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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner notes the following amendments made to the claims:
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant narrows the range of load at particle fracture to 10-20mN for the first oxide, and states that this clearly differs from the range taught by Tokoro (after adjusting based on the equation provided by applicant, which examiner accepts as valid). Examiner does not find this persuasive, as the range of Tokoro ends at 9.12mN and the range of the instant invention starts at 10mN. Examiner does not think these “clearly differ” and states that it is entirely possible that a “nearly overlapping range” argument is sufficient. However, to move prosecution forward and to strengthen the rejection, examiner withdraws the previous rejection and further cites Saitou (WO 2019198857 A1—priority of JP2018071818, US 20210075013 A1 used as translation), which teaches an electrode active material that more explicitly meets the load at particle fracture and particle size parameters of the instant invention. Since no further arguments are provided regarding the dependent claims, other than their reliance on independent claim 1, the rejections remain in place and unchanged other than further relying on Saitou. Thus, there is currently not considered to be any allowable subject matter present in the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suhara (US 20050271944 A1) in view of Nakayama (US 20160118656 A1) and further in view of Tokoro (US 20190207215 A1) and further in view of Saitou (WO 2019193857 A1—priority of JP2018071818, US 20210075013 A1 used as translation),
Regarding claim 1, Suhara teaches all of the following elements:
A positive electrode active material for non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries, including: (“The present invention relates to a positive electrode active material powder for a lithium secondary battery” Suhara paragraph 0002)
a Ni-containing lithium composite oxide A; and a Ni-containing lithium composite oxide B (“A positive electrode active material powder for a lithium secondary battery characterized by comprising a first granular powder having a compression breaking strength of at least 50 MPa and a second granular powder having a compression breaking strength of less than 40 MPa, formed by agglomeration of many fine particles of a lithium composite oxide represented by the formula LipNixCoyMnzMqO2Fa” Suhara paragraph 0019)
wherein the Ni-containing lithium composite oxide A and the Ni-containing lithium composite oxide B include 50 mol% or more of Ni with respect to a total number of moles of metal elements excluding Li (“The lithium composite oxide powder of the present invention contains Ni and Co or Mn as essential components. When Ni is contained within the numerical value range of x in the above formula, the discharge capacity will be improved. If x is less than 0.2, the discharge capacity tends to be low. On the other hand, if it exceeds 0.8, the safety will be low, such being undesirable.” Suhara paragraph 0032. This teaches the Ni mol range as being between 20 and 80%, which would meet the above limitation)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 20-80% of Ni with respect to a total number of moles of metal elements excluding Li overlaps the claimed range of 50% or more. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
the Ni-containing lithium composite oxide A has an average primary particle size of 2 µm or larger, an average secondary particle size of 2 µm to 6 µm, (“such fine particles are not particularly limited, but their average particle size D50 (hereinafter referred to also as a volume average particle size) is preferably from 0.5 to 7 µm. And, the average particle size D50 of the composite oxide powder formed by agglomeration of many fine particles is preferably from 3 to 15 µm” Suhara paragraph 0035)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.5-7 µm as the primary particle size and 3 to 15 µm as the secondary particle size encompass the claimed ranges of 2 µm or larger and 2 µm to 6 µm for the same parameters. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Suhara fails to teach the following elements of claim 1:
and a load at particle fracture of 5 mN to 20 mN [regarding Ni-containing lithium composite oxide A],
and the Ni-containing lithium composite oxide B has an average primary particle size of 1 um or smaller, an average secondary particle size of 10 µm to 20 µm, and a load at particle fracture of 20 mN to 32 mN, and has a coating layer on a surface of the primary particle.
Nakayama teaches the following elements of claim 1 that are not found in Suhara, specifically the desired size parameters required for lithium composite oxide B:
and the Ni-containing lithium composite oxide B has an average primary particle size of 1 μm or smaller (“the average particle size of primary particles that are peeled away from the surface of secondary particles (hereafter, these will simply be referred to as “minute particles”) is preferably 1 nm to 100 nm” Nakayama paragraph 0037), an average secondary particle size of 10 μm to 20 μm, (“The average particle size of the lithium nickel composite oxide base material is preferably controlled to be within the range 3 μm to 30 μm, and more preferably within the range 5 μm to 20 μm.” Nakayama paragraph 0029)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 1-100nm for the primary particle size and 5-20 μm for secondary particle size lie within (for primary particle) or encompass (for secondary particle) the claimed ranges of 1 μm or smaller and 10-20 μm, respectively. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
and has a coating layer on a surface of the primary particle (“The cathode active material of the present invention is such that a coating layer is formed on the surface thereof,” Nakayama paragraph 0017).
Suhara and Nakayama are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of positive electrode active materials containing nickel-containing lithium compositive oxides, and which focus on the particle strength of the active material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive active material of Suhara containing both an A and B nickel-containing lithium composite oxide with the coated nickel-containing lithium compositive oxide of Nakayama as the B oxide because the coating layer of Nakayama can reduce the reaction resistance and improve particle strength and weather resistance of the electrode material. (Nakayama paragraph 0040) This would be desirable for a positive electrode active material as reducing the reaction resistance can improve the overall output characteristics of the battery (Nakayama paragraph 0040) and additionally, improved particle strength and weather resistance can improve the durability of the electrode material, which in term would improve the durability of the battery as a whole.
