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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka (US 20210344046 A1) and further in view of Hosoya (US 20050181279 A1) and Du (US 20220085378 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuoka teaches
a nonaqueous electrolyte (Matsuoka, abstract, [nonaqueous electrolytic solution]) comprising
a positive electrode (Matsuoka, para. 0048, [positive electrode]), a negative electrode (Matsuoka, para. 0048, [negative electrode]), and a nonaqueous electrolyte (Matsuoka, para. 0048, [nonaqueous electrolyte])
wherein the positive electrode includes
a composite oxide containing lithium (Matsuoka, para. 0063, [lithium-containing metal oxide]) and a transition metal (Matsuoka, para. 0063, the composite oxide may include the transition metals of Ni, Mn, Co, Fe, V, Cu, Ti, Zn, Mo, or Zr),
and a conductive agent (Matsuoka, para. 0224, [by mixing a positive electrode active material and a conductive aid and a binder as necessary]) and
an additive covering at least a portion of a surface of the composite oxide and at least a portion of a surface of the conductive agent, (Matsuoka, para. 0211, [it is still more preferable that a surface of the positive electrode active material is coated with at least one oxide selected from the group consisting of … Al2O3]) (Matsuoka, para. 0173 -0174, the electrolyte includes an additive such as triallyl phosphate) (Examiner notes that the additive is made up of both the coating layer and the phosphorous compound contained in the electrolyte).
the additive includes an aluminum oxide cover layer (Matsuoka, para. 0211, Al2O3) and a phosphate compound (Matsuoka, para. 0174, [triallyl phosphate]),
the composite oxide has a composition represented by the following general formula:
LiNixCoyM1-x-yO2, 0.3 ≤ x <1, 0 < y ≤ 0.5 and 0 < 1-x-y ≤ 0.35 are satisfied (Matsuoka, para. 0063, [general formula 14: LipNiqCorMnsMtOu], 0< p < 1.3 , 0 < q < 1.2 , 0<r<1.2, 0 ≤ s < 0.5, 0 ≤ t < 0.3, and 1.8 < u < 2.2.)
and M is at least one selected from Mn and Al (Matsuoka, para. 0063, M of the instant is analogous to Matsuoka’s MnsMt, and Matsuoka further explains that Al can exist within the composite oxide),
and the phosphate compound has at least one intramolecular alkenyl group (para. 0174, [triallyl phosphate])
Matsuoka is silent with respect to the composite oxide having a layered rock salt type crystal structure.
Hosoya teaches a lithium composite oxide having a layered rock salt type crystal structure (Hosoya, para. 0079, [a composition represented by LiNi0.4Co0.3Mn0.3O2 was identified. The powder thus obtained was confirmed to have a layered rock-salt structure]). Hosoya teaches a composition that satisfies the general formula as claimed in claim 1.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Shi’s battery to use a lithium composite oxide exhibiting a rock salt type crystal structure, as taught by Hosoya, in order to obtain a lithium composite oxide with certain physical properties which are superior to those of lithium cobalt oxides without the rock-salt structure, as taught in the summary of Hosoya’s battery, para. 0004.
Modified Matsuoka does not teach:
The aluminum oxide cover layer being distributed in a form of islands and not forming a continuous film on the surface of the composite oxide
Du, in the same field of endeavor, positive electrodes, teaches wherein the aluminum oxide cover layer being distributed in a form of islands and not forming a continuous film on the surface of the composite oxide (Du, para. 0023, [In the positive electrode material provided in the embodiments of this disclosure, the outer coating layer may include … discontinuous coating layer. A discontinuous coating layer is advantageous in reducing the proportion of the coating layer in the substrate surface …]) (Du, para. 0021, teaches that the outer coating layer may be an oxide of aluminum … [The outer coating layer may include an oxide of the coating element] … Du, para. 0021,[The outer coating layer includes a coating element, where the coating element of the outer coating layer is selected from Al …]) ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied Matsuoka’s aluminum oxide cover layer as a discontinuous coating layer, as taught by Du, in order to reduce the proportion of the coating layer on the substrate surface, thus retaining more ion transmission channels, as taught by Du (Du, para. 0023).
Modified Matsuoka is silent regarding:
an aluminum oxide cover layer having a thickness of 1 nm to 5 nm
an atomic ratio of Al derived from the aluminum oxide relative to Ni derived from the composite oxide (Al/Ni) is 2 or less
Although modified Matsuoka teaches the lithium composite oxide wherein the surface of the composite oxide is coated with aluminum oxide in the form of islands on the surface (Du, para. 0023), modified Matsuoka does not explicitly disclose an aluminum oxide cover layer having a thickness of 1 nm to 5 nm and does not explicitly disclose an atomic ratio of Al derived from the aluminum oxide relative to Ni derived from the composite oxide (Al/Ni) is 2 or less.
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP 2144.05). In this case, the thickness of the island/discontinuous aluminum oxide coating is a variable that achieves the recognized result of reducing the proportion of the coating layer on the substrate surface, thus retaining more ion transmission channel (as explained by Du, para. 0023). Furthermore, the atomic ratio of Al derived from the aluminum oxide relative to Ni derived from the composite oxide is also a variable that achieves the recognized result of reducing the proportion of the coating layer on the substrate surface, thus retaining more ion transmission channel (as explained by Du, para. 0023).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the instant invention was filed, to have optimized the aluminum oxide cover/coating to have a thickness within the range of 1 nm to 5 nm and an atomic ratio of Al to Ni within the rage of 2 or less, in order to reduce the proportion of the coating layer on the substrate surface, thus retaining more ion transmission channel, as taught by (Du, para. 0023). It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the instant invention was filed, to have arrived at an aluminum oxide coating thickness of 1 nm – 5 nm without undue experimentation, particularly given that Du teaches that island/discontinuous coating is desirable in retaining more ion transmission channels.
Regarding claim 2, modified Matsuoka teaches the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the alkenyl group includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a 2-propenyl group (Matsuoka, para. 0174, [triallyl phosphate]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Matsuoka teaches the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the phosphate compound includes triallyl phosphate (Matsuoka, para. 0174, [triallyl phosphate]).
Regarding claim 6, Matsuoka teaches the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery of claim 1, and further teaches
wherein the aluminum oxide is at an outermost surface of the composite oxide (Matsuoka, para. 0211, [it is still more preferable that a surface of the positive electrode active material is coated with at least one oxide selected from the group consisting of … Al2O3]) covered with the additive (Matsuoka, para. 0211, [it is still more preferable that a surface of the positive electrode active material is coated with at least one oxide selected from the group consisting of … Al2O3]) (Examiner notes that the additive is made up of both the coating layer and the phosphorous compound contained in the electrolyte, which make contact with the surface of the composite oxide.)
Regarding claim 7, modified Matsuoka discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the nonaqueous electrolyte contains the phosphate compound by 2 mass% or less relative to the entire nonaqueous electrolyte (Matsuoka, para. 0175, [the nonaqueous electrolyte solution according to the present embodiment contains other optional additives, the content thereof is preferably within a range of 0.01 % by weight or more and 10 % by weight or less]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 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.
Pertinent Art
US 20180212237 A1 – teaches discontinuous/island coating using aluminum oxide.
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 VERITA E GRANNUM whose telephone number is (571)270-1150. The examiner can normally be reached 10-5 EST / 7-2 PST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/V.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights