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 .
Relevant MPEP Sections
MPEP 2112.01 relating to Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims: 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Under MPEP § 2131.03, a claim that recites a range is anticipated if at least one composition or value within that range is disclosed in the prior art. This means that even if the prior art does not disclose the entire range, a single point within the claimed range can render the claim anticipated, provided it is disclosed with sufficient specificity to constitute anticipation (Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775; UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant has amended the claims to include a slightly more specific list of first active materials. However, as applicant notes, the prior art specifies LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 (paragraph [0033] – i.e. a typical NMC material) as a potential first active material and such is reasonably considered a “lithium manganese nickel oxide”, as the claim language does not necessarily preclude the presence of cobalt (lithium, manganese, nickel and oxygen are all majority components).
In any event, the lithium iron phosphate first cathode materials of the prior art such as in the prior art Example 1 and 2 are mixed with Mn containing materials (paragraph [0050]), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the mixing and processing of the materials together would result in at least interface portions of the material where diffusion and/or mechanical mixing has occurred and a “lithium manganese iron phosphate” material would be present in the prior art.
The claims amendments, while slightly further limiting for the first active material, still represent a majority of the most commonly used cathode materials. The claim amendments and applicant’s arguments therefore fail to distinguish the claims from the prior art of record, and therefore this action is FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 or 2) as being anticipated by Li (CN 102479947 cited in IDS, two different versions of machine translations are attached, paragraph numbers refer to USPTO created translation, Google Patents translation of record for clarification but does not include paragraph numbers).
In regard to claims 1-6, Li teaches a positive electrode material (mistranslated as anode in the machine translation with paragraphs), comprising a first active material and a second active material; wherein the first active material comprises a lithium transition metal oxide such as LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 (paragraph [0031-0032], i.e. a lithium manganese nickel oxide),
wherein the second active material is a solid solution of two phases (i.e. a second and a third active material) with a general formula xLi2MnO3 · yLiMO2 wherein M is selected from one or more of Mn, Ni, Co, Cr, Ti and Al - shown in paragraphs [0023-0026], preferably, the second positive electrode material is Li 1.2 Ni 0.2 Mn 0.6 O 2 , Li 1.111 Ni 0.222 Mn 0.444 Co 0.222 O 2 , Li 1.22 Ni 0.17 Mn 0.61 O 2 . Li1+(a/(2+a))Mn2a/(2+a)M6/(2+a)-2O2; (paragraph [0009]) and the content of the second (or second and third combined) active material(s) is preferably 15 to 25wt% (paragraph [0011]);
the second active material produces a MnO2 coating layer when having a lithium potential higher than X volt(V), wherein 4.3≤X≤4.6 (paragraph [0030] – in any event, the prior art materials are substantially indistinguishable from those of the instant claims and Examples in the instant specification and therefore would be expected to have the same properties absent evidence to the contrary - see MPEP 2112.01) and the lithium transition metal oxide comprises a carbon coating layer (paragraph [0047] – slurry mixed with PVDF and acetylene black i.e. carbon coating).
The materials described by the prior art include examples which falls within the claimed ranges in a manner which anticipates the claimed materials (MPEP 2131.03 above). Further, the lithium iron phosphate first cathode materials of the prior art such as in the prior art Example 1 and 2 are mixed with Mn containing materials (paragraph [0050]), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the mixing and processing of the materials together would result in at least interface portions of the material where diffusion has occurred and a “lithium manganese iron phosphate” material would be present in the prior art.
In regard to claims 8-14, Li teaches an electronic device and an electrochemical device (lithium-ion battery for a mobile phone – paragraph ]0002]), comprising a positive electrode sheet, a negative electrode sheet, and a separator (translated as “diaphragm” in the attached translation – per attached Google Patents translation “Encapsulation: The positive electrode sheet, separator and negative electrode sheet are stacked or wound in sequence to prepare the battery core, and then packaged into a battery”), and the positive electrode sheet contains the positive electrode material of claim 1 (paragraph [0042]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Roh et al. (KR 102168640 B1 using US Pub 2023/0238524 as an English equivalent).
In regard to claim 7, Li teaches the positive electrode material of claim 1 but does not specify particle sizes. However, Roh et al. teach a similar solid solution of manganese and cobalt containing lithium transition metal oxides (paragraphs [0015-0030]) for lithium ion batteries and the desirability to control a primary particle diameter of the second active material to be 100 nm to 500 nm because if the particles are excessively grown, irregular reactions may occur, which deteriorate electrochemical properties (paragraphs [0079-0081] - which falls within an anticipates or overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness - see MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention filed to use primary particle sizes of 100nm to 500nm for the solid solution second active material of Li as such prevents a deterioration of electrochemical properties as taught by Roh et al.
In regard to claim 15, Li teaches an electrochemical device, comprising a positive electrode sheet, a negative electrode sheet, and a separator, and the positive electrode sheet contains the claimed positive electrode material (paragraphs [0042-0043]) as noted above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure - Ito et al. (US Pub 2012/0228544) teaches solid solutions similar to the claimed compositions.
US Pub 2011/0223482 newly cited teaches a similar cathode material and in paragraph [0029]:
The lithium manganese iron phosphate is a phosphate compound containing lithium atoms, manganese atoms, and iron atoms. Further, the lithium manganese iron phosphate has an olivine-type crystal structure classified into orthorhombic crystal, and is formed by manganese atoms and iron atoms being in solid solution with each other.
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 Nicholas P D'Aniello whose telephone number is (571)270-3635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm 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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights