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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) are compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/17/2024.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-5) in the reply filed on 10/17/2024 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that amended claim 1 and 6 have special technical features which make a contribution over the prior art and thus Groups I-III have unity of invention. This is not found persuasive because although independent claims 1 and 6 were amended around the Gao and Halasyamani references applied in the Restriction Requirement of record (dated 09/05/2024), these claims (and thus inventive Groups I-III) still lack unity of invention as their shared technical feature (i.e., the limitations of instant claim 1) is not special over the prior art (see Fujita and Aishova references applied within the 35 USC 103 rejection below; the grounds of rejection below are in response to the amendment).
Additionally, examiner notes arguments against Rejections under 35 USC 103 (Remarks page 5, filed 10/17/2024) are particularly not persuasive because a rejection has not yet been made on the record. (That is, the below 35 USC 103 constitutes the first rejection on the merits of the instant application.)
Further, arguments on Remarks pages 5-10 regarding “distinguishing technical features” are drawn to limitations which are newly-recited in the amendment and were not part of claims 1, 6, nor 10 at the time of the 09/05/2024 Restriction Requirement. Thus, the restriction requirement was and is proper, with the new limitations addressed below in a rejection over the prior art to show that the features in question also do not make a contribution over the prior art, such that the inventive groups as defined in the restriction requirement still lack unity. Per MPEP section 1850, the expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art (see PCT Rule 13).
Lastly, regarding the inventive goals noted on pages 7- of the Remarks, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). These arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims.
Thus, the restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is maintained.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10/17/2024 have been entered. Claims 1, 3, and 5 remain pending and are examined below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: "The cobalt-free lamellar cathode material" in the preamble of claim 1 should read "A cobalt-free lamellar cathode material" since this is the first introduction of such material. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (US 20160285073 A1) in view of Aishova et al. (“Cobalt-Free High-Capacity Ni-Rich Layered Li[Ni0.9Mn0.1]O2 Cathode”, Adv. Energy Mater. 2020, 10, 1903179; First published: 10 December 2019 <https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.201903179>) and Kavanlouei et al. (“Electrophoretic deposition of titanium nitride coatings”, Journal of the American Ceramic Society, Volume 101, Issue 8, August 2018, Pages 3288-3298; First published: 10 February 2018, <https://doi.org/10.1111/jace.15490>).
Regarding claim 1, Fujita teaches a cobalt-free (M3 options of Fe, Ti, Cr, Mg, Al, Cu, Ga, Mn, Zn, Sn, B, V, Ca, and Sr provide cobalt-free formula, [0039]) lamellar (layers shown in Fig. 2) cathode material (positive electrode active material, [0035]), wherein that
the cobalt-free lamellar cathode material is of a core-shell structure (core 110 with shell 120, Fig. 2), and
a material forming an outer shell of the core-shell structure (shell / coating layer 120 is highly thermal conductive compound, [0044, 0073]) comprises titanium nitride (TiN is a stable example of the highly thermal conductive compound, [0037-0038]) and
a material forming an inner core of the core-shell structure (lithium complex oxide 110, Fig. 2 and [0044, 0073]) does not comprise cobalt (M3 options of Fe, Ti, Cr, Mg, Al, Cu, Ga, Mn, Zn, Sn, B, V, Ca, and Sr provide cobalt-free formula, [0039]) and is of a monocrystal structure (singular primary particles of 110 shown coated by multiple particles of 120, Fig. 3 and [0047]);
the material forming the inner core is LiNixMnyO2 (LiaNi1-bM3bO2 where 0.05≦a≦1.2 obviates instant Li subscript 1, and where Mn is listed as a choice for M3; [0039]), wherein, 0.55<x<0.95 (Ni subscript 1-b would be within range of 0.5 to 1.0 since 0≦b≦0.5 per [0039] encompasses and obviates claimed range for Ni subscript), 0.05<y<0.45 (M3 subscript 0≦b≦0.5, [0039]; encompasses and obviates claimed range for Mn subscript);
a thickness of the outer shell (region 120S approximately two-particle diameters thick as shown in Fig. 3, region 120G approximately one-particle diameter thick as shown in Fig. 3) is 50-500 nm (highly thermal conductive compound used for the positive electrode active material may have an average primary particle diameter of 10 to 500 nm, [0048]; from [0046-0048] and Fig. 3, thickness of coating layer 120 is therefore calculated to be: 10 nm [=1*10, single particle thickness at low end of range] to 1000 nm [=2* 500, double particle thickness at high end of range], which overlaps and obviates the claimed shell thickness). (See MPEP 2144.05 I regarding obviousness of ranges.)
While giving M3 element options other than cobalt (Co) in the lithium nickel complex oxide formula in [0039], Fujita does not explicitly teach the cathode material being “cobalt-free”.
Aishova, analogous in the art of lamellar cathode materials (layered cathode; Aishova title, pg. 1), teaches a high-energy-density cathode that is cobalt(Co)-free and which maintains better cycling stability than two exemplary Co-containing cathodes (Aishova abstract, pg. 1). Aishova further teaches that due to price fluctuations of cobalt, there has been a significant push toward reducing or eliminating cobalt from lithium-ion batteries, and further that owing to the toxic nature of Co and an increasing concern for child labor used in Co ore mining, significant research is being devoted to completely removing cobalt from the current family of layered oxide cathodes used (Aishova introduction, pg. 2). Aishova (title and abstract) teaches Li[Ni0.9Mn0.1]O2 as the formula for the inventive cobalt-free cathode material, which overlaps the compositions of Fujita as well as the instant claim.
From these teaching, it would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to ensure the lithium complex oxide core material of Fujita was indeed cobalt-free (i.e., select M3 other than Co) with the motivation of achieving the benefit of high energy density and cycle stability while avoiding the disadvantages of price volatility, toxicity, and child labor as taught by Aishova.
Fujita suggests (from [0046-0048] and Fig. 3 as cited and calculated above), a shell thickness of approximately 10-1000 nm which obviates the instantly claimed range. However, examiner notes that the number of coating particles in regions 120S and 120G used to calculate shell thickness based on disclosed particle diameter may not necessarily be to scale. Fujita [0020] teaches that nitride is very stable and does not readily react with lithium complex oxide; Fujita [0073] teaches that mechanochemical methods can be used to form the coating layer.
Kavanlouei, which is analogous in the art of nitride coatings (titanium nitride (TiN) coatings; Kavanlouei abstract, pg. 1) teaches that specifically that using an electrophoretic deposition method to form TiN coating is useful in chemically stable applications and fuel cell technology and is capable of forming thick coating layers in short time (Kavanlouei introduction, paras. 2-3 on pg. 2). Kavanlouei investigated thickness of the deposited coatings (Kavanlouei abstract) and found that coating thickness strongly influences the drying stresses levels (the higher coating thickness the higher is the drying stress levels; Kavanlouei para. 3 on pg. 30), and teaches that increased internal stress due to drying can cause cracking in the coating (Kavanlouei paras. 2-3 on pg. 30). Kavanlouei further teaches that optimally prepared coatings are uniform and the particles are well-packed (Kavanlouei para. 3 on pg. 30), while the coating thickness can be tailored based on the deposition conditions (e.g., time and voltage; Kavanlouei paras. 3-4 on pg. 30).
Optimizing a result effective variable through routine experimentation is within the ambit of a skilled artisan per MPEP 2144.05 II. Thus, in view of the teachings of Kavanlouei, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to tailor the deposition conditions of the nitride shell coating of Fujita in order to achieve an optimized coating thickness, uniformity, and packing while avoiding cracking due to drying stress.
Thus, all limitations of instant claim 1 are rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 5, modified Fujita teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and teaches that in the core-shell structure, a content of titanium nitride (TiN as highly thermal conductive compound per Fujita [0038]) is 0.13-0.39% (wt) (weight of the highly thermal conductive compound relative to the lithium complex oxide may be 0.1 to 5 wt % for enhanced cycle characteristics and energy density, Fujita [0042]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (US 20160285073 A1) in view of Aishova et al. (“Cobalt-Free High-Capacity Ni-Rich Layered Li[Ni0.9Mn0.1]O2 Cathode”, Adv. Energy Mater. 2020, 10, 1903179; First published: 10 December 2019 <https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.201903179>) and Kavanlouei et al. (“Electrophoretic deposition of titanium nitride coatings”, Journal of the American Ceramic Society, Volume 101, Issue 8, August 2018, Pages 3288-3298; First published: 10 February 2018, <https://doi.org/10.1111/jace.15490>) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 20140087259 A1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Fujita teaches the limitations of claim 1 above but fails to explicitly teach that a particle size of the material forming the inner core is 1-5 microns.
Fujita is silent toward the size of the primary particle 110 ([0047]) but does show in Fig. 3 the core particle 110 being orders of magnitude larger than the shell particles 120 (which have diameters on the nanometer scale per [0048]).
Li, analogous in the art of cathode materials, teaches a cobalt-free (lithium nickel manganese oxide, Li abstract and [0018]) lamellar cathode material having a core-shell structure (a cathode composite material 10 of a lithium ion battery includes a cathode active material particle 12 and a coating layer 14, Li [0017] and Fig. 1), and teaches that the size of a single cathode active material particle 12 can be chosen according to need and can be in a range from about 1 micron to about 500 microns (Li [0021]).
Further, change in size/proportion is a design choice within the ambit of a person having ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 IV A). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to select the size of the lithium nickel manganese oxide core of the Fujita to be sized as need to meet design requirement, such as within 1-500 microns (overlapping the instantly claimed range of 1-5 microns) as taught by Li.
Thereby, claim 3 is rendered obvious.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ogawa (US 20080014498 A1) teaches the mean particle diameter of the positive electrode active material contained in the positive electrode active material layer is more than 1 μm to 5 μm or less to prevent coagulation and maintain lithium ion diffusion rate ([0030]).
Ansari (US 20200411895 A1) teaches ultra-high voltage cobalt-free cathode for alkali ion batteries (abstract) performing at voltages above 4.5 V vs Li/Li+ and containing at least Li, Mn, Ni, Sb, and O ([0024]).
Harry (US 20190123384 A1) teaches core particle 110 with outer shell 120 (Fig. 1) and the one or more electronically-conductive surface layers each has a thickness of 50 nm ([0022]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessie Walls-Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-1664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, typically 10-4.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached on (571) 270-7871. 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.
/JESSIE WALLS-MURRAY/Examiner, Art Unit 1728