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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 10/30/2024. Claim 21 is newly added. Claims 1-21 are pending. Claims 10-14 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention, in accordance with 37 CFR 1.142(b). Applicant’s arguments have been considered. Claims 1-9, 15-21 are finally rejected for reasons stated herein below.
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
In claim 1, the aluminum coating content and the BET surface area ranges are indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-9, 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 2009-0020882) in view of Matsumoto (JP 2001-155729) and Park (WO 2017/095074, using US 2018/0198155 as translation).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a lithium titanium composite oxide comprising aluminum-coated primary particles. See Abstract.
Park ‘882 discloses if the heat-treated lithium titanium oxide particles are aggregated, additional grinding and classification steps may be added (Applicant’s primary particles). (page 6 of the translation).
It is noted that the aluminum-coated primary particle of Park ‘882 comprises a primary particle of lithium titanium composite oxide and an aluminum coating disposed on the surface of the primary particle of lithium titanium composite oxide. See Abstract.
Regarding claim 3, the lithium titanium composite oxide has a residual lithium in an amount less than or substantially equal to 2,000 ppm. The instant Specification states:
[0013] In some embodiments, the lithium titanium composite oxide may have a residual lithium in an amount less than or substantially equal to 2,000 ppm.
[0014] In a battery, residual lithium, that is, unreacted LiOH and Li2CO3, reacts with an electrolyte and causes gas generation and swelling, thus leading to a problem of significant degradation in high-temperature stability. However, since the lithium titanium composite oxide including aluminum-coated primary particles according to some embodiments of the present disclosure reduces an amount of gas generation in the battery by reducing the residual lithium, such that the high- temperature stability may also be improved (see Table 11 below). (emphasis added)
It appears that the Al coating on the lithium titanium oxide of Park ‘882 would cause a residual lithium in an amount less than or substantially equal to 2,000 ppm. MPEP 2112 V states that "once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the Examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show an unobvious difference."
Regarding claim 4, the lithium titanium composite oxide has an intensity of a rutile-type titanium dioxide peak within 3 % with respect to an LTO (lithium titanium oxide) main peak, and regarding claim 5, the lithium titanium composite oxide has an intensity of an anatase-type titanium dioxide peak within 1 % with respect to an LTO (lithium titanium oxide) main peak, Park ‘882 states that the lithium titanium oxide was made by a method described in Japanese patent Application Laid open No. 94-275263 (Koshiba). Koshiba discloses that lithium titanium oxide that was heat treated at 700 C contains a substantial amount of anatase-type titanium oxide. In contrast, lithium titanium oxide that was heat treated at 800-950 C contains rutile-type titanium oxide (page 8).
Regarding claim 6, particle size distribution of the lithium titanium composite oxide varies according to application of ultrasonic waves, the instant Specification states:
[0018] According to an experimental example of the present disclosure, in order to analyze the particle size of the lithium titanium composite oxide coated with aluminum, ultrasonic waves were applied to identify changes in the particle size according to the application of ultrasonic waves, and it was appreciated that the particle size decreases after application of ultrasonic waves as compared to the case before the application of ultrasonic waves. These results suggest that when an electrode is manufactured using the lithium titanium composite oxide according to an embodiment, the lithium titanium composite oxide is changed in its form into a primary particle, rather than a secondary particle, thereby improving the electrochemical properties of a battery (see FIG. 7).
It is noted that applying ultrasonic waves to lithium titanium composite oxide coated with aluminum varies its particle size distribution.
Regarding claim 7, a secondary particle of the lithium titanium composite oxide is changed into a primary particle during manufacturing of an electrode, Park ‘882 discloses if the heat-treated lithium titanium oxide particles are aggregated, additional grinding and classification steps may be added (Applicant’s primary particles). (page 6 of the translation).
The limitation “a secondary particle of the lithium titanium composite oxide is changed… during manufacturing” has been considered but was not given patentable weight because the courts have held that the method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself. “[Even 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 the product of 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.
Regarding claim 1, Park ‘882 does not disclose the lithium titanium composite oxide is a secondary particle formed by agglomeration of a plurality of primary particles, and a size of the secondary particle is in a range from 7 to 20 um. Matsumoto teaches lithium transition metal oxide minute primary particles condensed into secondary particles having many fine pores that permeate with an electrolyte, with average particle size of 4-30 um, and that of the primary particle 0.4-10 um. See Abstract. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to form the particles of Park ‘882 into secondary particles, as taught by Matsumoto, for the benefit of having good density, therefore having good capacity.
