DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-15 and 19-20, drawn to a positive electrode material composition and positive electrode plate, classified in H01M4/505.
II. Claims 16-18, drawn to a method of making a positive electrode material composition, classified in H01M10/0525.
3. Inventions II and I are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the positive electrode material composition could be formed by using a drying method besides spray drying and using different stirring temperatures or different stirring rate or different grinding/mixing time.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
4. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because at least the following reason(s) apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; (as set forth above)
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; (as the method and product are not commensurate)(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); (as the method and composition would require different searches) and(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention. (in light of the differences).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
5. During a telephone conversation with Jun Ma on Monday, September 21, 2026, a provisional election was made to prosecute the invention of Group 1, claims 1-15 and 19-20. At that point, the inventions were stated as Group I (product, Claims 1-15) and Group II (method, Claims 16-20) but Group I should include Claims 19-20 and are included in Group I. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 16-18 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Priority
6. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
7. Information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted July 12, 2024, May 16, 2025, November 19, 2025, and May 28, 2026, have been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
8. All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Claim Objections
9. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “materialand” should likely be written “material”. Appropriate correction is required.
10. Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “claims 1” should be written “claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
11. Claims 1-15 and 19-20 are 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. The claims are replete with issues under 35 USC 112 (b). Every use of the term “optionally” causes issues. Most of these occurrences cause problems because they narrow a previously stated range of numerical values or a previously stated list of species. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). As one example, claim 1 recites “said a is in the range of 0.9 to 1.1, optionally in the range of 0.001 to 0005” and it is unclear what the scope of the claim is. The broad recitation is “said a is in the range of 0.9 to 1.1” and the narrower statement of the range/limitation is “optionally in the range of 0.001 to 0005”. As another example, Claim 2 recites “R1 and R2 each independently represent H or at least one of the group consisting of the following functional groups: -COOH, -OH, -SH, -CN, -SCN, amino groups, phosphate groups, carboxylate groups, amide groups, aldehyde groups, sulfonyl groups, polyether chain segments, C1-C20 aliphatic hydrocarbon groups, C1-C20 halogenated aliphatic hydrocarbon group, C1-C20 heteroaliphatic hydrocarbon groups, C1-C20 halogenated heteroaliphatic hydrocarbon groups, C6-C20 aromatic hydrocarbon groups, C6-C20 halogenated aromatic hydrocarbon groups, C2-C20 heteroaromatic hydrocarbon groups, and C2-C20 halogenated heteroaromatic hydrocarbon groups”, and then in the next section, “optionally, R1 and R2 each independently represent H or at least one of the group consisting of the following functional groups: -COOH, -OH, -SH, amino groups, phosphate groups, polyether chain segments, C1-C8 alkyl groups, C1-C8 haloalkyl groups, C1-C8 heteroalkyl groups, C1-C8 haloheteroalkyl groups, C2-C8 alkenyl groups, C2-C8 haloalkenyl groups, and phenyl” (a narrower range of limitations) and then “more optionally, R1 and R2 each independently represent H or at least one of the group consisting of the following functional groups: -OH, -SH, amino groups, phosphate groups, polyether chain segments, C1-C8 alkyl groups, C1-C8 haloalkyl groups, C1-C8 heteroalkyl groups, C1-C8 haloheteroalkyl groups, C2-C8 alkenyl groups, and C2-C8 haloalkenyl groups” (an even more narrow range).
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Further, the use of the term “more optionally” is totally unclear. What is something that is “more optional”?
The rest of the claims have the same issues and should be analyzed very carefully and corrected so that they have clear scopes. The only claims that do not appear to have these issues are 9, 11, 14, and these claims are rejected as being dependent on rejected base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
12. Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu US PG Publication 2016/0190584 in view of Long et al. (“Electrochemical Performance of Li0.995Al0.005Mn0.85Fe0.15PO4/C as a Cathode Material for Lithium-Ion Batteries” International Journal of Electrochemical Science, Volume 11, Issue 12, December 2016, Pages 10096-10106) (hereinafter “Long NPL”) and Changsha CN107256960.
Regarding Claims 1-5, 8, and 11, Wu discloses a positive electrode material composition comprising a positive electrode active material which is electrically neutral and is represented by
PNG
media_image1.png
284
837
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
199
281
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See entire disclosure and especially paras 0005-0018 and Table 2 (reproduced above) for specific compositions. Wu therefore discloses a positive electrode active material that meets the claimed Formula of Claim 1, including the circled limitations, and including a value of n in the range of 0.001 to 0.005 (meeting Claim 11) but lacking the boxed limitations (there is no “A” element or its quantity x) below:
PNG
media_image3.png
315
869
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, in the same field of endeavor of lithium battery design using phosphate-based lithium cathode active materials, Long NPL teaches that Al being doped into the lithium site of similar compounds as Wu (in conjunction with Fe ion being doped into the Mn site), arriving at the following compound which essentially provides an “A” element having a stoichiometry of 0.0005 mol (meeting the claimed range of x for the A element):
PNG
media_image4.png
50
472
media_image4.png
Greyscale
enhances dynamic stability of the structure, of Li+ diffusion, and electrode kinetics (see entire disclosure and especially the abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to dope Al into the lithium sites of the active material of Wu in the proportion taught by Long because Long teaches that this enhances dynamic stability of the structure, of Li+ diffusion, and electrode kinetics.
Wu modified by Long does not specifically disclose that the positive electrode material composition includes an organopolysiloxane compound. However, in the same field of endeavor of lithium secondary battery design where the positive electrode active material is C-cladded lithium metal phosphate based active material, Changsha discloses that where the positive electrode active material is C-cladded lithium metal phosphate based active material, coating the active material particles in a modified polysiloxane (organopolysiloxane) such as polydiphenyldimethylsiloxane (a linear organopolysiloxane, synonymous with the claimed polyphenyl methyl siloxane, a linear organopolysiloxane having phenyl groups and methyl groups that meet Claims 2-3 and Claim 5) in an amount of 2-8 parts by weight (which overlaps* the range of 0.01 wt% to 2 wt%, meeting Claim 8) and having capping methyl or phenyl groups (inherent and necessary to the structure) (meeting Claim 4) because this prevents electrolyte from corroding the positive electrode active material when leakage occurs, preventing the active material from being deactivated and affecting the battery’s lifespan (para 0012) (see entire disclosure and especially paras 0008-0015). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate an organopolysiloxane such as polydiphenyldimethylsiloxane into the positive electrode material composition of Wu and Long in an amount of 2-8 parts by weight or 0.01wt% to 2 wt% because Changsha discloses that where the positive electrode active material is C-cladded lithium metal phosphate based active material, coating the active material particles in an organopolysiloxane such as polyphenyl methyl siloxane in the claimed wt % prevents electrolyte from corroding the positive electrode active material when leakage occurs, preventing the active material from being deactivated and affecting the battery’s lifespan.
* In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that 'suitable protection' is provided if the protective layer is 'about' 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant's] claimed range."). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.).
Regarding Claim 7, there is no polar functional group on the organopolysiloxane of the cited prior art, which meets the claimed amount of 0%≤α<50%.
Regarding Claim 9, Wu teaches to clad carbon on the surface of the positive electrode active material (paras 0010-0012, 0086).
Regarding Claim 10, Wu modified by Long and Changsha discloses wherein each of A, C, and D is independently any one element in the above-mentioned respective ranges but fails to specifically disclose wherein B is at least two elements in its range. However, Changsha teaches that in the similar positive electrode active material having LiMPO4 type structure, including Co as a primary transition metal in the formula (in addition to Fe and e.g. Mn, Ni, Zn, Mo, Ti, see paras 0010-0012) forms a good active material that advantageous over e.g. simple LiFePO4, and the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 12, the skilled artisan would understand that in the active material formula of Wu in view of Long NPL where Li is doped with e.g. Al and Mn is doped with Fe, there would be 0.005 mol of Al (element A) per mole of Li (per Long NPL formula) and there would be 0.20 mol Fe per 0.8 mol Mn (per Wu’s formulae above). These relationships result in ratios of “1-y:y” of 0.8:0.2 or 4 (rendering obvious the claimed range) and “a:x” of 1:0.005 or 1000 (rendering obvious the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 13, the skilled artisan would understand that because the amount of O replaced by F (e.g. 0.05 mol F and 3.95 mol O) in Wu is in the claimed range, the surface oxygen valence of modified Wu would be the same or substantially the same as claimed.
Regarding Claim 14, Wu teaches wherein the composition further contains a conductive agent and a binder (para 0061).
Regarding Claim 19, Wu discloses a positive electrode plate comprising a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode film layer provided on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector (aluminum foil) wherein said positive electrode film layer comprises the positive electrode material composition according to Claim 1, and said positive electrode material composition is present in said positive electrode film layer in a content of 50 wt% or more based on total weight of said positive electrode film layer (see para 0061; the composition includes other elements but is the only composition on the current collector).
13. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu US PG Publication 2016/0190584 in view of Long et al. (“Electrochemical Performance of Li0.995Al0.005Mn0.85Fe0.15PO4/C as a Cathode Material for Lithium-Ion Batteries” International Journal of Electrochemical Science, Volume 11, Issue 12, December 2016, Pages 10096-10106) (hereinafter “Long NPL”) and Changsha CN107256960, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Bruenig US PG Publication 2022/0158188.
Regarding Claim 15, Wu modified by Long NPL and Changsha discloses the claimed positive electrode material composition as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Modified Wu fails to disclose the specific surface area of the positive electrode material composition, and in particular, does not disclose wherein the specific surface area of the composition is 8 mg2/g to 20 m2/g. However, in the same field of endeavor of design of lithium secondary batteries using carbon-coated lithium metal phosphate active material, binder, and conductive material layer in a positive electrode film layer, Bruenig teaches that a preferred BET surface area for carbon-coated lithium metal phosphate is less than or equal to 15 m2/g and should be optimized to achieve low resistivity and is beneficial when the e.g Al-doped carbon-coated lithium metal phosphate is used to form an electrode while using reduced amounts of binder and solvent (see entire disclosure and especially para 0030). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the positive electrode film layer of Wu modified by Long NPL and Changsha such that the positive electrode active material has a specific surface area of less than or equal to 15 m2/g because Bruenig teaches that this property should be in this range and is optimized to achieve low resistivity and is beneficial when the e.g Al-doped carbon-coated lithium metal phosphate is used to form an electrode while using reduced amounts of binder and solvent. Further, although Wu modified by Long NPL, Changsha and Bruenig does not specifically discuss the specific surface area of the composition itself, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to design the composition to have a specific surface area in the claimed range in order to achieve the same benefit as related to the active material since the active material makes up almost the entirety of the composition and the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
14. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu US PG Publication 2016/0190584 in view of Long et al. (“Electrochemical Performance of Li0.995Al0.005Mn0.85Fe0.15PO4/C as a Cathode Material for Lithium-Ion Batteries” International Journal of Electrochemical Science, Volume 11, Issue 12, December 2016, Pages 10096-10106) (hereinafter “Long NPL”) and Changsha CN107256960, as applied to Claim 19, and further in view of Matsushita US PG Publication 2013/0330623.
Regarding Claim 20, Wu modified by Long NPL and Changsha discloses the claimed positive electrode plate as described in the rejection of Claim 19, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Modified Wu fails to disclose the porosity of the positive electrode film layer and in particular does not disclose wherein the layer has a porosity of 15% to 50%. However, in the same field of endeavor of design of lithium secondary batteries using doped lithium mixed transition metal active material, binder, and conductive material layer in a positive electrode film layer, Matsushita teaches that a preferred porosity for this type of layer is in the range 30% to 50% (abstract, paragraph 0073). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the positive electrode film layer of Wu modified by Long NPL and Changsha having a porosity in the range 30% to 50% because Matsushita teaches that this contributes to achieving optimal performance.
15. Claims 1-9, 11-14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu US PG Publication 2016/0190584 in view of Long et al. (“Electrochemical Performance of Li0.995Al0.005Mn0.85Fe0.15PO4/C as a Cathode Material for Lithium-Ion Batteries” International Journal of Electrochemical Science, Volume 11, Issue 12, December 2016, Pages 10096-10106) (hereinafter “Long NPL”) and Lee KR2017-0094882.
Regarding Claims 1-6, 8, and 11, Wu discloses a positive electrode material composition comprising a positive electrode active material which is electrically neutral and is represented by
PNG
media_image1.png
284
837
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
199
281
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See entire disclosure and especially paras 0005-0018 and Table 2 (reproduced above) for specific compositions. Wu therefore discloses a positive electrode active material that meets the claimed Formula of Claim 1, including the circled limitations, and including a value of n in the range of 0.001 to 0.005 (meeting Claim 11) but lacking the boxed limitations (there is no “A” element or its quantity x) below:
PNG
media_image3.png
315
869
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, in the same field of endeavor of lithium battery design using phosphate-based lithium cathode active materials, Long NPL teaches that Al being doped into the lithium site of similar compounds as Wu (in conjunction with Fe ion being doped into the Mn site), arriving at the following compound which essentially provides an “A” element having a stoichiometry of 0.0005 mol (meeting the claimed range of x for the A element):
PNG
media_image4.png
50
472
media_image4.png
Greyscale
enhances dynamic stability of the structure, of Li+ diffusion, and electrode kinetics (see entire disclosure and especially the abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to dope Al into the lithium sites of the active material of Wu in the proportion taught by Long because Long teaches that this enhances dynamic stability of the structure, of Li+ diffusion, and electrode kinetics.
Wu modified by Long does not specifically disclose that the positive electrode material composition includes an organopolysiloxane compound. However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses that in batteries using e.g. LiPF6 as electrolyte, HF can be generated through electrolyte decomposition, which is problematic, and incorporating an organopolysiloxane e.g. dimethoxysiloxane (where there is one structural unit of Formula 1, and R1 and R2 each independently represent C1 alkyl groups which are also necessarily capping groups (meeting Claim 4), and being a linear polysiloxane and having a number average molecular weight of 300,000 or less and being present at a weight of 0.1 wt% to 5 wt%, para 0030, meeting Claims 2-3, 5-6, and 8) into the cathode active material composition can help prevent corrosion of Mn in the active material and thereby increase capacity of the lithium secondary battery and improve electrochemical performance (see entire disclosure and especially e.g. paras 0021-0023). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporated an organopolysiloxane such as dimethoxysiloxane into the positive electrode material composition of Wu and Long because Lee teaches that this can help prevent corrosion of Mn in a similar active material and thereby increase capacity of the lithium secondary battery and improve electrochemical performance.
Regarding Claim 7, there is no polar functional group on the organopolysiloxane of the cited prior art, which meets the claimed amount of 0%≤α<50%.
Regarding Claim 9, Wu teaches to clad carbon on the surface of the positive electrode active material (paras 0010-0012, 0086).
Regarding Claim 12, the skilled artisan would understand that in the active material formula of Wu in view of Long NPL where Li is doped with e.g. Al and Mn is doped with Fe, there would be 0.005 mol of Al (element A) per mole of Li (per Long NPL formula) and there would be 0.20 mol Fe per 0.8 mol Mn (per Wu’s formulae above). These relationships result in ratios of “1-y:y” of 0.8:0.2 or 4 (rendering obvious the claimed range) and “a:x” of 1:0.005 or 1000 (rendering obvious the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 13, the skilled artisan would understand that because the amount of O replaced by F (e.g. 0.05 mol F and 3.95 mol O) in Wu is in the claimed range, the surface oxygen valence of modified Wu would be the same or substantially the same as claimed.
Regarding Claim 14, Wu teaches wherein the composition further contains a conductive agent and a binder (para 0061).
Regarding Claim 19, Wu discloses a positive electrode plate comprising a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode film layer provided on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector (aluminum foil) wherein said positive electrode film layer comprises the positive electrode material composition according to Claim 1, and said positive electrode material composition is present in said positive electrode film layer in a content of 50 wt% or more based on total weight of said positive electrode film layer (see para 0061; the composition includes other elements but is the only composition on the current collector).
16. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu US PG Publication 2016/0190584 in view of Long et al. (“Electrochemical Performance of Li0.995Al0.005Mn0.85Fe0.15PO4/C as a Cathode Material for Lithium-Ion Batteries” International Journal of Electrochemical Science, Volume 11, Issue 12, December 2016, Pages 10096-10106) (hereinafter “Long NPL”) and Lee KR2017-0094882, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Changsha CN107256960.
Regarding Claim 10, Wu modified by Long NPL and Lee discloses the claimed positive electrode plate as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Wu modified by Long and Changsha discloses wherein each of A, C, and D is independently any one element in the above-mentioned respective ranges but fails to specifically disclose wherein B is at least two elements in its range. However, Changsha teaches that in the similar positive electrode active material having LiMPO4 type structure, including Co as a primary transition metal in the formula (in addition to Fe and e.g. Mn, Ni, Zn, Mo, Ti, see paras 0010-0012) forms a good active material that advantageous over e.g. simple LiFePO4, and so it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include at least two elements for “B” in the formula of Wu in view of Long NPL and Lee because the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
17. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu US PG Publication 2016/0190584 in view of Long et al. (“Electrochemical Performance of Li0.995Al0.005Mn0.85Fe0.15PO4/C as a Cathode Material for Lithium-Ion Batteries” International Journal of Electrochemical Science, Volume 11, Issue 12, December 2016, Pages 10096-10106) (hereinafter “Long NPL”) and Lee KR2017-0094882, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Bruenig US PG Publication 2022/0158188.
Regarding Claim 15, Wu modified by Long NPL and Lee discloses the claimed positive electrode material composition as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Modified Wu fails to disclose the specific surface area of the positive electrode material composition, and in particular, does not disclose wherein the specific surface area of the composition is 8 mg2/g to 20 m2/g. However, in the same field of endeavor of design of lithium secondary batteries using carbon-coated lithium metal phosphate active material, binder, and conductive material layer in a positive electrode film layer, Bruenig teaches that a preferred BET surface area for carbon-coated lithium metal phosphate is less than or equal to 15 m2/g and should be optimized to achieve low resistivity and is beneficial when the e.g Al-doped carbon-coated lithium metal phosphate is used to form an electrode while using reduced amounts of binder and solvent (see entire disclosure and especially para 0030). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the positive electrode film layer of Wu modified by Long NPL and Lee such that the positive electrode active material has a specific surface area of less than or equal to 15 m2/g because Bruenig teaches that this property should be in this range and is optimized to achieve low resistivity and is beneficial when the e.g Al-doped carbon-coated lithium metal phosphate is used to form an electrode while using reduced amounts of binder and solvent. Further, although Wu modified by Long NPL, Lee and Bruenig does not specifically discuss the specific surface area of the composition itself, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to design the composition to have a specific surface area in the claimed range in order to achieve the same benefit as related to the active material since the active material makes up almost the entirety of the composition and the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
18. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu US PG Publication 2016/0190584 in view of Long et al. (“Electrochemical Performance of Li0.995Al0.005Mn0.85Fe0.15PO4/C as a Cathode Material for Lithium-Ion Batteries” International Journal of Electrochemical Science, Volume 11, Issue 12, December 2016, Pages 10096-10106) (hereinafter “Long NPL”) and Lee KR2017-0094882, as applied to Claim 19, and further in view of Matsushita US PG Publication 2013/0330623.
Regarding Claim 20, Wu modified by Long NPL and Lee discloses the claimed positive electrode plate as described in the rejection of Claim 19, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Modified Wu fails to disclose the porosity of the positive electrode film layer and in particular does not disclose wherein the layer has a porosity of 15% to 50%. However, in the same field of endeavor of design of lithium secondary batteries using doped lithium mixed transition metal active material, binder, and conductive material layer in a positive electrode film layer, Matsushita teaches that a preferred porosity for this type of layer is in the range 30% to 50% (abstract, paragraph 0073). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the positive electrode film layer of Wu modified by Long NPL and Lee having a porosity in the range 30% to 50% because Matsushita teaches that this contributes to achieving optimal performance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA S PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3597. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30a to 3p Eastern Time.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached on 5712721481. 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.
/LISA S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights