DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 9-10, 12, 14-18, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 14, and 22 recite “wherein a battery cell made from the lithium cobalt oxide material doped with at least one metal dopant LixCoyOz . doped Mea exhibits a first discharge capacity of at least 175 mAh/g at cutoff voltage range of between 4.45V to 4.6V”. However, there is no support for this limitation in the originally filed disclosure. In the Specification, Examples 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 32 are the only disclosures of a first discharge capacity at cutoff voltages in a range of 4.45V to 4.6V (Specification, Tables 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 19). However, Examples 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 32 have specific amounts of salts and different types of specific metal dopants.
Therefore, there is not support for a battery cell made from a lithium cobalt material doped with any at least one metal dopant LixCoyOz . doped Mea, where x is anything in the range of 0.9 to 1.1, y is anything in the range of 0.9 to 1.1, z is anything in the range of 1.8 to 2.2, and where a is anything in the range of 0 < a < 0.05 exhibiting a first discharge capacity of at least 175 mAh/g at cutoff voltage range of between 4.45V to 4.6V.
Regarding dependent claims 2-5, 9-10, 12, 15-19, and 21, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claims 1 and 14 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9-10, 12, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang et al. (US 2011/0045346 A1) (Chiang).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Chiang teaches an electrochemical device that includes a cathode and an anode (Chiang, [0029]), wherein in an embodiment the cathode is LiMg0.05Co0.95O2 (Chiang, Example 7 [0232]; Example 10 [0269]; Example 17 [0304]), which corresponds to the claimed lithium cobalt oxide material doped with at least one metal dopant LixCoyOz . Mea when x is 1, y is 0.95, Me is Mg (i.e., claim 4; the at least one metal dopant is Mg), and a is 0.05. Therefore, the composition of Chiang falls within the range of the claimed composition.
Although Chiang does not explicitly teach the lithium cobalt oxide material doped with at least one metal dopant is obtained from the process comprising:
adjusting a molar ratio MLiSalt: MCoSalt: MMeSalt of a lithium-containing salt, a cobalt-containing salt, and at least one metal-dopant-containing salts in a liquid mixture to be a ratio of about 1 : 1 : a, where a is more than 0 and not more than 0.05;
forming a mist of the liquid mixture, wherein the liquid mixture comprises:
the lithium-containing salt;
the cobalt-containing salt; and
the least one metal-dopant-containing salt;
mixing the mist of the liquid mixture with a first gas flow to form a gas-liquid mixture;
drying the gas-liquid mixture to form a gas-solid mixture;
separating the gas-solid mixture into one or more solid particles of an oxide material; and
annealing the one or more solid particles of the oxide material at an annealing temperature of 400 °C to 1200 °C to obtain crystallized particles of the lithium cobalt oxide material doped with the at least one metal dopant;
as presently claimed, it is noted that the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making. Thus, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Chiang meets the requirements of the claimed product, Chiang clearly meets the requirements of the present claim.
Further, as Chiang teaches an oxide material that is substantially identical to the claimed oxide material, it is clear that a battery cell made from the oxide material of Chiang would exhibit a first discharge capacity of at least 175 mAh/g at cutoff voltage range of between 4.45V to 4.6V.
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 (I).
Regarding claims 2-3, 5, 9. 10, and 12, Chiang teaches the oxide material of Claim 1, and although Chiang does not explicitly teach:
wherein the lithium- containing salt is selected from the group consisting of lithium sulfate (Li2SO4), lithium nitrate (LiNO3), lithium carbonate (Li2CO3), lithium acetate (LiCH2COO), lithium hydroxide (LiOH), lithium formate (LiCHO2), lithium chloride (LiCI), and combinations thereof (i.e., claim 2);
wherein the cobalt- containing salt is selected from the group consisting of cobalt sulfate (CoSO4), cobalt nitrate (Co(NO3)2), cobalt acetate (Co(CH2COO)2), cobalt formate (Co(CHO2)2), cobalt chloride (CoCl2), and combinations thereof (i.e., claim 3);
wherein the at least one metal-dopant-containing salt is selected from the group consisting of magnesium nitrate Mg(NO3)2, magnesium acetate (MgAc, Mg(CH3COO)2), magnesium chloride (MgCl2), magnesium sulfate (MgSO4), magnesium formate (C2H2MgO4), aluminum nitrate (Al(NO3)3), aluminum acetate (AlAc, C6H9AlO6), aluminum chloride (AlCl3), aluminum sulfate (Al2(SO4)3), aluminum formate (Al(HCOO)3), manganese sulfate (MnSO4), manganese nitrate (Mn(NO3)2), manganese acetate (Mn(CH2COO)2), manganese formate (Mn(CHO2)2), manganese chloride (MnCl2), zirconium nitrate (Zr(NO3)4), zirconium acetate (C8H12O8Zr), zirconium chloride (ZrCl4), zirconium sulfate (Zr(SO4)2), zirconium formate (C4H4O8Zr), nickel sulfate (NiSO4), nickel nitrate (Ni(NO3)2), nickel acetate (Ni(CH2COO)2), nickel formate (Ni(CHO2)2), nickel chloride (NiCl2), titanyl nitrate (TiO(NO3)2), magnesium (Mg)-containing compound, aluminum (Al)-containing compound, titanium (Ti)-containing compound, sodium (Na)-containing compound, potassium (K)-containing compound, scandium (Sc)-containing compound, niobium (Nb)- containing compound, neodymium (Nd)-containing compound, lanthanum (La)- containing compound, cerium (Ce)-containing compound, silicon (Si)-containing compound, rubidium (Rb)-containing compound, vanadium (V)-containing compound, cesium (Cs)-containing compound, chromium (Cr)-containing compound, copper (Cu)- containing compound, magnesium (Mg)-containing compound, manganese (Mn)- containing compound, zirconium (Zr)-containing compound, zinc (Zn)-containing compound, tin (Sn)-containing compound, gallium (Ga)-containing compound, barium (Ba)-containing compound, actinium (Ac)-containing compound, calcium (Ca)-containing compound, iron (Fe)-containing compound, boron (B)-containing compound, germanium (Ge)-containing compound, arsenic (As)-containing compound, hafnium (Hf)-containing compound, Molybdenum (Mo)-containing compound, tungsten (W)-containing compound, rhenium (Re)-containing compound, ruthenium (Ru)-containing compound, rhodium (Rh)-containing compound, platinum (Pt)-containing compound, silver (Ag)- containing compound, osmium (Os)-containing compound, iridium (Ir)-containing compound, gold (Au)-containing compound (i.e., claim 5);
wherein the liquid mixture is soluble in a suitable solvent and the suitable solvent is selected from the group consisting of water, alcohol, methanol, isopropyl alcohol, organic solvents, inorganic solvents, organic acids, sulfuric acid (H2SO4), citric acid (C6H807), acetic acids (CH3COOH), butyric acid (C4H8O2), lactic acid (C3H6O3), nitric acid (HNO3), hydrochloric acid (HCl), ethanol, pyridine, ammonia, acetone, and combinations thereof (i.e., claim 9);
wherein the one or more solid particles of the oxide material are annealed in a presence of a second gas flow that is heated to 550 °C or higher and the second gas flow is delivered into a reaction chamber to maintain the annealing temperature inside the reaction chamber (i.e., claim 10); or
wherein the liquid mixture is dried in a presence of the first gas flow that is heated to 200 °C or higher inside a drying chamber and the first gas flow is delivered into the drying chamber to maintain a drying temperature inside the drying chamber (i.e., claim 12);
as presently claimed, it is noted that the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making. Thus, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Chiang meets the requirements of the claimed product, Chiang clearly meets the requirements of the present claim.
Regarding claim 22, Chiang teaches an electrochemical device that includes a cathode and an anode (Chiang, [0029]), wherein in an embodiment the cathode is LiMg0.05Co0.95O2 (Chiang, Example 7 [0232]; Example 10 [0269]; Example 17 [0304]), which corresponds to the claimed lithium cobalt oxide material doped with at least one metal dopant LixCoyOz . Mea when x is 1, y is 0.95, Me is Mg, and a is 0.05. Therefore, the composition of Chiang falls within the range of the claimed composition.
Although Chiang does not explicitly teach the lithium cobalt oxide material doped with the at least one metal dopant is obtained from the process comprising:
adjusting a molar ratio MLiSalt: MCoSalt: MMeSalt of a lithium-containing salt, a cobalt-containing salt, and at least one metal-dopant-containing salts in a liquid mixture to be a ratio of about 1 : 1 : a, where a is more than 0 and not more than 0.05;
forming a mist of the liquid mixture, wherein the liquid mixture comprises:
the lithium-containing salt;
the cobalt-containing salt; and
the least one metal-dopant-containing salt; and
a solvent
mixing the mist of the liquid mixture with a gas flow to form a gas-liquid mixture;
drying the gas-liquid mixture to form one or more solid particles of an oxide material; and
annealing the one or more solid particles of the oxide material at an annealing temperature of 400 °C to 1200 °C to obtain crystallized particles of the lithium cobalt oxide material doped with at least one metal dopant;
as presently claimed, it is noted that the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making. Thus, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Chiang meets the requirements of the claimed product, Chiang clearly meets the requirements of the present claim.
Further, as Chiang teaches an oxide material that is substantially identical to the claimed oxide material, it is clear that a battery cell made from the oxide material of Chiang would exhibit a first discharge capacity of at least 175 mAh/g at cutoff voltage range of between 4.45V to 4.6V.
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 (I).
Claims 1-5, 9-10, 12, 14-18, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al. (EP 1281673 B1) (Maeda).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Maeda teaches a cathode active material having a composition represented by the formula (III): LiCo(1-x)MgxO2, where x is 0.001 to 0.15 (Maeda, [0019]). Therefore, when x is 0.05, the composition is LiCo0.95Mg0.05O2 which corresponds to the claimed lithium cobalt oxide material doped with at least one metal dopant LixCoyOz . Mea when x is 1, y is 0.95, Me is Mg (i.e., claim 4; the at least one metal dopant is Mg), and a is 0.05. Therefore, the composition of Maeda overlaps with the claimed composition.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Although Maeda does not explicitly teach the lithium cobalt oxide material doped with at least one metal dopant is obtained from the process comprising:
adjusting a molar ratio MLiSalt: MCoSalt: MMeSalt of a lithium-containing salt, a cobalt-containing salt, and at least one metal-dopant-containing salts in a liquid mixture to be a ratio of about 1 : 1 : a, where a is more than 0 and not more than 0.05;
forming a mist of the liquid mixture, wherein the liquid mixture comprises:
the lithium-containing salt;
the cobalt-containing salt; and
the least one metal-dopant-containing salt;
mixing the mist of the liquid mixture with a first gas flow to form a gas-liquid mixture;
drying the gas-liquid mixture to form a gas-solid mixture;
separating the gas-solid mixture into one or more solid particles of an oxide material; and
annealing the one or more solid particles of the oxide material at an annealing temperature of 400 °C to 1200 °C to obtain crystallized particles of the lithium cobalt oxide material doped with the at least one metal dopant;
as presently claimed, it is noted that the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making. Thus, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Maeda meets the requirements of the claimed product, Maeda clearly meets the requirements of the present claim.
Further, as Maeda teaches an oxide material that is substantially identical to the claimed oxide material, it is clear that a battery cell made from the oxide material of Chiang would exhibit a first discharge capacity of at least 175 mAh/g at cutoff voltage range of between 4.45V to 4.6V.
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 (I).
