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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Nishino (JP-2015144108-A) is used to disclose the atomic-% of the positive electrode active material in amended claim 13.
35 USC 112(b) rejections regarding claim 13-17 have been withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim 13.
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) 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishino (JP-2015144108-A) (see translation), and further in view of Harada (JP-2012234772-A) (see translation).
Regarding claim 13, Nishino discloses a secondary battery comprising a positive electrode active material for a positive electrode (see e.g., [0016], regarding active material for positive electrode of lithium ion secondary battery), wherein the positive electrode active material has the formula Li1+x(Co(1-a-b-m)NiaAlbMm)1-xO2-(f/2)Ff (see e.g., [0016] of translation and page 2 [2] of original foreign document which shows the formula clearly), wherein the M may be selected from a group including Mg (see e.g., [0017]), which overlaps with the claimed lithium cobalt oxide containing magnesium, aluminum, nickel, and fluorine. Nishino further discloses embodiments wherein M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Mg, Ti, and Ze (see e.g., [0018]), which shows that magnesium is of high desirability. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected magnesium as the “M” component in the positive electrode active material to provide an active material that can be used even under high charging voltages, has excellent battery performance such as discharge capacity, average discharge voltage, charge/discharge cycle durability, and safety (see e.g., [0015]).
Nishino discloses in example 18 wherein a surface modification is applied such that in EDX analysis, more Mg was detected on the particle surface (see e.g., [0101]), which overlaps with the claimed peak of magnesium is confirmed in a vicinity of a surface of the positive electrode active material in an EDX measurement.
Nishino discloses the active material with general formula Li1+x(Co(1-a-b-m)NiaAlbMm)1-xO2-(f/2)Ff, and further provides that 0<a≤0.25, 0<b≤0.05, 0≤m≤0.04 (see e.g., [0016]), with further preferences such as 0.05≤a+b+m≤0.3 (see e.g., [0017]). Given this general formula including the further preferences, Nishino discloses the positive active material wherein a number of magnesium atoms in the positive electrode active material is 0.7 % or more and 4 % or less of a number of cobalt atoms, wherein a number of aluminum atoms in the positive electrode active material is 0.1 % or more and 2 % or less of the number of cobalt atoms, wherein a number of nickel atoms in the positive electrode active material is 0.1 % or more and 2 % or less of the number of cobalt atoms. For example, selecting arbitrary numbers within the ranges of Nishino, such as a=0.005, b=0.015, and m=0.03, the resulting formula includes the atomic ratios of Co0.95Ni0.005Al0.015Mg0.03. The atomic ratios of magnesium to cobalt is 0.03/0.95[Wingdings font/0xE0]3.16%, which falls within the claimed range of 0.7% or more and 4% or less. Similarly, an atomic ratio of aluminum to cobalt is 0.015/0.95[Wingdings font/0xE0]1.57%, which falls within the claimed range of 0.1% or more and 2% or less, and an atomic ratio of nickel to cobalt is 0.005/0.95[Wingdings font/0xE0]0.5%, which falls within the claimed range of 0.1% or more and 2% or less. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to selected a positive electrode active material with the ratios of components disclosed by Nishino, such as Co0.95Ni0.005Al0.015Mg0.03, which has been arbitrarily selected within the range, to provide an active material that can be used even under high charging voltages, has excellent battery performance such as discharge capacity, average discharge voltage, charge/discharge cycle durability, and safety (see e.g., [0015]).
Nishino does not explicitly disclose wherein in a section cut toward a center of a particle of the positive electrode active material, at least part of the particle has a surface roughness less than 3 nm. However, Harada teaches that at least part of a positive electrode active material lithium transition metal compound powder particle has a surface roughness of 1.5 nm or less (see e.g., [0011], [0015], [0026]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 3 nm or less. Harada is equivalent analogous art because Harada similarly teaches a lithium transition metal oxide particle with a crystal structure that is heat treated in the overlapping temperature range of 200-900 °C in the overlapping time range of 24 hours of less (see e.g., [0012] of Harada compared with [0065] of Nishino regarding the heat treatment processes), and may further include magnesium and fluorine (see e.g., [0017]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a surface roughness of 1.5 nm or less disclosed by Harada as a property of the positive electrode active material disclosed by Nishino. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a lithium secondary battery having high initial efficient and excellent rate characteristics (see e.g., [0010]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Nishino discloses the secondary battery according to claim 13, however, Nishino is silent as to wherein the surface roughness is a root mean square surface roughness (RMS) in which a standard deviation is calculated. However, Harada teaches that at least part of a positive electrode active material lithium transition metal compound powder particle has a surface roughness of 1.5 nm or less, wherein the surface roughness is a root mean square (RMS) value (see e.g., [0011], [0015], [0026]). A standard deviation can be calculated when provided with an RMS value. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a surface roughness of 1.5 nm or less as an RMS value disclosed by Harada as a property of the positive electrode active material disclosed by Nishino. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a lithium secondary battery having high initial efficient and excellent rate characteristics (see e.g., [0010]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Nishino discloses the secondary battery according to claim 13, however, Nishino is silent as to the positive electrode active material having a surface roughness in at least 400 nm of a periphery of the particle. However, Harada teaches that the surface roughness was calculated whereby the trimming range was set to a range sufficiently smaller than the primary particle diameter (about 50-30% in length) (see e.g., [0089]) which is 300-500 nm of a periphery of the particle because the primary particles are preferably 1 um (1000 nm) or less (see e.g., [0036]), which overlaps with the claimed range of at least 400 nm of a periphery of the particle. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a surface roughness in 300-500 nm of a periphery of the particle disclosed by Harada as a property of the positive electrode active material disclosed by Nishino. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to eliminate the influence of the primary particle outer shape as much as possible (see e.g., [0089]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Nishino discloses the secondary battery according to claim 13, however, is silent as to a portable information terminal comprising the secondary battery. However, Harada discloses that lithium secondary batteries may be used in portable devices such as mobile phones (see e.g., [0002). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the secondary battery discloses by Nishino into a mobile phone because lithium secondary batteries have excellent energy density and power density and are effective in reducing size and weight (see e.g., [0002]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Nishino discloses the secondary battery according to claim 13, however, is silent as to a vehicle comprising the secondary battery according to claim 13. However, Harada discloses that lithium secondary batteries may be used in electric vehicles (see e.g., [0002]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the lithium secondary battery disclosed by Nishino in an electric vehicle because lithium secondary batteries have excellent energy density and power density and are effective in reducing size and weight (see e.g., [0002]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KEVIN SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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 at (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.
/KEVIN SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728