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
Amendments have been entered. New grounds of rejection are presented as necessitated by amendment.
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.
Claim 1,15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘Ni3(PO4)-2 -coated Li[Ni0.8Co0.15Al0.05]O2 lithium battery electrode with improved cycling performance at 55 C’ hereinafter referred to a ‘Lee’ in view of “Improvement of electrochemical performance of nickel rich LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 cathode active material by ultrathin TiO2 coating” hereinafter referred to as ‘Qin’ in view of (US-20190044179-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Sugimori’ in further view of ‘ Composite coating of Li2O–2B2O3 and carbon as multi-conductive electron/Li-ion channel on the surface of LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 cathode‘ hereinafter referred to as ‘Lee II’ in further view of ‘Cobalt-Free Nickel-Rich Positive Electrode Materials with a Core–Shell Structure’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Zhang’,
Regarding Claim 1,
Lee teaches a method for preparing a positive electrode material, the method comprising: mixing the layered lithium nickel aluminum oxide matrix material with a coating agent to obtain a first mixed material; and forming, by performing a first sintering treatment on the first mixed material, a coating layer on a surface of the layered lithium nickel aluminum oxide matrix material to obtain the cobalt-free layered positive electrode material, wherein the coating agent comprises: a coating agent comprising a phosphate (Lee, “To prepare Ni3(PO4)2-coated LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2, 0.5 g of Ni3(PO4)2 was mixed thoroughly with 100 g of LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 powder via ball milling for 12 h at a speed of 100 rpm, and the obtained powder was heated at 500 °C for 5 h in air flow.”, see Experimental).
Lee does not teach a first coating material comprising ceramic oxide.
Qin teaches a coating material comprising a ceramic oxide wherein the ceramic oxide comprises at least one zirconium oxide,; and the second coating comprises at least one of lithium phosphate and lithium silicate; wherein a mass ratio of the ceramic oxide to the layered lithium nickel manganese oxide matrix ranges from 0.15% to 0.35% (Qin, “According to atomic percentages of Ni, Co, Mn and Ti (the inset), the weight percentages of TiO2 coated on the NCM-622 is 0.3 wt%”, Results and Discussion).
Qin teaches that the titanium oxide coating can prevent against HF attack (Qin, “Such enhanced electrochemical performance of the coated sample is ascribed to its high-quality ultrathin coating of amorphous TiO2, which can protect the active material from HF attack”, Abstract)
Lee and Qin are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surface coating of Lee with the additional of TiO2 in order to prevent against HF attack in addition to the phosphate layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the titanium oxide as taught in Qin with the zirconium oxide, as they are both equivalents recognized for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06 (I)).
The instant application treats zirconium oxide and titanium oxides as equivalents known for the same purpose. The applicant states, “ According to the embodiments of the present disclosure, the ceramic oxide may include zirconium oxide, titanium oxide, aluminum oxide, or boron oxide. Therefore, the electronic conductivity of the cobalt-free layered positive electrode material can be improved by using the above ceramic oxide to improve the rate capability of the cobalt-free layered positive electrode material.” It is clear that the applicant also believes that they are equivalents known for the same purpose.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the titanium oxide as taught in Qin and substitute it for zirconium oxide.
Modified Lee does not teach and a mass ratio% of the second coating agent to the layered lithium nickel manganese oxide matrix material ranges from 0.4% to 0.5%
Sugimori teaches a teaches a mass ratio% of the second coating agent to the layered lithium nickel manganese oxide matrix material ranges from 0.4% to 0.5% (Sugimori, “The content of the lithium phosphate in the positive electrode mixture layer is preferably 0.1% to 5% by mass”, see [0033]).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.1% to 5% broadly overlaps the claimed range of 0.4% to 0.5%. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Sugimori teaches that within this range gas generation can be suppressed (Sugimori, “When the content of the phosphate compound is within the above-described range, a high-quality protective coating is readily formed on the surfaces of the positive electrode and the negative electrode without decreasing the positive electrode capacity, and gas generation can be efficiently suppressed”, see [0033]).
Modified Lee and Sugimori are analogous as they are of the same field of phosphate coating for lithium-ion batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention with the coating as taught in Sugimori in order to prevent gas generation wherein the molar ratio of the first coating to the second coating ranges from 0.3 to 0.6 (The examiner notes that supposing a 100 gram sample, the mass of ZrO2 would be 0.3g and Li3PO4 would be 0.5 gram as taught in Bian. The molar mass of ZrO2 is 123.218 g/mol and Li3PO4 is 115.79 g/mol. This would make 0.002435 mol of ZrO2 and 0.00431816 mol of Li3PO-4 dividing the first mol by the second mol number leads to a ratio of 0.5634, which is within the claimed range).
Modified Lee does not teach that the cathode should be coated as a mixed material.
Lee II teaches a composite cathode coating with a ceramic oxide (Lee II, “The properties of the LBO–carbon composite coating are examined in comparison with those of carbon- or LBO-only coatings.”, see Abstract).
Lee II also teaches that ceramic oxides are able to help provide a more stable surface but have poor conductivity which can be improved through a composite coating (Lee II, “Therefore, Li-conductive ceramics, or other cathode materials such as LCO and LiFePO4 with better surface stability… Although these materials are conductive for Li-ions, they have poor conductivity for electrons; therefore, the problem of low electrochemical kinetics remains.”, see Introduction) (Lee II, “The multi-conductive feature of LBO–carbon for both electrons and Li ions provides stable electrochemical kinetics under conditions of severe side reactions at elevated temperatures.”, see Abstract).
Modified Lee and Lee II are analogous as they both relate to the field of cathode coatings for secondary batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the coatings as taught in Modified Lee to be a composite coating similar to Lee II in order to compensate for the defects that exist in ceramic oxide coatings alone.
Modified Lee does not teaches a cobalt free positive electrode.
Zhang teaches preparing a layered lithium nickel manganese oxide matrix material and a cobalt free positive electrode material wherein said preparing the layered lithium nickel manganese oxide material comprising mixing a lithium source powder with a nickel-manganese hydroxide to obtain a second mixed material wherein (Zhang, “To obtain lithiated materials, precursors were mixed with LiOH·H2O with a specific lithium-to-transition metal ratio and ground for 10 min. The samples were heated at various temperatures for 20 h in a tube furnace under oxygen flow.”, see Experimental) a molecular formula of the nickel-manganese hydroxide is NixMn-y(OH)2 where 0.55 <=x<=0.95 and 0.05 <=y<=0.45 and a forming a second sintering treatment on the second mixed material to obtain the layered lithium nickel manganese oxide matrix material. (Zhang, “Homogeneous Ni0.95M0.05(OH)2”, see Abstract).
Zhang teaches that due to the price and scarcity of cobalt it is important to minimize to eliminate cobalt (Zhang, “Co is expensive and less abundant than Ni and Mn, so it is important to minimize the use of Co or even eliminate it altogether”, Introduction).
Zhang also teaches that when compared to samples with aluminum samples with Mn have less capacity fade over the terms of cycling (See Fig. 7 figure d for the cycling of aluminum cathodes and sub figure g for the cycling of Mn cathodes)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nickel manganese material as taught in modified Lee with the cobalt free material as taught in Zhang in order to reduce costs incurred due to scarcity and to improve the overall capacity retention through the substitution of the Al of modified Lee with Mn of Zhang .
Regarding Claim 15,
Modified Lee teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the obtained cobalt-free layered positive electrode material is a monocrystalline positive electrode material or a polycrystalline positive electrode material (Zhang, “Given the polycrystalline nature of the secondary particles,”, see Results and Discussion).
Regarding Claim 17,
Modified Lee teaches the method according to a claim 1, wherein the obtained cobalt-free layered positive electrode material has a median particle size ranging from 3 µm to 15 µm (Zhang, see Table 1, sample 6).
Regarding Claim 18,
Modified Lee teaches the method according to claim 1 wherein the obtained cobalt-free layered positive electrode material has a pH smaller than or equal to 12 (Zhang, “The stirring rate (900 rpm), the temperature (60 °C), and the pH (11.0) were all controlled in this setup”, Synthesis Procedure).(The examiner notes that since the prior art makes a similar cobalt free oxide material, one of ordinary skill would expect the same properties ( see MPEP 2112 III) )
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over ‘Ni3(PO4)-2 -coated Li[Ni0.8Co0.15Al0.05]O2 lithium battery electrode with improved cycling performance at 55 C’ hereinafter referred to a ‘Lee’ in view of “Improvement of electrochemical performance of nickel rich LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 cathode active material by ultrathin TiO2 coating” hereinafter referred to as ‘Qin’ , in view of (US-20190044179-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Sugimori’ in view of ‘ Composite coating of Li2O–2B2O3 and carbon as multi-conductive electron/Li-ion channel on the surface of LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 cathode‘ hereinafter referred to as ‘Lee II’, in view of ‘Cobalt-Free Nickel-Rich Positive Electrode Materials with a Core–Shell Structure’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Zhang’, in view of ‘Effects of MgO Coating on the Structural and Electrochemical Characteristics of LiCoO2 as Cathode Materials for Lithium Ion Battery’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Shim’, and further view of (US-20210202940-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Li’
Regarding Claim 6,
Modified Lee does not teach a particle size of the first coating agent of 50 nm to 300 nm or from 50 to 100 nm.
Shim teaches a particle size of 50nm MgO (Shim, “50 nm-sized MgO nanopowders which were obtained by ball-milling with a high impact milling machine.”, see Experiments).
Shim teaches that nanoparticle MgO coating delivers good performance with high retention without undergoing phase transitions during cycling (Shim, “The electrochemical results show that the MgO-coated LiCoO2 delivers a high capacity with excellent retention property”, see Abstract).
Modified Lee and Shim are analogous as they both are of the same field of ceramic coatings.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ceramic coating as taught in modified Lee with the MgO nanoparticles with a size of 50nm in order to improve the electrochemical cycling of the cell.
Modified Lee does not teach the particle size of the second coating to be 50 nm to 300 nm or from 50 to 100 nm.
Li teaches a phosphate coating to be 50 nm to 300 nm or from 50 to 100 nm (Li, “lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NCM) or lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (NCA) and may be coated with lithium vanadium fluorophosphate”, see [0028]) (Li, “The particle size may be between 0.01 to 10 microns”, see [0062])(The examiner notes that 0.1 microns is equal to 100nm)
Li teaches that the given particle size allows for the coating to penetrate the material being coated and allow for a continuous even coating of the particle (Li, “particle size of the coating 204 may be sized based on a size of a smallest pore of the cathode material 202. Such sizing may allow the coating 204 to penetrate an opening of the pore and bond to a surface of the cathode material 202 corresponding to the pore. In this way, the coating 204 may continuously coat the cathode material 202 independent of uneven surface features of the cathode material”, see [0055])
Modified Lee and Li are analogous as they both are of the same field of a phosphate coating for a lithium-ion material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the particle size of the phosphate coating as taught in modified Lee to be 0.1 microns or 100nm in order to allow the material to properly coating the particle evenly.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘Ni3(PO4)-2 -coated Li[Ni0.8Co0.15Al0.05]O2 lithium battery electrode with improved cycling performance at 55 C’ hereinafter referred to a ‘Lee’ in view of “Improvement of electrochemical performance of nickel rich LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 cathode active material by ultrathin TiO2 coating” hereinafter referred to as ‘Qin’ in view of (US-20190044179-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Sugimori’ , in view of ‘ Composite coating of Li2O–2B2O3 and carbon as multi-conductive electron/Li-ion channel on the surface of LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 cathode‘ hereinafter referred to as ‘Lee II’ in view of ‘Cobalt-Free Nickel-Rich Positive Electrode Materials with a Core–Shell Structure’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Zhang’, in view of (US-20140054495-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Paulsen’, in further view of (US-20040191161-A1) hereinafter referred to was ‘Wang’, in view of ‘Improving the electrochemical properties of high-energy cathode material LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2 by Zr doping and sintering in oxygen’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Du’
Regarding Claim 10,
Modified Lee teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein the second sintering treatment is performed at a temperature of the second sintering treatment ranges from 700 C (Zhang, . “During sintering at about 700 °C to make the lithiated oxides, interdiffusion of the M atoms between core and shell occurred with Mg showing a uniform distribution in the particles”, see Abstract)
Modified Lee does not teach a sintering temperature of 800°C to 970°C;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the ranges taught in Zhang as a method of routine optimization, as one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would know that sintering temperature is a results-effective variable which can control the reaction of sintering, as evidence by Du which teaches the optimal sintering temperature to be 900 C (Du, “Therefore, the optimal sintering temperature is 900 °C.”, see Results and Discussion) (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Modified Lee does not teach an oxygen atmosphere or a treatment range of 8h to 12h and treatment ranges from 1°C/min to 5°C/min.
Paulsen teaches a treatment range of 8h to 12h and treatment ranges from 1°C/min to 5°C/min (Paulsen, “heating rate of 1.5 K/min (to 900° C.) is used, followed by a dwell time of 12 hours at 900° C.”, see [0072])
Paulsen teaches that increase the reaction time and the long reaction temperature can decrease the incompleteness of the reaction (Paulsen, “(1) increasing the reaction time, (2) increasing the reaction temperature, and (3) increasing the effective air flow rate, leading to a more efficient removal of CO2 reaction product.”, see [0068])
Modified Lee and Paulsen are analogous as they are of the same field of battery materials synthesis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the temperature, and time of the reaction as taught in Lee to the temperature time and heating rate taught in Paulsen in order to bring the reaction of the formation of the material to completion.
Modified Lee further does not teach an oxygen atmosphere.
Wang teaches a oxygen atmosphere (Wang, “Another preferred specification for the embodiments is for the oxygen atmosphere”, see [0054])
Wang teaches that an oxygen atmosphere is needed to control the process of the reaction. (Wang, “therefore, oxygen atmosphere is needed to control the progress of this reaction. Experiments show that it is preferable for the calcination process to in oxygen”, see [0057])
Modified Lee and Wang are analogous as they both are of the same field of material for batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the atmosphere as taught in Lee to the oxygen atmosphere as taught in Wang in order to better control the progression of the reaction in the formation of the lithium oxide material.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over‘Ni3(PO4)-2 -coated Li[Ni0.8Co0.15Al0.05]O2 lithium battery electrode with improved cycling performance at 55 C’ hereinafter referred to a ‘Lee’ in view of “Improvement of electrochemical performance of nickel rich LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 cathode active material by ultrathin TiO2 coating” hereinafter referred to as ‘Qin’ , in view of (US-20190044179-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Sugimori’ , in view of ‘ Composite coating of Li2O–2B2O3 and carbon as multi-conductive electron/Li-ion channel on the surface of LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 cathode‘ hereinafter referred to as ‘Lee II’ in further view of ‘Cobalt-Free Nickel-Rich Positive Electrode Materials with a Core–Shell Structure’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Zhang’, in view of ‘The role of different high energy ball milling conditions of molybdenum powder on the resulting particles size and morphology ’hereinafter referred to as ‘Dyckova’
Regarding Claim 9
Modified Lee does not teach the method according to claim 8, a rotation speed ranging from 800 rpm to 900 rpm for a mixing duration ranging from 10 min to 20 min.
Dyckova teaches a ball mill time of 800 rpm and 20 minutes.
Dyckova teaches that a ball mill time of 800 rpm is desirable as it has the most even distribution of particle sizes and that shorter mill times prevent unwanted welding of particles together ( Dyckova, “Fig 6 shows the broad peak for milled powder at 800rpm which indicates better particle size distribution”, see Section 3.3) (see Fig. 8 800 rpm and 20 min has the broadest peak).
Modified Lee and Dyckova are analogous as they are of the same field of methods for the production of nanoparticle composites.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rpm and time as taught in modified Lee to the rpm and time as taught in Dyckova in order to create the most even distribution of particle sizes.
Regarding Claim 13,
Modified Lee teaches wherein the layered lithium nickel manganese oxide matrix material is mixed with the coating agent at a rotation speed ranging from 100rpm for a mixing duration ranging for 12h (Lee, “as mixed thoroughly with 100 g of LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 powder via ball milling for 12 h at a speed of 100 rpm”, Experimental).
Modified Lee does not teach a rotation speed of 800rpm to 900rpm or a milling time of 10 to 20 min.
Dyckova teaches a ball mill time of 800rpm and 20 minutes.
Dyckova teaches that a ball mill time of 800 rpm is desirable as it has the most even distribution of particle sizes and that shorter mill times prevent unwanted welding of particles together ( Dyckova, “Fig 6 shows the broad peak for milled powder at 800rpm which indicates better particle size distribution”, see Section 3.3) (see Fig. 8, 800 rpm and 20 min has the broadest peak)
Modified Lee and Dyckova are analogous as they are of the same field of methods for the production of nanoparticle composites.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rpm and time as taught in modified Lee to the rpm and time as taught in Dyckova in order to create the most even distribution of particle sizes.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘Ni3(PO4)-2 -coated Li[Ni0.8Co0.15Al0.05]O2 lithium battery electrode with improved cycling performance at 55 C’ hereinafter referred to a ‘Lee’ in view “Improvement of electrochemical performance of nickel rich LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 cathode active material by ultrathin TiO2 coating” hereinafter referred to as ‘Qin’ , in view of (US-20190044179-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Sugimori’ in view of ‘ Composite coating of Li2O–2B2O3 and carbon as multi-conductive electron/Li-ion channel on the surface of LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 cathode‘ hereinafter referred to as ‘Lee II’ in view of ‘Cobalt-Free Nickel-Rich Positive Electrode Materials with a Core–Shell Structure’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Zhang’ further in view of ‘One-time sintering process to synthesize ZrO2-coated LiMn2O4 materials for lithium-ion batteries’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Li II’
Regarding Claim 14,
Modified Lee does not teach wherein the first sintering treatment is performed in an atmosphere with a volume concentration of oxygen from 20% to 100%; a temperature of the first sintering treatment ranges from 300°C to 700°C; a duration of the first sintering treatment ranges from 4h to 10h; and a heating rate of the first sintering treatment ranges from 3°C/min to 5°C/min.
Li II teaches the first sintering treatment is performed in an atmosphere with a volume concentration of oxygen from 20% to 100%; a temperature of the first sintering treatment ranges from 300°C to 700°C; a duration of the first sintering treatment ranges from 4h to 10h; and a heating rate of the first sintering treatment ranges from 3°C/min (Li II, “then pre-heated at 550 °C for 5 h …. O2 atmosphere… Both of the heating and cooling rates are 3 °C min−1- ”, see Experimental).
Li II teaches that this sintering method is low cost, environmentally friendly, and easy to scale ( Li II, “one-time sintering process to synthesize ZrO2-coated LiMn2O4 materials is very simple, low-cost, environmentally friendly, and easy to scale up for large-scale industrial production,”, see Abstract)
Modified Lee and Li II are analogous as they both relate to the field of ceramic coating for lithium-ion batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sintering as taught modified Lee with the method as taught in Li II in order to lower the cost, environmental effect, and allow for large scale production.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘over ‘Ni3(PO4)-2 -coated Li[Ni0.8Co0.15Al0.05]O2 lithium battery electrode with improved cycling performance at 55 C’ hereinafter referred to a ‘Lee’ in view of “Improvement of electrochemical performance of nickel rich LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 cathode active material by ultrathin TiO2 coating” hereinafter referred to as ‘Qin’ in view of ‘ Composite coating of Li2O–2B2O3 and carbon as multi-conductive electron/Li-ion channel on the surface of LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 cathode‘ hereinafter referred to as ‘Lee II’ in view of (US-20190044179-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Sugimori’ in view of ‘Cobalt-Free Nickel-Rich Positive Electrode Materials with a Core–Shell Structure’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Zhang’, in view of (US-20190221843-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Kosaka’
Regarding Claim 16,
Modified Lee does not teach the method according to any one of claims 1 to 14, wherein the obtained cobalt-free layered positive electrode material has a specific surface area ranging from 0.1 m2/g to 0.7 m2/g.
Kosaka teaches wherein a positive electrode material has a specific surface area ranging from 0.1 m2/g to 0.7 m2/g (Kosaka, “When the cathode active material 1 is in the form of a particle, its BET specific surface area is preferably 0.2 m2/g to 2.0 m2/g.”, see [0043])
Kosaka also teaches that too large a specific surface area can lead to difficulty coating which can increase cost, material costs, and negatively affect the energy density. ( Kosaka, “in the form of a particle, too small a particle diameter thereof leads to too large a specific surface…, which is sometimes disadvantageous in view of the process cost, the material cost, and an energy density of a cathode.”, see [0043])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.2 m^2/g to 2.0 m^2/g broadly overlaps the claimed range of 0.1 mg^2/g and 0.7 m^2/g Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Modified Lee and Kosaka are analogous as they both come the same field of coatings for cathode materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cathode as taught in modified Lee to have the small specific surface are as taught in Kosaka in order to lower costs.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed on 12/31/2025 have been entered. Arguments are fully considered.
“Therefore, the limitations ‘the ceramic oxide is zirconium oxide’, ‘a mass ratio % of the second coating agent to the layered lithium nickel manganese oxide matrix material ranges from 0.4 to 0.5%’ and ‘ a molar ratio of the first coating agent to the second coating agent ranges from 0.3 to 0.6’ in [sic] amended claim , are neither taught nor suggested by said references. The above limitations are non-obvious to those skilled in the art. ”
However, this is not convincing. In terms of the zirconium oxide. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the titanium oxide as taught in Qin with the zirconium oxide, as they are both equivalents recognized for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06 (I)). The examiner adds to the record (US-20180183053-A1), hereinafter referred to as ‘Hori’ which states “The coating is formed of a Li.sup.+-conductive oxide. That is, the coating includes a Li.sup.+-conductive oxide. The Li.sup.+-conductive oxide may be at least one oxide selected from the group consisting of a zirconium oxide (for example, ZrO.sub.2 or the like), a niobium oxide (for example, Nb.sub.2O.sub.5 or the like), and a titanium oxide (for example, TiO.sub.2 or the like). The zirconium oxide, the niobium oxide, and the titanium oxide are preferred as the Li.sup.+-conductive oxide of the embodiment due to the extremely high Li.sup.+-conductivity (see [0044]). ” Here we can see that zirconium oxide and titanium oxide are equivalents known for the same purpose. Further, the instant application treats zirconium oxide and titanium oxides as equivalents known for the same purpose. The applicant states, “ According to the embodiments of the present disclosure, the ceramic oxide may include zirconium oxide, titanium oxide, aluminum oxide, or boron oxide. Therefore, the electronic conductivity of the cobalt-free layered positive electrode material can be improved by using the above ceramic oxide to improve the rate capability of the cobalt-free layered positive electrode material.” It is clear that the applicant also believes that they are equivalents known for the same purpose. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the titanium oxide as taught in Qin and substitute it for zirconium oxide.
In terms of the second coating agent, the examiner agrees that Bian does not teach the amended range as claimed. Therefore, the examiner adds to the record (US-20190044179-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Sugimori.’ Sugimori teaches a lithium phosphate coating within the claimed range (Sugimori, “The content of the lithium phosphate in the positive electrode mixture layer is preferably 0.1% to 5% by mass”, see [0033]). Sugimori teaches that within this range gas generation can be suppressed (Sugimori, “When the content of the phosphate compound is within the above-described range, a high-quality protective coating is readily formed on the surfaces of the positive electrode and the negative electrode without decreasing the positive electrode capacity, and gas generation can be efficiently suppressed”, see [0033]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention with the coating as taught in Sugimori in order to prevent gas generation.
Conclusion
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am to 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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached on (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.
/S.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752