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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-20, 25-26, 40 are cancelled. Claims 29-37, 42-45 are withdrawn. Claim 21-24, 27-28, 38-39, 41 are currently pending. Claims 21, 27 are currently amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) 21 have been considered but are not found persuasive 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. Specifically, Ryota teaches a positive electrode active material consisting of particles of a lithium metal composite oxide represented by the claimed Composition Formula (A). See rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 21-22,24,27 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryota (WO2018181530A1, translation attached), in view of Tomohiro (JP2016173875A, previously cited).
Regarding claim 21, Ryota discloses a positive electrode active material for a lithium-ion battery consisting of particles of a lithium metal composite oxide, wherein the lithium metal composite oxide is represented by Li [Li0.04(Ni0.75Co0.10Mn0.15)0.96]O2 (see Example 2; [0138-0146]), wherein the molar subscripts fall within the claimed ranges.
The limitation “for an all-solid-state lithium-ion battery” and “wherein the positive electrode active material for an all-solid state lithium-ion battery is in contact with a solid electrolyte layer” do not impart additional structure to the claimed positive electrode active material. Because the structure of Tomohiro’s positive electrode active material is capable of use in an all-solid-state lithium-ion battery, these claim limitations are met (MPEP 2112.02, II).
Ryota further wherein
each of the particles comprises crystals of the lithium metal composite oxide [Ryota 0045],
the lithium metal composite oxide has a layered structure [0057].
Ryota further discloses wherein the positive electrode active material is made by forming a slurry comprising Ni, Co, and Mn, which is further mixed with lithium hydroxide powder and calcined at 820°C for 6 hours, followed by washing with water, drying at 105°C for 20 hours, and heat treating from room temperature to 850°C at a heating rate of 200°C/hour and heat-treated for 5 hours (Example 2 [Ryota 0138-0145]), wherein a plurality of pores would necessarily form by way of evaporating water from the slurry at high temperature. However, Ryota does not disclose a total pore volume, thus does not disclose “wherein, in pore physical properties obtained from nitrogen adsorption isotherm measurement and nitrogen desorption isotherm measurement at a liquid nitrogen temperature, a total pore volume obtained from a nitrogen adsorption amount when a relative pressure (p/p0) of an adsorption isotherm is 0.99 is less than 0.0035 cm3/g” as claimed.
In this regard, Tomohiro also teaches a porous positive electrode active material comprising a solid solution lithium-containing transition metal oxide, wherein the solid solution lithium-containing transition metal oxide is made by mixing a raw materials containing lithium compounds, nickel compounds, cobalt compounds, and manganese compounds as precursors, calcining at 800-1000°C for 6-24 hours and further heat-treating at 600-800 °C to prepare lithium-containing transition metal oxides [Tomohiro 0074], which is substantially similar to the method disclosed by Ryota.
Tomohiro further teaches wherein the solid solution lithium-containing transition metal oxide is porous, allowing electrolyte to permeate and lithium ions within the metal oxide to diffuse, making it possible to improve discharge capacity and capacity retention rate [Tomohiro 0057].
Tomohiro further teaches wherein when a relative pressure (p/p0) of an adsorption isotherm is 0.98-0.99, the lithium metal composite oxide has a total pore volume obtained from a nitrogen adsorption amount of 0.025 cm3/g or less [Tomohiro 0055], which encompasses the claimed total pore volume range of “0.0035 cm3/g or less when a relative pressure (p/p0) of an adsorption isotherm is 0.99”. Tomohiro further explains “when the pore volume is 0.025cm3/g or less, it becomes possible to obtain a solid solution lithium-containing transition metal oxide that can achieve higher discharge capacity and capacity retention rate than conventional solutions” [Tomohiro 0067].
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the encompassed pore volume range, with a reasonable expectation to improve discharge capacity and capacity retention rate of the lithium-containing transition metal oxide by allowing electrolyte to permeate and lithium ions within the metal oxide to diffuse [Tomohiro 0067].
Regarding claim 22, modified Ryota discloses the positive electrode active material for an all-solid-state lithium-ion battery according to claim 21.
The limitation “which is used for an all-solid-state lithium-ion battery containing an oxide-based solid electrolyte” does not impart additional structure to the claimed positive electrode active material. Because the structure of Ryota’s positive electrode active material is capable of use in an all-solid-state lithium-ion battery, the claimed limitation is met (MPEP 2112.02, II).
Regarding claims 24 and 39, modified Ryota discloses the positive electrode active material for an all-solid-state lithium-ion battery according to claim 21.
However, Ryoto does not disclose a pore diameter D75 and D5 obtained by a mercury intrusion porosimetry, and further does not disclose “the pore diameter D75 at a cumulative 25% is 7.4 µm or less, and the pore diameter D5 at a cumulative 95% is 0.0135 µm or more” as claimed.
In this regard, Ryota discloses wherein the positive electrode active material is formed by:
mixing nickel sulfate aqueous solution, cobalt sulfate aqueous solution, and manganese sulfate aqueous solution to form a mixed raw material solution [0139]
adding the mixed raw material solution and an aqueous ammonium sulfate solution to a reaction vessel under stirring [0140]
adding sodium hydroxide aqueous solution dropwise so that the pH at 40°C is 12.0 to obtain nickel-cobalt-manganese composite hydroxide particles [0140]
washing and dehydrating and isolating using a centrifuge (i.e., drying at 105°C) [0140]
mixing with lithium hydroxide powder in a molar ratio of Li/(Ni+Co+Mn) = 1.07 [0141]
calcining at 820°C for 6 hours under an oxygen atmosphere
heating from room temperature to 850°C for 5 hours to obtain lithium metal composite oxide [0145]
The instant specification also discloses wherein a positive electrode active material having D75 of 2.606 µm and D5 of 0.0138 µm was formed by:
mixing nickel sulfate aqueous solution, a cobalt sulfate aqueous solution, and a manganese sulfate aqueous solution [PG Pub 0440],
adding the mixture of step (1) and an ammonium sulfate aqueous solution in a reaction chamber [PG Pub 0441],
adding sodium hydroxide aqueous solution dropwise so the pH at 40°C is 11.1 to obtain nickel-cobalt-manganese composite hydroxide particles [PG Pub 0441]
washing and dehydrating in a centrifuge at 120°C [PG Pub 0442]
mixing with lithium hydroxide powder in a molar ratio of Li/(Ni+Co+Mn)=1.05 [PG Pub 0443]
calcining at 970° C. for 4 hours [0455] and drying at 120° C. for 10 hours [PG Pub 0445]
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the lithium containing transition metal oxide of Ryota is made by substantially similar processes as that of the instant specification (e.g., sulfates are mixed, basic solutions were added to control pH, followed by calcination). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably envisage the positive electrode active material of Ryota to have a pore diameter D75 at a cumulative 25% of “7.4 µm or less” and a pore diameter D5 at a cumulative 95% of “0.0135 µm or more” as claimed (MPEP 2112.01 (I)).
Regarding claim 27, modified Ryota discloses the positive electrode active material for an all-solid-state lithium-ion battery according to claim 21, wherein in Composition Formula (A), 1-y-z-w is 0.75 and y=0.1 (see Example 2; [Ryota 0146]), which satisfies the claimed ranges of “1-y-z-w≥0.50” and “y≤0.30”.
Claim(s) 28, 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryota (WO2018181530A1, translation attached), in view of Tomohiro (JP2016173875A, previously cited) and Kim (US20190393479A1, previously cited).
Regarding claims 28, 41, modified Ryota discloses the positive electrode active material for an all-solid-state lithium-ion battery according to claim 21, wherein the particles are composed of primary particles and secondary particles [Ryota 0043-0044]). However, Ryota does not disclose wherein the particles are further composed of “single particles that exist independently of the primary particles and the secondary particles” as claimed.
Examiner notes that shape, chemical composition, or structure of the “single particles” is not particularly claimed in the instant claim. Thus, the “single particles” is broadly interpreted as any particles that are different from (i.e., “exist independently” as claimed) the primary and the secondary particles.
In this regard, Kim also teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising a cathode active material including a first cathode active material particle and a second cathode active material particle, wherein the first cathode active material particle includes a lithium metal oxide having a secondary particle formed from an assembly of primary particles, and the second cathode active material particle having a single particle structure [Kim 0034]. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the particles of Ryota such that it further includes single particles such as the second active material particles of Kim, as Kim teaches that the such cathode active material having single particle structure provides penetration stability and thermal stability, thereby improving life-span and long-term operational reliability of the lithium secondary battery [Kim 0028, 0076].
Regarding the limitation of “wherein the amount of the single particles in the particles is 20% or more”, Kim teaches wherein the second cathode active material particle (i.e., single particles) is mixed in a weight ratio of 40-90% and preferably 50-90%, which is wholly within the claimed range of “20% or more”. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the positive electrode active material of Ryota to include the single particles in the encompassed range, with a reasonable expectation to improve thermal stability and life-span and prevention of ignition due to penetration [Kim 0091].
Claim(s) 23, 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryota (WO2018181530A1, translation attached), in view of Tomohiro (JP2016173875A, previously cited) and Cho (KR20150081938A, previously cited).
Regarding claims 23, 38, modified Ryota discloses the positive electrode active material for an all-solid-state lithium-ion battery according to claim 21, but does not disclose a pore distribution or pore diameter of the positive electrode active material.
Thus, Ryota does not disclose the claimed limitation of “in a pore distribution obtained from a desorption isotherm by a Barrett-Joyner-Halenda (BJH) method, a proportion of the volume of pores having a pore diameter of 50 nm or less with respect to a total pore volume of pores having a pore diameter of 200 nm or less is 45% or more.”
In this regard, Cho teaches a cathode active material containing lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt (NMC) comprising a plurality of micropores uniformly formed inside the cathode active material secondary particle, wherein the pores of 5nm to 50nm are included in 5 to 50% volume of the total volume of the pores [Cho 0023], which overlaps with the claimed amount of “45% or more.”
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have controlled the proportion of the volume of pores having a pore diameter of 50nm or less such that it is in the overlapping amount, as Cho teaches that such amount of pore allows electrolyte to come into uniform contact with the positive electrode active material, thereby enabling rapid charging of high-capacity, high-output lithium secondary batteries [0023 Cho].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TAEYOUNG SON whose telephone number is (703)756-1427. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 8/6/2026
Prosecution Insights