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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on September 26th, 2025 is acknowledged.
Specification
Paragraph [0050] is objected to because it indicates that a cation is a salt. Salts are inherently neutral and therefore cannot be cations. Based on the context of the Applicant’s disclosure, it seems that the term “salt” should be replaced with the word “ion”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is similarly objected to due to its implicit description of a cation as a salt. For the sake of this Office Action, the term “salt” in claim 6 will be interpreted as “ion”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 8, and 9 recite the usage of a “washing solution”. The instant specification appears to indicate that said washing solution “washes”, cleans, and/or removes impurities from the positive active material (see paragraphs [0047] – [0058]), The broadest reasonable interpretation of such a solution, however, includes any solution or liquid. Any solution or liquid within the prior art that satisfies the claimed limitations will suffice for a prior art rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 2018/0040889 A1) and further in view of Kobori (US 2011/0236760 A1) and Uchida (US 2011/0033749 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 10, Choi discloses a method of preparing a sintered product by reacting a lithium compound (the lithium raw material) and a transition metal hydroxide (the positive electrode active material precursor) with a first thermal treatment ([0022] and [0023]). Choi continues to discloses that the sintered product is washed with distilled water and reactively coating the washed sintered product with a solution containing cobalt [0023]. This washing solution also contains the cobalt solution as seen in Embodiment 1 [0053]. The active material is then dried [0023]. Choi, however, fails to teach the specifically claimed cobalt-based coating layer precursor in the washing solution. Choi is analogous art to Kobori because both because both disclose materials that are used in secondary batteries. Kobori, however, teaches that sodium cobalt (III) nitrite may be used as a precursor for forming active materials (where the nitrite is the chelate anion) comprised of lithium and cobalt (as required by claims 1 and 7; [0077]). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use sodium cobalt nitrite in Choi’s washing solution based on the teachings of Kobori.
Choi continues to disclose that after the washed material is dried, that washed material can be mixed with another metal, including titanium, to dope the material using a second thermal treatment [0023]. However, Choi fails to explicitly teach the formation of a solid solution in the general form of Li-M-O. Uchida is analogous art to Choi because both teach materials used in secondary batteries. Uchida teaches a robust method of forming a solid solution comprised of lithium, titanium, and oxygen onto an active material. Uchida teaches the usage of a coating solution comprised of titanium and lithium on the surface of an active material followed by a heat treatment from 400 – 1000 °C (as required by claim 10; [0019]). This forms a lithium titanium composite oxide. When active material particles are coated with this oxide, their charge and discharge efficiency can be improved [0061]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use Uchida’s method of forming a solid metal solution on the surface of Choi’s active material to improve its charge and discharge efficiency with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 (I) (D).
Regarding claim 2, Choi discloses that the composition of the transition metal hydroxide, the claimed positive electrode active material precursor, is Ni1-(x2+y2+z2) Cox2M1y2M2z2(OH)2, where 0≦x2≦0.25, 0≦y2≦0.20, and 0≦z2≦0.20 [0022]. M1 is Mn or Al, and M2 is a metal selected from a group whose members include B, Co, Cr, Mg, Mo, Ti, and Zr [0022]. The claimed composition is obvious over Choi’s composition due to the overlapping ranges and similar elements. For example, if x2 = 0.2, y2 = 0.01, z2 = 0.1, M1 = Al, and M2 = Co, the final composition is Ni0.69Co0.3Al0.01(OH)2, which satisfies the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 5, sodium cobalt nitrite, the coating layer precursor, comprises both cobalt and a nitrite group.
Regarding claim 6, sodium cobalt nitrite, the coating layer precursor, comprises a sodium ion.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, Kobori, and Uchida as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baek (KR 20190044544 A, but citations will be drawn to US 2020/0259161 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Choi, Kobori, and Uchida fail to teach the molar ratios between the lithium compound and the transition metal hydroxide. Baek teaches that hydroxide and the lithium compound should be mixed in a ratio between 1 : 1.01 – 1 : 1.07 [0029], which falls within the claimed range. Baek continues to teach that an excessive amount of lithium should be used because it can be volatized at a high temperature [0029], rendering it unusable for the solid/solid reaction that forms the lithium metal oxide. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to form Choi’s lithium transition metal oxide using the molar ratios taught by Baek in order to minimize the amount of lithium impurities that may form.
Regarding claim 4, Choi, Kobori, and Uchida fail to teach the sintering temperature (the temperature of Choi’s first thermal treatment) that causes the reaction between the lithium compound and the transition metal hydroxide. Baek is analogous art to Choi, Kobori, and Uchida because all teach materials used in secondary batteries. Baek teaches that the sintering temperature to form the lithium transition oxide should be between 700 °C and 900 °C [0033]. When the temperature is in this range, the lithium compound and the transition metal hydroxide sufficiently react and suppresses the formation of lithium impurities [0033]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to form Choi’s lithium transition metal oxide at the temperatures taught by Baek in order to suppress the formation of lithium impurities.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, Kobori, and Uchida as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eom (KR 20190106406A, but citations will be drawn to US 2020/0227743 A1). Choi, Kobori, and Uchida fail to teach a direct relationship between the mass of the coating solution and the mass of the positive active material. Eom is analogous art to Choi, Kobori, and Uchida because all teach materials in secondary batteries. Eom teaches that the amount of cleaning water, the bulk of their washing solution, be between 50 parts by weight and 400 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of their positive active material [0058]. If too little cleaning water is used, lithium byproducts on the newly formed positive active material may not be sufficiently removed [0058]. If too much cleaning water is used, defects may be generated on a surface of the positive active material [0058]. Although Choi’s washing solution is comprised of more than just Eom’s cleaning water, Eom’s clearly demonstrated motivation to optimize the mass of their washing solution in a range similar to the claimed range renders the claimed range prima facie obvious in view of the prior art. [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to optimize the mass of Choi’s washing solution relative to the mass of their positive active material based on the teachings of Eom. See MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi and further in view of Uchida and Nho (US 2018/0261832 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Choi discloses a method of preparing a sintered product by reacting a lithium compound (the lithium raw material) and a transition metal hydroxide (the positive electrode active material precursor) with a first thermal treatment ([0022] and [0023]). Choi continues to discloses that the sintered product is washed with distilled water and reactively coating the washed sintered product with a solution containing cobalt [0023]. This washing solution also contains the cobalt solution as seen in Embodiment 1 [0053]. The active material is then dried [0023]. Choi continues to disclose that after the washed material is dried, that washed material can be mixed with another metal, including titanium, to dope the material using a second thermal treatment [0023]. However, Choi fails to explicitly teach the formation of a solid solution in the general form of Li-M-O. Uchida is analogous art to Choi because both teach materials used in secondary batteries. Uchida teaches a robust method of forming a solid solution comprised of lithium, titanium, and oxygen onto an active material. Uchida teaches the usage of a coating solution on comprised of titanium and lithium on the surface of an active material followed by a heat treatment [0019]. This forms a lithium titanium composite oxide. When active material particles are coated with this oxide, their charge and discharge efficiency can be improved [0061]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use Uchida’s method of forming a solid metal solution on the surface of Choi’s active material to improve its charge and discharge efficiency with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 (I) (D).
Choi, however, fails to teach the claimed coating layer precursor. Nho is analogous art to Choi because both teach materials used in secondary batteries. Nho teaches that a metal oxalate compound, including a cobalt oxalate compound, may be used in a coating layer (as required by claims 1 and 5; [0059]). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use cobalt oxalate in Choi’s washing solution based on the teachings of Nho.