Suhara and Nakayama are both silent on the following elements of claim 1:
and a load at particle fracture of 10 mN to 20 mN [regarding Ni-containing lithium composite oxide A],
and a load at particle fracture of 20 mN to 32 mN, [regarding Ni-containing lithium composite oxide B]
However, Tokoro teaches all of the elements of claim 1 that are not found in Suhara or Nakayama. Specifically, Tokoro teaches a Ni-containing lithium composite oxide with a size range that overlaps the requirements of both composite oxides A and B, as well as a load at particle fracture that overlaps the requirements of both composite oxides A and B:
and a load at particle fracture of 10 mN to 20 mN [regarding Ni-containing lithium composite oxide A], (“A particle fracture strength of the positive electrode active material is preferably 10 MPa or more and 200 MPa or less.” Tokoro [0048]. This correlates to a range of 0.46-9.12mN based on the equation provided by applicant, which nearly overlaps the claimed range)
and a load at particle fracture of 20 mN to 32 mN, [regarding Ni-containing lithium composite oxide B] (“A particle fracture strength of the positive electrode active material is preferably 10 MPa or more and 200 MPa or less.” Tokoro [0048] This correlates to a range of 5.06-101.3mN based on the equation provided by applicant, which overlaps the claimed range)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 5.06-101.3 mN for the load at particle fracture of its Ni-containing lithium composite oxide B overlaps the claimed ranges 20-32mN for the load at particle fracture of Ni-containing lithium composite oxides B of the instantly claimed invention. Examiner notes that the prior art range of 0.46-9.12mN for the load at particle fracture of oxide A nearly overlaps the claimed range for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Tokoro is considered to be analogous to both Suhara and Nakayama because it is within the same field of cathode materials containing Ni-containing lithium composite oxides. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ni-containing lithium composite oxides of Suhara and/or Nakayama to have a load at particle fracture that is within the range of Tokoro in order to make sure that the particles do not fracture in the manufacturing process (“A particle fracture strength of the positive electrode active material is preferably 10 MPa or more and 200 MPa or less. This does not fracture the particles of the positive electrode active material in the process of manufacturing the electrodes and reduces a poor coating such as peeling when slurry containing the positive electrode active material is coated over the surface of a positive electrode current collector to form a positive electrode mixture layer.” Tokoro [0048]). Additionally, the range taught by Tokoro shows that a wide range of load at particle fracture can be chosen/optimized within this field, and that the ranges taught by both Suhara and Nakayama are within the ranges known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, the primary and secondary particle size of Tokoro overlaps those of the instantly claimed invention (The primary particles of the positive electrode active material preferably have an average grain diameter of, for example, 0.1 μm or more and 2 μm or less.” Tokoro [0027] and “From a similar aspect, the secondary particles of the positive electrode active material preferably have the average grain diameter of, for example, 3 μm or more and 50 μm or less.” Tokoro [0027]), thus further strengthening the case of obviousness that the load at particle fracture of Tokoro would be obvious to apply to either of the previously applied references.
To further strengthen the rejection, examiner cites Saitou, which more explicitly teaches the ranges required for Ni-containing composite A:
and a load at particle fracture of 10 mN to 20 mN [regarding Ni-containing lithium composite oxide A], (“The particle size of particles 32 is, for example, preferably 1.5 μm or more, more preferably 3 μm or more in terms of charge/discharge cycle characteristics. The upper limit of the particle size of particle 32 is, for example, preferably 20 μm or less, more preferably 15 μm or less.” Saitou [0031], “The content of the lithium composite oxide particles including 80 mol % or more and less than 100 mol % of Ni relative to the total number of moles of metal element(s) except for Li” Saitou [0033], and “The particle breakage strength of particles 32 is, for example, preferably 230 MPa or more, more preferably 300 MPa or more… The upper limit value of the particle breakage strength of particles 32 is not particularly limited, and is, for example, preferably 1000 MPa or less.” Saitou [0032]. Based on the equation provided by applicant, a breakage strength of 219.28-3,947.04mPa would correspond to the claimed load at particle fracture range for a particle size of 2-6um. Therefore, the breakage strength of 230mPa or more of Saitou and 1000 mPa or less would anticipate the entire range of load at particle fracture for the Nickel-containing composite oxide A.)
Saitou is considered to be analogous to both Suhara and Nakayama because it is within the same field of cathode materials containing Ni-containing lithium composite oxides. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ni-containing lithium composite oxides of Suhara and/or Nakayama to have a load at particle fracture that is within the range of Saitou in order to suppress the breakage of particles due to charge/discharge and improve characteristics (“In a case where the particle breakage strength of particles 32 satisfies the range, cracking of particles 32 due to charge/discharge may be suppressed and deterioration in charge/discharge cycle characteristics may be further suppressed, as compared with a case where the range is not satisfied.” Saitou [0032]). Additionally, it would only require the simple substitution of one nickel-containing composite oxide with another to meet the limitation by modifying with the teachings of Saitou, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding claims 2-5, no further modifications would be needed to Suhara other than those needed to fulfill the additional limitations of claim 1. Therefore, no further motivation is required and the rejections of claims 2-5 from the previous final rejection remain in place and unchanged, other than now further being dependent on Tokoro and Saitou.
Regarding claim 2, Nakayama teaches all of the following elements:
The positive electrode active material for non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries according to claim 1, wherein the coating layer includes at least one or more elements selected from B, Al and Ti. (“The cathode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery of the present invention is formed using a layered hexagonal lithium nickel composite oxide that is expressed by the general formula (B): LizNi1-x-yCoxMyO2 (where 0.10≦x≦0.20, 0≦y≦0.10, 0.95≦z≦1.10, and M is at least one element that is selected from among Mn, V, Mg, Mo, Nb, Ti and Al). A coating layer that includes a high concentration of lithium is formed on the surface of this cathode active material, and the composition ratio (Li/Me) of lithium (Li) with respect to the metals other than lithium (Me=Ni, Co, Mn, V and the like) of this coating layer is 1.50 to 2.30.” Nakayama paragraph 0046. This clearly states that Ti and Al are among the possible elements in the coating layer along with lithium)
Regarding claim 3, Suhara and Nakayama teach all of the following elements for lithium composite oxides A and B, respectively:
The positive electrode active material for non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries according to claim 1, wherein the Ni-containing lithium composite oxide A and the Ni-containing lithium composite oxide B each include at least one of Co and Mn, and includes at least one metal element selected from Mg, Zr, Mo, W, Nb, Al, Cr, V, Ce, Ti, Fe, Si, K, Ga, In and B.
For composite oxide A
(“The lithium composite oxide powder of the present invention contains Ni and Co or Mn as essential components.” Suhara paragraph 0032) and (“M is preferably at least one element selected from the group consisting of Ti, Zr, Hf, V, Nb, Ta, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba and Al.” Suhara paragraph 0033)
For composite oxide B
(“The cathode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery of the present invention is formed using a layered hexagonal lithium nickel composite oxide that is expressed by the general formula (B): LizNi1-x-yCoxMyO2” Nakayama paragraph 0046) and (“M is at least one element that is selected from among Mn, V, Mg, Mo, Nb, Ti and Al” Nakayama paragraph 0046)
Regarding claim 4, Suhara and Nakayama teach all of the following elements for lithium composite oxides A and B, respectively:
The positive electrode active material for non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries according to any one of claim1, wherein the Ni-containing lithium composite oxide A and the Ni-containing lithium composite oxide B include 80 mol% or more of Ni.
Composite oxide A (“a lithium composite oxide represented by the formula LipNixCoyMnzMqO2-aFa, 0.9≦p≦1.1, 0.2≦x≦0.8, 0≦x≦0.4, 0≦y≦.5, 0≦z≦0.5 y+z>0, 0≦q≦0.05, 1.9≦2-a≦2.1, x+y+z+q=1, and 0≦a≦0.02” Suhara paragraph 0019. In this case, if x is 0.8, y is 0.1, z is 0.05, and q is 0.05, then there would be an 80% mol ratio of Nickel in relation to the other non-lithium elements, which would meet the above limitation)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 20-80% Nickel content overlaps with the claimed range of 80% or more. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Composite oxide B (“The cathode active material that is obtained according to the present invention is expressed by the general formula (B): LizNi1-x-yCoxMyO2 (where 0.10≦x≦0.20, 0≦y≦0.10, 0.95≦z≦1.10, and M is at least one element that is selected from among Mn, V, Mg, Mo, Nb, Ti and Al)” Nakayama paragraph 0026. In this case, if x is 0.1 and y is anything less than 0.1, the mole percentage of Nickel in relation to the other non-lithium elements would be above 80%)
Regarding claim 5, modified Suhara teaches all of the following elements:
A non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, comprising: (” Further, in the lithium secondary battery using the lithium composite oxide of the present invention as the positive electrode active material” Suhara paragraph 0050)
a positive electrode including a positive electrode active material for non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries according to claim 1 (“In the lithium battery using the lithium composite oxide of the present invention as the positive electrode active material,” Suhara paragraph 0051)
a negative electrode; (“as the negative electrode active material, a material which can occlude and discharge lithium ions may be used. The material forming the negative electrode active material is not particularly limited,” Suhara paragraph 0051)
and a non-aqueous electrolyte. (“Further, in the lithium secondary battery using the lithium composite oxide of the present invention as the positive electrode active material, a gel polymer electrolyte containing a vinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene copolymer (for example, KYNAR manufactured by ELF Atochem) or a vinylidene fluoride-perfluoropropyl vinyl ether copolymer may be employed.” Suhara paragraph 0050)
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 BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET whose telephone number is (571)272-0156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm except for the first Friday of bi-week.
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, NICHOLAS SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights