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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement has been made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 USC 119 (a-d). The certified copy has been filed on 03/29/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed 03/29/2022 and 04/09/2024 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings received 03/29/2022 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Formulas of cathode active materials in claims 2 and 3 does not recite element N, while claim language define N as at least O,F, B and N. For examination purposes interpreted that N=O.
In claim 7 it is not clear what kind of condition is described by the term “ under a condition suitable for crystal growth of a precursor particle” since n condition provided.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 4, 8 and 13 recites limitation “preferably” which is the narrower statement of the previous range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 14 depend from claim 8 and fall therewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as anticipated CN 110867575 to Gan (Gan, machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Gan discloses a particle, wherein the particle is single crystal grain structure (Claim 1), containing nickel lithium manganate and nickel cobalt lithium manganate and comprising central region and surface region. A content of Ni in the central region is greater than the content of Ni in the surface region (Claim 2). As appeared to Examiner, a buffer layer is depicted on Fig. 3, and content of Ni is lower in buffer layer than in other position of the particle (interpreted as matrix particle).
Regarding claim 10, Gan discloses a cathode pole piece and a cathode material distributed on the cathode pole piece, the cathode material being the cathode material (para 129).
Regarding claim 11, Gan discloses CR2016 button cell (para 130, see also claim 17).
Regarding claim 12, Gan discloses an electric vehicle (claim 18).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110867575 to Gan in view of US 2019/0372110 to Num.
Regarding claim 2, Gan discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1. Gan does not expressly disclose matrix particles of claims 2and 3.
Nam teaches a cathode active material from nickel based hydroxide particles having core-shell structure wherein concentration of Ni in shell portion lower than concentration of Ni in core portion. Nam teaches the cathode active material of formula Li1.05Ni0.88 Co0.095Mn0.025Zr0.0004O2 (para 137) (reads on formulas of instant claims 2 and 3). Since the said cathode active material prepared from a precursor substantially similar by that of the instant application and in by the method substantially similar for that of the instant application (para 122-137), the limitation molar content of the element M in the buffer layer is higher than a molar content thereof in a non-buffer layer (as well as a present of the buffer layer) is inherently present. MPEP 2112 V states that "once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the Examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show an unobvious difference. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cathode active material of Gan with the doping additives to produce the cathode active material taught by Ham in order to improving the charge/discharge characteristic, the cycle-life characteristic, the thermal stability, and the resistance characteristic of the lithium rechargeable battery.
Regarding claim 5, Gan discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 including the coating layer, Gan does not expressly disclose compound described by formula of the instant claim 5.
Nam teaches a cathode active material from nickel based hydroxide particles having core-shell structure wherein concentration of Ni in shell portion lower than concentration of Ni in core portion. Nam teaches the cathode active material of formula Li1.05Ni0.88 Co0.095Mn0.025Zr0.0004O2 (para 137) (reads on formulas of instant claims 2 and 3). Nam also teaches a coating layer which includes at least one of an element of B, Mg, Zr, Al, (claim 20). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cathode active material of Gan with the doping additives to produce the cathode active material taught by Ham in order to improving the charge/discharge characteristic, the cycle-life characteristic, the thermal stability, and the resistance characteristic of the lithium rechargeable battery. Modified Gan does not expressly disclose a stoichiometric ratio between Li1.05Ni0.88 Co0.095Mn0.025Zr0.0004O2 and metal oxide forming coating layer. However, an amount of oxide coating affect initial capacity of the lithium rechargeable battery and a cycle characteristic (Ham para 104) and as such result effective variable. It has been held by the courts that discovering an optimum value or workable ranges of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and thus not novel. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art at the time the invention was filed to optimize stichometry between the cathode active material particles and metal oxide for protective layer in order to improve initial capacity and a cycle characteristic of the lithium rechargeable battery.
Regarding claim 7, Gan discloses a method for preparing the cathode material comprising independently injecting a precursor raw material comprising a metal salt solution and an alkaline solution into a closed reactor respectively to carry out coprecipitation to obtain the precursor particle; and mixing the precursor particle with a lithium salt (Claim 6). Gan also discloses a step of pre-sintering but does not expressly disclose a carrying out first calcining treatment to obtain the cathode material.
Nam teaches a method for preparing the cathode material comprising independently injecting a precursor raw material comprising a metal salt solution and an alkaline solution into a closed reactor respectively to carry out coprecipitation to obtain the precursor particle (para 122-134) and mixing the precursor particle with a lithium salt followed by a calcining treatment (para 135) to produce cathode active material. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gan with the first calcining step, as taught by Num, in order to in order to improving the charge/discharge characteristic, the cycle-life characteristic, the thermal stability, and the resistance characteristic of the lithium rechargeable battery, because the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110867575 to Gan in view of US 2019/0372110 to Num (Num) and further in view of US 20160028076 to Lee
Regarding claim 4, modified Gan discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 2. In addition, Gan teaches coating layer comprising Ti2O5 (para 34), while Nam teaches a coating layer which includes at least one of an element of B, Mg, Zr, Al, (claim 20). Modified Gan does not expressly disclose a thickness of coating layer in the range from 10 nm to 100 nm.
Lee teaches a cathode active material comprising Ni-Co-Mn composite oxide comprising coating layer formed from metal oxide with thickness from 5 nm to 500 nm, Therefore, said range of thickness of the coating metal oxide layer is well known in the art. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of coating layer in the cathode active material particles of modified Gan within the range disclosed by Lee in order improve ionic conductivity and protect the active material from reaction with electrolyte.
Regarding claim 13, modified Gan discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 3. In addition, Gan teaches coating layer comprising Ti2O5 (para 34), while Nam teaches a coating layer which includes at least one of an element of B, Mg, Zr, Al, (claim 20). Modified Gan does not expressly disclose a thickness of coating layer in the range from 10 nm to 100 nm.
Lee teaches a cathode active material comprising Ni-Co-Mn composite oxide comprising coating layer formed from metal oxide with thickness from 5 nm to 500 nm, Therefore, said range of thickness of the coating metal oxide layer is well known in the art. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of coating layer in the cathode active material particles of modified Gan within the range disclosed by Lee in order improve ionic conductivity and protect the active material from reaction with electrolyte.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110867575 to Gan.
Regarding claim 6, Gan discloses a size for matrix particles as about 6.8 µm.
It is noted that a specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range. See MPEP 2131.03. Since the said cathode active material prepared from a precursor substantially similar by that of the instant application and in by the method substantially similar for that of the instant application (para 35-52) the buffer layer would be inherently disposed in the range 0.05 µm to 0.5 µm away from an outer surface in the matrix particle.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110867575 to Gan in view of US 2019/0372110 to Num and further in view of US 20100227222 to Chang (Chang).
Regarding claim 9, modified Gan discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 7 and incorporated therein. modified Gan discloses a step of mixing the cathode material with a coating agent to carry out second calcining treatment to form the coating layer (Ham para 136) wherein the coating agent is boric acid (Ham, para 136). Modified Gan does not expressly disclose wherein a particle size of the coating agent does not exceed 50 nm.
Chang teaches a lithium metal oxide composite material as a cathode active material for a battery. Chang also teaches a coating agent to cat that used to coat the outer surface of electrode active material crystals with metal oxide ultrafine (i.e., less than 100 nm) particles in order to increase the durability of the calcined material, when the calcined material is used in batteries (para 83). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the particle size of the coating agent of modified Gan below 100 nm as taught by Chang in order to increase the durability of the calcined material, when the calcined material is used in batteries (para 83).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER USYATINSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-7703. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached on 5712721330. 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.
/Alexander Usyatinsky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727