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.
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 1-5, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamata et al., US2016/0093885.
Regarding claim 1, Kamata teaches a method of producing a lithium metal composite oxide comprising: calcining a mixture of lithium carbonate (lithium compound) and a composite hydroxide containing at least nickel (a metal composite compound) at 950°C. The product is then cooled to room temperature at a rate of 4°C/min (240 °C/hr.) and pulverized. See [0195]-[0196]. Products of this process show surface areas in the range claimed including 1.38, 1.25, and 1.21 m2/g. See Examples 2, 9, and 10 in Table 3.
The claim requires a cooling rate in the range of 600-400 °C of 150 – 10000 °C/h, an average cooling rate in the range of 450-150 °C of 10-3500 °C/g and that the cooling rates in the two ranges are different. An amount of difference is not required. Thus, the constant cooling rate in Kamata is only infinitesimally different from the instant claim. It is noted that the claimed range is close enough to the claimed range to support a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. One skilled in the art would not expect a difference in the product produced from a product cooled at the same rate in the two ranges, and one where the ranges are infinitesimally different from one another. In addition, Kamata teaches the importance of the cooling rate, and thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the cooling rate while considering the effect of the cooling rate on the equipment and productivity as suggested by Kamata. See [0162] of Kamata.
Regarding claim 2, Kamata teaches compositions in the ranges claimed. Example 2 in Kamata is a composition of Li1.14Ni0.331Mn0.331Co0.331Zr0.002W0.005O2- which corresponds to the claimed formula as follows: x = 0.14, y=0.331, z = 0.331 + 0.002 + 0.005 = 0.338, y + z = 0.669.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Kamata teaches heating and cooling in air which contains oxygen. See [0196].
Regarding claim 4, Kamata teaches both calcination and cooling in the same atmosphere (air) since Kamata teaches calcining and cooling in the same apparatus and does not disclose a change of atmospheres. See [0162]-[0163] and [0196]. Kamata teaches the oxygen concentration in the calcination step can be 18-100% and this concentration affects the crystallization of the composite. See [0163]. Claim 4 only requires that the oxygen concentration in the cooling step is higher than that in the calcination step. Since Kamata teaches the same atmosphere, the claim differs from Kamata by only an infinitesimal amount. MPEP 2144.05 I. states, “[] a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”
Regarding claim 5, Kamata teaches an average cooling rate over both claimed ranges is 4°C/min (240 °C/hr.). See [0195]-[0196].
Regarding claim 9, Kamata teaches using a pin mill. See [0165].
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamata et al., US2016/0093885 in view of Sheargold et al., US5874058.
Regarding claim 6, Kamata teaches any furnace can be used as long as it is possible to heat in air or in a flow of oxygen. See [0157]. Kamata does not teach a rotary kiln or rotary cooler. However, these apparatuses are known and used in the art. Sheargold teaches in the production of a lithium composite oxide for a secondary battery, performing calcination in a rotary kiln and performing cooling in a rotary kiln (which is considered a rotary cooler when used for cooling). See column 1, lines 10-25 of Sheargold. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use both a rotary kiln and rotary cooler as taught by Sheargold in order to produce the composite oxide in a commercially practical manner. By using the rotary apparatuses, reaction and cooling times are shortened making the process more commercially viable. See column 1, lines 18-23 and column 4, lines 2-6 of Sheargold.
Regarding claim 7, Sheargold teaches using the same size rotary kiln for the calcination and cooling steps in the examples making the ratio of volumes equal 1. See column 6, lines 35-38. In modifying Kamata, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the appropriate size of each device when designing the process in order to enable continuous operation and production of a homogenous product. Sizing is a bedrock principle of chemical process design and applicant has not shown the range claimed to be critical.
Regarding claim 8, Sheargold teaches a rotary tube furnace operated with similar agitation to the calcination step while functioning as a rotary cooler. See column 4, lines 9-18 of Sheargold. Sheargold teaches a 2 inch diameter furnace (about 0.05 m) operating at 30 RPM. See column 6, lines 35-38. This equates to about 5 m/min. One or ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use similar rotational speed in the process of Kamata in order to effectively, controllably, and homogenously cool the product in a commercially viable manner.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamata et al., US2016/0093885 in view of Okae et al., US2017/0155137.
Regarding claim 10, Kamata teaches that any well-known method of pulverization can be used but does not teach a disc mill and the rotational speed thereof. See [0165]. However, using a disc mill for pulverization is well known in the art as disclosed in Okae. See [0079]. Okae operates the mill at 10,000 rpm which is in the claimed range. See [0092]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to follow the suggestion in Kamata of using a well-known pulverization apparatus at a similar rotational speed to that of Okae in order to predictably and effectively disintegrate the cathode active material in order to use it in the production of an electrode as taught in both references.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamata et al., US2016/0093885 in view of Taniguchi et al., US2013/0337330.
Regarding claim 11, Kamata teaches using a pin mill and teaches that the pulverization force should be appropriately adjusted but is silent regarding a specific rotational speed. However, the operation of pin mills is well-known in the art of manufacturing secondary battery electrodes from lithium composite oxides. Taniguchi teaches pin mill operation in crushing a lithium oxide composite material at 4000-8000 rpm. See [0093]-[0094]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such a rotational speed in the process of Kamata in order to effectively crush and disintegrate the lithium composite oxide so it can be used to produce an electrode.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al., US 2012/0119167 in view of Shizuka et al., US2009/0104530.
Regarding claim the limitations of claims 1-2 required by claims 13-14, Matsumoto teaches a method of producing a lithium metal composite oxide containing nickel, cobalt, and aluminum with a chemical formula of Li0.95Ni0.81Co0.16Al0.03O2 (corresponding in claim 2 to x=-0.05, y=0.16, and z=0.03; y + z = 0.19). Disclosed is a calcination step at a temperature above 600°C of a lithium compound and a metal composite compound containing at least nickel. The product of the calcination is cooled and cracked (pulverized) to produce a particle with surface areas in the range of the claim. See, e.g. Example 1 and Table 1.
Matsumoto is silent regarding the cooling rate. However, it is known in the art to control the cooling rate in similar processes. Shizuka teaches in a similar process for producing a cathode active material containing lithium, cooling rates of 1-7 °C/min or 60 – 420°C per hour, overlapping the claimed ranges. Shizuka teaches the rate can be optimized with respect to time, equipment limitations, and the homogeneity of the product. See [0545] of Shizuka. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the cooling rate in Matsumoto in view of Shizuka in order to comply with time and equipment limitations and to ensure homogeneity of the product.
The claim requires a cooling rate in the range of 600-400 °C of 150 – 10000 °C/h, an average cooling rate in the range of 450-150 °C of 10-3500 °C/g and that the cooling rates in the two ranges are different. An amount of difference is not required. Thus, the constant cooling rate in Matsumoto in view of Shizuka is only infinitesimally different from the instant claim. It is noted that the claimed range is close enough to the claimed range to support a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. One skilled in the art would not expect a difference in the product produced from a product cooled at the same rate in the two ranges, and one where the ranges are infinitesimally different from one another. In addition, Shizuka teaches the importance of the cooling rate, and thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the cooling rate while considering the effect of the cooling rate on the equipment and productivity as suggested by Shizuka. See [0545] of Shizuka.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Numata et al., EP 1117145 in view of Shizuka et al., US2009/0104530.
Regarding the limitations of claims 1-2 required by claim 14, Numata teaches calcining above 600°C a mixture of lithium and a compound containing at least nickel along with a cobalt compound. The product LiNi0.8Co0.2O2 (corresponding to the formula in claims 2 and 14: x=0, y=0.2, and z=0; y + z = 0.2) is ostensibly cooled to room temperature and classified (considered equivalent to pulverizing) to produce products with surface areas in the range claimed. See Example A-3 with appropriate reference to Example A-1 and [0054]-[0062].
Numata is silent regarding the cooling rate. However, it is known in the art to control the cooling rate in similar processes. Shizuka teaches in a similar process for producing a cathode active material containing lithium, cooling rates of 1-7 °C/min or 60 – 420°C per hour, overlapping the claimed ranges. Shizuka teaches the rate can be optimized with respect to time, equipment limitations, and the homogeneity of the product. See [0545] of Shizuka. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the cooling rate in Numata in view of Shizuka in order to comply with time and equipment limitations and to ensure homogeneity of the product.
The claim requires a cooling rate in the range of 600-400 °C of 150 – 10000 °C/h, an average cooling rate in the range of 450-150 °C of 10-3500 °C/g and that the cooling rates in the two ranges are different. An amount of difference is not required. Thus, the constant cooling rate in Numata in view of Shizuka is only infinitesimally different from the instant claim. It is noted that the claimed range is close enough to the claimed range to support a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. One skilled in the art would not expect a difference in the product produced from a product cooled at the same rate in the two ranges, and one where the ranges are infinitesimally different from one another. In addition, Shizuka teaches the importance of the cooling rate, and thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the cooling rate while considering the effect of the cooling rate on the equipment and productivity as suggested by Shizuka. See [0545] of Shizuka.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kamata fails to teach or suggest “the average rate in the temperature range from 600 °C to 400 °C and the cooling rate in the temperature range from 400 °C to 150 °C are different.” This argument is unpersuasive because the limitation does not require any amount of difference between the two rates and thus, they are only required by to infinitesimally different where the rate ranges overlap. The prior art as applied above renders the new limitations unpatentable as obvious under 35 USC 103 for reasons discussed in the rejections above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Iijima et al., EP 0986115 A1, teaches a process for producing lithium-nickel-cobalt composite oxides with control of the surface area. See the abstract, [0040], and [0069].
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 ANTHONY J ZIMMER whose telephone number is (571)270-3591. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 AM - 6 PM EST.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
ANTHONY J. ZIMMER
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736