Regarding claim 2, Choi discloses that the composition of the transition metal hydroxide, the claimed positive electrode active material precursor, is Ni1-(x2+y2+z2) Cox2M1y2M2z2(OH)2, where 0≦x2≦0.25, 0≦y2≦0.20, and 0≦z2≦0.20 [0022]. M1 is Mn or Al, and M2 is a metal selected from a group whose members include B, Co, Cr, Mg, Mo, Ti, and Zr [0022]. The claimed composition is obvious over Choi’s composition due to the overlapping ranges and similar elements. For example, if x2 = 0.2, y2 = 0.01, z2 = 0.1, M1 = Al, and M2 = Co, the final composition is Ni0.69Co0.3Al0.01(OH)2, which satisfies the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 8, Choi fails to teach the weight percent of the cobalt oxalate coating layer precursor including in the washing solution relative to weight of the active material. Nho teaches that the coating layer precursor’s relative to the active material should be between 0.01 wt.% and 5 wt.% [0087]. If the weight is too little, the amount of lithium derivatives on the surface of the active material will not be sufficiently reduced. If the weight is too great, it is likely that there will be decreases in the battery’s capacity and output characteristics [0088]. This range also overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to include the coating layer precursor in the washing solution with the weight taught by Nho in order to avoid the negative effects mentioned above.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, Uchida, and Nho as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baek.
Regarding claim 3, Choi, Nho, and Uchida fail to teach the molar ratios between the lithium compound and the transition metal hydroxide. Baek teaches that hydroxide and the lithium compound should be mixed in a ratio between 1 : 1.01 – 1 : 1.07 [0029], which falls within the claimed range. Baek continues to teach that an excessive amount of lithium should be used because it can be volatized at a high temperature [0029], rendering it unusable for the solid/solid reaction that forms the lithium metal oxide. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to form Choi’s lithium transition metal oxide using the molar ratios taught by Baek in order to minimize the amount of lithium impurities that may form.
Regarding claim 4, Choi, Nho, and Uchida fail to teach the sintering temperature (the temperature of Choi’s first thermal treatment) that causes the reaction between the lithium compound and the transition metal hydroxide. Baek is analogous art to Choi, Uchida, and Nho because all teach materials used in secondary batteries. Baek teaches that the sintering temperature to form the lithium transition oxide should be between 700 °C and 900 °C [0033]. When the temperature is in this range, the lithium compound and the transition metal hydroxide sufficiently react and suppresses the formation of lithium impurities [0033]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to form Choi’s lithium transition metal oxide at the temperatures taught by Baek in order to suppress the formation of lithium impurities.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, Uchida, and Nho as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eom. Choi, Kobori, and Uchida fail to teach a direct relationship between the mass of the coating solution and the mass of the positive active material. Eom is analogous art to Choi, Kobori, and Nho because all teach materials in secondary batteries. Eom teaches that the amount of cleaning water, the bulk of their washing solution, be between 50 parts by weight and 400 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of their positive active material [0058]. If too little cleaning water is used, lithium byproducts on the newly formed positive active material may not be sufficiently removed [0058]. If too much cleaning water is used, defects may be generated on a surface of the positive active material [0058]. Although Choi’s washing solution is comprised of more than just Eom’s cleaning water, Eom’s clearly demonstrated motivation to optimize the mass of their washing solution in a range similar to the claimed range renders the claimed range prima facie obvious in view of the prior art. [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to optimize the mass of Choi’s washing solution relative to the mass of their positive active material based on the teachings of Eom. See MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cho (US 2019/0296349) teaches the usage of a coating layer precursor comprising a cobalt-containing oxalate, acetate, or phosphate [0067].
Kweon (JP 3691279 B2) teaches a method of preparing the claimed sintered product with the composition specified in claim 2 within the temperature range specified in claim 4. Although Kweon does not explicitly disclose a motivation for combining a lithium raw material and a positive electrode active material precursor according to the ratios of claim 3, the Examples 1 -13 combine the two in a 1:1 equivalent ratio (paragraphs [0030]- [0048]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN K BLACKWELL-RUDASILL whose telephone number is (571)270-0563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/R.B.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722