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
Examiner notes the following amendments made to the claims:
Claims 1, 9, 18 amended
New claims 19 and 20 added
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, examiner is not convinced that minor changes in the coating method would impact the magnetic properties of a particle. Examiner will respond to applicant arguments in order.
First, applicant argues that the combined references fail to teach the limitations of claim 1 because the alumina coating of Karthikeyan is not formed via the same method as the instant invention. Examiner does not find this convincing, as the only difference is how aluminum is mixed/deposited onto the LMO, and both methods involve calcining the materials together in the same temperature range. “Mixing directly” and depositing on a surface are both methods which would achieve the same end goal, which is the deposition of an aluminum medium on the surface. Additionally, applicant provides no reasoning/evidence for why these two methods would not be magnetically equivalent to each other. Examiner would like to point to the teachings of Gonzalez et al (Effect of Annealing on the Structure, Composition, and Electrochemistry of NMC811 Coated with Al2O3 Using an Alkoxide Precursor, 2022), which point to evidence that different coating methods can impact the morphology of aluminum on the surface (“Although alumina coatings have been shown to increase the lifetime of a range of lower-nickel content NMCs, their efficacy for Ni-rich materials such as NMC811 is less clear with various studies producing contradictory results. Since this could be a consequence of the different coating methods used in these studies, which result in different phases and uniformity of the alumina coatings, we developed a new wet-chemistry method to deposit alumina on NMC811. The result was a 30−100 nm thick coating, whose structure and electrochemistry were explored as a function of annealing temperature.” Gonzalez conclusion), but that bulk magnetic properties generally depend upon the annealing/calcination temperature (“This is again consistent with the diffusion of Al from the coating into the bulk of the particles and is mirrored by the lower aluminum contents detected at higher temperatures (600 and 800 °C) from the survey scans… Above 400 °C, the Al:Ni ratio decreases sharply to 0.87, decreasing further at 800 °C to 0.14. This again shows that the proposed diffusion process does not occur below 400 °C and that at 600 °C, there is significant diffusion taking place with even greater diffusion at higher temperatures” Gonzalez page 6 column 1). Therefore, even if the methods of mixing were different, if the calcining temperature is the same, as is the case in the teachings of Karthikeyan, the magnetic properties of the material would likely be the same, at least that is what the teachings of Gonzalez would lead one to expect. Since the composite oxide, alumina coating, and calcining temperatures are all the same between the applied prior art and the instant application, examiner believes that the inherency argument is still sufficient, and therefore the rejection remains in place and unchanged.
Secondly, applicant argues that the dependent claims are patentable by virtue of their dependency on claim 1. Since examiner still finds claim 1 to not be patentable, these arguments are not persuasive.
New claims 19 and 20 are rejected in view of the previously applied references, and, in the case of claim 20, also rejected under 35 USC 112(b). Thus, there is currently not considered to be any allowable subject matter present in the claims.
Additionally, in the case where applicant does not accept this response as a valid argument, a new rejection of claim 1 has been drafted in view of Paulsen (US 20130175469 A1) and Kageura (JP 2019013297 A1), which, if combined, would teach a method of coating an identical composite oxide as that of the instant invention with alumina in the same manner as is performed in the instant invention, including mixing the particles together and calcining at an overlapping temperature range. See this rejection at the end of the 103 rejection section. The limitations of all dependent claims would be met by a combination of Paulsen, Kageura , and the previously applied prior art. Examiner notes that Kageura comes from the same assignee as the instant application. However, it was filed more than a year in advance of the EFD of the instant invention, and therefore is applicable as a valid piece of prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 20 recites the limitation "Wherein 0 < w ≤ 0.1, and M represents… ." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, there is no w or M mentioned in claim 1, and therefore the values cannot be further limited. For examination purposes, claim 20 is being examined as if it depends on claim 18, rather than claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-15, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 20180166687 A1) in view of Karthikeyan (US 20110076556 A1) with evidentiary support from Ito (JP 2002201028A)
Specifically, Chang teaches the exact material composition described in the specification and in claims 9 and 18 of the instant application in terms of chemical composition, as well as the method of producing said composition by combining a metal hydroxide precursor (which anticipates that in instant application) with a lithium precursor (the options of which overlap with those in the instant application), while Karthikeyan teaches a method of coating the positive electrode active material by calcining with alumina, providing the diamagnetic coating taught in the instant specification and in claims 8 and 17. Additionally, JP2002201028A teaches the exact method used to produce the metal hydroxide precursor, so if it is argued that the exact method must be used in order to gain the desired properties, this reference additionally supports how this material would be obvious to create. Given these facts, the limitations of claims 1-4 and 12-15 are all met via inherency as “volume magnetic susceptibility” is an intrinsic property of the material that need not be explicitly taught in the prior art—i.e. as long as the chemical composition and structure is the same, it will react to a magnetic field the same way. See MPEP 2112. II. or Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., for case law regarding the fact that an
inherent feature need not be recognized at the relevant time in order for it to still anticipate
the feature, which is later recognized).
The material of Chang meets the specific composition requirements of claims 9 and 18, which provide much more detail than that in claim 1, which they are dependent on. Therefore, this material produced by Chang having the diamagnetic aluminum coating of Karthikeyan would inherently meet all of the limitations regarding volume magnetic susceptibility.
Regarding claim 1, Chang teaches the following elements:
Positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery containing at least Li and Ni, (“The Ni-based active material is an active material represented by Formula 1 below. Lia(Ni1-x-y-zCoxMnyM2)O2 Formula 1. In Formula 1, M is an element selected from boron (B), magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), strontium (Sr), barium (Ba), titanium (Ti), vanadium (V), chromium (Cr), iron (Fe), copper (Cu), zirconium (Zr), and aluminum (Al), 0.95≤a≤1.3, x≤(1-x-y-z), y≤(1-x-y-z), 0<x<1, 0≤y<1, and 0≤z<1.” Chang [0046-0047])
Chang is silent on the following elements of claim 1:
wherein, when a volume magnetic susceptibility of one whole particle of the positive electrode active material particles is obtained in each of a plurality of the positive electrode active material particles, a mode of individual volume magnetic susceptibilities in a range of 0.004 or more and 0.04 or less is 0.004 or more and less than 0.012.
However, by combining the material of Chang with the alumina coating of Karthikeyan, the exact material described in the instant specification would be produced, and therefore the volume magnetic susceptibilities would be the same. The following are taught by Chang:
A positive electrode active material particle (“The Ni-based active material is an active material represented by Formula 1 below. Lia(Ni1-x-y-zCoxMnyM2)O2 Formula 1. In Formula 1, M is an element selected from boron (B), magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), strontium (Sr), barium (Ba), titanium (Ti), vanadium (V), chromium (Cr), iron (Fe), copper (Cu), zirconium (Zr), and aluminum (Al), 0.95≤a≤1.3, x≤(1-x-y-z), y≤(1-x-y-z), 0<x<1, 0≤y<1, and 0≤z<1.” Chang [0046-0047])
A metal composite oxide precursor (“First, a nickel salt solution, a cobalt salt solution, a manganese salt solution, and a complexing agent are reacted with one another by a coprecipitation method, particularly, the continuous method described in JP-A-2002-201028, thereby producing a precursor represented by Ni1-y-zCoyMnz(OH)2 (in the formula, 0< y 0.5, 0
PNG
media_image1.png
8
6
media_image1.png
Greyscale
< z <0.8, and y+z<1). Instant specification [0062]”)
(“The metal hydroxide may be a compound represented by Formula 2 below. Ni1-x-y-zCoxMnyMz(OH)2 … 0<x≤0.3, 0≤y≤0.5, 0≤z≤0.05, and 0.5≤(1-x-y-z)≤0.95.” Chang [0057-0059])
Combining the metal composite oxide precursor with a lithium precursor (“The LiMO is obtained by calcining a mixture containing the precursor and the lithium compound” Instant spec [0091] and “As the lithium compound, any one of lithium carbonate, lithium nitrate, lithium acetate, lithium hydroxide, lithium hydroxide hydrate, and lithium oxide can be used or two or more thereof can be mixed together and used” Instant spec [0092])
(“The Ni-based active material may be prepared by mixing a lithium precursor and a metal hydroxide at a predetermined molar ratio and subjecting the mixture to a primary heat treatment at 600 to 800° C. “ Chang [0056] and “The lithium precursor may be, for example, lithium hydroxide, lithium fluoride, lithium carbonate, or a mixture thereof. A mixing ratio of the lithium precursor and the metal hydroxide is stoichiometrically adjusted to prepare the metal hydroxide of Formula 2.” Chang [0061])
The following are taught by Karthikeyan:
Calcining with alumina at between 600C or higher or 1200 C or less, for 0.1 hour or longer or 20 hours or shorter (“A diamagnetic material is added to the mixture 1 or the mixture 2, and the mixture is calcined in a state where the diamagnetic material is in contact with the mixture 1 or the mixture 2.” Instant spec [0093], “As the diamagnetic material, an alumina medium or an aluminum medium can be used.” Instant spec [0093], “The upper limit value and lower limit value of the highest holding temperature in the main calcining can be randomly combined together … As the combination, 600°C or higher and 1200°C or lower,” Instant spec [0102], “In addition, as the time during which the mixture is held at the holding temperature, 0.1 hour or longer and 20 hours or shorter is an exemplary example,” Instant spec [0105], and “The amount of the diamagnetic material added is preferably 1% to 10% by mass” Instant spec [0093])
(“Then, the material with the precipitate aluminum hydroxide was calcined at for 4-12 hours to form aluminum oxide coated LMO powder. A portion of the samples with 0.5 weight percent aluminum oxide were calcined at selected temperatures over a reasonable range to explore the effects of temperature on subsequent battery performance with the aluminum oxide coated materials. Another portion of the samples were coated with selected amounts of aluminum oxide coating that was calcined at temperatures from 500-800.degree. C.” Karthikeyan [0105] and “a positive electrode active material with one of four different amounts of Al.sub.2O.sub.3 coating of 0.2 wt %, 0.5 wt %, 1 wt %, and 2 wt %.” Karthikeyan [0113])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art ranges of 4-12 hours for calcining time, 500-800C as calcining temperature, and 0.2-2% by weight of alumina coating, anticipate (time) or overlaps (temperature and percent weight) the ranges provided in the instant specification. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05. Additionally, these ranges are not claimed, this is all just to show that the coating layer of Karthikeyan is analogous to that in the instant invention.
By combining the composition of Chang, which anticipates that in the instant specification, with the alumina/diamagnetic coating of Karthikeyan, the positive electrode active material particle described in the instant application would be formed, and therefore would have the volume magnetic susceptibility of claim 1.
Chang and Karthikeyan are considered to be analogous because they are both within the field of positive electrode materials used in lithium batteries. Therefore, it would be obvious to modify the positive electrode active material of Chang to include the alumina coating of Karthikeyan in order to facilitate the incorporation of lithium ions through intercalation (“Certain forms of metals, metal oxides, and carbon materials are known to incorporate lithium ions into the structure through intercalation, alloying or similar mechanisms. Desirable mixed metal oxides are described further herein to function as electroactive materials for positive electrodes in secondary lithium ion batteries.” Karthikeyan [0089].) This would be desirable in a positive electrode active material as improving the flow of lithium ions would improve overall battery characteristics (“Appropriate coating materials can both improve the long term cycling performance of the material as well as decrease the irreversible capacity loss (IRCL)” Karthikeyan [0078]).
The modifications made to Chang in order to meet the limitations of claim 1 would also meet those of claims 2-4 and 12-15 as they relate to the same intrinsic parameter of volume magnetic susceptibility. Additionally, the diamagnetic coating of Karthikeyan would meet the limitations of claims 8 and 17 without needing any further modification or motivation. Chang alone teaches all of the limitations of claims 9-11 and 18.
Regarding claim 2, modified Chang with Karthikeyan teaches all of the following limitations:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 1, wherein an average value of the volume magnetic susceptibilities is 0.001 or more and 0.3 or less. (See reasoning provided above for claim 1, the positive electrode active material particles of Chang modified with the alumina coating of Karthikeyan would inherently have the same characteristics as the material taught in the instant specification, and therefore the above limitation would be met as volume magnetic susceptibility is an intrinsic property. See MPEP 2112. II. or Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., for case law regarding the fact that an inherent feature need not be recognized at the relevant time in order for it to still anticipate the feature, which is later recognized).
Regarding claim 3, modified Chang with Karthikeyan teaches all of the following limitations:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 1, wherein a median value of the volume magnetic susceptibilities is 0.00003 or more and 0.16 or less. (See reasoning provided above for claim 1, the positive electrode active material particles of Chang modified with the alumina coating of Karthikeyan would inherently have the same characteristics as the material taught in the instant specification, and therefore the above limitation would be met as volume magnetic susceptibility is an intrinsic property. See MPEP 2112. II. or Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., for case law regarding the fact that an inherent feature need not be recognized at the relevant time in order for it to still anticipate the feature, which is later recognized).
Regarding claim 4, modified Chang with Karthikeyan teaches all of the following limitations:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 1, wherein a standard deviation of the volume magnetic susceptibilities is 0.0018 or more and 0.4 or less. (See reasoning provided above for claim 1, the positive electrode active material particles of Chang modified with the alumina coating of Karthikeyan would inherently have the same characteristics as the material taught in the instant specification, and therefore the above limitation would be met as volume magnetic susceptibility is an intrinsic property. See MPEP 2112. II. or Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., for case law regarding the fact that an inherent feature need not be recognized at the relevant time in order for it to still anticipate the feature, which is later recognized).
Regarding claim 5, modified Chang with Karthikeyan teaches all of the following limitations:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 1, wherein an average value of number-based particle diameters of the positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery is 0.2 μm or more and 50 μm or less.(“ Secondary particles of the Ni-based active material having an average particle diameter of 2 to 18 μm, for example,” Chang [0069])
Regarding claim 6, modified Chang with Karthikeyan teaches all of the following limitations:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 1, wherein a median value of number-based particle diameters of the positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery is 0.2 μm or more and 40 μm or less. (“Secondary particles of the Ni-based active material having an average particle diameter of 2 to 18 μm, for example,” Chang [0069]. If the average is between 2-18 μm, the median would be somewhere within that range as well. Given that the median is less impacted by outliers, it would fall even more central within the range than the average)
Regarding claim 8, modified Chang with Karthikeyan teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Chang is silent on the following elements of claim 8:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 1, comprising: a paramagnetic material or a diamagnetic material.
However, Karthikeyen teaches all of the elements of claim 8 that are not found in Chang. Specifically, Karthikeyan teaches:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 1, comprising: a paramagnetic material or a diamagnetic material. (“The metal oxide coatings generally comprise compositions that are believed to be essentially inert relative to the electrochemical reactions within the cell. Suitable metal oxides include, for example, aluminum oxide (Al.sub.2O.sub.3),” Karthikeyan [0077]. The instant specification states that either aluminum or alumina (aluminum oxide) is a suitable diamagnetic material to be incorporated into the electrode active material “As the diamagnetic material, an alumina medium or an aluminum medium can be used.” Instant spec [0092])
Regarding claim 9, modified Chang with Karthikeyan teaches all of the following limitations:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 1, which is represented by a composition formula (1), Li[Lix(Ni1-y-z-w)CoyMnzMw)i-x]O2... (1) here, M represents one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Cu, Ti, Mg, Al, W,B, Mo, Nb, Zn, Sn, Zr, Ga, and V, and -0.1 ≤ x < 0.2, 0 < y ≤ 0.5, 0 ≤ z ≤ 0.8 , 0 ≤ w ≤ 0.1, and y + z + w < 1 are satisfied. (“The Ni-based active material is an active material represented by Formula 1 below. Lia(Ni1-x-y-zCoxMnyM2)O2 Formula 1. In Formula 1, M is an element selected from boron (B), magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), strontium (Sr), barium (Ba), titanium (Ti), vanadium (V), chromium (Cr), iron (Fe), copper (Cu), zirconium (Zr), and aluminum (Al), 0.95≤a≤1.3, x≤(1-x-y-z), y≤(1-x-y-z), 0<x<1, 0≤y<1, and 0≤z<1.” Chang [0046-0047])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art ranges for the molar ratio of Li, Ni, Co, Mn, and M and element selection of M (B, Mg, Ti, V, Cu, Zr, or Al in this case) shown in the table below, overlap or anticipate the claimed ranges for the same parameters. Specifically, the molar ranges given in Chang are smaller/narrower for every molar ratio, and therefore anticipate those of the instant application. The only parameter that would require an obviousness rejection would be the choice of metal to be used in the M of Chang formula 1. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 9/ specification
Chang Formula 1
Li[Lix(Ni1-y-z-w)CoyMnzMw)i-x]O2
Subscript range
Lia(Ni1-x-y-zCoxMnyM2)O2
Subscript range
Li
0.9≤1+x <1.3
Li
0.95 ≤ a ≤1.3
Ni
0 ≤ 1-y-z-w ≤ 1y+z+w <1, preferably 0<y+z+w<0.2
Ni
0.5 ≤ 1-x-y-z ≤ 0.95
Co
0 < y≤ 0.5
Co
0 < x ≤ 0.3
Mn
0 ≤ z ≤ 0.8
Mn
0 < y ≤ 0.5
M (Cu, Ti, Mg, Al, W, B, Mo, Nb, Zn, Sn, Zr, Ga, V)
0 ≤ w ≤ 0.1
M (B, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Ti, V, Cr, Fe, Cu, Zr, Al)
*Bolded corresponds to one of the claimed options for M
0 < z ≤ 0.05
O
2
O
2
Regarding claim 10, modified Chang with Karthikeyan teaches all of the following limitations:
A positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery comprising: the positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 1. (“Hereinafter, a method of manufacturing a lithium secondary battery including a positive electrode having the Ni-based active material according to an embodiment, a negative electrode, a lithium salt-containing non-aqueous electrolyte, and a separator will be described.” Chang [0086])
Regarding claim 11,modified Chang with Karthikeyan teaches all of the following limitations:
A lithium secondary battery comprising: the positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 10. (“Hereinafter, a method of manufacturing a lithium secondary battery including a positive electrode having the Ni-based active material according to an embodiment, a negative electrode, a lithium salt-containing non-aqueous electrolyte, and a separator will be described.” Chang [0086])
Regarding claim 12, modified Chang with Karthikeyan teaches all of the following limitations:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 2, wherein a median value of the volume magnetic susceptibilities is 0.00003 or more and 0.16 or less. (See reasoning provided above for claim 1, the positive electrode active material particles of Chang modified with the alumina coating of Karthikeyan would inherently have the same characteristics as the material taught in the instant specification, and therefore the above limitation would be met as volume magnetic susceptibility is an intrinsic property. See MPEP 2112. II. or Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., for case law regarding the fact that an inherent feature need not be recognized at the relevant time in order for it to still anticipate the feature, which is later recognized).
Regarding claim 13, modified Chang with Karthikeyan teaches all of the following limitations:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 2, wherein a standard deviation of the volume magnetic susceptibilities is 0.0018 or more and 0.4 or less. (See reasoning provided above for claim 1, the positive electrode active material particles of Chang modified with the alumina coating of Karthikeyan would inherently have the same characteristics as the material taught in the instant specification, and therefore the above limitation would be met as volume magnetic susceptibility is an intrinsic property. See MPEP 2112. II. or Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., for case law regarding the fact that an inherent feature need not be recognized at the relevant time in order for it to still anticipate the feature, which is later recognized).
Regarding claim 14, modified Chang with Karthikeyan teaches all of the following limitations:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 2, wherein an average value of number-based particle diameters of the positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery is 0.2 μm or more and 50 μm or less. (“ Secondary particles of the Ni-based active material having an average particle diameter of 2 to 18 μm, for example,” Chang [0069])
Regarding claim 15, modified Chang with Karthikeyan teaches all of the following limitations:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 2, wherein a median value of number-based particle diameters of the positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery is 0.2 μm or more and 40 μm or less. (“Secondary particles of the Ni-based active material having an average particle diameter of 2 to 18 μm, for example,” Chang [0069]. If the average is between 2-18 μm, the median would be somewhere within that range as well. Given that the median is less impacted by outliers, it would fall even more central within the range than the average)
Regarding claim 17, modified Chang with Karthikeyan teaches all of the following limitations:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 2, comprising: a paramagnetic material or a diamagnetic material. (“The metal oxide coatings generally comprise compositions that are believed to be essentially inert relative to the electrochemical reactions within the cell. Suitable metal oxides include, for example, aluminum oxide (Al.sub.2O.sub.3),” Karthikeyan [0077]. The instant specification states that either aluminum or alumina (aluminum oxide) is a suitable diamagnetic material to be incorporated into the electrode active material “As the diamagnetic material, an alumina medium or an aluminum medium can be used.” Instant spec [0092])
Regarding claim 18, modified Chang with Karthikeyan teaches all of the following limitations:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 2, which is represented by a composition formula (1), Li[Lix(Ni1-y-z-w)CoyMnzMw)i-x]O2... (1) here, M represents one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Cu, Ti, Mg, Al, W,B, Mo, Nb, Zn, Sn, Zr, Ga, and V, and -0.1 ≤ x < 0.2, 0 < y ≤ 0.5, 0 ≤ z ≤ 0.8 , 0 ≤ w ≤ 0.1 and y + z + w < 1 are satisfied. (“The Ni-based active material is an active material represented by Formula 1 below. Lia(Ni1-x-y-zCoxMnyM2)O2 Formula 1. In Formula 1, M is an element selected from boron (B), magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), strontium (Sr), barium (Ba), titanium (Ti), vanadium (V), chromium (Cr), iron (Fe), copper (Cu), zirconium (Zr), and aluminum (Al), 0.95≤a≤1.3, x≤(1-x-y-z), y≤(1-x-y-z), 0<x<1, 0≤y<1, and 0≤z<1.” Chang [0046-0047])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art ranges for the molar ratio of Li, Ni, Co, Mn, and M and element selection of M (B, Mg, Ti, V, Cu, Zr, or Al in this case) shown in the table below, overlap or anticipate the claimed ranges for the same parameters. Specifically, the molar ranges given in Chang are smaller/narrower for every molar ratio, and therefore anticipate those of the instant application. The only parameter that would require an obviousness rejection would be the choice of metal to be used in the M of Chang formula 1. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 18/ specification
Chang Formula 1
Li[Lix(Ni1-y-z-w)CoyMnzMw)i-x]O2
Subscript range
Lia(Ni1-x-y-zCoxMnyM2)O2
Subscript range
Li
0.9≤1+x <1.3
Li
0.95 ≤ a ≤1.3
Ni
0 ≤ 1-y-z-w ≤ 1y+z+w <1, preferably 0<y+z+w<0.2
Ni
0.5 ≤ 1-x-y-z ≤ 0.95
Co
0 < y≤ 0.5
Co
0 < x ≤ 0.3
Mn
0 ≤ z ≤ 0.8
Mn
0 < y ≤ 0.5
M (Cu, Ti, Mg, Al, W, B, Mo, Nb, Zn, Sn, Zr, Ga, V)
0 ≤ w ≤ 0.1
M (B, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Ti, V, Cr, Fe, Cu, Zr, Al)
*Bolded corresponds to one of the claimed options for M
0 < z ≤ 0.05
O
2
O
2
Regarding claim 19, modified Chang with Karthikeyan teaches all of the following limitations:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to wherein the positive electrode active material particles are particles having a diamagnetic layer on a surface of a lithium metal oxide particle. (By forming an aluminum coating on the composite oxide of Chang, as described in claim 1, a diamagnetic layer would be formed on the surface of a lithium metal oxide particle.)
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 20180166687 A1) in view of Karthikeyan (US 20110076556 A1) with evidentiary support from Ito (JP 2002201028A), and further in view of Takamatsu (US 20150056511 A1)
Regarding claim 7, modified Chang with Karthikeyan teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Chang does not explicitly teach the standard deviation of its particles, although it’s almost certain it is within the claimed range shown below:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 1, wherein a standard deviation of number-based particle diameters of the positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery is 0.2 μm or more and 40 μm or less.
However, Takamatsu teaches all of the elements of claim 7 that are not found in Chang. Specifically, Takamatsu teaches a lithium composite oxide having a composition represented by LiNiCoMnMO, i.e. the same as Chang or at least overlapping in molar ranges, and having a median particle size and standard deviation that meets the claimed limitations of the instant invention:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 1, wherein a standard deviation of number-based particle diameters of the positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery is 0.2 μm or more and 40 μm or less. (“in the collection of the large particles, the median size μg is 10 μm≦μg≦30 μm and the standard deviation σg is 1.16≦σg≦1.65, in the collection of the small particles, the median size μh is 0.1 μm≦μh<10 μm and the standard deviation a is 1.16≦σh≦1.65,” Takamatsu [0025]. The median size and standard deviation ranges provided in Takamatsu for both its small and large particles fall within the claimed ranges of the instant invention.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 1.16≦σh≦1.65 for the standard deviation of particle sizes anticipates the claimed range of 0.2 μm or more and 40 μm or less. Since the range is narrower, a prima facie case is not required and the range is fully anticipated by the prior art.
Takamatsu is considered to be analogous to Chang because they are both within the field of positive electrode active materials containing lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxides. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the particle size distribution of Chang (which Chang is silent on, and very well could be within the desired range as well) to have the small particle size distribution of Takamatsu in order to provide a powder having a high density, which can improve packing properties (“Here, improvement of the packing properties due to disintegration of agglomerated particles is different from improvement of the packing properties due to crushing of particles, in that an active interface will not be exposed anew and further, the particles will not become excessively small, and therefore, the battery properties will be further improved as compared with a case where the packing properties are improved by conventional crushing of particles.” Takamatsu [0036]). Additionally, Takamatsu states that positive electrode active materials having too large of a particle size range can have negative effects, such as the lack of ability to obtain a volume capacity density (“Further, the method of using a mixed powder having a wide particle size distribution, wherein a powder composed of particles having large particle sizes and a powder composed of particles having small particle sizes are merely mixed, as disclosed in Patent Documents 2 to 5, has a problem such that it is thereby not possible to obtain a volume capacity density which is required for consumer application in recent years.” Takamatsu [0021]). Both of these statements from the prior support the desirability of the particle size distribution of Takamatsu, and therefore it would be obvious to apply this to the electrode active material of Chang.
No further modification of motivation would be required to meet the limitations of claim 16.
Regarding claim 16, modified Chang with Karthikeyan teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, as shown above. Chang does not explicitly teach the standard deviation of its particles, although it’s almost certain it is within the claimed range shown below:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 2, wherein a standard deviation of number-based particle diameters of the positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery is 0.2 μm or more and 40 μm or less.
However, Takamatsu teaches all of the elements of claim 16 that are not found in Chang. Specifically, Takamatsu teaches a lithium composite oxide having a composition represented by LiNiCoMnMO, i.e. the same as Chang or at least overlapping in molar ranges, and having a median particle size and standard deviation that meets the claimed limitations of the instant invention:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 2, wherein a standard deviation of number-based particle diameters of the positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery is 0.2 μm or more and 40 μm or less. (“in the collection of the large particles, the median size μg is 10 μm≦μg≦30 μm and the standard deviation σg is 1.16≦σg≦1.65, in the collection of the small particles, the median size μh is 0.1 μm≦μh<10 μm and the standard deviation a is 1.16≦σh≦1.65,” Takamatsu [0025]. The median size and standard deviation ranges provided in Takamatsu for both its small and large particles fall within the claimed ranges of the instant invention.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 1.16≦σh≦1.65 for the standard deviation of particle sizes anticipates the claimed range of 0.2 μm or more and 40 μm or less. Since the range is narrower, a prima facie case is not required and the range is fully anticipated by the prior art.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 20180166687 A1) in view of Karthikeyan (US 20110076556 A1) with evidentiary support from Ito (JP 2002201028A), and further in view of Kageura (WO2018/221442 A1), US 20210098776 A1 used as translation.
Regarding claim 20, modified Chang teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Chang is silent on the following elements of claim 20:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 1, wherein 0 < w ≤ 0.1, and M represents one of more elements selected from the group consisting of W, Mo, Nb, Zn, Sn, and Ga
However, Kageura teaches all of the elements of claim 20 that are not found in Chang. Specifically, Kageura teaches an overlapping series of elements that can be used as an additional metal element in its lithium composite oxide:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 1, wherein 0 < w ≤ 0.1, and M represents one of more elements selected from the group consisting of W, Mo, Nb, Zn, Sn, and Ga (“For example, w is preferably more than 0 and 0.09 or less, more preferably 0.0005 or more and 0.08 or less, and even more preferably 0.001 or more and 0.07 or less. M in the composition formula (I) is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Zn, B, Al, Ga, Ti, Zr, Ge, Fe, Cu, Cr, V, W, Mo, Sc, Y, Nb, La, Ta, Tc, Ru, Rh, Pd, Ag, Cd, In, and Sn.” Kageura [0058-0059])
Kageura is considered to be analogous to Chang because they are both related to cathode active materials for secondary batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the active material of Chang to have the composition taught by Kageura, as this would be the simple substitution of one known active material for another, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Alternative rejection for claim 1:
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kageura (WO2018/221442 A1), US 20210098776 A1 used as translation, in view of Paulsen (US 20130175469 A1). US 20210098776 A1 used as translation for foreign application.
Regarding claim 1, Kageura teaches all of the following elements:
Positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery containing at least Li and Ni, (“The nickel-cobalt-manganese composite hydroxide 1, a lithium hydroxide monohydrate powder and a potassium sulfate powder were weighed such that Li/(Ni+Co+Mn)=1.10 and K.sub.2SO.sub.4/(LiOH+K.sub.2SO.sub.4)=0.1 (mol/mol), followed by mixing. The resulting was calcined in an oxygen atmosphere at 840° C. for 10 hours, thereby obtaining a lithium metal composite oxide powder.” Kageura [0220])
Kageura is silent on the following elements of claim 1. Specifically, Kageura teaches all of the elements of the method of producing the instant material except for the alumina coating. Thus, when combined with Paulsen, the material of the instant claims/specification would be formed and would therefore have the same magnetic properties:
wherein, when a volume magnetic susceptibility of one whole particle of the positive electrode active material particles is obtained in each of a plurality of the positive electrode active material particles, a mode of individual volume magnetic susceptibilities in a range of 0.004 or more and 0.04 or less is 0.004 or more and less than 0.012.
The following are taught by Kageura:
A positive electrode active material particle, a metal composite oxide precursor, combining the metal composite oxide precursor with a lithium precursor (“The nickel-cobalt-manganese composite hydroxide 1, a lithium hydroxide monohydrate powder and a potassium sulfate powder were weighed such that Li/(Ni+Co+Mn)=1.10 and K.sub.2SO.sub.4/(LiOH+K.sub.2SO.sub.4)=0.1 (mol/mol), followed by mixing. The resulting was calcined in an oxygen atmosphere at 840° C. for 10 hours, thereby obtaining a lithium metal composite oxide powder.” Kageura [0220] as compared to “The nickel cobalt manganese composite hydroxide 1, the lithium hydroxide monohydrate powder, and potassium sulfate were mixed in a crucible, thereby obtaining a mixture 1.” Instant spec [0211])
The following are taught by Paulsen
Dry-Mixing with an alumina/aluminum medium and calcining with alumina at between 600C or higher or 1200 C or less, for 0.1 hour or longer or 20 hours or shorter (“An alumina medium was added to the obtained mixture 1 at a mass ratio of 5% by mass and mixed. The alumina medium contained 99% by mass or more of alumina with respect to the total mass of the alumina medium and contained Si, K, Na, and Fe as main impurities. The median value of the volume-based particle diameters of the alumina medium was 2.0 mm. After that, the mixture was calcined at 820°C for 10 hours in an oxygen atmosphere.” Instant spec [0211] as compared to “Just like described above, precursor core compounds with composition Ni.sub.0.85Co.sub.0.15(OH).sub.2 are dry-coated with fumed alumina (Al.sub.2O.sub.3) similar as described in Example 2. The composition of the dry-coated precursors is Ni.sub.0.85Co.sub.0.15(OH).sub.2*0.05AlO.sub.1.5. The aluminum dry-coated precursors are heat treated in air at 400, 600, 800 or 900.degree. C. As heat treatment duration, 5 h and 10 h are chosen. To obtain the final lithiated product, the cathode material, the aluminum dry-coated and heat treated precursors are mixed with milled LiOH*H.sub.2O and fired at 750.degree. C. for 10 h in a flow of oxygen. The sintering process may be in the temperature range of 700.degree. C. to 1200.degree. C. and may also be done in a flow of air.” Paulsen [0054].)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art ranges of 5-10 hours for calcining time and 700-1200C as calcining temperature, anticipate (time) or overlap (temperature) the ranges provided in the instant specification. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05. Additionally, these ranges are not claimed, this is all just to show that the coating layer of Paulsen is analogous to that in the instant invention.
Paulsen and Kageura are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of cathode materials for secondary batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode active material of Kageura to be surface modified with aluminum in order to obtain the known benefits of aluminum doping in a cathode material, such as improved characteristics and high purity (“The heat treatment may be combined with the aluminum dry-coating process in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention to obtain aluminum coated precursors that have improved characteristics compared to known prior art precursors by including particles that have a mixed metal oxide core surrounded by a crystalline aluminum coating layer as well as low impurity levels.” [0017]). By surface modifying the composite oxide of Kageura with aluminum, as taught by Paulsen, the material would be formed in the same way as the instant application, including the mixing of aluminum and composite oxide/cathode material together, in addition to overlapping calcining temperature and duration. Therefore, the materials would have the same structure and coating, and would therefore have the same magnetic properties as well.
By combining the composition of Kageura, which anticipates that in the instant specification, with the alumina/diamagnetic coating of Paulsen, the positive electrode active material particle described in the instant application would be formed, and therefore would have the volume magnetic susceptibility of claim 1.
Regarding claims 2-4, no further modifications would need to be made to meet the limitations. The method of Kageura modified by Paulsen would form a particle with the same properties as that of the instant invention, and therefore the magnetic susceptibilities would be the same.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kageura with Paulsen teaches all of the following limitations:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 1, wherein an average value of the volume magnetic susceptibilities is 0.001 or more and 0.3 or less. (See reasoning provided above for claim 1, by combining Kageura and Paulsen, the same material would be formed as that of the instant invention, which would inherently have the same characteristics as the material taught in the instant specification, and therefore the above limitation would be met as volume magnetic susceptibility is an intrinsic property. See MPEP 2112. II. or Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., for case law regarding the fact that an inherent feature need not be recognized at the relevant time in order for it to still anticipate the feature, which is later recognized).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kageura with Paulsen teaches all of the following limitations:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 1, wherein a median value of the volume magnetic susceptibilities is 0.00003 or more and 0.16 or less. (See reasoning provided above for claim 1, by combining Kageura and Paulsen, the same material would be formed as that of the instant invention, which would inherently have the same characteristics as the material taught in the instant specification, and therefore the above limitation would be met as volume magnetic susceptibility is an intrinsic property. See MPEP 2112. II. or Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., for case law regarding the fact that an inherent feature need not be recognized at the relevant time in order for it to still anticipate the feature, which is later recognized).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kageura with Paulsen teaches all of the following limitations:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 1, wherein a standard deviation of the volume magnetic susceptibilities is 0.0018 or more and 0.4 or less. (See reasoning provided above for claim 1, by combining Kageura and Paulsen, the same material would be formed as that of the instant invention, which would inherently have the same characteristics as the material taught in the instant specification, and therefore the above limitation would be met as volume magnetic susceptibility is an intrinsic property. See MPEP 2112. II. or Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., for case law regarding the fact that an inherent feature need not be recognized at the relevant time in order for it to still anticipate the feature, which is later recognized).
Regarding claim 5, Kageura teaches all of the following limitations:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 1, wherein an average value of number-based particle diameters of the positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery is 0.2 μm or more and 50 μm or less.(“ The lithium metal composite oxide powder according to any one of [1] to [7], which has an average particle, diameter (D.sub.50) of 100 nm or more and 10 μm or less as determined by a particle size distribution measurement.” Kageura [0021])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range pf 100nm-10um for the average particle diameter of active material particles overlaps the claimed range of 0.2-50um for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Kageura teaches all of the following limitations:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 1, wherein a median value of number-based particle diameters of the positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery is 0.2 μm or more and 40 μm or less.(“ The lithium metal composite oxide powder according to any one of [1] to [7], which has an average particle, diameter (D.sub.50) of 100 nm or more and 10 μm or less as determined by a particle size distribution measurement.” Kageura [0021] If the average is between 100nm-10μm, the median would be somewhere within that range as well. Given that the median is less impacted by outliers, it would fall even more central within the range than the average). Regarding the range, the same reasoning would apply as to claim 5. Since the median would fall within the range of the average, it would overlap with the claimed range of 0.2um-40um, thus , absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.)
Regarding claim 8, modified Kageura with Paulsen teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Kageura is silent on the following elements of claim 8:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 1, comprising: a paramagnetic material or a diamagnetic material.
However, Paulsen teaches all of the elements of claim 8 that are not found in Kageura. Specifically, Paulsen teaches:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 1, comprising: a paramagnetic material or a diamagnetic material. (“The aluminum dry-coated and heat treated precursors include particles having a transition metal oxide core covered by a non-amorphous aluminum oxide coating layer and have, compared to prior art precursors, relatively low impurity levels of carbonate and/or sulfate, and can be produced at lower cost.” Paulsen [0078]. The instant specification states that either aluminum or alumina (aluminum oxide) is a suitable diamagnetic material to be incorporated into the electrode active material “As the diamagnetic material, an alumina medium or an aluminum medium can be used.” Instant spec [0092]. Therefore, the aluminum oxide coating of Paulsen used with the active material of Kageura would meet the limitations of claim 8.)\
Regarding claim 9, modified Kageura with Paulsen teaches all of the following limitations:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 1, which is represented by a composition formula (1), Li[Lix(Ni1-y-z-w)CoyMnzMw)i-x]O2... (1) here, M represents one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Cu, Ti, Mg, Al, W,B, Mo, Nb, Zn, Sn, Zr, Ga, and V, and -0.1 ≤ x < 0.2, 0 < y ≤ 0.5, 0 ≤ z ≤ 0.8 , 0 ≤ w ≤ 0.1, and y + z + w < 1 are satisfied. (“The lithium metal composite oxide powder according to [1] or [2], which satisfies composition formula (I): Li[Lix(Ni(1-y-z-w)CoyMnxMw)1-x]O2 … in which −0.1≤x≤0.2, 0≤y≤0.4, 0≤z≤0.4, 0≤w≤0.1, y+z+w <1 and M is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Zn, B, Ga, Ti, Zr, Ge, Fe, Cu, Cr, V, W, Mo, Sc, Y, Nb, La, Ta, Tc, Ru, Rh, Pd, Ag, Cd, In, and Sn” Kageura [0014])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art ranges for the molar ratio of Li, Ni, Co, Mn, and M and element selection of M shown in the table below, overlap or anticipate the claimed ranges for the same parameters. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 9/ specification
Kageura Formula 1
Li[Lix(Ni1-y-z-w)CoyMnzMw)i-x]O2
Subscript range
Li[Lix(Ni(1-y-z-w)CoyMnxMw)1-x]O2
Subscript range
Li
0.9≤1+x <1.3
Li
0.9≤1+x <1.2
Ni
0 ≤ 1-y-z-w ≤ 1y+z+w <1, preferably 0<y+z+w<0.2
Ni
y+z+w is 0<y+z+w≤0.3therefore Ni is between 0.7 and 1
Co
0 < y≤ 0.5
Co
0 < y≤ 0.4
Mn
0 ≤ z ≤ 0.8
Mn
0 ≤ z ≤ 0.4
M (Cu, Ti, Mg, Al, W, B, Mo, Nb, Zn, Sn, Zr, Ga, V)
0 ≤ w ≤ 0.1
M (Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Zn, B, Ga, Ti, Zr, Ge, Fe, Cu, Cr, V, W, Mo, Sc, Y, Nb, La, Ta, Tc, Ru, Rh, Pd, Ag, Cd, In, and Sn)
0 < z ≤ 0.05
O
2
O
2
Regarding claim 10, modified Kageura with Paulsen teaches all of the following limitations:
A positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery comprising: the positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 1. (“According to the present invention, it is possible to provide a lithium metal composite oxide powder capable of obtaining a lithium secondary battery with a low self-discharge amount, a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery, a positive electrode fora lithium secondary battery, and a lithium secondary battery with a low self-discharge amount.” Kageura [0026])
Regarding claim 11,modified Kageura with Paulsen teaches all of the following limitations:
A lithium secondary battery comprising: the positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 10. (“According to the present invention, it is possible to provide a lithium metal composite oxide powder capable of obtaining a lithium secondary battery with a low self-discharge amount, a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery, a positive electrode fora lithium secondary battery, and a lithium secondary battery with a low self-discharge amount.” Kageura [0026])
Regarding claim 12, modified Kageura with Paulsen teaches all of the following limitations:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 2, wherein a median value of the volume magnetic susceptibilities is 0.00003 or more and 0.16 or less. (See reasoning provided above for claim 1, by combining Kageura and Paulsen, the same material would be formed as that of the instant invention, which would inherently have the same characteristics as the material taught in the instant specification, and therefore the above limitation would be met as volume magnetic susceptibility is an intrinsic property. See MPEP 2112. II. or Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., for case law regarding the fact that an inherent feature need not be recognized at the relevant time in order for it to still anticipate the feature, which is later recognized).
Regarding claim 13, modified Kageura with Paulsen teaches all of the following limitations:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 2, wherein a standard deviation of the volume magnetic susceptibilities is 0.0018 or more and 0.4 or less. (See reasoning provided above for claim 1, by combining Kageura and Paulsen, the same material would be formed as that of the instant invention, which would inherently have the same characteristics as the material taught in the instant specification, and therefore the above limitation would be met as volume magnetic susceptibility is an intrinsic property. See MPEP 2112. II. or Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., for case law regarding the fact that an inherent feature need not be recognized at the relevant time in order for it to still anticipate the feature, which is later recognized).
Regarding claim 14, modified Kageura with Paulsen teaches all of the following limitations:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 2, wherein an average value of number-based particle diameters of the positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery is 0.2 μm or more and 50 μm or less. .(“ The lithium metal composite oxide powder according to any one of [1] to [7], which has an average particle, diameter (D.sub.50) of 100 nm or more and 10 μm or less as determined by a particle size distribution measurement.” Kageura [0021])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range pf 100nm-10um for the average particle diameter of active material particles overlaps the claimed range of 0.2-50um for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 15, modified Kageura with Paulsen teaches all of the following limitations:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 2, wherein a median value of number-based particle diameters of the positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery is 0.2 μm or more and 40 μm or less. (“ The lithium metal composite oxide powder according to any one of [1] to [7], which has an average particle, diameter (D.sub.50) of 100 nm or more and 10 μm or less as determined by a particle size distribution measurement.” Kageura [0021] If the average is between 100nm-10μm, the median would be somewhere within that range as well. Given that the median is less impacted by outliers, it would fall even more central within the range than the average). Regarding the range, the same reasoning would apply as to claim 5. Since the median would fall within the range of the average, it would overlap with the claimed range of 0.2um-40um, thus , absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.)
Regarding claim 17, modified Kageura with Paulsen teaches all of the following limitations:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 2, comprising: a paramagnetic material or a diamagnetic material. (“The aluminum dry-coated and heat treated precursors include particles having a transition metal oxide core covered by a non-amorphous aluminum oxide coating layer and have, compared to prior art precursors, relatively low impurity levels of carbonate and/or sulfate, and can be produced at lower cost.” Paulsen [0078]. The instant specification states that either aluminum or alumina (aluminum oxide) is a suitable diamagnetic material to be incorporated into the electrode active material “As the diamagnetic material, an alumina medium or an aluminum medium can be used.” Instant spec [0092]. Therefore, the aluminum oxide coating of Paulsen used with the active material of Kageura would meet the limitations of claim 17.)
Regarding claim 18, modified Kageura with Paulsen teaches all of the following limitations:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 2, which is represented by a composition formula (1), Li[Lix(Ni1-y-z-w)CoyMnzMw)i-x]O2... (1) here, M represents one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Cu, Ti, Mg, Al, W,B, Mo, Nb, Zn, Sn, Zr, Ga, and V, and -0.1 ≤ x < 0.2, 0 < y ≤ 0.5, 0 ≤ z ≤ 0.8 , 0 ≤ w ≤ 0.1 and y + z + w < 1 are satisfied. (“The lithium metal composite oxide powder according to [1] or [2], which satisfies composition formula (I): Li[Lix(Ni(1-y-z-w)CoyMnxMw)1-x]O2 … in which −0.1≤x≤0.2, 0≤y≤0.4, 0≤z≤0.4, 0≤w≤0.1, y+z+w <1 and M is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Zn, B, Ga, Ti, Zr, Ge, Fe, Cu, Cr, V, W, Mo, Sc, Y, Nb, La, Ta, Tc, Ru, Rh, Pd, Ag, Cd, In, and Sn” Kageura [0014])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art ranges for the molar ratio of Li, Ni, Co, Mn, and M and element selection of M shown in the table below, overlap or anticipate the claimed ranges for the same parameters. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 9/ specification
Kageura Formula 1
Li[Lix(Ni1-y-z-w)CoyMnzMw)i-x]O2
Subscript range
Li[Lix(Ni(1-y-z-w)CoyMnxMw)1-x]O2
Subscript range
Li
0.9≤1+x <1.3
Li
0.9≤1+x <1.2
Ni
0 ≤ 1-y-z-w ≤ 1y+z+w <1, preferably 0<y+z+w<0.2
Ni
y+z+w is 0<y+z+w≤0.3therefore Ni is between 0.7 and 1
Co
0 < y≤ 0.5
Co
0 < y≤ 0.4
Mn
0 ≤ z ≤ 0.8
Mn
0 ≤ z ≤ 0.4
M (Cu, Ti, Mg, Al, W, B, Mo, Nb, Zn, Sn, Zr, Ga, V)
0 ≤ w ≤ 0.1
M (Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Zn, B, Ga, Ti, Zr, Ge, Fe, Cu, Cr, V, W, Mo, Sc, Y, Nb, La, Ta, Tc, Ru, Rh, Pd, Ag, Cd, In, and Sn)
0 < z ≤ 0.05
O
2
O
2
Regarding claim 19, modified Kageura with Paulsen teaches all of the following limitations:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to wherein the positive electrode active material particles are particles having a diamagnetic layer on a surface of a lithium metal oxide particle. (By forming the alumina coating of Paulsen onto the positive electrode active material of Kageura, all of the limitations of claim 19 would be met without requiring any further modification or motivation. (“The aluminum dry-coated and heat treated precursors include particles having a transition metal oxide core covered by a non-amorphous aluminum oxide coating layer and have, compared to prior art precursors, relatively low impurity levels of carbonate and/or sulfate, and can be produced at lower cost.” Paulsen [0078].)
Regarding claim 20, modified Kageura with Paulsen teaches all of the following limitations:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 1, wherein 0 < w ≤ 0.1, and M represents one of more elements selected from the group consisting of W, Mo, Nb, Zn, Sn, and Ga (“For example, w is preferably more than 0 and 0.09 or less, more preferably 0.0005 or more and 0.08 or less, and even more preferably 0.001 or more and 0.07 or less. M in the composition formula (I) is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Zn, B, Al, Ga, Ti, Zr, Ge, Fe, Cu, Cr, V, W, Mo, Sc, Y, Nb, La, Ta, Tc, Ru, Rh, Pd, Ag, Cd, In, and Sn.” Kageura [0058-0059]. It would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pick W, Mo, Nb, Zn, Sn, or Ga from the options provided by Kageura, as they are all provided as possible additives (Ms) added to the composite oxide.)
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kageura in view of Paulsen with evidentiary support from Ito (JP 2002201028A), and further in view of Takamatsu (US 20150056511 A1)
Regarding claim 7, modified Kageura teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Kageura does not explicitly teach the standard deviation of its particles, although it’s almost certain it is within the claimed range shown below:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 1, wherein a standard deviation of number-based particle diameters of the positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery is 0.2 μm or more and 40 μm or less.
However, Takamatsu teaches all of the elements of claim 7 that are not found in Kageura or Paulsen. Specifically, Takamatsu teaches a lithium composite oxide having a composition represented by LiNiCoMnMO, i.e. the same as Kageura or at least overlapping in molar ranges, and having a median particle size and standard deviation that meets the claimed limitations of the instant invention:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 1, wherein a standard deviation of number-based particle diameters of the positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery is 0.2 μm or more and 40 μm or less. (“in the collection of the large particles, the median size μg is 10 μm≦μg≦30 μm and the standard deviation σg is 1.16≦σg≦1.65, in the collection of the small particles, the median size μh is 0.1 μm≦μh<10 μm and the standard deviation a is 1.16≦σh≦1.65,” Takamatsu [0025]. The median size and standard deviation ranges provided in Takamatsu for both its small and large particles fall within the claimed ranges of the instant invention.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 1.16≦σh≦1.65 for the standard deviation of particle sizes anticipates the claimed range of 0.2 μm or more and 40 μm or less. Since the range is narrower, a prima facie case is not required and the range is fully anticipated by the prior art.
Takamatsu is considered to be analogous to Kageura because they are both within the field of positive electrode active materials containing lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxides. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the particle size distribution of Kageura (which Kageura is silent on, and very well could be within the desired range as well) to have the small particle size distribution of Takamatsu in order to provide a powder having a high density, which can improve packing properties (“Here, improvement of the packing properties due to disintegration of agglomerated particles is different from improvement of the packing properties due to crushing of particles, in that an active interface will not be exposed anew and further, the particles will not become excessively small, and therefore, the battery properties will be further improved as compared with a case where the packing properties are improved by conventional crushing of particles.” Takamatsu [0036]). Additionally, Takamatsu states that positive electrode active materials having too large of a particle size range can have negative effects, such as the lack of ability to obtain a volume capacity density (“Further, the method of using a mixed powder having a wide particle size distribution, wherein a powder composed of particles having large particle sizes and a powder composed of particles having small particle sizes are merely mixed, as disclosed in Patent Documents 2 to 5, has a problem such that it is thereby not possible to obtain a volume capacity density which is required for consumer application in recent years.” Takamatsu [0021]). Both of these statements from the prior support the desirability of the particle size distribution of Takamatsu, and therefore it would be obvious to apply this to the electrode active material of Kageura.
No further modification of motivation would be required to meet the limitations of claim 16.
Regarding claim 16, modified Kageura with Paulsen teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, as shown above. Kageura does not explicitly teach the standard deviation of its particles, although it’s almost certain it is within the claimed range shown below:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 2, wherein a standard deviation of number-based particle diameters of the positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery is 0.2 μm or more and 40 μm or less.
However, Takamatsu teaches all of the elements of claim 16 that are not found in Kageura. Specifically, Takamatsu teaches a lithium composite oxide having a composition represented by LiNiCoMnMO, i.e. the same as Kageura or at least overlapping in molar ranges, and having a median particle size and standard deviation that meets the claimed limitations of the instant invention:
The positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 2, wherein a standard deviation of number-based particle diameters of the positive electrode active material particles for a lithium secondary battery is 0.2 μm or more and 40 μm or less. (“in the collection of the large particles, the median size μg is 10 μm≦μg≦30 μm and the standard deviation σg is 1.16≦σg≦1.65, in the collection of the small particles, the median size μh is 0.1 μm≦μh<10 μm and the standard deviation a is 1.16≦σh≦1.65,” Takamatsu [0025]. The median size and standard deviation ranges provided in Takamatsu for both its small and large particles fall within the claimed ranges of the instant invention.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 1.16≦σh≦1.65 for the standard deviation of particle sizes anticipates the claimed range of 0.2 μm or more and 40 μm or less. Since the range is narrower, a prima facie case is not required and the range is fully anticipated by the prior art.
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 BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET whose telephone number is (571)272-0156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm except for the first Friday of bi-week.
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 SMITH can be reached at (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.
/BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights