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 filed 3-16-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection of claim(s) 1, 5, 7-9, 23 and 26 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2011/0052991) in view of Paulsen et al. (US 2012/0270104) or Zou et al. (US 2009/0194747) and further in view of Park et al. (US 10,056,604) because the references teach the claimed invention. In addition, [0061], of the current application, teaches that the ionic-electronic conductive polymers of the ionic-electronic conducting polymeric coatings include carbonates material, metal particles, conductive ceramics, lithium salts, solid electrolyte particles, metal oxides, lithium metal oxides, or combinations thereof. These materials listed are not polymers so therefore they can be included. Therefore, the amended phrase, “the 1st layer consisting of an ionic conducting agent” would not disallow metal particles such as titanium particles from not be present with the metal oxide particles as shown above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 42-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 42 is rejected because there does not seem to be any support for further adding the specified binding polymers claimed in claim in addition to the binding polymers claimed in claim 41 from which the claim depends from.
Claim 43-44 are rejected because there does not seem to be any support for further adding the specified conductive polymer in addition to the conductive polymers claimed in claim 41 from which the claim depends from.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-9, 38, 40 and 23, 26, 35, 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2011/0052991) in view of Paulsen et al. (US 2012/0270104) or Zou et al. (US 2009/0194747) and further in view of Park et al. (US 10,056,604). Kim et al. teaches in [0091], a battery comprising a cathode, an anode and a liquid electrolyte solution. Kim et al. teaches on page 9, claims 1-2, a cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery comprising a core comprising lithium metal oxide particle comprising LiNi>0.5CoAlO2 or LiNi>0.5CoMnO2, etc. [teaching lithium-rich material, claim 1].; a 1st shell coating the particle core with a plurality of titanate particles and a plurality of metal oxide particles [teaching a first layer comprising an ionic conducting agent comprising a metal oxide] and a 2nd shell coating the surface of the 1st shell [teaching a second layer] with the plurality of olivine type lithium ion phosphate particles and a plurality of conductive material particles. Kim et al. teaches in claim 3, wherein the metal oxide of the 1st shell is any one selected from the group consisting of aluminum oxide, titanium oxide, yttrium oxide, magnesium oxide, zinc oxide and lithium metal oxide, or mixtures thereof [teaching claim 5]. Kim et al. teaches in claim 4 wherein the conductive material of the 2nd shell can comprise conductive carbon, conductive metals, conductive polymers [teaching a second layer comprising an electrically conducting agent comprising a conductive polymer, claim 1], or mixtures thereof [teaching claim 8 wherein the electrically conducting agent further comprises a carbon material or a metal]. Park at al. teaches in [0058], that the conductive carbon may include carbon nanotube, Ketjen black, acetylene black, graphite, etc. [teaching claim 9]. Kim et al. discloses the claimed invention as explained above teaching a battery comprising a cathode comprising the same core material with a 1st layer comprising the same metal oxides for lithium metal oxides and comprising a 2nd layer comprising a conductive polymer but does not teach the specified conductive polymers nor that the 2nd layer further comprises a binding polymer. Paulsen et al. teaches on page 5, the effects of the coating of cathode particle comprising LiNi0.5Mn0.3Co0.2O2 with a fluorine-containing polymer layer. Paulsen et al. teaches in [0201], that the fluorine-containing polymer selected from the group consisting of PVDF, PVDF-HFP and PTFE. Paulsen et al. teaches in [0010-0011], that in US 2009/0194747 teaches a method to improve the environmental stability of LNO cathode materials by coating a nickel-based cathode material with a single layer of PVDF polymer. Thermal stability (safety) is related to interfacial stability between electrolyte and cathode material where atypical approach to improve the service stability is by coating. Zou et al. teaches in [0005], that nickel-based cathode materials are more sensitive to the environment and are more prone to moisture and CO2 uptake, forming lithium carbonate and lithium hydroxide impurities on the surface of the particles. Zou et al. teaches in [0008], that by introducing one more binder material to a lithium nickel-based cathode material shell, by coating the binder materials on the surface, improves the environmental stability of the cathode material such as improvement in material handling, transportation, storage, electrode fabrication and cell fabrication. Binder materials are selected from those used in subsequent downstream electrode preparation steps such as PVDF and PTFE. Zou et al. teaches in Example 2-1, a LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 cathode core with a PVDF coating thereon the surface and in comparative Example 2, a LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 cathode core without the coating. Zou et al. teaches in [0034], that the weight gain during the exposure test shows a dramatic decrease by having the PVDF coating. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a binding polymer comprising PVDF because Paulsen et al. and Zou et al. teaches that because nickel-based cathode materials are more sensitive to the environment and are more prone to moisture and CO2 uptake, forming lithium carbonate and lithium hydroxide impurities on the surface of the particles; that by coating one more binder materials to the surface of the lithium nickel-based cathode material improves the environmental stability of the cathode material. Kim et al. discloses the claimed invention teaching a 2nd layer comprising a conductive polymer but does not teach the specified conductive polymers nor that the 2nd layer further comprises a binding polymer. Park et al. teaches in column 2, lines 59-67, a cathode material composite comprising a spinel-structured lithium manganese composite oxide having a core-shell structure wherein the cathode material composite further comprises a conductive material, a polymer binder and a conductive polymer on the surface of the shell. Park et al. teaches in column 12, claims 1-2, a cathode material composite particle comprising Li1+xMyMn2-x-yO4-zQz where M=Ni, 0<x<0.3, 0<y<1 and 0<z<1 having a core-shell structure; and a coating layer comprising a conductive polymer comprising poly(3,4-ethylenedioxy)thiophene, a conductive material and a polymeric binder disposed on the surface of the shell. Park et al. teaches in claim 4, wherein the polymer binder can be PVDF, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyethylene oxide, carboxyl methyl cellulose, etc. Park et al. teaches in column 10, Example 1-1, preparation of the cathode comprising LiMn2O4, super C as conductive material, PVDF as a polymer binder and poly(3,4-ethylenedioxy)thiophene [teaching claims 37 and 40] as a conductive polymer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use PVDF as the binding polymer binder and poly(3,4-ethylenedioxy)thiophene as the conductive polymer in the 2nd layer of Kim et al.because Park et al. teaches the combination of polymers are known to be used together and because it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by prior art to be useful for the same purpose in order to form a third composition that is to be used for the very same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06 Art Recognized Equivalence for the Same Purpose.
Claim(s) 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2011/0052991) in view of Paulsen et al. (US 2012/0270104) or Zou et al. (US 2009/0194747) and further in view of Park et al. (US 10,056,604) and Pan et al. (US 20 from 20/0328420). Kim et al. in view of Paulsen et al. or Zou et al. and further in view of Park et al. teaches the claimed invention but does not specifically teach that the 1st layer has a thickness of greater 0 and less than 1 nm. Pan et al. teaches in [0001], that the lithium ion battery cathode material is an important factor affecting battery capacity and represents the main technical bottlenecked in the development of high capacity lithium ion batteries. The cathode materials comprise LiNiO2, LiMn2O4, LiNi1-x-yMnxCoyO2, etc. Pan et al. teaches in [0016], a cathode particle material comprising a lithium transition metal core with an outer shell comprising a lithium metal oxide comprising a lithium metal phosphate where the thickness of the lithium iron phosphate outer shell is 1-100 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the 1st layer comprises a thickness of less than 1 nm, since it has been held that when the claimed range and the prior art range are very similarly (i.e., less than 1 and 1) the range of the prior art establishes prima facie obviousness because one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the similar ranges to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 41 is allowed.
Claims 36 and 39 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 Laura Weiner whose telephone number is (571)272-1294. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm EST M-F.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/LAURA S. WEINER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/Laura Weiner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights