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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 14-17 are rejected.
Claims 1-13 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 14 and claim 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20180013129 A1, “Lee”) in view of Endo (US 20130230775 A1, “Endo”), Choi et al. (KR 20150065046 A, “Choi”) and Xu et al. (CN 111276680 A, “Xu”). The machine translations are used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 14 and claim 16, Lee discloses a method for preparing a secondary particle precursor (see [0105] “preparation process” & “precursor” & see [0032] “core 1 may be composed of a single particle of the first lithium composite metal oxide, or may be composed of a secondary particle in which primary particles of the first lithium composite metal oxide are agglomerate”; see Title “method of preparing” & “positive electrode active material”; see [0152] “preparation process”) comprising: (S1) stirring a transition metal solution comprising a nickel containing raw material, a cobalt containing raw material and a manganese containing raw material, and a nickel containing chelating agent and a basic compound (see [0079] “reaction solution” & “nickel manganese cobalt-based composite metal hydroxide particles are formed, by adding an ammonium cation-containing complexing agent and a basic compound” and ammonium cation-containing complexing agent reads on nitrogen containing chelating agent; see [0083]; see [0088] describes “stirring process may be selectively performed to increase the reaction rate during the reaction” & “stirring speed may be in a range of 100 rpm to 2,000 rpm”; see [0092] “nickel ions, cobalt ions, and manganese ions” & “transition metal raw materials”; see [0084] “chelating agent” & see [0085] “basic compound”); a concentration of the nitrogen containing chelating agent of the step (S1) (see [0091]; see [0152] “concentration gradient that gradually changes in any one region of the core, the shell, and the entire precursor”; see Abstract “concentration gradient” & “core” & “shell”), wherein the secondary particle precursor includes: particles having a core and a shell surrounding the core (see FIG. 1 “core 1” & “shell 2”), wherein the core has a particle size (D50) of 1 to 5 µm (see [0193] “an average radius of the core 1 was 0.4 µm, an average thickness of the buffer layer was 0.6 µm” which describes diameter of 0.8 µm + buffer layer 0.6 µm which describes at least 1.4 µm which lies within the claimed range) and wherein the secondary particle precursor has a particle size (D50) of 6±2µm (see Table 1 “precursor radius” & 2.025 µm which reads on 4.05 µm diameter which lies within the claimed range).
Regarding the limitations (S2) stirring a result of the step (S1), wherein a first stirring speed of the step (S1) is slower than a second stirring speed of the step (S2), and a concentration of the nitrogen containing chelating agent of the step (S1) is higher than a concentration of the nitrogen containing chelating agent of the step (S2), Lee does not explicitly disclose.
Endo teaches a second stirring (see [0069] “by further continuing stirring after completion of dropwise addition of the raw material aqueous solution, and in this process, particles are formed stepwise into a concentric circular sphere while colliding with one another” & describes “by appropriately selecting a time during which stirring is further continued after completion of dropwise addition of the raw material aqueous solution, coprecipitation precursor core particles having a desired particle size can be obtained”).
Lee and Endo are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely method for production (see Endo Title) and precursor particles (see Endo [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a secondary stirring as suggested by Endo (see [0069]) into the method of Lee because doing so achieves a desired particle size as suggested by Endo (see [0069]).
Regarding the limitation a first stirring step slower than a second stirring step, as required by Claim 14 and wherein the first stirring speed is 800 rpm or less, and the second stirring speed is 1000 rpm or more, as required by Claim 16, Lee does not explicitly disclose. Lee does disclose “a stirring process may be selectively performed to increase the reaction rate during the reaction, and, in this case, a stirring speed may be in a range of 100 rpm to 2,000 rpm” which overlaps the claimed ranges (see [0088]).
Lee discloses a range of 100 rpm to 2,000 rpm (see [0088]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 800 rpm or less and 1000 rpm or more. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Choi teaches in [0044] “in the continuous stirring tank reactor” & “the sphericity of the electrolytic particles can be continuously controlled by controlling the stirring speed in an appropriate range”. Choi teaches “control the particle size and shape of the transition metal compound precursor by appropriately changing the reaction conditions” & “by adjusting the tap density, it was found that the performance of the secondary battery can be further improved” in [0008]).
Xu teaches in [0009] “stirring speed are reduced, causing the primary particles to gradually coarsen”. Xu teaches two different stirring speeds (see [0061] “300 rpm” & see [0058] “380 rpm”).
Lee and Choi are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely preparation method (see Choi Title).
Lee and Xu are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely core shell structures (see Xu Title).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate adjusting the stirring speed, as suggested by Choi ([0044]) and Xu (see [0009], [0061], [0058]) because doing so controls the sphericity of the particles as suggested by Choi (see [0044]), and further doing so controls the particle size and shape and improves the performance of the battery as suggested by Choi (see [0008]).
Regarding the limitation concentration of the nitrogen containing chelating agent of the step (S1) is higher than a concentration of the nitrogen containing chelating agent of the step (S2), Lee does not explicitly disclose, however, Lee discloses in [0084] “ammonium cation-containing complexing agent” & “the amount of the chelating agent used may be reduced” & “as a result, crystallinity of the positive electrode active material may be increased and stabilized”.
Xu teaches “ammonia concentration is controlled at 9-10 g/L” (see [0044]) and “ammonia flow rate was reduced to 25 L/g, and the ammonia concentration was adjusted to 4-5 g/L” (see [0045]) & “ammonia concentration is reduced, making the particle agglomeration more compact” (see [0009]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate reducing the ammonia concentration as suggested by Xu (see [0044], [0045]) into the method of Lee because doing so allows for the particle agglomeration to be more compact as suggested by Xu (see [0009]).
Regarding the limitation and wherein the core has a higher porosity than the shell, Lee describes density difference between the core and the shell during the subsequent heat treatment (see [0172]). Lee discloses “particles constituting the shell have a crystal structure aligned” (see [0172]).
Xu teaches “hollow structure precursor” & “during sintering of the cathode material, because the primary particles of the core and the shell are different, the primary particles of the core are small and loosely agglomerated, and migrate outward first during sintering, while the primary particles of the shell are coarser and more densely agglomerated” (see [0009]). Xu teaches “cathode materials with hollow structures” (see [0071]).
Choi teaches tap density of the precursor is preferably 0.5 g/cc to 2 g/cc (see [0054]).
The specification of the instant application provides evidence that “porosity may be determined by the tap density” on P12 par 2.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the heat treatment disclosed by Lee (see [0172]) forms the porosity gradient because sintering process suggested by Xu forms a dense shell (see [0009]).
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20180013129 A1, “Lee”) in view of Endo (US 20130230775 A1, “Endo”), Choi et al. (KR 20150065046 A, “Choi”) and Xu et al. (CN 111276680 A, “Xu”) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Yu et al. (US 20130202966 A1, “Yu”). The machine translations are used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 15 and claim 17, Lee discloses the method for preparing a secondary particle precursor for a positive electrode active material of claim 14 and further discloses “the amount of the chelating agent used may be reduced in the present invention, in comparison to a conventional case. As a result, crystallinity of the positive electrode active material may be increased and stabilized” (see [0084]) & describes “growing of the nickel manganese cobalt-based composite metal hydroxide particles may be performed by changing the pH of the reactant at a rate of 1/hr to 2.5/hr by controlling the feed rates of the materials added, specifically, the ammonium cation-containing complexing agent and the basic compound” (see [0094]). Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the concentration of the nitrogen containing chelating agent of the step (S1) is 5000 ppm or more, and wherein the concentration of the nitrogen containing chelating agent of the step (S2) is 5000 ppm or less as required by claim 15 nor wherein the concentration of the nitrogen containing chelating agent of the step (S1) is 5000 ppm or more, and the concentration of the nitrogen containing chelating agent of the step (S2) is 4000 ppm or less as required by claim 17.
Yu teaches “concentration of the chelating agent in the batch reactor is reduced during the core layer forming reaction of the step 2” (see [0048]). Yu teaches “if the chelating agent aqueous solution is excessively added, the formed complex may react again with a basic aqueous solution, and the remained chelating agent is changed into an intermediate and may be used as a chelating agent. However, the amount of the core produced in this case may be insufficient” & “if the chelating agent aqueous solution is less added, the amount of the core produced may be low, and it may be resulted to reduction of the yield in the reactor” & “preferred to supply the 2 to 3 mol/L of chelating agent” (see [0043]).
Xu teaches “ammonia concentration is 2-20 g/L” (see [0020]). Xu teaches a range of 2-20 g/L (equivalent to 2000 ppm to 20000 ppm), which overlaps with the claimed range of 5000 ppm or more and 5000 ppm or less. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
A result effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious. MPEP § 2144.05.
Thus, the concentration of chelating agent is a variable that achieves the recognized result of reaction of core produced. That makes the chelating agent concentration a result-effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to routinely experiment with the concentration of the chelating agent and come up with 2000 ppm to 20000 ppm, as suggested by Xu (see [0020]) for the purpose of controlling the reaction of core produced as suggested by Yu ([0048]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 04/01/2026
Prosecution Insights