Regarding claim 9, the electrode comprises primary particles, pulverized from the secondary particle of the lithium titanium composite oxide, which have a D50 in a range from 1.0 to 4.0 um, Park ‘882 discloses an average particle diameter of the lithium titanium oxide particles are 0.3 to 30 um (page 5, 1st paragraph of the translation).
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). See MPEP 2144.05.
Park ‘882 discloses if the heat-treated lithium titanium oxide particles are aggregated, additional grinding and classification steps may be added (Applicant’s primary particles). (page 6 of the translation).
Regarding claim 1, wherein the lithium titanium composite oxide has an aluminum coating content of 500 ppm or more, and regarding claim 21, wherein the lithium titanium composite oxide has an aluminum coating content of 500 ppm or more and 1000 ppm or less, Park ‘882 discloses a lithium titanium composite oxide has an aluminum coating, but does not disclose its amount. Park ‘155 teaches discloses an lithium titanium composite oxide has an aluminum coating [0008, 0048]. Park ‘155 teaches the amount of the metal elements used in doping or coating is preferably 700 to 5000 ppm, 700 to 3000 ppm, or 1000 to 3000 ppm based on the weight of the titanium-based composite. When the amount of the metal elements used in doping or coating is adjusted to the above-mentioned range, it is possible to significantly reduce the variation range of resistance and to prepare a battery pack capable of simplifying a BMS prediction algorithm or a lithium secondary battery having excellent output characteristics [0050]. More specifically, when the amount of doping or coating is less than 700 ppm, the amount of the metal elements that may contribute to the structural stabilization of a lithium titanium oxide is insufficient, and the possibility increases that the variation range of resistance values does not decrease. When the amount of doping or coating exceeds 5000 ppm, the amount of titanium is relatively reduced, and the output characteristics, which are the basic characteristics of the lithium titanium oxide, may be lowered somewhat, and the excess metal elements act as materials which interfere with the phase transition phenomenon of the lithium titanium oxide, so that the area of the crystal plane (400) may be relatively decreased, and the range of the resistance change may be increased again [0051].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to form the aluminum coating of Park ‘882 in the amount as taught by Park ‘155 for the benefit of structurally stabilizing the lithium titanium oxide and to have good output characteristics.
Regarding claim 1, Park ‘882 does not disclose wherein the lithium titanium composite oxide has a BET surface area of 6.4 m2/g or less, and regarding claim 21, wherein the lithium titanium composite oxide has a BET surface area of 5.7 m2/g or more and 6.4 m2/g or less. Park ‘155 teaches the specific surface area of the negative electrode active material may be about 1 to 10 m.sup.2/g, and an upper limit is preferably 6 m.sup.2/g or less, without being limited thereto. It is preferable to control the specific surface area value of a conductive material to also control the specific surface area of the finally prepared negative electrode to be in a range of 3 to 50 m.sup.2/g [0096]. When the specific surface area of the negative electrode is less than 3 m.sup.2/g, affinity between the negative electrode and the electrolyte is lowered and so the interface resistance of the negative electrode may increase, which causes a deterioration of output characteristics. When the specific surface area is more than 50 m.sup.2/g, an electrolyte may be biased toward a negative electrode, and the electrolyte may be insufficient at a positive electrode, which makes it difficult to improve the output characteristics [0097].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to form the BET surface area of Park ‘882 as taught by Park ‘155 for the benefit of forming an electrode with good output characteristics.
Regarding claim 8, Park ‘882 modified by Matsumoto and Park ‘155 teaches an electrode for a lithium secondary battery, comprising the lithium titanium composite oxide according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Park ‘882 modified by Matsumoto and Park ‘155 teaches an electrode for a lithium secondary battery, comprising the lithium titanium composite oxide according to claim 2.
Regarding claim 16, Park ‘882 modified by Matsumoto and Park ‘155 teaches an electrode for a lithium secondary battery, comprising the lithium titanium composite oxide according to claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, Park ‘882 modified by Matsumoto and Park ‘155 teaches an electrode for a lithium secondary battery, comprising the lithium titanium composite oxide according to claim 4.
Regarding claim 18, Park ‘882 modified by Matsumoto and Park ‘155 teaches an electrode for a lithium secondary battery, comprising the lithium titanium composite oxide according to claim 5.
Regarding claim 19, Park ‘882 modified by Matsumoto and Park ‘155 teaches an electrode for a lithium secondary battery, comprising the lithium titanium composite oxide according to claim 6.
Regarding claim 20, Park ‘882 modified by Matsumoto and Park ‘155 teaches an electrode for a lithium secondary battery, comprising the lithium titanium composite oxide according to claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Arguments dated 7/10/2025 are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CYNTHIA KYUNG SOO WALLS whose telephone number is (571)272-8699. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F until 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CYNTHIA K WALLS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751