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 .
Examiner’s Note
Applicant’s remarks filed 01/08/2026 have been entered. The examiner found Applicant’s remarks persuasive, regarding Chen and lack of teaching for the claimed range for the dopant ratio. Therefore, the previous 103 rejection is withdrawn. Upon updating search, new references, namely Chiang (US 2011/0045346 A1) and Maeda (EP 1281673 B1), came to the attention of the examiner. Therefore, the following action is a second non-final, as a new set of rejections over Chiang and Maeda is provided as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious 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.
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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
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.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 14, 17, and 22, the previous claim objection over claim 17 and the previous 112(a) rejections over claims 1-5, 9-10, 12, 14-18, and 21-22 are withdrawn from the record.
In response to applicant’s remarks regarding Chen and lack of teaching for the claimed range for the dopant ratio, applicant’s remarks are found persuasive. Therefore, the previous 103 rejection is withdrawn from the record. However, a new rejection over Chiang and Maeda is set forth above.
Conclusion
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