DETAILED ACTION
Introductory Notes
Any paragraph citation of the instant is in reference to the U.S. published patent application.
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 1-2, 4-12 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YUN (US 20200119351 A1, cited in a previous office action).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, YUN discloses a positive active material precursor for a rechargeable lithium battery (“nickel-based active material precursor for a lithium secondary battery” per Claim 1),
the positive active material precursor having a form of a core-shell particle comprising a core and a shell around the core (“a core portion, an intermediate layer portion on the core portion, and a shell portion on the intermediate layer portion” [0008]),
wherein, the core comprises a first nickel-manganese-based composite hydroxide comprising nickel and manganese (Formula 1 [0060]; as well as preparation examples 1 and 2 which utilized “a molar ratio of Ni:Co:Mn of 70:15:15 to prepare a mixed solution” [0125]),
the shell comprises a second nickel-manganese-based composite hydroxide comprising nickel, manganese, and a pillar element (Formula 1 [0060] where the shell and core differ as follows: “a shell portion containing a cation or an anion, wherein each of the core portion and the intermediate layer portion includes a cation or anion different from that of the shell portion” [0064]; as well as preparation examples 1 and 2 which utilized the addition of tungsten to the previously noted Ni:Co:Mn mixture in preparation of the shell per [0128]),
the pillar element comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of Al, Mo, Ti, W, and Zr (“the cation includes at least one selected from B, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Ti, V, W, Cr, Fe, Cu, Zr and Al” [0064]; as well as the use of “tungsten oxide (WO2)” [0128] in preparation examples 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 1 limitation that a thickness of the shell is at least 25% of a radius of the core-shell particle, as well as claim 5 which states the range 25% to 50%, YUN discloses the following:
In [0047] YUN discloses the “core portion 10 has a thickness (when measured from the center) of, for example, about 2 μm to about 5 μm”. In [0049] YUN discloses the “intermediate layer portion 20 has a thickness of about 1 μm to about 3 μm”. In [0049] YUN discloses the “shell portion 30 has a thickness of about 1 μm to about 3 μm”. This information can be assembled to give the taught shell thickness as a percent of radius is at least 25%, as shown in the table below.
YUN Radius
Min
Max
Avg
Core [0047]
2
5
3.5
Inter [0049]
1
3
2
Core+Inter
3
8
5.5
Shell [0048]
1
3
2
C+I+S
4
11
7.5
%Shell
25%
27%
27%
Max %Shell
50%
=3/(2+1+3)
Min %Shell
11%
=1/(5+3+1)
Furthermore, YUN discloses the “volume of the shell portion 30 is in a range of, for example, about 50% to about 80%, or about 60% to 75% of the total volume of the particulate structure 100” [0048]. Given the taught preferred 60% to 75% total volume, and utilizing the formula for volume of spheres, the thickness of the shell in terms of total radius equating to these volumes is 26% to 37% respectively.
YUN also discloses Fig. 3A which shows the presence of tungsten in the shell. As shown in the examiner created image below, the shell can be estimated to be about 1/3 the radius (note the yellow line is 100 pixels and the red line is 300 pixels).
PNG
media_image1.png
426
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, given the multiple teachings of YUN, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would be able to determine from YUN that a thickness of the shell is at least 25% of a radius of the core-shell particle.
Regarding claim 2, YUN discloses the core does not comprise the pillar element (“third process, reaction conditions are changed and a shell portion containing a cation or an anion is formed and grown” [0072] wherein it is the change of cation that maps to the pillar element; this is demonstrated in Example 2 which states the “shell portion of the nickel-based active material … the content of tungsten was 1.33 mol %, and with respect to a total amount of core and intermediate layer portions of the nickel-based active material … the content of tungsten was 0 mol %” [0156]).
Regarding claim 4, YUN discloses a content of the pillar element in the shell is about 1 mol% to about 7 mol% based on 100 mol% of the total metal in the shell (Example 2 provides in the “shell portion of the nickel-based active material … the content of tungsten was 1.33 mol %” [0156]).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, YUN discloses a difference between a molar concentration of nickel based on the total metal in the core and a molar concentration of nickel based on the total metal in the shell is greater than or equal to about 0 mol% and less than or equal to about 20 mol%,
and a difference between a molar concentration of manganese based on the total metal in the core and a molar concentration of manganese based on the total metal in the shell is greater than or equal to about 0 mol% and less than or equal to about 20 mol% (for both nickel and manganese, YUN teaches differences between core and shell are about 0 mol% in that the same mixed solution is used for core and shell, see preparation example 1 [0125] as well as Formula 1 [0060] and that it is the anion / cation concentrations that differ per the Abstract, e.g. the differences in phosphate and tungsten given in [0156]; as such YUN teaches equal to or about 0 mol% difference for each limitation of claims 6 and 7).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, where claim 9 further limits x1, y1, and z1 and claim 8 states: the core comprises a nickel-manganese-based composite hydroxide represented by Chemical Formula 1, the shell comprises a nickel-manganese-based composite hydroxide represented by Chemical Formula 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
685
1031
media_image2.png
Greyscale
YUN discloses Formula 1 and paragraphs [0060-0061] provided below reading on each of Chemical Formulas 1 and 2 as well as the limitations to x1, y1, and z1. Mapping as follows of YUN to instant:
1-x-y-z to a1 and x1
y to b1 and y1
Mz to M2z1 wherein in YUN this z value is for the active material as a whole (0<z≤0.01) and not just the shell and the shell alone mol % is even higher, as discussed in the rejection of claim 4.
PNG
media_image3.png
916
899
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding YUN’s use of cobalt, YUN discloses the cobalt may be at concentration of about 0 (“0<x” [0061]) and lists a value for Co as low as 0.06 per [0063]. Also, the instant claim states M1, M2, and M3 are at least one of the listed elements and not that they are limited to only the listed elements. Furthermore, the instant states in [0027] that the precursor may include “a trace amount of cobalt”. Therefore, YUN’s inclusion of greater than, but near zero amount of cobalt is within the currently claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 10, YUN discloses the positive active material precursor has a spherical shape (as shown in Figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 11, YUN discloses the positive active material precursor has an average particle diameter (D50) of about 8 µm to about 15 µm (“the mean particle diameter (D50) of the product particles reached a target value, i.e., 13 μm to 14 μm” [0128] as well as the D50 values given in Table 1).
Regarding claim 12, YUN discloses the core-shell particle is a secondary particle in which a plurality of primary particles is agglomerated (“particulate structure 100 is, for example, a secondary particle” [0034]).
Regarding claim 26, YUN discloses the core comprises about 0 mol% to about 1 mol% of cobalt based on the total content of metals in the core (Formula 1 in [0060] with Cox as well as “0<x” [0061] wherein 0<x reads on about 0 mol%; in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists per MPEP § 2144.05).
Response to Arguments
Regarding art-based rejections, applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any interpretation applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant is encouraged to incorporate claims 8 and 9 into claim 1 with further limitations to the exclusion of cobalt as well as a1-x1 and b1-y1 each being greater than zero.
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 TRAVIS L MARTIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7am-4pm CT.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached on (303)297-4684. 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.
/T.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights