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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 14, and 19 are amended.
Claims 9-17 were previously withdrawn.
Claims 1-8, 18-19 are considered on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8, 18-19 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.
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) 1-6, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al. (CN106784798A) hereinafter "Tan" in view of Ding et al. (CN110311127A) hereinafter "Ding". Reference is made to the enclosed machine translations.
Regarding claim 1, Tan teaches a composite cathode active material comprising: a nickel-based active material comprising about 60 mol% or more of nickel ([0014]-[0017]; [0182] “the core…the molar ratio of the three elements Ni, Co and Mn is 6:2:2”, “the outer shell of the nickel-rich core-shell structure particle is LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.15O2”); and a coating layer on a surface of the nickel-based active material ([0017]; [0064]; [0042]-[0044]; [0116]), the coating layer comprising a lanthanide composite ([0019] the case where the coating is CeO2), wherein an amount of the lanthanide composite is about 0.001 parts by weight or more and less than 6 parts by weight, based on 100 parts by weight of the nickel-based active material ([0021]-[0022]; [0116]).
Tan discloses the use of a variety of coatings including CeO2 at a mass % of 0.001-6. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known coating, such as CeO2 , at known mass % as taught by Tan. Further, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Tan is silent as to the particle size of the active material.
However, Ding teaches a high-nickel single-crystal lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide cathode material ([0007]-[0014]; [0028]). Ding teaches wherein the particle size of the cathode material is 3-5µm ([0026]). Ding teaches that a single-crystal primary particle morphology results in fewer surface defects in cathode materials, and can significantly improve safety and cycle performance ([0005]-[0008]; [0031]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the composite cathode active material taught by Tan by utilizing single-crystal particles with a particle size of 3-5µm as taught by Ding.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the composite cathode active material taught by Tan by utilizing single-crystal particles with a particle size of 3-5µm as taught by Ding to improve safety and cycle performance ([0005]-[0008]; [0031]). Further, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 2, modified Tan teaches the composite cathode active material of claim 1. Tan further teaches wherein a lanthanide in the lanthanide composite is Ce ([0019] CeO2; [0044]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Tan teaches the composite cathode active material of claim 1. Tan further teaches wherein the lanthanide composite is: i) an oxide comprising La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Pm, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu, or a combination thereof ([0019] CeO2; [0044]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Tan teaches the composite cathode active material of claim 1. Tan further teaches wherein the lanthanide composite is a compound represented by Formula 1: Formula 1 LixCeyO2, and wherein, in Formula 1, 0≤x≤1.05 and 0.95≤y≤1.05 ([0019] CeO2; [0044]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Tan teaches the composite cathode active material of claim 1. Tan further teaches wherein the lanthanide composite is CeO2, LiCeO2, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 6, modified Tan teaches the composite cathode active material of claim 1. Tan further teaches wherein the nickel- based active material is a compound represented by Formula 2: Formula 2 Lia(Ni1-x-y-zCoxMnyMz)O2±a1, and wherein, in Formula 2, M is an element selected from the group consisting of boron (B), magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), strontium (Sr), barium (Ba), titanium (Ti), vanadium (V), chromium (Cr), iron (Fe), copper (Cu), zirconium (Zr), aluminum (Al), and cerium (Ce), and
PNG
media_image1.png
20
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Tan [0116]; [0014]-[0015]; Ding [0015]; [0009]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Tan teaches the composite cathode active material of claim 1. Tan further teaches a cathode for a lithium secondary battery ([0011]; [0069]; [0080]; [0082]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Tan teaches the composite cathode active material of claim 1. Tan further teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising: a cathode; an anode; and an electrolyte between the cathode and the anode ([0082]).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan (CN106784798A) in view of Ding (CN110311127A), as applied above, in further view of Song et al. (US20180151865A1) hereinafter “Song”. Reference is made to the enclosed machine translations.
Regarding claim 7, modified Tan teaches the composite cathode active material of claim1.
Modified Tan does not teach wherein the coating layer is in a form of discontinuous islands.
However, Song teaches a coated lithium transition metal oxide cathode active material ([0028]; [0061 ]-[0065]) wherein the coating layer is in a form of discontinuous islands ([0028]). Song teaches that coatings in the form of discontinuous islands protects the active material while suppressing a resistance increase of a composite cathode active material ([0028]). Song teaches where an electrolyte may be a liquid or solid electrolyte ([0087]-[0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the composite cathode active material coating layer taught by modified Tan such that it is in the form of discontinuous islands as taught by Song.
A coating layer of a composite cathode active material discontinuously disposed in the shape of an island on a core is known in the art as a method of coating transition metal oxide cathode active materials ([0028]).
Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the composite cathode active material coating layer taught by modified Tan such that it is in the form of discontinuous islands as taught by Song to achieve the predictable result of a coated composite active material. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to applied the composite cathode active material coating layer taught by modified Tan such that it is in the form of discontinuous islands as taught by Song to protect the active material while suppressing a resistance increase of a composite cathode active material ([0028]).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan (CN106784798A) in view of Ding (CN110311127A), as applied above, in further view of Wu et al. (Use of Ce to Reinforce the Interface of Ni-Rich LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 Cathode Materials for Lithium-Ion Batteries under High Operating Voltage) hereinafter “Wu”. Reference is made to previously provided copy of Wu.
Regarding claim 8, modified Tan teaches the composite cathode active material of claim1.
Modified Tan does not teach wherein the composite cathode active material has X-ray diffraction peaks in a range of about 30.50 to about 32.490 and about 32.500 to about 34.50°.
However, the material taught by modified Tan teaches all aspect of the composite cathode active material of claim 1. Given that the composite cathode active material in modified Tan, has the same structure and compositions as claimed, it is the Examiner’s position that said composite cathode active material, would inherently possess the same properties, including X-ray diffraction peaks in a range of about 30.50 to about 32.490 and about 32.500 to about 34.50° (See MPEP 2112.01). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255,195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990).
This conclusion is supported by Wu. Wu teaches a composite cathode active material comprising: a CeO2 coated nickel-based active material comprising about 60 mol% or more of nickel (pg. 935 — Introduction “Ni-rich cathode materials LiNixCoyMn,O2 (x+y+z=1, x+0.6)”; pg. 936 — Introduction “CeO2 can be formed on the particle surface”). Fig. 2 of Wu shows XRD data where samples synthesized above 500°C show two impure peaks corresponding to a CeO2 coating between about 30°-35° (pg. 936 — Results and Discussion; pg. 938 — Results and Discussion). Du teaches that XRD can be used to identify the formation of a CeO2 coating versus CeO2 doping, and clearly indicates the material taught has a CeO2 coating (pg. 938 — Results and Discussion).
Therefore, the composite cathode active material taught by modified Tan, which has a CeO2 coating, meets the limitation of claim 8.
Note, in light of the instant specification, the use of the language “about 30.50 to about 32.490 and about 32.500 to about 34.50°” is interpreted as including +30% of the stated value, or one or more standard deviations ([00210]).
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 FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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.
/F.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights