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.
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.
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 1-4, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 7214449 B2) and further in view of the machine translation of Sone (JP 2018035057 A).
Regarding claim 1, Sato discloses a positive electrode active material (abstract, [cathode active material]) for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (abstract), including: a first lithium-transition metal composite oxide represented by the general formula:
LixNi(1-y-z) CoyMzO2, wherein 0.8 ≤ x ≤ 1.2, 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.2, 0 < z ≤ 0.5, and M represents at least one metal element excluding Li, Ni, and Co (abstract, [second cathode active material]) (column 7, lines 30-31, [second cathode active material, Li1.05Ni0.85Co0.10Mn0.05O2)]
; and a second lithium-transition metal composite oxide (abstract, [a first cathode active material])
Sato does not teach that the second lithium-transition metal composite oxide has at least one diffraction peak having a peak top at a diffraction angle (20) of greater than or equal to 21.400 and less than or equal to 21.650 in a radiation X-ray diffraction (radiation energy 16 keV).
Sone, in the same field of endeavor, lithium metal composite oxides, teaches a lithium-transition metal composite oxide having at least one diffraction peak having a peak top at a diffraction angle (2Θ) of greater than or equal to 21.400 and less than or equal to 21.650 in a radiation X-ray diffraction (radiation energy 16 keV) (Fig. 11, Li0.4Ni1.6O2 – peak of oxide is at a diffraction angle between 20 and 22).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used an LiNiO2 derivative compound as the second oxide material of Sato’s cathode, so that excellent discharge capacity can be imparted to the lithium metal composite oxide powder, as taught by Sone (para. 160, [it is understood that the lithium metal secondary battery can impart excellent discharge capacity to the lithium metal composite oxide powder]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Sato teaches the positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein a content of the second lithium-transition metal composite oxide is in a range of 10 to 40% (Sato, column 5, lines 9-11 [it is preferred that the content of the [[first]] cathode active material in the cathode active material is in the range of from 10 to 40%]) (Sato, Example 9, [[first]] active material was 15%) (Sato, Example 10, [[first]] active material was 25%) (Sato, Example 11, [[first]] active material was 40%).
In optimizing the mass percent of the second composite oxide material, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have arrived at the claimed relative mass percents recited in Claim 2, without undue experimentation.
Regarding claim 3, modified Sato teaches the positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the second lithium-transition metal composite oxide is a composite oxide represented by the general formula LiaNi2-aO2, wherein 0 < a ≤ 0.5 (Sato, Fig. 3, Li0.3Ni1.7O2).
Regarding claim 4, modified Sato teaches the positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the first lithium-transition metal composite oxide contains at least one metal element M selected from the group consisting of Mn (Sato, column 7, lines 30-31, [second cathode active material, Li1.05Ni0.85Co0.10Mn0.05O2).
Regarding claim 7, modified Sato teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (abstract), comprising: a positive electrode including the positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1 (Sato, abstract, [positive electrode] … [first and second cathode active material] as described in claim 1 above); a negative electrode (Sato, abstract); and a non-aqueous electrolyte (Sato, abstract).
Regarding claim 8, modified Sato teaches the positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1.
Modified Sato does not teach wherein the first lithium-transition metal composite oxide contains at least one metal element M selected from the group consisting of W, Mg, Mo, Nb, Ti, Si, Al, Zr, B, Fe, Cu, Zn, Sn, Na, K, Ba, Sr, and Ca.
Example 5 of Sato teaches wherein the first lithium-transition metal composite oxide contains at least one metal element M selected from the group consisting of Al (Sato, column 9, example 5 [and aluminum hydroxide were mixed so that the amounts of lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese, and aluminum became 1.05, 0.85, 0.10, 0.00, and 0.05, respectively, in terms of molar ratio])(Table 1, Example 5, Li1.05Ni0.85Co0.10Al0.05O2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Sato’s metal oxide of Li1.05Ni0.85Co0.10Mn0.05O2 with Sato’s Example 5 metal oxide of Li1.05Ni0.85Co0.10Al0.05O2. Sato teaches that the use of Li1.05Ni0.85Co0.10Al0.05O2 over Li1.05Ni0.85Co0.10Mn0.05O2 leads to an improved capacity retaining ratio after the 150th cycle and suppresses the voltage drop during the output at 20 W at 0° C. (Sato, column 11, lines 28-32).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 7214449 B2) and further in view of the machine translation of Sone (JP 2018035057 A) and Zhu et al. (Zhu, Xian-Jun. “Preparation and characterization of LiNi0.80Co0.20–xAlxO2 as cathode materials for lithium ion batteries.” Journal of Electroceramics, 16 Dec. 2005.)
Regarding claim 5, modified Sato teaches the positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to any one of claim 1.
Modified Sato does not teach wherein the first lithium-transition metal composite oxide has a crystal structure belonging to a space group R3-m.
Zhu, in the same field of endeavor, lithium oxide materials, teaches a lithium nickelate with an R3 crystal structure (pg. 649, second column, second paragraph, [LiNi0.80Co0.15Al0.05O2 … during the charged process, the hexagonal phase changed from R1, … to R3 … ]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have co-doped the lithium nickelate oxide of Sato’s cathode with both cobalt and aluminum, as taught by Zhu, in order to have a structure that can suppress crystallographic phase transitions and decrease the irreversible capacity, as taught by Zhu, (pg. 649, Conclusion paragraph).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 7214449 B2) and further in view of the machine translation of Sone (JP 2018035057 A) and Tanimoto (US 20230178729 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Sato teaches the positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1.
Modified Sato does not teach wherein, onto a particle surface of the first lithium-transition metal composite oxide, a compound containing at least one selected from the group consisting of Sr, Ca, W, Mg, Nb, and Al adheres.
Tanimoto, in the same field of endeavor, cathode active materials, teaches wherein onto a particle surface of the first lithium-transition metal composite oxide (abstract), a compound containing at least one selected from the group consisting of Al and W adheres (para. 0177, [a method in which fine particles of aluminum oxide are allowed to coat and adhere to the surface layer of particles of the positive electrode active material] and [to coat the surface layer of particles of the positive electrode active material with an aluminum compound … In addition to the aluminum compound … tungsten compounds can be used for the surface treatment]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have coated Sato’s cathode, as taught by Tanimoto, in order to apply a surface treatment to the active material particles to protect against metal elution, as taught by Tanimoto (para. 0176 [ in the case of secondary particles composed of Sato particles generally having a small shape, the surface treatment is sometimes performed since there is a possibility that metal elution is caused by hydrogen fluoride due to a large specific surface area thereof]).
Other Pertinent Art
US-20230282821-A1
US-9991566-B2
US-20200403241-A1
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference 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 VERITA E GRANNUM whose telephone number is (571)270-1150. The examiner can normally be reached 10-5 EST / 7-2 PST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/V.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights