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
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-14, 17, and 19-20) in the reply filed on June 25, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 15-16 and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 25, 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed July 17, 2024 and April 28, 2025 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: d1. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-13 objected to because of the following informalities: not having spaces between the numbers and units within the claims (twice in lines 2 of each of the claims 10-13). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2023/0045821 (Yang et al.).
As to claim 1, Yang et al. teach a positive electrode material, comprising:
a lithium manganese iron phosphate (lithium iron manganese phosphate; para 0033),
a carbon, which is coated on a surface of a particle of the lithium manganese iron phosphate (para 0033),
wherein the carbon accounts for 1.4% to 4.7% of a total mass of the positive electrode material (1.0-1.8 wt%) (para 0014) (overlaps, thus renders the claimed range obvious).
Yang et al. does not specifically teach that the lithium manganese iron phosphate has a chemical formula of LiaMnxFe1-x-yMyPO4 wherein 0.9 ≤ a ≤ 1.10, 0 ≤ x ≤ 1.0, 0.≤ y ≤ 0.2, 0.5 ≤ x/(1-x-y) ≤ 0.9, M is a doped element and selected from one or more of Ti, Mg, Ni, Co, Al, V, Cr, Zr, and Nb.
However, Yang et al. renders the chemical formula obvious by teaching the precursors having the stoichiometric values therein. Specifically, Yang et al. teach a lithium iron manganese phosphate doped with vanadium and carbon using the specific precursor of (Mn0.699Fe0.3V0.0015)2(PO4)3·6H2O (para 0042). Accordingly, as the precursors that form the final product fall in the claimed range for the final product, the final product would either (a) be expected to form a final product that falls within the claimed final product, or (b) at the very least render the claimed formal obvious.
With respect to (a): The reasoning for expectation of the final product is that the precursors that form the final product fall within the claimed range, and thus the final product would be expected to have similar subscripts that fall within the claimed formula.
With respect to (b): If it is shown that the final product formed does not meet the claimed ranges regarding the components, any differences would be small, such that obviousness is achieved. It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)) Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
As to claim 2, Yang et al. teach the carbon is coated on the surface of the particle of the lithium manganese iron phosphate, and a core body composed of the lithium manganese iron phosphate (para 0041).
Regarding the limitation - a fusion layer of the lithium manganese iron phosphate fused with the carbon, and a coating layer composed of the carbon are formed from the inside out – this limitation would be formed by the process of Yang et al. (para 0041-0044), as it is similar to that of the instant application (see para 0028 and claim 15 as originally filed).
As to claim 3, the limitation (a thickness ratio of the fusion layer to the coating layer is (10-15):(5-10)) would either be (a) expected, or (b) obvious from the teaching of Yang et al.
With respect to (a): The reason for expectation is that the process of Yang et al. (para 0041-0044), as it is similar to that of the instant application (see para 0028 and claim 15 as originally filed). Thus the same product is achieved.
With respect to (b): If it is shown that the final product formed does not meet the claimed product (ratio), any differences would be small, such that obviousness is achieved. It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)) Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
With respect to claim 4, the limitation (a proportion of the carbon at a first depth from a surface of the coating layer is 1.2%≤Wl≤2.3%, and the first depth is within a range of the fusion layer) would either be (a) expected, or (b) obvious from the teaching of Yang et al.
With respect to (a): The reason for expectation is that the process of Yang et al. (para 0041-0044), as it is similar to that of the instant application (see para 0028 and claim 15 as originally filed). Thus the same product is achieved.
With respect to (b): If it is shown that the final product formed does not meet the claimed product (proportion of carbon at a first depth), any differences would be small, such that obviousness is achieved. It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)) Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
With respect to claim 5, the limitation (a proportion of the carbon at a first depth from a surface of the coating layer is 1.2%≤Wl≤2.3%, and the first depth is within a range of the fusion layer) would either be (a) expected, or (b) obvious from the teaching of Yang et al.
With respect to (a): The reason for expectation is that the process of Yang et al. (para 0041-0044), as it is similar to that of the instant application (see para 0028 and claim 15 as originally filed). Thus the same product is achieved.
With respect to (b): If it is shown that the final product formed does not meet the claimed product (proportion of carbon at a first depth), any differences would be small, such that obviousness is achieved. It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)) Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
With respect to claim 6, the limitation (a proportion of the carbon at a second depth from the surface of the coating layer is 0.8%≤W2≤1.8%, and the second depth is within the range of the fusion layer, the second depth is greater than the first depth) would either be (a) expected, or (b) obvious from the teaching of Yang et al.
With respect to (a): The reason for expectation is that the process of Yang et al. (para 0041-0044), as it is similar to that of the instant application (see para 0028 and claim 15 as originally filed). Thus the same product is achieved.
With respect to (b): If it is shown that the final product formed does not meet the claimed product (a proportion of the carbon at a second depth), any differences would be small, such that obviousness is achieved. It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)) Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
With respect to claim 7, the limitation (a proportion of the carbon at a second depth from the surface of the coating layer is 0.8%≤W2≤1.8%, and the second depth is within the range of the fusion layer, the second depth is greater than the first depth) would either be (a) expected, or (b) obvious from the teaching of Yang et al.
With respect to (a): The reason for expectation is that the process of Yang et al. (para 0041-0044), as it is similar to that of the instant application (see para 0028 and claim 15 as originally filed). Thus the same product is achieved.
With respect to (b): If it is shown that the final product formed does not meet the claimed product (a proportion of the carbon at a second depth), any differences would be small, such that obviousness is achieved. It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)) Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
As to claim 8, the limitation (a ratio of the proportion of the carbon at the first depth from the surface of the coating layer to the proportion of the carbon at the second depth is 1.05≤W1/W2≤1.8) would either be (a) expected, or (b) obvious from the teaching of Yang et al.
With respect to (a): The reason for expectation is that the process of Yang et al. (para 0041-0044), as it is similar to that of the instant application (see para 0028 and claim 15 as originally filed). Thus the same product is achieved.
With respect to (b): If it is shown that the final product formed does not meet the claimed product (the claimed ratio), any differences would be small, such that obviousness is achieved. It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d As to claim 9, the limitation (a ratio of the proportion of the carbon at the first depth from the surface of the coating layer to the proportion of the carbon at the second depth is 1.05≤W1/W2≤1.8) would either be (a) expected, or (b) obvious from the teaching of Yang et al.
With respect to (a): The reason for expectation is that the process of Yang et al. (para 0041-0044), as it is similar to that of the instant application (see para 0028 and claim 15 as originally filed). Thus the same product is achieved.
With respect to (b): If it is shown that the final product formed does not meet the claimed product (the claimed ratio), any differences would be small, such that obviousness is achieved. It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)) Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
As to claim 10, the limitation (the first depth is a segment between 5 nm and 20 nm from the surface of the coating layer) would either be (a) expected, or (b) obvious from the teaching of Yang et al.
With respect to (a): The reason for expectation is that the process of Yang et al. (para 0041-0044), as it is similar to that of the instant application (see para 0028 and claim 15 as originally filed). Thus the same product is achieved.
With respect to (b): If it is shown that the final product formed does not meet the claimed product (the claimed first depth), any differences would be small, such that obviousness is achieved. It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)) Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
As to claim 11, the limitation (the first depth is a segment between 5 nm and 20 nm from the surface of the coating layer) would either be (a) expected, or (b) obvious from the teaching of Yang et al.
With respect to (a): The reason for expectation is that the process of Yang et al. (para 0041-0044), as it is similar to that of the instant application (see para 0028 and claim 15 as originally filed). Thus the same product is achieved.
With respect to (b): If it is shown that the final product formed does not meet the claimed product (the claimed first depth), any differences would be small, such that obviousness is achieved. It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)) Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
As to claim 12, the limitation (the second depth is a segment between 90 nm and 100 nm from the surface of the coating layer) would either be (a) expected, or (b) obvious from the teaching of Yang et al.
With respect to (a): The reason for expectation is that the process of Yang et al. (para 0041-0044), as it is similar to that of the instant application (see para 0028 and claim 15 as originally filed). Thus the same product is achieved.
With respect to (b): If it is shown that the final product formed does not meet the claimed product (the claimed second depth), any differences would be small, such that obviousness is achieved. It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)) Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
As to claim 13, the limitation (the second depth is a segment between 90 nm and 100 nm from the surface of the coating layer) would either be (a) expected, or (b) obvious from the teaching of Yang et al.
With respect to (a): The reason for expectation is that the process of Yang et al. (para 0041-0044), as it is similar to that of the instant application (see para 0028 and claim 15 as originally filed). Thus the same product is achieved.
With respect to (b): If it is shown that the final product formed does not meet the claimed product (the claimed second depth), any differences would be small, such that obviousness is achieved. It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)) Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
As to claim 14, the limitation (a metal exposure rate Pme after the surface of the particle of the lithium manganese iron phosphate is coated with the carbon is 68% ≤Pme ≤ 88%, and the metal exposure rate Pme = nme/ntot wherein nme is a total molar amount of all metal elements at the surface of the particle of the lithium manganese iron phosphate, wherein ntot is a total molar amount of all elements at the surface of the particle of the lithium manganese iron phosphate) would either be (a) expected, or (b) obvious from the teaching of Yang et al.
With respect to (a): The reason for expectation is that the process of Yang et al. (para 0041-0044), as it is similar to that of the instant application (see para 0028 and claim 15 as originally filed). Thus the same product is achieved.
With respect to (b): If it is shown that the final product formed does not meet the claimed product (the claimed metal exposure rate), any differences would be small, such that obviousness is achieved. It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)) Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
As to claim 17, Yang et al. teach a positive electrode sheet, having a raw material comprising the positive electrode material according to claim 1 (the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake) (para 0054).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al., as applied to claims 1 and 27 above, in view of WO 2022/123389 / US 2024/0030413 (Yamazaki et al.). (Note: The US document is relied upon as an English translation for the WO document, as both pertain to the same PCT. Both documents are applicable as prior art under different dates.)
As to claim 19, Yang et al. of a battery with a lithium metal anode and the electrode sheet of claim 17 (the limitations of claim 17, as set forth above, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake) (para 0054).
Thus, Yang et al. do not teach that the battery is a lithium ion battery.
However, Yamazaki et al., in the same field of endeavor, teach a lithium-based battery acknowledging lithium metal as well as other materials, such as graphite or lithium titanite as the negative electrode (para 0090). The substitution of graphite or lithium titanate (in Yamazaki et al.) for lithium metal (in both Yamazaki et al. and Yang et al.) as the anode would yield the predictable result of providing an anode, wherein the substituted components and their functions were known in the art (anodes). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute graphite or lithium titanate for lithium metal as the anode, as the substitution would yield the predictable result of providing an anode, wherein the substituted components and their functions were known in the art (anodes). “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I). (Note: Graphite and lithium titanate are ion intercalation materials, which would render the claimed lithium-ion battery obvious.)
As to claim 20, the lithium ion battery according to claim 19 has been rendered obvious (see the rejection to claim 19 for full details, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake). Furthermore, Yamazaki et al., relied upon to render obvious the lithium-ion battery, teaches of a battery pack in transport vehicles (para 0548). The motivation for having a pack of batteries/battery modules is to be able to power a vehicle (via having interconnected batteries) (para 0548). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) for having a pack of batteries/battery modules is to be able to power a vehicle (via having interconnected batteries).
Conclusion
Note: No other prior art is considered pertinent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:00 -7:30 (AM) and 9:45-3:15 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights