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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05-24-2023, 06-04-2024, 09-06-2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0241036 hereinafter Jo in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0243978 hereinafter Shon.
Regarding Claim 1, Jo teaches a positive electrode active material for a secondary battery (paragraphs 21-22), the positive electrode active material comprises a first lithium-nickel oxide particle having an average particle size (D50) of more than 8 µm to 20 µm or less, and a second lithium-nickel oxide particle having an average particle size (D50) of 8 µm or less, and wherein the first lithium-nickel oxide particle has a particle strength of 100 MPa to 250 MPa and the second lithium-nickel oxide particle has a particle strength of 50 MPa to 100 MPa (paragraphs 23, 26-28).
Jo does not specifically disclose that the first lithium transition metal oxide has smaller crystalline size than the second lithium transition metal oxide.
However, Shon teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium battery (paragraph 55), the positive electrode active material comprises secondary particles formed by an agglomeration of primary particles (i.e., by coagulation), and wherein the primary particles have a polycrystalline structure comprising crystal grains of the lithium transition metal oxide (paragraph 65). Shon further teaches that the diameter of the crystal grains (i.e., crystalline size) of the positive electrode active material may be selected by controlling the heat-treatment conditions and that the lower the heat-treating temperature, the smaller the diameter of the crystal grains (paragraph 69).
Shon teaches that the primary particles have a smaller average particle diameter than the secondary particles (paragraphs 67, 74 teach that the smaller average particle diameter material provide smaller diameter of the crystal grains [i.e., different diameter of the crystal grains in the first material and second material]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a first lithium transition metal oxide having different (or smaller) crystalline size than the second lithium transition metal oxide before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Shon discloses that such configuration can improve capacity, high-rate charging/discharging performance, and initial efficiency of the battery (paragraph 70).
Regarding Claim 2, Jo teaches that the first lithium transition metal oxide and the second lithium transition metal oxide each independently have a composition represented by LiNiCoMnO2 (paragraphs 26-27).
Regarding Claim 3, Jo teaches that a weight ratio of the first lithium transition metal oxide to the second lithium transition metal oxide is 8:2 (paragraph 77).
Regarding Claim 4, Jo teaches that a difference in the particle strength between the first lithium transition metal oxide and the second lithium transition metal oxide is in a range of 50 MPa to 200 MPa (see Table 1, Examples 1-4).
Regarding Claims 5 and 8-9, the combination teaches that the diameter of the crystal grains (i.e., crystalline size) of the positive electrode active material may be selected by controlling the heat-treatment conditions and that the lower the heat-treating temperature, the smaller the diameter of the crystal grains (paragraph 69 of Shon). In addition, paragraphs 67, 74 of Shon teach that the smaller average particle diameter material provide smaller diameter of the crystal grains [i.e., different diameter of the crystal grains in the first material and second material] and the first material having a diameter of crystal grain of less than about 40 nm (paragraph 71 of Shon).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a first lithium transition metal oxide having different (or smaller) crystalline size than the second lithium transition metal oxide before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Shon discloses that such configuration can improve capacity, high-rate charging/discharging performance, and initial efficiency of the battery (paragraph 70). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990). Thus, it would have been well within the purview of a skilled artisan to tune or tailor the different crystalline sizes to form the battery with improved characteristics as described above.
Regarding Claims 6-7, Jon teaches that the first lithium-nickel oxide particle has a particle strength of 100 MPa to 250 MPa and the second lithium-nickel oxide particle has a particle strength of 50 MPa to 100 MPa (paragraph 23). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Regarding Claims 10-11, the combination teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode that includes the positive electrode active material as described above (paragraphs 21-22 of Jon).
Regarding Claims 12-15, Jo teaches that the positive electrode active material comprises a first lithium-nickel oxide particle having an average particle size (D50) of more than 8 µm to 20 µm or less, and a second lithium-nickel oxide particle having an average particle size (D50) of 8 µm or less (paragraph 23, see Table 1, Examples 1-4). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2020/0403228 teaches a bimodal lithium transition metal oxide-based powder mixture comprising a first lithium transition metal oxide-based powder and a second lithium transition metal oxide-based powder, wherein the first powder has an average particle size D50 between 10 and 40 µm and the second powder has a D50 between 2 and 4.5 µm (see Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSEI K AMPONSAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 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, NICHOLAS A 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.
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752