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' request for continued examination, RCE, and claims amendment filed 06/22/2026. Applicants' response has been given full consideration.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/22/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
In the request for continued examination, RCE, response filed 06/22/2026 applicant has amended claim 8 by incorporation of limitation of claim 14. The status of the claims stand as follows:
Withdrawn 1-7
Previously presented 8
Original 9, 12-13
Canceled 10-11, 14
Claims 1-9, 12-13 are currently pending in this application. Claims 1-7 have been withdrawn for being non-elected claims. Claims 8-9, 12-13 are under full consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/22/206 has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered by the examiner. A duly initialed and signed copy is attached herewith. Accordingly, information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by Examiner
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 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, 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.yPO₄.
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 paragraph 0023), and when z=0, and the tungsten atomic ratio of (f)being0<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(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 paragraph 0032).
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).
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).
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).
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). 20 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
Applicant traverses the rejection of the claims under 103 over Kawakami (U.S. PG Publication 2011/0300441) in view Jen et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2021/0344012). Applicant argues that the active material comprising a “deagglomerated single crystalline particle comprising lithium iron manganese phosphate” and is different from the single crystal material of Kawakami.
Examiner notes that other than presenting a general discussion of the claimed deagglomerated single crystalline particle and the deagglomerated single crystalline particle 102 of Kawakami there is no evidence presented that the deagglomerated single crystal formed by the hydrothermal manufacturing process as claimed is different from the single crystal of the prior art. Examiner notes that this was presented in the previous Office actions.
Applicant argues that the examiner required evidence that the claimed deagglomerated single crystalline particles are different from the Kawakami single crystalline particle. It is re-iterated here that the evidence required include experimental evidence and data:
(1) It is to establish the unique form of the claimed deagglomerated crystalline particle formed by the continuous hydrothermal manufacturing process from other forms of single crystalline particles formed by other deagglomeration processes.
(2) It needs to be established by the applicant that indeed the claimed deagglomerated single crystalline particle is indeed different from other forms of the same material on the fact that it is prepared by the claimed continuous hydrothermal process which may impact its crystallin nature, and electrochemical properties since it is claimed to be a cathode active material.
(3) It should be unequivocally established that a different deagglomeration process such as grinding will lead to or results in changing the crystallinity of the grinded material or its electrochemical properties as an electrode active material,
(4) establish that deagglomeration by the process of continuous hydrothermal process is in fact offers a material with a different crystallinity that is not achieved by other processes known in the art.
(5) what is required is to establish if the continuous hydrothermal deagglomeration process affect in unique ways the crystal size, crystal morphology, electrochemical properties, and other desired properties to unambiguously distinguish the claimed material from the material disclosed by the applied reference.
(6) the response presented in the advisory active of 05/22/2026 regarding the previously presented affidavit is fully incorporated here and further elaborated. Applicant argues that “As shown in Exhibit A, utilizing the claimed continuous hydrothermal manufacturing process results in naturally deagglomerated single crystals with smooth, defined facets”. Applicant then adds “These structural features yield unexpectedly improved capacity retention and electrochemical stability compared to the crushed aggregates of the prior art” (emphasis added). Applicant further adds “Specifically, Exhibit A presents SEM micrographs (Figure 1), TEM imaging (Figure 2), XRD data (Figure 3), and cycling performance data (Figure 4) that collectively demonstrate the structural and functional distinctions between the claimed material and the prior art”. The arguments presents do not present any specific experimental evidence or experimental data that specifically compares the capacity retention between the claimed deagglomerated material lithium iron manganese phosphate made by a continuous hydrothermal manufacturing method and the material of the same composition that has been deagglomerated by grinding and crushing as is disclosed in the applied reference of Kawakami. Without such specific experimental data comprising the electrochemical properties of the claimed lithium iron manganese phosphate made by a continuous hydrothermal manufacturing method comparing to other forms of the same material deagglomerated by physical grinding and crushing such as disclosed by Kawakami applicant’s unexpected results argument is mere conclusion statement that the two compounds are different without sufficient data. The MPEP states that, “Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected (See MPEP 716.02). Therefore, to establish such an expected results the results of the differences in the properties, in this case the electrochemical properties, have to be presented and shown explicitly. The MPEP further require that the burden to establish such results falls on the applicant (MPEP 716.02(b).
Applicant has also presented in the information disclosure statement, IDS, filed 06/22/2026 the journal article for H. Sierra-Uribe et al.., "Impact of ball milling on the energy storage properties of LiFePO4 cathodes for lithium- ion batteries," in the J. Solid State Electrochem. Vol. 28, pages 3481-3489, (2024), regarding the effect of ball milling in the energy storage properties of lithium iron phosphate. However, the paper is silent about the claimed continuous hydrothermal process and its comparison to other methods and is, therefore, inconclusive so as to offer any of the needed evidence.
Since no such evidence is presented, it is maintained by the examiner that the combined teaching of Kawakami and Jen renders obvious the claimed deagglomerated single crystalline particle material of lithium iron manganese phosphate lithium iron manganese phosphate material made by a continuous hydrothermal manufacturing process.
Conclusion
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.
/JONATHAN G JELSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/OMAR M KEKIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights