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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Marusczyk (US-20180261880-A1) is newly applied to modify Je and Lee to teach a lithium-cobalt-titanium oxide on a surface of the lithium cobalt-based oxide.
Regarding applicant’s arguments over the claimed dQ/dV discharge graph, Je, Lee and Marusczyk provides all of the positively recited structure of the positive electrode including the active material particle structure, sizing, distribution, chemical composition, and coating layer as further described below. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that the resulting structure would provide a ratio (IB/IA) Of intensity (IB) of Peak 2 to intensity (IA) of Peak 1 is 1.1 to 1.7. Furthermore, it is the examiner’s position that the resulting structure would provide a dQ/dV charge-discharge graph with Peak 1 appearing at a discharge voltage of 4.6 V to 4.65 V, and Peak 2 appearing at a discharge voltage of 4.5 V to 4.55 V, wherein Peak 2 has a greater intensity than that of Peak 1.
Je provides the lithium cobalt-based oxide comprising: aluminum in an amount of 4,000 ppm to 6,500 ppm based on the total weight of lithium cobalt-based oxide (see e.g., [0044] regarding selecting the small and large particles from a lithium-cobalt-containing oxide and a lithium-nickel-cobalt-aluminum containing oxide, [0045]-[0046] regarding formulas such as LiaNibEcGdO2, 0.90≤a≤1.8, 0≤b≤0.9, 0≤c≤0.5, 0.001≤d≤0.1, which includes embodiments such as LiNi0.05Co0.02Al0.006408O2, or LiNi0.05Co0.02Al0.00824O2, or LiNi0.05Co0.02Al0.010439O2 wherein the ppm of aluminum falls within the claimed range of 4000 ppm to 6500 ppm based on a total weight of the lithium cobalt-based oxide), wherein the lithium cobalt-based oxide comprises large particles and small particles (see e.g., [0031] regarding large and small particles), wherein a mixing weight ratio between the large particles and the small particles is 8:2 to 9:1 (see e.g., [0047] regarding a ratio of the large particle to small particle of 80:20 to 90:10), the large particles have a size of 17 μm to 21 μm (see e.g., [0008], [0031], [0033] regarding a large particle size of 17 μm to 21 μm), the small particles have a size of 2 μm to 4 μm which overlaps with the claimed range of 2 μm to 8 μm (see e.g., [0008], [0031], [0033] regarding a small particle size of 2 μm to 4 μm), the negative electrode may comprise of active material such as a carbon-based material including graphite, amorphous carbon such as hard or soft carbon, mesophase pitch-based carbide, plate-shaped, flake-shaped, natural or artificial graphite (see e.g., [0061]) which is the same as the instant specification, the electrolyte includes a non-aqueous organic solvent and lithium salt (see e.g., [0073]-[0076]) similar to the instant specification.
Furthermore, Je teaches lithium cobalt-based oxides that are lithium manganese cobalt aluminum oxides with similar ranges of lithium, manganese, and aluminum (see e.g., [0045]-[0046]), and the lithium cobalt-based oxides that are lithium manganese cobalt aluminum oxides with similar ranges of lithium, manganese, and aluminum (see e.g., [0045]-[0046]). While Je does not explicitly disclose the exact same formula 1 as claimed, Lee modifies Je to specifically provide Chemical Formula 1 (see e.g., Lee; [0007]-[0013] regarding Chemical Formula 1 wherein M1 may be Mg, M2 may be Al, and M3 corresponds to the M of the claimed formula, and wherein the ratio of cobalt is one minus the amount of M1, M2, and M3) which overlaps with the range of the claimed chemical formula.
Je also teaches a coating layer on a surface of the lithium cobalt-based oxide active material particles (see e.g., [0037]-[0038] regarding coating material on the small and large active material particles which may be of the same material) wherein the coating layer includes titanium such as a titanium oxide because titanium may improve rate characteristic and the high temperature cycle-life characteristic (see e.g., [0041]). Je does not explicitly disclose that the coating layer comprises a lithium-cobalt-titanium oxide. However, Marusczyk modifies Je to teach a coating layer on a surface of a lithium cobalt-based oxide active material particle (see e.g., Marusczyk; [0029], regarding wherein the active material is a lithium transition metal oxide such as lithium-nickel-cobalt-aluminum oxides and lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt oxides), wherein the coating layer may be a lithium titanium cobalt oxide (see e.g., Marusczyk; [0016], [0064], regarding option a) of the protective layer comprising LiTiCoO4).
Applicant submits that given the disclosure of Lee is used to modify the composition of Je, there is no apparent reason that a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect the modified subject matter to have the dQ/dV graph of Je and not that of Lee, and that given the changes of the subject matter of Je, the claimed dQ/dV graph would not have been inherent. However, as described above, Lee only modifies Je to provide the specific formula of the lithium cobalt-based oxide while Je discloses the rest of the structure of battery (as described above, Je provides the amount of aluminum, the large and small particle weight ratio, particle size, negative electrode composition, electrolyte composition). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not conclude based on the active material formula alone as provided by Lee that the charge-discharge graph of the resulting battery would be that of fig. 2 in Lee. Rather, because a combination of the prior references make the same battery composition as claimed and as described in the instant specifications, the resulting battery would have the same charge-discharge graph as claimed.
Regarding claim 8, as in the combination with claim 1, Marusczyk is newly applied to provide a lithium-cobalt-titanium oxide on a surface of the lithium cobalt-based oxide. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected in view of the new combination of prior art references.
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, 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je (US-20170346133-A1), and further in view of Lee (US-20190157671-A1) and Maruscyk (US-20180261880-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Je teaches a lithium cobalt-based oxide for a lithium secondary battery (see e.g., abstract regarding lithium secondary battery), the lithium cobalt-based oxide comprising: aluminum in an amount of 4,000 ppm to 6,500 ppm based on the total weight of lithium cobalt-based oxide (see e.g., [0044] regarding selecting the small and large particles from a lithium-cobalt-containing oxide and a lithium-nickel-cobalt-aluminum containing oxide, [0045]-[0046] regarding formulas such as LiaNibEcGdO2, 0.90≤a≤1.8, 0≤b≤0.9, 0≤c≤0.5, 0.001≤d≤0.1, which includes embodiments such as LiNi0.05Co0.02Al0.006408O2, or LiNi0.05Co0.02Al0.00824O2, or LiNi0.05Co0.02Al0.010439O2 wherein the ppm of aluminum falls within the claimed range of 4000 ppm to 6500 ppm based on a total weight of the lithium cobalt-based oxide), wherein the lithium cobalt-based oxide comprises large particles and small particles (see e.g., [0031] regarding large and small particles), wherein a mixing weight ratio between the large particles and the small particles is 8:2 to 9:1 (see e.g., [0047] regarding a ratio of the large particle to small particle of 80:20 to 90:10).
Je also meets the broader limitations of claim 1. Je teaches the large particles have a size of 17 μm to 21 μm (see e.g., [0008], [0031], [0033] regarding a large particle size of 17 μm to 21 μm). Je also teaches the small particles have a size of 2 μm to 4 μm which overlaps with the claimed range of 2 μm to 8 μm (see e.g., [0008], [0031], [0033] regarding a small particle size of 2 μm to 4 μm). Je also teaches that the negative electrode may comprises of active material such as a carbon-based material including graphite, amorphous carbon such as hard or soft carbon, mesophase pitch-based carbide, plate-shaped, flake-shaped, natural or artificial graphite (see e.g., [0061]) which is the same as the instant specification. Je also teaches that the electrolyte includes a non-aqueous organic solvent and lithium salt (see e.g., [0073]-[0076]) similar to the instant specification.
Je in combination with Lee further provides the specific lithium oxide compound composition, and in combination with Marusczyk further provides the specific lithium-cobalt-titanium oxide coating layer.
Je teaches lithium cobalt-based oxides that are lithium manganese cobalt aluminum oxides with similar ranges of lithium, manganese, and aluminum (see e.g., [0045]-[0046]). Je also discloses lithium cobalt-based oxides that are lithium manganese cobalt aluminum oxides with similar ranges of lithium, manganese, and aluminum (see e.g., [0045]-[0046]). Je does not explicitly disclose the lithium cobalt-based oxides is a compound represented by Formula 1: LiaMgbCo1-x-yAlxMyO2 wherein 0.9<a<1.05, 0.001<b<0.01, 0.01<x<0.03, and O<y<0.01, and M is Ti, Mn, Ni, Mo, Zr, Y, W, Sr, Zn, or a combination thereof. However, Lee discloses Chemical Formula 1 (see e.g., [0007]-[0013] regarding Chemical Formula 1 wherein M1 may be Mg, M2 may be Al, and M3 corresponds to the M of the claimed formula, and wherein the ratio of cobalt is one minus the amount of M1, M2, and M3) which overlaps with the range of the claimed chemical formula. Lee is equivalent analogous art and combinable to Je because Lee similarly teaches lithium manganese cobalt aluminum oxide with overlapping ranges of the element of lithium, manganese, and aluminum which is used as the positive active material in a rechargeable lithium battery. Lee is equivalent analogous art and combinable to Je because Lee similarly teaches lithium manganese cobalt aluminum oxide with overlapping ranges of the element of lithium, manganese, and aluminum which is used as the positive active material in a rechargeable lithium battery. 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 modified the lithium oxide disclosed by Je by providing the chemical formula disclosed by Lee as the lithium oxide. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve stability, storage characteristics, and cycle-life characteristics even under high temperature conditions (see e.g., [0015]).
Je also teaches a coating layer on a surface of the lithium cobalt-based oxide active material particles (see e.g., [0037]-[0038] regarding coating material on the small and large active material particles which may be of the same material) wherein the coating layer includes titanium such as a titanium oxide because titanium may improve rate characteristic and the high temperature cycle-life characteristic (see e.g., [0041]). Je does not explicitly disclose that the coating layer comprises a lithium-cobalt-titanium oxide. However, Marusczyk discloses a coating layer on a surface of a lithium cobalt-based oxide active material particle (see e.g., Marusczyk; [0029], regarding wherein the active material is a lithium transition metal oxide such as lithium-nickel-cobalt-aluminum oxides and lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt oxides), wherein the coating layer may be a lithium titanium cobalt oxide (see e.g., Marusczyk; [0016], [0064], regarding option a) of the protective layer comprising LiTiCoO4). 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 modified the electrode of modified Je to provide a lithium titanium cobalt oxide protective layer which is on a surface of the lithium cobalt-based oxide active material particles as disclosed by Marusczyk in order to provide constant capacity and internal resistance even after a long service time (see e.g., Marusczyk; [0014]).
The combination of Je with Lee and Marusczyk as described above regarding claim 1 provides all of the positively recited structure of the positive electrode including the active material particle structure, sizing, distribution, chemical composition, and coating layer, in addition to providing overlapping similarities of the negative electrode and electrolyte of the secondary battery. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that the resulting structure would provide a ratio (IB/IA) Of intensity (IB) of Peak 2 to intensity (IA) of Peak 1 is 1.1 to 1.7. Furthermore, it is the examiner’s position that the resulting structure would provide a dQ/dV charge-discharge graph with Peak 1 appearing at a discharge voltage of 4.6 V to 4.65 V, and Peak 2 appearing at a discharge voltage of 4.5 V to 4.55 V, wherein Peak 2 has a greater intensity than that of Peak 1.
MPEP 2112 I. states “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 6, modified Je teaches the lithium cobalt-based oxide of claim 1, wherein the large particles have a size of 17 μm to 21 μm (see e.g., [0008], [0031], [0033] regarding a large particle size of 17 μm to 21 μm).
Regarding claim 7, modified Je teaches the lithium cobalt-based oxide of claim 1. Je also teaches the small particles have a size of 2 μm to 4 μm which overlaps with the claimed range of 2 μm to 8 μm (see e.g., [0008], [0031], [0033] regarding a small particle size of 2 μm to 4 μm).
Regarding claim 8, modified Je teaches the lithium cobalt-based oxide of claim 1, further comprising a lithium-cobalt-titanium oxide on a surface of the lithium cobalt-based oxide (see above regarding claim 1, see e.g., Marusczyk; [0016], [0064], regarding option a) of the protective layer comprising LiTiCoO4).
Regarding claim 9, modified Je teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising a cathode (see e.g., abstract regarding rechargeable lithium battery comprising a positive electrode) comprising the lithium cobalt-based oxide of claim 1.
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 on (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
Prosecution Insights