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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 8 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/13/2024.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 11/13/2024 in response to the examiner’s restriction filed on 09/20/2024 is acknowledged. Applicant elected group I with traversal, the traversal is on the ground(s) that of the amended claim limitations filed on 11/13/2024. This is not found persuasive because as the restriction was based on the previous claim set filed on 03/02/2022 and not the current amended claims submitted by the applicant. The applicant has not pointed to an error in the examiner’s restriction filed prior to the amendment to claim 1. As such the restriction is proper and maintained. Furthermore, the examiner notes the amendment to claim 1 and the cancellation of claims 5-7, 11, and 15-17 and the restriction of claim 8. Claims 1-4 and 9-10, and 12-14 are currently being examined.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: applicant did not disclose proper units when discussing the a and c axis cell parameters. For instance in [36] of the instance specification the applicant refers to a-axis can be 2.80-2.90 but fails to disclose the length unit (presumably Å or similar unit). Applicant should review the instant specification and include units where appropriate.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 13 objected to because of the following informalities: applicant (presumably) discusses length of the cell units without disclosing the units being measured. For instance the a-axis can be 2.80-2.90 but fails to disclose the length unit (presumably Å or similar unit). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
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 3 and 13 recites the broad recitations of 2.80-2.90 and 14.10-14.30, and the claim also recites 2.86-2.87 and 14.19-14.20 which is the narrower statement of the 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 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 1, 4, 9-10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Toyama (WO2019172193A1; examiner is using US20210013505A1 as an equivalent English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Toyama discloses a quaternary cathode material [abstract], wherein a chemical structural formula of the quaternary cathode material being LixNia’CobMnc’AldMyO2, 1≤x≤1.05, 0≤y≤0.025, 0.3≤a'<0.95, 0.03≤b≤0.1, 0.01≤c'≤0.05, 0.01≤d≤0.05 and a'+b+c'+d=1;and M is a dopant comprising Zr, Al and Mg [0017, 0032, 0049, see below for further explanation]; wherein in the quaternary cathode material, a mass fraction of the dopant Al is 2500-3500 ppm [0049, see below for further explanation], a mass fraction of the dopant Mg is 300-500 ppm and a mass fraction of the dopant Zr is 2500-3500 ppm [0049, see below for further explanation]; and the quaternary cathode material has an α-NaFeO2 type crystal structure [0058]; discloses a space group of an X-ray diffraction pattern of the quaternary cathode material is R-3m [0064-0065, 0153], and a relationship between a cell parameter c of an axis c [0063, 14.210 Å - 14.240 Å] and a cell parameter a of an axis a [0062, 2.878 Å or greater] is as follows: c/a> 4.943 [0062-0063, 14.240 Å / 2.878 Å = 4.948, which anticipates the applicants disclosed range, see MPEP 2144.05].
Toyama discloses the following formula: Li1+aNibCocMndMeO2+α and a, b, c, d, e and α are respectively numbers satisfying −0.04≤a≤0.04, 0.80≤b<1.00, 0≤c≤0.04, 0<d<0.20, 0<e<0.10 b+c+d+e=1, and −0.2<α<0.2 [0032, 0050]. M in the compositional formula is at least one kind of metal element selected from the group of Al, Ti, Zn, Ga, Zr, Mo, Nb, V, Sn, Mg, Ta, Ba, W, and Y [0049].
In the applicants disclosed formula Al is present in 0.01≤d≤0.05 mol equivalent and the dopant M is present in 0≤y≤0.025. The dopants Al and Zr are present in 2500-3500 ppm and Mg is present in 300-500 ppm, the total percentages of the dopants are as follow: Al = ~47%, Zr = 47%, and Mg = ~6%. As such, the examiner is interpreting the disclosed range of 0≤y≤0.025 to be equivalent to 0≤Al≤0.012, 0≤Zr≤0.012, 0≤Mg≤0.002. The total amount of Al present (between the initial amount and the dopant amount) in the applicant’s formula is 0.01≤Al≤0.062. As such, the total amount of Al, Zr, and Mg disclosed by the applicant is from 0.01≤Al, Zr, and Mg≤0.076.
The amount of metal Me disclosed by Toyama is 0<e<0.10 (M = Al, Zr, and Mg) which anticipates the disclosed range by the applicant (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 4, Toyama discloses the quaternary cathode material, wherein in the X-ray diffraction pattern of the quaternary cathode material, diffraction peak intensities of a surface 1003 and a surface I104 meets a following relationship: 1.921 <I003/I104≤2 [0058, Toyama discloses the ratio of diffraction peak of I003/I104 of 1.2 or greater which overlaps with the range disclosed by the applicant, see MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 9, Toyama discloses an cathode, comprising the quaternary cathode material [0101-0103]
Regarding claim 10, Toyama discloses a battery, comprising an cathode, a anode, a diaphragm and an electrolyte, wherein the diaphragm is arranged between the cathode and the anode; at least a part of the cathode, at least a part of the anode and at least a part of the diaphragm are immersed in the electrolyte, the cathode being the cathode [0155].
Regarding claim 14, Toyama discloses the cathode, wherein in the X-ray diffraction pattern of the quaternary cathode material, diffraction peak intensities of a surface I003 and a surface I104 meets a following relationship: 1.921<I003/I104≤2 [0058, Toyama discloses the ratio of diffraction peak of I003/I104 of 1.2 or greater which overlaps with the range disclosed by the applicant, see MPEP 2144.05].
Claim(s) 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyama as applied to claim 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Anakamura (JP2019165002A).
Regarding claim 2, Toyama is silent to the quaternary cathode material, wherein in the X-ray diffraction pattern of the quaternary cathode material, the relationship between a cell parameter c of an axis c and a cell parameter a of an axis a is as follows: 3a+5.555≤c≤3a+5.590.
However, Anakamura discloses the X-ray diffraction pattern of the quaternary cathode material, the relationship between a cell parameter c of an axis c and a cell parameter a of an axis a is as follows: 3a+5.555≤c≤3a+5.590 [0072, Anakamura discloses an a-axis of 2.840 Å -2.890 Å and a c-axis of 14.160 Å – 14.200 Å; when a is equal to 2.87 Å then 3*2.87 Å + 5.555 = 14.165 Å and 3*2.87 Å + 5.590 = 14.20 Å therefore when 14.165 Å ≤ c ≤ 14.20 Å the equation is satisfied. Examiner also notes that when c = 14.20 Å and a = 2.87 Å then 14.20/2.87 = 4.948 which satisfies the equation of claim 1. The cell parameters disclosed by Anakamura anticipates the ranges disclosed by the applicant, see MPEP 2144.05].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would be motivated to modify the cell parameter disclosed by Toyama to be the cell parameters disclosed by Anakamura as the crystal lattice itself is large but is stable as a layered rock salt structure, it is considered that the structural stability of the positive electrode active material particles is maintained [0073, Anakamura].
Regarding claim 3, Toyama as modified above discloses the quaternary cathode material, wherein a numerical range of the cell parameter a of the axis a is 2.80-2.90, preferably 2.86-2.87, and a numerical range of the cell parameter c of the axis c is 14.10-14.30, preferably 14.19-14.20 [0062-0063, Anakamura discloses an a-axis is between 2.840 Å -2.890 Å and the c-axis is between 14.160 Å – 14.200 Å, which anticipates both the broad and narrow range disclosed by the applicant, see MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 12, Toyama is silent to the quaternary cathode material, wherein in the X-ray diffraction pattern of the quaternary cathode material, the relationship between a cell parameter c of an axis c and a cell parameter a of an axis a is as follows: 3a+5.555≤c≤3a+5.590.
However, Anakamura discloses the X-ray diffraction pattern of the quaternary cathode material, the relationship between a cell parameter c of an axis c and a cell parameter a of an axis a is as follows: 3a+5.555≤c≤3a+5.590 [0072, Anakamura discloses an a-axis of 2.840 Å -2.890 Å and a c-axis of 14.160 Å – 14.200 Å; when a is equal to 2.87 Å then 3*2.87 Å + 5.555 = 14.165 Å and 3*2.87 Å + 5.590 = 14.20 Å therefore when 14.165 Å ≤ c ≤ 14.20 Å the equation is satisfied. Examiner also notes that when c = 14.20 Å and a = 2.87 Å then 14.20/2.87 = 4.948 which satisfies the equation of claim 1. The cell parameters disclosed by Anakamura anticipates the ranges disclosed by the applicant, see MPEP 2144.05].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would be motivated to modify the cell parameter disclosed by Toyama to be the cell parameters disclosed by Anakamura as the crystal lattice itself is large but is stable as a layered rock salt structure, it is considered that the structural stability of the positive electrode active material particles is maintained [0073, Anakamura].
Regarding claim 13 Toyama as modified above discloses the cathode, wherein a numerical range of the cell parameter a of the axis a is 2.80-2.90, preferably 2.86-2.87, and a numerical range of the cell parameter c of the axis c is 14.10-14.30, preferably 14.19-14.20 [0062-0063, Anakamura discloses an a-axis is between 2.840 Å -2.890 Å and the c-axis is between 14.160 Å – 14.200 Å, which anticipates both the broad and narrow range disclosed by the applicant, see MPEP 2144.05].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm.
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 5712705256. 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.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724 /BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724