Regarding claims 2-3, 5, 9. 10, and 12, Maeda teaches the oxide material of Claim 1, and although Maeda does not explicitly teach:
wherein the lithium- containing salt is selected from the group consisting of lithium sulfate (Li2SO4), lithium nitrate (LiNO3), lithium carbonate (Li2CO3), lithium acetate (LiCH2COO), lithium hydroxide (LiOH), lithium formate (LiCHO2), lithium chloride (LiCI), and combinations thereof (i.e., claim 2);
wherein the cobalt- containing salt is selected from the group consisting of cobalt sulfate (CoSO4), cobalt nitrate (Co(NO3)2), cobalt acetate (Co(CH2COO)2), cobalt formate (Co(CHO2)2), cobalt chloride (CoCl2), and combinations thereof (i.e., claim 3);
wherein the at least one metal-dopant-containing salt is selected from the group consisting of magnesium nitrate Mg(NO3)2, magnesium acetate (MgAc, Mg(CH3COO)2), magnesium chloride (MgCl2), magnesium sulfate (MgSO4), magnesium formate (C2H2MgO4), aluminum nitrate (Al(NO3)3), aluminum acetate (AlAc, C6H9AlO6), aluminum chloride (AlCl3), aluminum sulfate (Al2(SO4)3), aluminum formate (Al(HCOO)3), manganese sulfate (MnSO4), manganese nitrate (Mn(NO3)2), manganese acetate (Mn(CH2COO)2), manganese formate (Mn(CHO2)2), manganese chloride (MnCl2), zirconium nitrate (Zr(NO3)4), zirconium acetate (C8H12O8Zr), zirconium chloride (ZrCl4), zirconium sulfate (Zr(SO4)2), zirconium formate (C4H4O8Zr), nickel sulfate (NiSO4), nickel nitrate (Ni(NO3)2), nickel acetate (Ni(CH2COO)2), nickel formate (Ni(CHO2)2), nickel chloride (NiCl2), titanyl nitrate (TiO(NO3)2), magnesium (Mg)-containing compound, aluminum (Al)-containing compound, titanium (Ti)-containing compound, sodium (Na)-containing compound, potassium (K)-containing compound, scandium (Sc)-containing compound, niobium (Nb)- containing compound, neodymium (Nd)-containing compound, lanthanum (La)- containing compound, cerium (Ce)-containing compound, silicon (Si)-containing compound, rubidium (Rb)-containing compound, vanadium (V)-containing compound, cesium (Cs)-containing compound, chromium (Cr)-containing compound, copper (Cu)- containing compound, magnesium (Mg)-containing compound, manganese (Mn)- containing compound, zirconium (Zr)-containing compound, zinc (Zn)-containing compound, tin (Sn)-containing compound, gallium (Ga)-containing compound, barium (Ba)-containing compound, actinium (Ac)-containing compound, calcium (Ca)-containing compound, iron (Fe)-containing compound, boron (B)-containing compound, germanium (Ge)-containing compound, arsenic (As)-containing compound, hafnium (Hf)-containing compound, Molybdenum (Mo)-containing compound, tungsten (W)-containing compound, rhenium (Re)-containing compound, ruthenium (Ru)-containing compound, rhodium (Rh)-containing compound, platinum (Pt)-containing compound, silver (Ag)- containing compound, osmium (Os)-containing compound, iridium (Ir)-containing compound, gold (Au)-containing compound (i.e., claim 5);
wherein the liquid mixture is soluble in a suitable solvent and the suitable solvent is selected from the group consisting of water, alcohol, methanol, isopropyl alcohol, organic solvents, inorganic solvents, organic acids, sulfuric acid (H2SO4), citric acid (C6H807), acetic acids (CH3COOH), butyric acid (C4H8O2), lactic acid (C3H6O3), nitric acid (HNO3), hydrochloric acid (HCl), ethanol, pyridine, ammonia, acetone, and combinations thereof (i.e., claim 9);
wherein the one or more solid particles of the oxide material are annealed in a presence of a second gas flow that is heated to 550 °C or higher and the second gas flow is delivered into a reaction chamber to maintain the annealing temperature inside the reaction chamber (i.e., claim 10); or
wherein the liquid mixture is dried in a presence of the first gas flow that is heated to 200 °C or higher inside a drying chamber and the first gas flow is delivered into the drying chamber to maintain a drying temperature inside the drying chamber (i.e., claim 12);
as presently claimed, it is noted that the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making. Thus, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Maeda meets the requirements of the claimed product, Maeda clearly meets the requirements of the present claim.
Regarding claims 14 and 17, Maeda teaches the present invention also provides a cathode active material having a composition represented by formula (III’): Li(Co(1-x-y)MgxAly)O2, where x is 0.001 to 0.15 and y is 0.001 to 0.05 (Maeda, [0020]). Therefore, when x is 0.025 and y is 0.025, the composition is LiCo0.95Mg0.025Al0.025O2 which corresponds to the claimed lithium cobalt oxide material doped with at least two metal dopants LixCoyOz . Me1a, Me2b, Me3c,…MeNn when x is 1, y is 0.95, N is 2, Me1 is Mg, Me2 is Al (i.e., claim 17; the at least two metal dopants are Mg and Al), a is 0.025, and b is 0.025. Therefore, the composition of Maeda overlaps with the claimed composition.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Although Maeda does not explicitly teach the lithium cobalt oxide material doped with the at least two metal dopants is obtained from a process comprising:
adjusting a molar ratio MLiSalt: MCoSalt: MMe1Salt: MMe2Salt: MMe3Salt: … MMeNSalt of a lithium-containing salt, a cobalt-containing salt, and at least two metal-dopant-containing salts which are soluble in a suitable solvent into a liquid mixture to be a ratio of about 1 : 1 : a : b : c … : n, wherein N > 1, and each a, b, c, …, n is more than 0 and not more than 0.05, wherein each of the at least two metal-dopant-containing salts is selected from a group consisting of a first metal-containing salt, a second metal-containing salt, a third metal-containing salt, … an N metal-containing salt and combinations thereof, and forming a mist of the liquid mixture;
mixing the mist of the liquid mixture with a gas flow to form a gas-liquid mixture;
drying the gas-liquid mixture to form a gas-solid mixture;
separating the gas-solid mixture into one or more solid particles of an oxide material; and
annealing the one or more solid particles of the oxide material at an annealing temperature of 400 °C to 1200 °C to obtain crystallized particles of the lithium cobalt oxide material doped with the at least two metal dopants;
as presently claimed, it is noted that the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making. Thus, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Maeda meets the requirements of the claimed product, Maeda clearly meets the requirements of the present claim.
Further, as Maeda teaches an oxide material that is substantially identical to the claimed oxide material, it is clear that a battery cell made from the oxide material of Chiang would exhibit a first discharge capacity of at least 175 mAh/g at cutoff voltage range of between 4.45V to 4.6V.
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 (I).
Regarding claims 15-16, 18, and 21, Maeda teaches the oxide material of Claim 14, and although Maeda does not explicitly teach:
wherein the lithium- containing salt is selected from the group consisting of lithium sulfate (Li2SO4), lithium nitrate (LiNO3), lithium carbonate (Li2CO3), lithium acetate (LiCH2COO), lithium hydroxide (LiOH), lithium formate (LiCHO2), lithium chloride (LiCI), and combinations thereof (i.e., claim 15);
wherein the cobalt- containing salt is selected from the group consisting of cobalt sulfate (CoSO4), cobalt nitrate (Co(NO3)2), cobalt acetate (Co(CH2COO)2), cobalt formate (Co(CHO2)2), cobalt chloride (CoCl2), and combinations thereof (i.e., claim 16);
wherein the at least one metal-dopant-containing salt is selected from the group consisting of magnesium nitrate Mg(NO3)2, magnesium acetate (MgAc, Mg(CH3COO)2), magnesium chloride (MgCl2), magnesium sulfate (MgSO4), magnesium formate (C2H2MgO4), aluminum nitrate (Al(NO3)3), aluminum acetate (AlAc, C6H9AlO6), aluminum chloride (AlCl3), aluminum sulfate (Al2(SO4)3), aluminum formate (Al(HCOO)3), manganese sulfate (MnSO4), manganese nitrate (Mn(NO3)2), manganese acetate (Mn(CH2COO)2), manganese formate (Mn(CHO2)2), manganese chloride (MnCl2), zirconium nitrate (Zr(NO3)4), zirconium acetate (C8H12O8Zr), zirconium chloride (ZrCl4), zirconium sulfate (Zr(SO4)2), zirconium formate (C4H4O8Zr), nickel sulfate (NiSO4), nickel nitrate (Ni(NO3)2), nickel acetate (Ni(CH2COO)2), nickel formate (Ni(CHO2)2), nickel chloride (NiCl2), titanyl nitrate (TiO(NO3)2), magnesium (Mg)-containing compound, aluminum (Al)-containing compound, titanium (Ti)-containing compound, sodium (Na)-containing compound, potassium (K)-containing compound, scandium (Sc)-containing compound, niobium (Nb)- containing compound, neodymium (Nd)-containing compound, lanthanum (La)- containing compound, cerium (Ce)-containing compound, silicon (Si)-containing compound, rubidium (Rb)-containing compound, vanadium (V)-containing compound, cesium (Cs)-containing compound, chromium (Cr)-containing compound, copper (Cu)- containing compound, magnesium (Mg)-containing compound, manganese (Mn)- containing compound, zirconium (Zr)-containing compound, zinc (Zn)-containing compound, tin (Sn)-containing compound, gallium (Ga)-containing compound, barium (Ba)-containing compound, actinium (Ac)-containing compound, calcium (Ca)-containing compound, iron (Fe)-containing compound, boron (B)-containing compound, germanium (Ge)-containing compound, arsenic (As)-containing compound, hafnium (Hf)-containing compound, Molybdenum (Mo)-containing compound, tungsten (W)-containing compound, rhenium (Re)-containing compound, ruthenium (Ru)-containing compound, rhodium (Rh)-containing compound, platinum (Pt)-containing compound, silver (Ag)- containing compound, osmium (Os)-containing compound, iridium (Ir)-containing compound, gold (Au)-containing compound (i.e., claim 18);
wherein the suitable solvent is selected from the group consisting of water, alcohol, methanol, isopropyl alcohol, organic solvents, inorganic solvents, organic acids, sulfuric acid (H2SO4), citric acid (C6H807), acetic acids (CH3COOH), butyric acid (C4H8O2), lactic acid (C3H6O3), nitric acid (HNO3), hydrochloric acid (HCl), ethanol, pyridine, ammonia, acetone, and combinations thereof (i.e., claim 21);
as presently claimed, it is noted that the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making. Thus, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Maeda meets the requirements of the claimed product, Maeda clearly meets the requirements of the present claim.
Regarding claim 22, Maeda teaches a cathode active material having a composition represented by the formula (III): LiCo(1-x)MgxO2, where x is 0.001 to 0.15 (Maeda, [0019]). Therefore, when x is 0.05, the composition is LiCo0.95Mg0.05O2 which corresponds to the claimed lithium cobalt oxide material doped with at least one metal dopant LixCoyOz . Mea when x is 1, y is 0.95, Me is Mg, and a is 0.05. Therefore, the composition of Maeda overlaps with the claimed composition.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Although Maeda does not explicitly teach the lithium cobalt oxide material doped with the at least one metal dopant is obtained from the process comprising:
adjusting a molar ratio MLiSalt: MCoSalt: MMeSalt of a lithium-containing salt, a cobalt-containing salt, and at least one metal-dopant-containing salts in a liquid mixture to be a ratio of about 1 : 1 : a, where a is more than 0 and not more than 0.05;
forming a mist of the liquid mixture, wherein the liquid mixture comprises:
the lithium-containing salt;
the cobalt-containing salt; and
the least one metal-dopant-containing salt; and
a solvent
mixing the mist of the liquid mixture with a gas flow to form a gas-liquid mixture;
drying the gas-liquid mixture to form one or more solid particles of an oxide material; and
annealing the one or more solid particles of the oxide material at an annealing temperature of 400 °C to 1200 °C to obtain crystallized particles of the lithium cobalt oxide material doped with at least one metal dopant;
as presently claimed, it is noted that the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making. Thus, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Maeda meets the requirements of the claimed product, Maeda clearly meets the requirements of the present claim.
Further, as Maeda teaches an oxide material that is substantially identical to the claimed oxide material, it is clear that a battery cell made from the oxide material of Chiang would exhibit a first discharge capacity of at least 175 mAh/g at cutoff voltage range of between 4.45V to 4.6V.
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 (I).
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant’s amendments, a new 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection is set forth above.
Applicant primarily argues:
“With respect to amended claim 1, applicant respectfully submits that Chiang does not at least disclose “wherein a battery cell made from the lithium cobalt oxide material doped with at least one metal dopant Lix Coy Oz • doped Mea exhibits a first discharge capacity of at least 175 mAh/g at cutoff voltage range of between 4.45V to 4.6V.” Chiang fails to disclose any discharge capacity information for a battery cell made from the cathode materials disclosed in Examples 7, 10, or 17.”
Remarks, p. 1
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
While Chiang does not teach a first discharge capacity of at least 175 mAh/g at cutoff voltage range of between 4.45V to 4.6V, the claims are drawn to an oxide material not a battery cell made from the oxide material. Further, as the oxide material of Chiang is substantially identical to the claimed oxide material, a battery cell made from the oxide material of Chiang would necessarily exhibit a first discharge capacity of at least 175 mAh/g at cutoff voltage range of between 4.45V to 4.6V.
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 (I).
Applicant further argues:
“With respect to amended claim 1, applicant respectfully submits that Maeda does not at least describe “wherein a battery cell made from the lithium cobalt oxide material doped with at least one metal dopant Lix Coy Oz • doped Mea exhibits a first discharge capacity of at least 175 mAh/g at cutoff voltage range of between 4.45V to 4.6V.” In Maeda, a secondary cell produced using the cathode active material (III) exhibits an initial discharge capacity of only up to 165 mAh/g (Maeda, [0089]), and only at the cut-off voltage range of between 3.0 to 4.3V (Maeda, [0104]).”
Remarks, p. 2
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
While Maeda does not teach a first discharge capacity of at least 175 mAh/g at cutoff voltage range of between 4.45V to 4.6V, the claims are drawn to an oxide material not a battery cell made from the oxide material. Further, as the oxide material of Maeda is substantially identical to the claimed oxide material, a battery cell made from the oxide material of Maeda would necessarily exhibit a first discharge capacity of at least 175 mAh/g at cutoff voltage range of between 4.45V to 4.6V.
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 (I).
Further, while applicants argue that Maeda teaches a discharge density of only up to 165 mAh/g, Maeda also does not teach testing for a discharge density at a cutoff voltage range higher than 4.3 V. Additionally, in the specification the discharge density of Example 23 at 4.3 V is 160.434 mAh/g and in Example 26 at 4.3 V, it is 159.025 mAh/g. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that as the discharge density of Maeda at 4.3 V is around 165 mAh/g which is higher than both examples that tested at 4.3 V, the first discharge capacity of Maeda at 4.45 V would be greater than 175 mAh/g.
Applicant further argues:
“Throughout the Office Action (e.g., at paragraphs 9, 10, 12, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 23), the Examiner asserts that the claims are product-by-process claims, that the patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production, and that Applicants must provide "evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process" to establish an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art.
Applicants have provided this exact evidence of criticality by amending independent claims 1, 14, and 22 to explicitly require that the claimed product exhibits a "first discharge capacity of at least 175 mAh/g at cutoff voltage range of between 4.45V to 4.6V."
As established above, the prior art products of Chiang and Maeda do not achieve this performance, particularly at the highly degrading high-voltage range of 4.45V to 4.6V. The claimed product is capable of this unexpected performance specifically because of the structural and compositional criticality imparted by the claimed manufacturing steps. The claimed sequence of forming a liquid mist with precisely adjusted precursor ratios, mixing it with a gas flow, and separating the gas-solid mixture prior to annealing yields a doped LCO crystal structure that is physically distinct from, and vastly superior to, standard doped LCO materials produced by conventional solid-state or co-precipitation methods (such as those in Maeda).
Therefore, the claimed product is demonstrably not "the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art" (In re Thorpe). The unique process steps—including the specific salts, solvents, and thermal gas flows recited in dependent claims 2-5, 9-10, 12, 15-18, and 21—are highly critical to achieving the novel structural integrity and high-voltage capacity of the final oxide material. Because the claimed product possesses unexpected properties not found in the prior art, the product-by-process rejections must be withdrawn.”
Remarks, p. 2-3
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
While applicant argues that it is the claimed product that exhibits a first discharge capacity of at least 175 mAh/g at cutoff voltage range of between 4.45V to 4.6V, the claim recites, “wherein a battery cell made from the lithium cobalt oxide material doped with at least one meal dopant exhibits a first discharge capacity of at least 175 mAh/g at cutoff voltage range of between 4.45V to 4.6V” (emphasis added). As disclosed in Paragraph [0003], a battery cell includes a cathode and an anode immersed in an electrolyte and are electronically separated by a separator. The battery cell includes more than just the cathode active material, and the only claimed material is the oxide material. Therefore, the first discharge capacity is not a property of solely the oxide material as a cathode, but the entire battery cell that includes the oxide material, and as Chiang and Maeda teach the oxide material, the oxide material of Chiang and Maeda when used in a battery cell would exhibit a first discharge capacity of at least 175 mAh/g at cutoff voltage range of between 4.45V to 4.6V.
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 (I).
Additionally, while the applicant argues that the process steps impart structural and compositional criticality on the product which is demonstrated by the battery cell exhibiting a first discharge capacity of at least 175 mAh/g at cutoff voltage range of between 4.45V to 4.6V, the product-by-process limitations are for forming an oxide material, not a battery cell. Therefore, the battery cell, which includes more than just the oxide material, exhibiting a first discharge capacity of at least 175 mAh/g at cutoff voltage range of between 4.45V to 4.6V does not prove a structural or compositional criticality imparted on the oxide material by the process.
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 Catriona Corallo whose telephone number is (571)272-8957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. 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.
/C.M.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights