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
Claims 1-6, 9-10, 12-17, and 19-24 are pending.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-6, 9-10, 12-15, and 23-24 (Group I) in the reply filed on April 2, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-17 and 19-22 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 2, 2026.
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.
Claims 3 and 12 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "a length of each of the carbon flakes in the main skeleton carbon is greater than a length of each of the carbon flakes in the modified carbon" in lines 1-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, because claim 1 recites neither carbon flakes in the main skeleton carbon nor carbon flakes in the modified carbon.
Claim 12 recites “a bonding probability of the C-P bonds and C-O-P bonds is 0.5% to 1.15%.” This is indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are unclear. For example, it is unclear as to whether the bonding probability is referring to the fraction of C-P bonds and C-O-P bonds out of all bonds in the cathode material, in the core, or in the multi-carbon intercalated layer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 12, 14-15, 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsieh et al (US 20230207783 A1, published 2023-06-29, previously used in Office Action of 2026-02-20).
Evidentiary support is provided by Pan et al, “Influence of LiFePO4/C interface on electrochemical properties,” J. Mater. Chem., 2011, 21, 14680, and “Intercalate,” Merriam-Webster, online, 2026 (previously used in Office Action of 2026-02-20).
Regarding claim 1, Hsieh teaches a cathode material characterized by comprising a core (aggregation of lithium metal phosphate particles P, [0035]) and a first carbon layer (carbon coating layer C), wherein the first carbon layer (carbon coating layer C) is a multi-carbon intercalated layer comprising a first carbon coating portion C1 and a second carbon coating portion C2 (Figs. 2-3, [0040-0042]). The first carbon coating portion C1 corresponds to a main skeleton carbon because it provides a dot-like structure that functions as a scaffold to facilitate the adherence of the second carbon source added later (to form C2) [0037], and the second carbon coating portion C2 corresponds to a modified carbon because it is subjected to modification during a consequent sintering process [0053-0054]. Hsieh teaches the main skeleton carbon C1 is coated, i.e., bonded, to a surface of the core (Fig. 2, [0040]). Hsieh also teaches the later process steps of adhering the second carbon source forming the second carbon coating portion C2 and that the subsequently added carbon enables a uniform carbon coating layer (Fig. 2, [0045]), thereby teaching the modified carbon grows within the main skeleton carbon in manner that it is inserted or positioned between or among existing elements, i.e. an intercalated manner based on the definition of intercalate as “to insert or position between or among existing elements or layers” (Merriam-Webster.com: “intercalate”).
Regarding claim 12, Hsieh teaches the cathode material of claim 1 and further teaches the core contains phosphorus (the core is an aggregation of lithium metal phosphate particles P, [0035]). Evidentiary reference Pan teaches that bonding exists between surface C atoms (from the carbon coating) and O atoms from PO4 tetrahedral unit of lithium metal phosphate particles covered with a carbon layer (p14681 right col para 3; Fig. 3), thereby teaching that a portion of the phosphorus in the core forms C-O-P bonds with a portion of the carbon in the adjacent carbon layer, i.e. the multi-carbon intercalated layer.
Regarding claim 14, Hsieh teaches the cathode material of claim 1, and Hsieh further teaches the core is a lithium-containing phosphate-based cathode active material core (claim 2). Hsieh also teaches the lithium metal phosphate particles forming the core can have a median diameter ranging from 0.05 µm to 2 µm, which teaches a particle size of the core which overlaps with the claimed range of smaller than 400 nm.
Regarding claim 15, Hsieh teaches the cathode material of claim 1, and Hsieh further teaches a specific surface area of the secondary particle (i.e., a specific surface area of the cathode material) is 12.8 m2/g ([0052]) which overlaps with the claimed range of 12.0 m2/g to 17.0 m2/g for a specific surface area of the cathode material.
Regarding claim 23, Hsieh teaches the cathode material of claim 1. Hsieh further teaches positive pole pieces coated with the carbon-coated cathode materials [0056], thereby teaching a cathode plate made of the cathode material of claim 1.
Regarding claim 24, Hsieh teaches the cathode plate of claim 23. Hsieh further teaches the cathode plate can be used in batteries tested ([0056]-[0057]) and further teaches their invention as pertinent for improving a discharge performance of a secondary battery ([0001]), thereby teaching the limitation of a secondary battery characterized by comprising the claimed cathode plate.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh et al (US 20230207783 A1) in view of Hu et al (CN 109244462 A, published 2019-01-18, submitted in the 2024-09-03 IDS).
Evidentiary support is provided by Fishbach D.B., “The Graphitization Process,” Tanso Vol 1970, Issue 63, 1970, and Wang et al “Understanding and recent developing of carbon coating on LiFePO4 cathode materials for lithium-ion batteries,” Energy Environ. Sci., 2012, 5, 5163.
Regarding claim 2, Hsieh teaches the cathode material of claim 1 but does not teach the carbon in the modified carbon is intercalated into the main skeleton carbon in a form of stacked carbon flakes. In the same field of endeavor, Hu teaches a second layer of carbon coated over a single-layer carbon-coated lithium iron phosphate material that improves the electronic conductivity and electrochemical performance, especially at low temperature (machine translation [0026]-[0027]). Hu’s teaching would have directly suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art the advantages of having a second carbon layer that has a high degree of graphitization. The person of ordinary skill in the art thus would have found it obvious to have modified Hsieh’s cathode material to utilize a second carbon layer that has a higher degree of graphitization given the benefits taught by Hu. Given the dot-like structure of C1 in modified Hsieh, at least some of the deposited second carbon layer would form C2 to fill in the gaps between the carbon dot structures. Accordingly, some of C2, i.e. the modified carbon, would be intercalated into C1, i.e. the main skeleton carbon, in the form of graphitized carbon.
Evidentiary reference Fischbach describes graphitizing carbons as being associated with aromatic layers in roughly parallel stacks (p1 right col para 1), which would correspond to a structure of carbon flakes. Accordingly, the modified carbon within modified Hsieh which is in the form of graphitized carbon would exist in a form of carbon flakes, and thereby read on the limitation of “carbon in the modified carbon is intercalated into the main skeleton carbon in a form of carbon flakes” (lines 4-5).
Regarding claim 5, Hsieh teaches the cathode material of claim 1 but Hsieh does not teach wherein the cathode material further comprises a second carbon layer, the second carbon layer is an outer carbon layer, which is coated on an outer surface of the multi-carbon intercalated layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Hu teaches a second layer of carbon coated over a single-layer carbon-coated lithium iron phosphate material that improves the electronic conductivity and electrochemical performance, especially at low temperature (machine translation [0026]-[0027]). Hu’s teaching would have directly suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art the advantages of having a second carbon layer that has a high degree of graphitization. The person of ordinary skill in the art thus would have found it obvious to have modified Hsieh’s cathode material to utilize a second carbon layer that has a higher degree of graphitization as taught by Hu given the benefits taught by Hu. Given the dot-like structure of C1 in modified Hsieh, at least some of the deposited second carbon layer would form C2 to intercalate the gaps between the carbon dot structures. Additionally, Hu’s teaching that of “a layer of highly graphitized, high-temperature pyrolysis carbon is then coated on the surface of the lithium iron phosphate/carbon” also directly suggests some of the second layer of carbon would be layered on the existing carbon structure on the lithium iron phosphate. Accordingly, the combination of prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the cathode material further comprises a second carbon layer, the second carbon layer is an outer carbon layer, which is coated on an outer surface of the multi-carbon intercalated layer.”
Regarding claim 6, the combination above teaches the cathode material of claim 5. As previously pointed out in addressing the limitation of claim 5, Hu teaches the outer layer of carbon has a higher degree of graphitization ([0026]), thereby teaching a degree of graphitization of the second carbon layer is higher than a degree of graphitization of the first carbon layer. Additionally, evidentiary reference Wang teaches a carbon material with a higher amount of graphitized carbon is associated with a lower ID/IG ratio, or a higher IG/ID ratio and a greater ratio of graphite carbon to disordered carbon. Accordingly, as the outer layer of carbon has a higher degree of graphitization, it would be expected to have a greater ratio of graphite carbon to disordered carbon, which would correspond to a lesser degree of long-range disorder of a carbon structure compared to that of the first carbon layer, thereby suggesting the limitation “a degree of long-range disorder of a carbon structure in the first carbon layer is higher than a degree of long-range disorder of a carbon structure in the second carbon layer” (p5173 left col para 2 to right col para 1)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh et al (US 20230207783 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Hsieh teaches each carbon dot of the dot-like structure of C1 to have a median diameter (which would correspond to a thickness of the multi-carbon intercalated layer) ranging from 10 nm to 50 nm [0008], and the lower bound of 10 nm is close to 10 nm as recited in the limitation of “a thickness of the multi-carbon intercalated layer is smaller than 10 nm.” A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see MPEP 2144.05. Barring criticality of range, Hsieh’s teaching provides a prima facie case of obviousness for the recited limitation of “a thickness of the multi-carbon intercalated layer is smaller than 10 nm.”
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh et al (US 20230207783 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al, “An encapsulation of phosphorus doped carbon over LiFePO4 prepared under vacuum condition for lithium-ion batteries,” Vacuum 184 (2021).
Regarding claim 4, Hsieh teaches the cathode material of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the multi-carbon intercalated layer comprises a carbon element and a first non-carbon element.
In the same field of endeavor, Li teaches that carbon coatings doped with heteroatoms (N, B, or P) can enhance the conductive pathways of electrons and increase the lithium ion diffusion coefficient, and further teaches an example of a P-doped carbon over similar lithium metal phosphates associated with high capacity and superior cycle stability (p2, left col para 2-3 Abstract). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have modified Hsieh’s cathode material to use a carbon coating doped with N or P to improve the conductivity of the cathode material given that both Li and Hsieh teaches lithium metal phosphate materials have disadvantages of low electronic conductivity and sluggish lithium ion diffusion (Li: p1 left col para 1; Hsieh [0003]). Accordingly, the first non-carbon element would comprise at least one of N or P, which are claimed species.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh et al (US 20230207783 A1) in view of Hu et al (CN 109244462 A) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Li et al, “An encapsulation of phosphorus doped carbon over LiFePO4 prepared under vacuum condition for lithium-ion batteries,” Vacuum 184 (2021).
Regarding claim 10, the combination above teaches the cathode material of claim 5, but it does not teach wherein the multi-carbon intercalated layer comprises a carbon element and a first non-carbon element.
In the same field of endeavor, Li teaches that carbon coatings doped with heteroatoms (N, B, or P) can enhance the conductive pathways of electrons and increase the lithium ion diffusion coefficient, and further teaches an example of a P-doped carbon over similar lithium metal phosphates associated with high capacity and superior cycle stability (p2, left col para 2-3 Abstract). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have modified modified Hsieh’s cathode material to use a carbon coating doped with N or P to improve the conductivity of the cathode material given that both Li and Hsieh teaches lithium metal phosphate materials have disadvantages of low electronic conductivity and sluggish lithium ion diffusion (Li: p1 left col para 1; Hsieh [0003]). Accordingly, the first non-carbon element would comprise at least one of N or P, which are claimed species.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh et al (US 20230207783 A1) as applied to claim 12 and further in view of Wang et al “Understanding and recent developing of carbon coating on LiFePO4 cathode materials for lithium-ion batteries,” Energy Environ. Sci., 2012, 5, 5163.
Regarding claim 13, Hsieh teaches the cathode material of claim 12 but does not teach wherein a bonding probability of the C-P and C-O-P bonds is 0.5% to 1.15%.
In the same field of endeavor, Wang teaches that full/uniform coverage of carbon over the lithium metal phosphate particles allows for electron transfer along all directions during charge and discharge and would be associated with high performance active material (p5174 right col para 3). Therefore, a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Wang’s teaching to modify Hsieh’s cathode material to maximize the carbon coating coverage over the core for the advantages of improved electron conductivity along all directions during charge and discharge, resulting in high performing active material, and accordingly, the amount of carbon coating relative to the core would have resulted in the claimed bonding probability of C-P and C-O-P bonds between phosphorus in the core and a portion of the carbon in the adjacent carbon coating layer (i.e., the multi-carbon intercalated layer).
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9, 12-15, 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhang et al (CN112897491A, published 2021-06-04).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a method of preparing a lithium metal phosphate cathode material that uses a substantially identical process of forming a carbon coating as the method detailed in Applicant’s disclosure. For example, Zhang teaches the lithium metal phosphate core precursor is mixed with a carbon source and sintered for a first time, then sintered for a second time and coated with a gasifiable carbon source to obtain the final cathode material product (machine translation [n0006]-[n0009]), similar to Applicant’s disclosed method for sintering the core precursor material with a first carbon source (i.e., “a second sintering”) while introducing a second carbon source that is consequently pyrolyzed in-situ and/or vapor deposited via under high temperatures (instant spec: [0034]-[0038]). Zhang teaches sintering temperatures ranging from 650°C-700°C for 5-8 hrs for the core precursor material with the first carbon source (Examples 1-5), which are heating conditions within Applicant’s disclosed range of 650-850°C from 4 hrs to 10 hrs [0142], and also discloses sintering temperatures ranging from 720°C-750°C for 6-8 hrs for sintering the mixture with the second carbon source (Examples 1-5) which overlaps with Applicant’s disclosed temperature range of 650 – 855°C [0152] and for 4-12 hrs ([0154] and Examples 1-12). Zhang’s disclosed first carbon source used for the first sintering includes species such as sucrose, glucose, maltose, starch, cellulose, polyvinyl alcohol, polyethylene glycol [n0016], which are species listed as possible first carbon sources for Applicant’s disclosure [0132], and Zhang’s disclosed gasifiable carbon source corresponding to Applicant’s second carbon source also includes one or more of overlapping species methanol, ethanol, ethylene glycol, acetone, butanone (Zhang: [n0009], instant spec: [0135]). Additionally, Zhang teaches the second carbon source can be incorporated to supplement the carbon coating via sintering of a gasifiable organic carbon source ([n0025]), which is similar to Applicant’s disclosure of vapor deposition as a method ([0136]). Therefore, Zhang’s method for producing the carbon coating on a lithium metal phosphate core is substantially identically to that of Applicant’s, particularly with respect to the raw carbon sources of the carbon coating and the heat treatment durations and temperatures of the carbon sources.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); see MPEP 2112.01. Accordingly, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, including the claimed structural characteristics of the cathode material of claim 1.
Regarding claims 2-3, Zhang teaches the cathode material of claim 1. As previously pointed out in addressing claim 1, Zhang teaches a substantially identical process for producing the carbon coating on a lithium metal phosphate core. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); see MPEP 2112.01. Accordingly, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, including the claimed structural characteristics of the cathode material regarding the form of carbon in the main skeleton carbon and in the modified carbon and their respective mass contents (limitations of claim 2), and the length of the carbon flakes in the main skeleton carbon and modified carbon, a pore volume of the multi-carbon intercalated layer, a thickness of the multi-carbon intercalated layer, and an IG/ID layer of the first carbon layer (limitations of claim 3).
Regarding claims 5-6, 9, Zhang teaches the cathode material of claim 1. As pointed out previously in addressing the limitations of claim 1, Zhang’s method teaches overlapping chemical species as the first carbon source and a substantially similar duration and temperature for sintering the first carbon source, and teaches overlapping chemical species as the second carbon source and a substantially similar duration for introducing the second carbon source and sintering temperatures of the second carbon source which overlap with that taught by Applicant (Zhang: 650°C-700°C for 5-8 hrs; instant spec: 650-850°C from 4 hrs to 10 hrs [0142]), thereby their process allows the outer coating carbon layer (second carbon layer) to form, as is consistent with Applicant’s method disclosed in [0148].
Accordingly, claimed properties of the first carbon layer and second carbon layer are presumed to be inherent, including those recited in claims 6 and 9.
Regarding claims 12-14, Zhang teaches the cathode material of claim 1. The cathode material of Zhang has a lithium metal phosphate active material core which contains phosphorus (corresponding to a limitation of claim 12 and claim 14). As previously pointed out in addressing the limitations of claim 1, Zhang’s method for producing the carbon coating on a lithium metal phosphate core is substantially identically to that of Applicant’s, particularly with respect to the raw carbon sources and the heat treatment durations and temperatures. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); see MPEP 2112.01. Accordingly, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, including having a portion of the phosphorus in the core forming C-P bonds and/or C-O-P bonds with a portion of the carbon in the multi-carbon intercalated layer and wherein a bonding probability of the C-P bonds and the C-O-P bonds is 0.5% to 1.15% (corresponding to limitations of claims 12-13).
Regarding claims 23-24, Zhang teaches the cathode material of claim 1. Zhang further teaches in [n0059] production of a positive electrode sheet corresponding to a cathode plate (as claimed by limitations of claim 23), and also teaches a battery comprising of the cathode plate with cycling performance that can meet the general requirements of high-performing lithium iron phosphate batteries ([n0025]), thus teaching a secondary battery as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIGI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2017. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 6.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/G.L.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 27 April 2026
Prosecution Insights