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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains more than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Susai et al. (NPL: "Stabilized Behavior of LiNi0.85Co0.10Mn0.05O2 Cathode Materials Induced by Their Treatment with SO2") (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Susai discloses a preparation method of a layered positive electrode material (title; abstract), comprising the steps of: mixing a layered nickel-cobalt-manganese hydroxide (transition-metal oxyhydroxide precursor containing Ni, Co, and Mn) with a lithium source (LiOH monohydrate), performing a primary sintering in an oxygen atmosphere (heated to 760oC and kept for 10 h under a continuous gas flow of 60% oxygen), crushing (deagglomerated) and screening (sieved through a 32 µm mech) to obtain a primary sintered product (final NCM85 cathode active material) (see section 2.1 under Experimental Methods); performing a secondary sintering on the primary sintered product in a sulfur dioxide atmosphere (SO2 gas treatment at 400oC) to obtain the layered positive electrode material (see section 2.2 and Table 1 under Experimental Methods). Susai further discloses that the layered nickel-cobalt-manganese hydroxide was prepared by a coprecipitation reaction of a transition-metal sulfate solution containing Ni, Co, and Mn in a molar ratio of 8.5:1.0:0.5 with an aqueous sodium hydroxide solution (see section 2.1 under Experimental Methods). Examiner notes that this coprecipitation reaction would lead to a chemical formula of Ni0.85Co0.10Mn0.05(OH)2, which reads on the claimed formula NiaCobMnc(OH)2, wherein 0.3
≤
a
≤
0.95, 0.03
≤
b
≤
0.12, 0.01
≤
c
≤
0.10, a+b+c=1. Thus, Susai reads on all of the limitations in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Susai discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Susai further discloses that a molar ratio of the layered nickel-cobalt-manganese hydroxide to lithium in the lithium source ((TM)/Li) of is 1:1.03 (see section 2.1 under Experimental Methods), reading on the claimed range of 1:(1.02-1.09). Susai further discloses that the lithium source comprises lithium hydroxide (LiOH monohydrate) (see section 2.1 under Experimental Methods). Thus, Susai reads on all of the limitations in claim 2.
Regarding claim 9, Susai discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Susai further discloses a layered positive electrode material, which is prepared by the preparation method of a layered positive electrode material according to claim 1, wherein a chemical formula of the layered positive electrode material is LiNi0.85Co0.10Mn0.05O2 (title; abstract; see sections 2.1 and 2.2 of Experimental Methods), reading on the claimed formula Lix(NiaCobMnc)O2, wherein 1.00
≤
X
≤
1.12, 0.3
≤
a
≤
0.95, 0.03
≤
b
≤
0.12, 0.01
≤
c
≤
0.10, a+b+c=1.
Regarding claim 10, Susai discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 9. Susai further discloses that a lithium-ion battery comprising the layered positive electrode material according to claim 9 (title; abstract).
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (CN 111916724 with English Machine Translation) in view of Ding (CN 108899508 with English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Cao discloses a preparation method of a layered positive electrode material (title; abstract), comprising the steps of: mixing a layered nickel-cobalt-manganese hydroxide (Ni0.8Co0.1Mn0.1(OH)2) with a lithium source (lithium hydroxide) ([0009]; [0080]), performing a primary sintering in an oxygen atmosphere, crushing, and screening (sieving) to obtain a primary sintered product ([0023]; [0080]); performing a secondary sintering on the primary sintered product in a carbon dioxide atmosphere to obtain the layered positive electrode material ([0040]; [0081]); wherein, a chemical formula of the layered nickel-cobalt-manganese hydroxide is Ni0.8Co0.1Mn0.1(OH)2 ([0080]), which suggests the claimed formula NiaCobMnc(OH)2, wherein 0.3
≤
a
≤
0.95, 0.03
≤
b
≤
0.12, 0.01
≤
c
≤
0.10, a+b+c=1. Cao further discloses that the carbon dioxide atmosphere in the secondary sintering is designed to reduce the surface residual alkali of the layered positive electrode material ([0072]). Cao fails to explicitly disclose, however, that the secondary sintering is performed in an atmosphere of sulfur dioxide.
However, sulfur dioxide is a known alternative to carbon dioxide for the purpose of reducing surface residual alkali, both of the gases being acidic. For instance, Ding teaches a similar preparation method of a layered positive electrode material (title; abstract), wherein a ternary cathode composite material is transferred to a furnace and gas modified with an acidic gas in order to reduce the residual alkali content ([0013]; [0020]; [0049]). Ding further teaches that the acidic gas can be any one of sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen sulfide ([0019]), and Ding specifically mentions that sulfur dioxide gas can lead to reduced residual alkali content and improved rate performance and safety performance ([0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the secondary sintering step disclosed by Cao to be performed in a sulfur dioxide atmosphere instead of a carbon dioxide atmosphere, as suggested by Ding, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would lead to a reduction in residual alkali content and improved rate performance and safety performance.
Regarding claim 2, modified Cao discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Cao further discloses that a molar ratio of the layered nickel-cobalt-manganese hydroxide to lithium in the lithium source is 1:(0.90-1.10) (Cao: [0012]; [0064]; [0080]), encompassing the claimed ratio of 1:(1.02-1.09). A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Cao to have satisfied the claimed range based on the encompassing range disclosed by modified Cao.
Regarding claim 4, modified Cao discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Cao further discloses that the temperature of the primary sintering is 700-1,000oC (Cao: [0027]), encompassing the claimed range of 850-950oC. Modified Cao further discloses that the time of the primary sintering is 6-30 hours (Cao: [0029]), encompassing the claimed range of 10-18 h. A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Cao to have satisfied the claimed ranges based on the encompassing ranges disclosed by modified Cao.
Regarding claim 6, modified Cao discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Cao further discloses that a heating rate of the secondary sintering is 3-10oC/min ([0049]), overlapping the claimed range of 2-5oC/min. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Cao to have satisfied the claimed range based on the overlapping range disclosed by modified Cao.
Regarding claim 7, modified Cao discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Cao further discloses that a temperature of the secondary sintering is 300-800oC ([0048]), encompassing the claimed range of 300-600oC. A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05. Modified Cao further discloses that a time of the secondary sintering is 6-24 hours ([0050]), overlapping the claimed range of 5-8 h. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Cao to have satisfied the claimed ranges based on the encompassing and overlapping ranges disclosed by modified Cao.
Regarding claim 9, modified Cao discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Cao further discloses a layered positive electrode material which is prepared by the preparation method according to claim 1 ([0067]; [0080]), wherein a chemical formula of the layered positive electrode material is LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 ([0080]), suggesting the claimed formula Lix(NiaCobMnc)O2, wherein 1.00
≤
X
≤
1.12, 0.3
≤
a
≤
0.95, 0.03
≤
b
≤
0.12, 0.01
≤
c
≤
0.10, a+b+c=1.
Regarding claim 10, modified Cao discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 9. Modified Cao further discloses a lithium-ion battery comprising the layered positive electrode material according to claim 9 ([0002]; [0095]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (CN 111916724 with English Machine Translation) in view of Ding (CN 108899508 with English Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu (CN 105977466 with English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 3, modified Cao discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Cao fails to explicitly disclose, however, a flow rate of oxygen in the primary sintering step.
However, the claimed flow rate is conventional in the art. For instance, Liu teaches a similar preparation method of a layered positive electrode material (title; abstract), comprising the steps of: mixing a layered nickel-cobalt-manganese hydroxide with a lithium source and performing a sintering in an oxygen atmosphere ([0016]-[0018]; [0021]). Liu further teaches that a flow rate of oxygen in the sintering step is preferably 3-10 L/min ([0025]), suggesting the claimed flow rate range. Liu further teaches that such a sintering step is effective in obtaining the active substrate for the positive electrode material ([0018]; [0021]; [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the primary sintering step disclosed by modified Cao to have the claimed oxygen flow rate, as taught by Liu, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would be effective in obtaining the primary sintered product.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (CN 111916724 with English Machine Translation) in view of Ding (CN 108899508 with English Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jia (CN 112449748 with English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 5, modified Cao discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Modified Cao fails to explicitly disclose, however, a flow rate of sulfur dioxide in the secondary sintering step.
However, the claimed flow rate is conventional in the art. For instance, Jia teaches a similar preparation method of a layered positive electrode material (title; abstract), wherein the positive electrode material is surface treated with a sulfur source gas in order to reduce the residual alkali amount on the material surface (abstract; [0026]; [0029]; [0033]). Jia further teaches that a flow rate of the sulfur source gas is 1-5 L/min ([0034]), overlapping the claimed range of 5-15 L/min. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Jia further teaches that this flow rate prevents the accumulation of lithium sulfide on the particle surface while also preventing any residual alkali from remaining on the surface ([0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the flow rate of sulfur dioxide in the secondary sintering step disclosed by modified Cao to have the claimed flow rate, as taught by Jia, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would prevent the accumulation of lithium sulfide on the particle surface while also preventing any residual alkali from remaining on the surface.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (CN 111916724 with English Machine Translation) in view of Ding (CN 108899508 with English Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu (CN 105977466 with English Machine Translation) and Jia (CN 112449748 with English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 8, modified Cao in view of Liu and Jia discloses all of the limitations in claim 8 as set forth above for claims 1-7, which include all of the limitations in claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDON C DARBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at (571) 270-5545. 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.
/B.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749