DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-4 and 8-11 in the reply filed on October 31, 2024 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that following the amendment to the claims of October 31, 2024, the common technical feature -- a cobalt-free lamellar cathode material comprising a LiNixMnyO2 crystal, wherein x + y = 1 and 0.55 ≤ x ≤ 0.95, 0.05 ≤ y ≤ 0.45 and a lithium ion conductor, the lithium ion conductor being attached to at least part of a surface of the LiNixMnyO2 crystal, the lithium ion conductor comprising at least one of lithium titanate and lithium manganate, a D50 particle size of the cobalt-free lamellar cathode material being 1-10 µm -- makes a contribution over the prior art.
This is not found persuasive because the Hosoya reference (US PG Pub 2005/0181279) teaches the common technical feature. Specifically, Hosoya teaches a cobalt-free lamellar cathode material, which comprises the compound LiNi0.75Mn0.25O2 coated with lithium titanate and an average particle size of 7 µm (Example 31, paragraph [0156] and Table 5).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 5-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on March 29, 2022, April 10, 2023, January 2, 2024 and April 25, 2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 2 recites the limitation: “A cobalt-free lamellar cathode material for a lithium ion battery, wherein comprises …”.
The limitation should be edited to read “A cobalt-free lamellar cathode material for a lithium ion battery, wherein the cobalt-free lamellar cathode material comprises …”.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 1 recites the limitation: “The cobalt-free lamellar cathode according to claim 2, wherein comprises …”.
The limitation should be edited to read: “The cobalt-free lamellar cathode according to claim 2, wherein the cobalt-free lamellar cathode material comprises …”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation: “1-10µm”.
A space should be present between a numerical value and its unit. The limitation should be edited to read “1-10 µm”.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities. Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein that meeting at least one of …”.
The limitation should be edited to read: “wherein the cobalt-free lamellar cathode material satisfies at least one of …”
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities. Claim 8 recites the limitation “cathode material according to any one of claim 2”.
The words “any one of” appear to be unnecessary and should be deleted.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities. Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein that meeting at least one of …”.
The limitation should be edited to read: “wherein the lithium ion battery satisfies at least one of …”.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities. Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein that meeting at least one of …”.
The limitation should be edited to read: “wherein the cobalt-free lamellar cathode material satisfies at least one of …”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 depends on claim 2. Claim 3 includes only optional limitations. As such, claim 3 fails to further limit claim 2.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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:
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.
Claims 2-4 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2005/0181279, hereinafter Hosoya.
Regarding claim 2, Hosoya teaches a cobalt-free lamellar cathode material for a lithium-ion battery.
The cobalt-free lamellar cathode material comprises a LiNi1-xMnxO2 crystal, wherein x is less than or equal to 0.5 (paragraph [0040]). Hosoya’s x corresponds to the instantly claimed y and Hosoya’s 1-x corresponds to the instantly claimed x.
In specific examples Hosoya teaches the compounds LiNi0.75Mn0.25O2 and LiNi0.80Mn0.20O2 (see Tables 1-5). Both of these compounds satisfy the instantly claimed limits on x and y.
A lithium-ion conductor is coated on a surface of the LiNi1-xMnxO2 crystal (paragraphs [0039, 0041, 0042]). The lithium-ion conductor is a lithium titanate (paragraph [0042]).
In specific examples, Hosoya teaches LiNi0.75Mn0.25O2 coated with Li4Ti5O12 (see, e.g., Examples 1-3, 10 and 31).
Hosoya teaches that the average particle size of the cobalt-free lamellar cathode material is in the range 5 µm to 20 µm (paragraph [0027]).
In specific examples, Hosoya teaches average particles sizes of 5 µm and 7 µm (paragraphs [0156-0165]).
Regarding claim 3, Hosoya teaches that the lithium titanate is present at 1%-35% by weight based on the total mass of the cathode material (paragraph [0047]).
In multiple specific examples, Hosoya teaches that the lithium titanate is present at 1% (Examples 11-15, paragraphs [0119-0123]).
Regarding claim 4, Hosoya teaches in multiple examples that the cobalt-free lamellar cathode material is LiNi0.75Mn0.25O2 (see e.g., Examples 1-3, 10 and 31) – in this compound x is 0.75 and y is 0.25.
Regarding claim 8, Hosoya teaches a cathode electrode comprising the cobalt-free lamellar cathode material of claim 2 (paragraphs [0036-0042]).
Regarding claim 9, Hosoya teaches a lithium-ion battery comprising a negative electrode (3), a positive electrode (2), a separator (4, “diaphragm”) and electrolyte (paragraphs [0034, 0087, 0088] and figure 1). The cathode electrode includes the cobalt-free lamellar cathode material of claim 2 (paragraphs [0036-0042]).
Regarding claim 10, Hosoya does not report the performance of the battery under the claimed conditions.
Hosoya does report a capacity retention as high as 92.4% after 100 cycles for a battery with a cathode having the instantly claimed composition (see Table 1).
Moreover, given that Hosoya teaches all of the claimed properties of the instantly claimed cathode material, it is expected that a battery subject to the experimental conditions detailed in claim 10 would meet the claimed performance metrics.
Regarding claim 11, Hosoya teaches in multiple examples that the cobalt-free lamellar cathode material is LiNi0.75Mn0.25O2 (see e.g., Examples 1-3, 10 and 31) – in this compound x is 0.75 and y is 0.25.
Hosoya teaches that the average particle size of the cobalt-free lamellar cathode material is in the range 5 µm to 20 µm (paragraph [0027]).
In specific examples, Hosoya teaches average particles sizes of 5 µm and 7 µm (paragraphs [0156-0165]).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2005/0181279, hereinafter Hosoya as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0006031, hereinafter Kaseda.
Regarding claim 1, Hosoya teaches in multiple examples that the cobalt-free lamellar cathode material is LiNi0.75Mn0.25O2 coated with Li4Ti5O12 (e.g., Examples 1-3, 10, 11 and 15, Tables 1 and 3).
Hosoya teaches that the lithium titanate is present at 1%-35% by weight based on the total mass of the cathode material (paragraph [0047]).
In multiple specific examples, Hosoya teaches that the lithium titanate is present at 1% (Examples 11 and 15, Table 3).
Hosoya teaches that the average particle size of the cobalt-free lamellar cathode material is in the range 5 µm to 20 µm (paragraph [0027]).
In specific examples, Hosoya teaches average particles sizes of 5 µm and 7 µm (paragraphs [0156-0165]).
Hosoya fails to report on the specific surface area of the material.
Kaseda teaches a cathode active material which is a lithium nickel-based composite oxide, with nickel partially substituted by other metals such as Mn (paragraph [0023]). The active material has an average particle size of 5 µm to 15 µm (paragraph [0030]). Kaseda teaches that the optimal specific surface area for this type of material is in the range 0.3 m2/g to 0.7 m2/g (paragraph [0032]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a specific surface area in the range 0.3 m2/g to 0.7 m2/g for the purpose of providing an optimal reaction area on the surface of the cathode active material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILIA V NEDIALKOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-1538. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 - 5.00 PM.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached on 571-270-5256. 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.
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
LILIA V. NEDIALKOVA
Examiner
Art Unit 1724