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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action regarding Application No. 18/732,231 to Lim et al., assigned to Action Battery Technologies, Inc., Dallas, USA, filed 06/03/2024 and published as U.S. PG Publication 2025/0046797 on 02/06/2025 is in response to applicants’ arguments/ remarks and claims amendment filed 12/16/2025. Applicants’ response has been given full consideration.
Status of the Claims
In the response filed 12/16/2025 applicant has amended claim 8 by adding the limitation, “wherein the cathode active material is made by a continuous hydrothermal manufacturing process.” The rest of the claims are as previously filed on 09/08/2025. The status of the claims stand as follows:
Withdrawn 1-7
Currently amended 8
Original 9, 12-14
Canceled 10-11
Claims 1-9, 12-14 are currently pending in this application. Claims 8-9, 12-14 are under full consideration, and claim 1-7 are withdrawn from consideration for being non-elected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this section can be found in the prior Office Action.
Claim 8, 9, 12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami (U.S. PG Publication 2011/0300441) in view of Jen et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2021/0344012)
Regarding claim 8, Kawakami teaches a positive electrode active material comprising: a deagglomerated single crystalline particle 102 (Kawakami Fig. 1, paragraph 0015, 0039) comprising lithium iron manganese phosphate (Kawakami paragraph 0039, 0040); a metal phosphate coating 104 in contact with the lithium iron manganese phosphate 102 (Kawakami Fig. 1, paragraph 0072); and a carbon coating in contact with the metal phosphate coating (Kawakami paragraph 0117, 0118). The disclosed lithium iron manganese phosphate comprises with high crystallinity having an olivine structure (Kawakami paragraph 0114) and is expressed by a general formula, Li1-xFeyM1-y PO4 (x is greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to 1; M is one or more of Mn, Co, and Ni; and y is greater than 0 and less than 1) (Kawakami paragraph 0040). In the case where x=0 and M=Mn, the lithium iron manganese phosphate compound disclosed by Kawakami is LiFeyMn1-y PO4.
Kawakami discloses the claimed lithium iron manganese phosphate, but is silent that the disclosed compound lithium iron manganese phosphate includes a dopant D.
Jen discloses a tungsten-doped lithium manganese iron phosphate-based particulate for a cathode of a lithium-ion battery (Jen paragraph 0005, 0006) having an olivine-type crystal structure (Jen Fig. 1, paragraph 0056) and has the chemical formula LixMn1-y-zFeyMzWfPaO4a+-p/C (Jen 0023), and when z=0, and the tungsten atomic ratio of (f) being 0<f<0.02 includes the claimed range of (b) of the dopant D, it is representative of the claimed cathode material. Moreover, the metal M (M=Mg, Sr, Al, Si, Ti, Cr, V, Co, Ni, and combinations thereof) in the formula of Jen LixMn1-y-zFeyMzWfPaO4a+-p/C (Jen 0023, 0024) and having the atomic ratio of (z) in the range 0<z<0.08 included in the claimed range of (b) can be equivalent to the dopants D recited in claim 8. The C in the formula of Jen is carbon added to the disclosed cathode material (Jen paragraph0032).
Jen discloses the disclosed metal doped cathode active material overcomes low electric capacity and the moisture absorption problem due to large surface area, and problems associate with difficulty of dispersion, and enhances the electric conductivity of the cathode active material and overcomes the associated problems (Jen paragraph 0004).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the cathode active material of Kawakami by the doping of the cathode active material disclosed by Jen (Jen paragraph 0023, 0024) for the benefits disclosed by Jen (Jen paragraph 0004). According to the MPEP such a modification is considered the use of the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C).
Amended claim 8 reciting, “…wherein the cathode active material is made by a continuous hydrothermal manufacturing process” is product-by-process claim. It is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir.1985) (See MPEP 2113).
13 Regarding claim 9, Kawakami teaches the deagglomerated single crystalline particle comprises a stand-alone crystalline particle with no secondary particles or conglomerates (Kawakami paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 12, Kawakami teaches that the metal phosphate coating is a phosphate compound including lithium, iron, cobalt, manganese and nickel (Kawakami paragraph 0073), with a thickness of 1 to 8 nm, which is within the claimed ranged (Kawakami paragraph 0076).
Regarding claim 14, Kawakami further teaches that a plurality of deagglomerated single crystalline particles with a metal phosphate coating in contact with the lithium ion manganese phosphate and a carbon coating in contact with the metal phosphate coating form a conductive cluster interfacing the carbon coatings between the deagglomerated single crystalline particles. Specifically, Kawakami teaches that the positive electrode active materials in particle are in contact with each other through carbon coating on their surface (Kawakami paragraph 0119).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami (U.S. PG Publication 2011/0300441) in view of Jen et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2021/0344012) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Wang (CN 105633366 A; the English Translation is used here; hereafter called CN '366)
The discussion of Kawakami and Jen as applied to claim 8 above is fully incorporated here and is relied upon for the limitation of the claim in this section.
Regarding claim 13, Kawakami teaches the carbon coating thickness is 2 nm to 10 nm, which is within the claimed range (Kawakami paragraph 0118). Kawakami further teaches that the carbon source for the carbon coating is glucose (Kawakami paragraph 0116), but does not specifically teach the claimed carbon sources.
However, Wang CN '366 teaches a positive electrode active material comprising lithium iron manganese phosphate. Wang CN '366 further teaches the positive electrode active material being coated with a carbon source, wherein the carbon source is selected from one of the group consisting of conductive carbon black, carb on nanotube, and glucose (See CN '366 page 5, para.05 of the English Translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute glucose of Kawakami as the carbon source with carbon black or carbon nanotube of Wang, because Wang teaches carbon black, carbon nanotube, and glucose to be art-recognized equivalents of carbon sources suitable to be used as a carbon coating of a positive electrode active material. (MPEP 2144.06). Moreover, selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Response to Argument
In the response filed on 12/16/2025 applicant traverses the rejection of the claims presented in the previous non-final Office action dated 11/17/2025. Applicant argues that “As an initial matter, amended claim 8 recites "[a] cathode active material comprising: a deagglomerated single crystalline particle comprising lithium iron manganese phosphate," and "wherein the cathode active material is made by a continuous hydrothermal manufacturing process." Neither Kawakami nor Jen teaches or suggests this manufacturing process, nor do they disclose the "deagglomerated single crystalline particle" morphology imparted by this specific process.” Examiner notes this argument is not persuasive since the claim is directed a cathode active material and not to a manufacturing process. Kawakami discloses the disclosed lithium iron manganese phosphate comprises with high crystallinity having an olivine structure (Kawakami paragraph 0114). Further there is no experimental evidence provided that shows the claimed deagglomerated single crystalline particle morphology is imparted by this specific process only excluding to other known processes in the art. Therefore, applicants argument is not persuasive.
Applicant also argues that the reference of Kawakami is a solid-state synthesis and the resulting reaction product is a fused aggregate that must be mechanically fractured (ground) to produce a power. Examiner while still noting the claims are directed to the cathode active material and not the process of manufacture, processes of deagglomeration of aggregated of particles into the individual primary particles are known in the art of chemical synthesis. Further, the reference of Kawakami expressly discloses the structure of the phosphate compound containing lithium, iron, and one or more of manganese, cobalt, and nickel may be a single crystal structure (Kawakami paragraph 0039) and high crystallinity having an olivine structure (Kawakami paragraph 0114) considered equivalent to the claimed deagglomerated single crystalline particles.
Applicant argues that the in the instant invention the process employed produces deagglomerated particles. It is known in the art griding and other similar process are used to deagglomerate agglomerated particles which result from sintering. Applicant has not provided any experimental evidence that the hydrothermal manufacturing process uniquely produces deagglomerated particles not obtained by other deagglomeration methods. Applicant also has not provided any evidence that the claimed lithium iron manganese phosphate is structurally different from the lithium iron manganese phosphate of Kawasaki (Kawakami paragraph 0039, 0040, 0114) that also has single crystalline particle 102 (Kawakami Fig. 1, paragraph 0015, 0039) as the claimed compound.
Applicant also argues that the secondary reference of Jen et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2021/0344012) fails to cure the deficiency of Kawakami, and that Jen discloses a similar method to produce granulated mixture, and that the combination of Kawakami and Jen fail to disclose the claims continuous hydrothermal manufacturing process and the results deagglomerated single crystalline particle morphology. Examiner notes as presented above that the manufacturing process is not a claimed subject matter, and that no evidence is presented of a hydrothermal process vs other processes is presented. Further, examiner notes that the secondary reference of Jen is relied upon for its disclose of the dopant and discloses a tungsten-doped lithium manganese iron phosphate-based particulate for a cathode of a lithium-ion battery (Jen paragraph 0005, 0006) having an olivine-type crystal structure (Jen Fig. 1, paragraph 0056).
Therefore, the combined teaching of Kawasaki and Jen renders the claimed invention obvious. This Office action is made final.
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 OMAR M KEKIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5918. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00 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, NIKI BAKHTIARI can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/OMAR M KEKIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722