial graphite ([0053]) but is silent regarding the negative electrode plate comprising a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode material provided on the negative electrode current collector.
Zhang teaches a similar lithium-ion battery with graphite as the negative electrode active material (Abstract). Zhang further teaches coating the pole piece consisting artificial graphite on a current collector (i.e. copper foil) to create the negative electrode ([13]).
Therefore, 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 copper foil as a current collector of the negative electrode such that the negative electrode active material is provided on the negative electrode current collector, as copper foil as a negative electrode current collector is a well-known configuration in the art for forming a negative electrode.
Kawamura further discloses the positive electrode material layer comprises a positive electrode active material consisting of a lithium manganese iron phosphate material (Abstract), a lithium iron phosphate material (Abstract), and a ternary material (i.e. layered oxide-based active material particle including Li(NixCoyMnz)O2 or Li(NixCoyAlz)O2, [0021]).
Kawamura further discloses an embodiment in which the mass ratio (i.e. mixing ratio) of the lithium iron phosphate particle, the lithium iron manganese phosphate particle, and the layered oxide-based active material particle was 0.55:0.20:0.25 ([0066], Table 2, Example 5) such that A1 = 0.2, A2 = 0.55, and A3 = 0.25.
The active materials disclosed by Kawamura, lithium iron phosphate, lithium iron manganese phosphate, and the ternary material, if tested under the same conditions as Applicant’s testing conditions as described in [0087]-[0091] of the instant specifications would necessarily and inherently exhibit the same M and η values as Applicant’s claimed invention, absent evidence otherwise (MPEP 2112.01).
Kawamura further discloses the electrode slurry being applied to an aluminum foil using a doctor blade ([0060]).
While modified Kawamura does not explicitly disclose X, a coating amount of the positive electrode material, and Y, a coating amount of the positive electrode material, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that in possessing positive and negative electrode active materials coated on a positive and negative current collector, respectively, modified Kawamura necessarily possesses an X and Y value.
Zhamu teaches a similar lithium ion battery ([0015]) where the anode active material (i.e. graphite) has a mass loading no more than 30 mg/cm2 and the cathode active material has a mass loading no less than 50 mg/cm2 for inorganic and non-polymer material ([0031]) in order to attain a high volumetric energy density ([0061]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that in a desire to control the mass loading, one of ordinary skill would also have a desire to control the coating amount of the active materials in an attempt to achieve a desired volumetric energy density.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have routinely optimized X and Y, and account for, and therefore optimize, other variables, A1, A2, and A3 such that they would have arrived at the claimed ranges for α and β.
Regarding claim 3, modified Kawamura discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Kawamura discloses A1 = 0.2 and A2 = 0.55, as set forth above, such that A2 is 2.75 times A1 which is within the claimed 2-5 times A1.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, modified Kawamura discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Kawamura discloses A1 = 0.2 or 20%, as set forth above, which is within the claimed range of 10%-25%.
Regarding claim 8, modified Kawamura discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Kawamura further discloses the lithium iron manganese phosphate refers to the compound represented by LiMnαFeβPO4, wherein α+β=1 and 0.6≤α≤1 (Kawamura, [0020]), yielding a range for the molar amount of manganese to total molar amount of manganese and iron to be 0.6 to 1 which encompasses the claimed range of 0.75 to 0.9.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have routinely selected within the overlapping portion of the ranges with reasonable expectation of success in attaining a satisfactory lithium iron manganese phosphate and positive electrode active material.
Regarding claim 10, modified Kawamura discloses all limitations set forth above.
Modified Kawamura discloses a vehicle comprising the lithium ion battery according to claim 1 ([0003]).
Claims 2, 6, 11-12, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura (US 20220006076 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 104577194 A), and Zhamu et al. (US 20170098856 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Wu et al. (CN 113433465 A).
Regarding claim 2 and 6, modified Kawamura discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Kawamura discloses a M1, M2, M3, and η1, η2, and η3 that inherent and therefore similar to that of Applicant’s, as established in claim 1 above.
Modified Kawamura further discloses A1 = 0.2, A2 = 0.55, and A3 = 0.25 as established in claim 1 above.
Modified further Kawamura discloses an electrolytic solution, a solution of ethylene carbonate: diethyl carbonate=3:7 (volume ratio) containing 1 M of LiPF6 which is substantially similar to Applicant’s disclosed electrolyte in [0065] of the instant specification.
A skilled artisan would recognize that in possessing a similar electrolyte as Applicant’s disclosed electrolyte, modified Kawamura’s battery would necessarily and inherently possess c, a theoretical residual content in the electrolyte in the lithium-ion battery, of 200 ppm – 400 ppm, as claimed in claim 6. Furthermore, a skilled artisan would recognize in possessing a similar ternary material as Applicant’s disclosed ternary material as described in [0059] of the instant specification, modified Kawamura must necessarily and inherently possess a, a residual alkali content of the ternary material within the claimed 500 to 1500 ppm as claimed in claim 6, absent evidence otherwise.
Modified Kawamura is silent regarding the injection coefficient though necessarily possessing one.
Wu teaches a method of determining the liquid injection amount of electrolyte in a battery as the amount of electrolyte injection is a key parameter that determines battery performance ([6]). Wu further teaches a range of 2.8-4.3 g/Ah for the injection coefficient, which encompasses the claimed range of 2.9 -3.8 g/Ah of claim 6 ([17]). Wu further teaches if the injection coefficient is too low, it will lead to insufficient electrolyte infiltration, and the cycle performance will decrease quickly, while if the injection coefficient is too high, it will cause injection of liquid, low cell energy density and high-cost manufacturing process ([17]).
Therefore, 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 and optimized within the overlapping portion of the ranges for the injection coefficient, to achieve the desired balance between sufficient electrolyte infiltration, cycle performance, energy density and manufacturing costs.
In inherently possessing M1, M2, M3, η1, η2, η3, A1, A2, A3, a and c as well as having a desire to optimize b, as taught by Wu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized γ such that it is within the claimed range of 0.45 ≤ γ ≤ 1.55 to achieve the desired balance between sufficient electrolyte infiltration, cycle performance, energy density and manufacturing costs.
Regarding claim 11, modified Kawamura discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Kawamura discloses A1 = 0.2 and A2 = 0.55, as set forth above, such that A2 is 2.75 times A1 which is within the claimed 2-5 times A1.
Regarding claim 12 and 14, modified Kawamura discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Kawamura discloses A1 = 0.2 or 20%, as set forth above, which is within the claimed range of 10%-25%.
Regarding claim 19, modified Kawamura discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Kawamura further discloses the lithium iron manganese phosphate refers to the compound represented by LiMnαFeβPO4, wherein α+β=1 and 0.6≤α≤1 (Kawamura, [0020]), yielding a range for the molar amount of manganese to total molar amount of manganese and iron to be 0.6 to 1 which encompasses the claimed range of 0.75 to 0.9.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have routinely selected within the overlapping portion of the ranges with reasonable expectation of success in attaining a satisfactory lithium iron manganese phosphate and positive electrode active material.
Claims 5, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura (US 20220006076 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 104577194 A), and Zhamu et al. (US 20170098856 A1) as applied to claim 1, and in further view of and Kano et al. (US 20160036026 A1).
Regarding claim 5, and 16-17, modified Kawamura discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Kawamura discloses the positive active material layer and negative active material layer possessing a coating amount, X and Y, respectively in g, as rendered obvious above. Modified Kawamura discloses the negative active material (i.e. graphite) has a mass loading no more than 30 mg/cm2 and the positive active material has a mass loading no less than 50 mg/cm2 for inorganic and non-polymer material (Zhamu, [0031]), which would yield a ratio between the mass loadings of the positive to negative active material to be 1.5 or greater.
Modified Kawamura does not explicitly disclose a ratio of X to Y in a range of 1.71-1.89.
Kano teaches controlling the ratio p/n of the capacity of the positive electrode, p, to the capacity of the negative electrode, n, to fall within the range 1.1 to 1.8. Kano further teaches when p/n is less than 1.1 it is difficult to exhibit relatively low open-circuit voltage while when p/n is greater than 1.8, the charging condition corresponds to excessive overcharge for a non-aqueous electrolyte which adversely affects lifetime characteristics of the battery ([0022]]. Kano further teaches adjusting the coating amount of the positive and negative electrode materials (i.e. electrode slurry) to attain the desired p/n value ([0161]).
A skilled artisan would recognize Kano desires a greater capacity in the positive electrode relative to the negative electrode as p/n >1 and in adjusting positive and negative electrode active material coating amounts (i.e. X and Y), attempting to conform to a desired p/n for the benefits of balancing low open-circuit voltage and good lifetime characteristics of the battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the ratio X to Y, such that it is within the claimed range of 1.71 to 1.89 to conform to a desired p/n ratio and achieve the desired balance between open-circuit voltage, lifetime characteristics, and adverse effects due to excessive overcharge.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura (US 20220006076 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 104577194 A), Zhamu et al. (US 20170098856 A1), and Wu et al. (CN 113433465 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of and Kano et al. (US 20160036026 A1).
Regarding claim 15, modified Kawamura discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Kawamura discloses the positive active material layer and negative active material layer possessing a coating amount, X and Y, respectively in g, as rendered obvious above. Modified Kawamura discloses the negative active material (i.e. graphite) has a mass loading no more than 30 mg/cm2 and the positive active material has a mass loading no less than 50 mg/cm2 for inorganic and non-polymer material (Zhamu, [0031]), which would yield a ratio between the mass loadings of the positive to negative active material to be 1.5 or greater.
Modified Kawamura does not explicitly disclose a ratio of X to Y in a range of 1.71-1.89.
Kano teaches controlling the ratio p/n of the capacity of the positive electrode, p, to the capacity of the negative electrode, n, to fall within the range 1.1 to 1.8. Kano further teaches when p/n is less than 1.1 it is difficult to exhibit relatively low open-circuit voltage while when p/n is greater than 1.8, the charging condition corresponds to excessive overcharge for a non-aqueous electrolyte which adversely affects lifetime characteristics of the battery ([0022]]. Kano further teaches adjusting the coating amount of the positive and negative electrode materials (i.e. electrode slurry) to attain the desired p/n value ([0161]).
A skilled artisan would recognize Kano desires a greater capacity in the positive electrode relative to the negative electrode as p/n >1 and in adjusting positive and negative electrode active material coating amounts (i.e. X and Y), attempting to conform to a desired p/n for the benefits of balancing low open-circuit voltage and good lifetime characteristics of the battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the ratio X to Y, such that it is within the claimed range of 1.71 to 1.89 to conform to a desired p/n ratio and achieve the desired balance between open-circuit voltage, lifetime characteristics, and adverse effects due to excessive overcharge.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura (US 20220006076 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 104577194 A), and Zhamu et al. (US 20170098856 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Deng et al. (CN 108520947 A), Paulsen et al. (US 20200358096 A1) and Forbert et al. (US 20160036042 A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kawamura discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Kawamura discloses the lithium iron phosphate particle, the lithium iron manganese phosphate particle, and the ternary material (i.e. layered oxide-based active material) to have an average secondary particle size of 1 µm or more or 20 µm or less as if the average secondary particle size is 1 µm or more, a large amount of solvent is needed to make the active material into an electrode and if the average secondary particle size is more than 20 µm, it is difficult to obtain a smooth electrode (Kawamura, [0040]). Modified Kawamura further discloses the ternary material having more excellent electron conductivity and lithium ion conductivity than lithium iron phosphate, is also used without granulation ([0040]).
Deng teaches a similar lithium iron phosphate active material (Abstract) with a grain size of the secondary particle of 0.5 to 2 µm ([17]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.8 to 1.3 µm. Deng further teaches that in satisfying this range, the diffusion path of the lithium ions in the charging and discharging process is short, allowing for better rate performance ([60]).
Therefore, 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 within the overlapping portion of the claimed ranges with reasonable expectation of success in achieving a lithium iron phosphate active material with satisfactory rate performance (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Forbert teaches a similar lithium iron manganese phosphate active material (i.e. Li0.9+xFe1-yMyPO4, [0020]-[0021]) with a secondary particle size of a mean size (i.e. D50) of 1-40 µm, in some embodiments 10-20 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 10-15 µm ([0015];[0050]). Forbert further teaches satisfying such a range contributes to high electronic conductivity and improved electric capacity, and improved rate characteristics ([0016]), and negative influences of relatively coarse particles on the processability and electrochemical product properties are avoided ([0089]).
Therefore, 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 within the overlapping portion of the ranges for the D50 of the lithium iron manganese phosphate material with reasonable expectation of success in achieving a lithium iron manganese phosphate active material with satisfactory electric conductivity, electric capacity, rate characteristics and processibility (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Paulsen teaches a similar ternary material ([0012]) having a monolithic particles with D50 less than 10 µm, preferably between 2 and 5 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 4-6µm ([0049]). Paulsen further teaches if the D50 is larger than 10 µm, the battery performance may be worsening leading to lower capacity and higher reversibility, while a D50 smaller than 2 µm is difficult to prepare using state of the art processes ([0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have selected and optimized within the overlapping portion of the ranges for the D50 of the ternary material to achieve the desired balance between battery performance, capacity, reversibility and manufacturing processes (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamura (US 20220006076 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 104577194 A), Zhamu et al. (US 20170098856 A1), and Wu et al. (CN 113433465 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Deng et al. (CN 108520947 A), Paulsen et al. (US 20200358096 A1) and Forbert et al. (US 20160036042 A1).
Regarding claim 20, modified Kawamura discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Kawamura discloses the lithium iron phosphate particle, the lithium iron manganese phosphate particle, and the ternary material (i.e. layered oxide-based active material)to have an average secondary particle size of 1 µm or more or 20 µm or less as if the average secondary particle size is 1 µm or more, a large amount of solvent is needed to make the active material into an electrode and if the average secondary particle size is more than 20 µm, it is difficult to obtain a smooth electrode (Kawamura, [0040]). Modified Kawamura further discloses the ternary material having more excellent electron conductivity and lithium ion conductivity than lithium iron phosphate, is also used without granulation ([0040]).
Deng teaches a similar lithium iron phosphate active material (Abstract) with a grain size of the secondary particle of 0.5 to 2 µm ([17]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.8 to 1.3 µm. Deng further teaches that in satisfying this range, the diffusion path of the lithium ions in the charging and discharging process is short, allowing for better rate performance ([60]).
Therefore, 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 within the overlapping portion of the claimed ranges with reasonable expectation of success in achieving a lithium iron phosphate active material with rate performance (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Forbert teaches a similar lithium iron manganese phosphate active material (i.e. Li0.9+xFe1-yMyPO4, [0020]-[0021]) with a secondary particle size of a mean size (i.e. D50) of 1-40 µm, in some embodiments 10-20 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 10-15 µm ([0015];[0050]). Forbert further teaches satisfying such a range contributes to high electronic conductivity and improved electric capacity, and improved rate characteristics ([0016]), and negative influences of relatively coarse particles on the processability and electrochemical product properties are avoided ([0089]).
Therefore, 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 within the overlapping portion of the ranges for the D50 of the lithium iron manganese phosphate material with reasonable expectation of success in achieving a lithium iron manganese phosphate active material with satisfactory electric conductivity, electric capacity, rate characteristics and processibility (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Paulsen teaches a similar ternary material ([0012]) having monolithic particles with a D50 less than 10 µm, preferably between 2 and 5 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 4-6µm ([0049]). Paulsen further teaches if the D50 is larger than 10 µm, the battery performance may be worsening leading to lower capacity and higher reversibility, while a D50 smaller than 2 µm is difficult to prepare using state of the art processes ([0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have selected and optimized within the overlapping portion of the ranges for the D50 of the ternary material to achieve the desired balance between battery performance, capacity, reversibility and manufacturing processes (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ESTHER J TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3479. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:00 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.
/E.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 9/28/2026
Prosecution Insights