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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I in the reply filed on 02/04/2026 is acknowledged.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng et al (‘Improving the cycling performance of LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 by surface coating with Li2TiO3, 2016), and further in view of CN104937756, hereinafter as ‘756.
Regarding claim 1, 10-11, Meng et al teaches a positive electrode active material for lithium secondary battery comprising LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 (abstract). Also, Meng et al teaches the XPS spectrum of fig 4a showing the peak height of Titanium and Carbon being comparable in magnitude where Cx/Cy approximate equals 1 and X is Ti.
Meng et al teaches the claimed limitation, but Meng et al does not teach 0<Cy/Cz≤100 where Cz is the present amount of said carbon atoms obtained by determination using combustion-infrared absorption method.
‘756 teaches a positive electrode active material-graphene composite particle ( abstract technical field section). ‘756 teaches the composite particles of the present invention are characterized in that, a value obtained by dividing the proportion (%) of the carbon element on the surface of the material by the proportion (%) of the carbon element on the whole of the material is greater than or equal to 1.5 and less than or equal to 7 (abstract para 3 of means for solving problem section) which refers to a state in which the matrix is not excessively exposed to the surface because the matrix is partly inside the composite particles. When this value is less than 1.5, the matrix is excessively biased inside the composite particle and assumes a state in which electron acceptance between the composite particle and the outside becomes difficult, and is not preferable. In order to facilitate the electron transfer from the composite particles and the outside, the value is more preferably 2 or more In addition, when this value is greater than 7, the matrix is biased at the surface of the composite particles, and entry of lithium ions into the composite particles is hindered, and is not preferred. In order to allow lithium ions to easily enter and exit inside the composite particles, the value is more preferably 6 or less (para 3 of the effect of this invention section). Thus, ‘756 teaches by controlling the carbon content of the material surface and controlling the proportional relationship of the surface carbon content and the overall carbon content to guarantee the transport of lithium ions.
Also, the proportion of carbon elements at the surface of the composite particles can be determined by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, the mass ratio of the carbon element contained in the composite particles of the present invention can be quantified using a carbon-sulfur analysis device in which the compounding is heated in air using high frequency to completely oxidize the contained carbon, and infrared rays are used to detect the carbon dioxide produced (Para 7 of Details way section). In the instant application, Para 67 shows that the combustion-infrared absorption method is performed by heating and combusting cathode positive material to a predetermined temperature in an oxygen stream in a tubular electric resistance furnace.
The court has held that absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results, optimization of a result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP §2144.05.
Therefore, absent the showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of the carbon as taught by Meng et al to arrive claimed range such that Cy/Cz ≤100 as taught by ‘756 for increasing the output of the lithium-ion secondary battery and improving the electron conductivity and the ion conductivity for the positive electrode active material ( para 7-8 of problem to be solved by the invention section).
Regarding claim 2, 23, Meng et al teaches a positive electrode active material for lithium secondary battery comprising LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 (abstract). Also, Meng et al teaches the XPS spectrum of fig 4a show that the peak height of Titanium and Carbon were comparable in magnitude where Cx/Cy approximate equals 1 and X is Ti.
Meng et al teaches the claimed limitation, but Meng et al does not teach 0<Cy/Cz≤500 where Cz is the present amount of said carbon atoms obtained by determination using combustion-infrared absorption method.
‘756 teaches a positive electrode active material-graphene composite particle ( abstract technical field section). ‘756 teaches the composite particles of the present invention are characterized in that, a value obtained by dividing the proportion (%) of the carbon element on the surface of the material by the proportion (%) of the carbon element on the whole of the material is greater than or equal to 1.5 and less than or equal to 7 (abstract para 3 of means for solving problem section) which refers to a state in which the matrix is not excessively exposed to the surface because the matrix is partly inside the composite particles. When this value is less than 1.5, the matrix is excessively biased inside the composite particle and assumes a state in which electron acceptance between the composite particle and the outside becomes difficult, and is not preferable. In order to facilitate the electron transfer from the composite particles and the outside, the value is more preferably 2 or more In addition, when this value is greater than 7, the matrix is biased at the surface of the composite particles, and entry of lithium ions into the composite particles is hindered, and is not preferred. In order to allow lithium ions to easily enter and exit inside the composite particles, the value is more preferably 6 or less (para 3 of the effect of this invention section). Thus, ‘756 teaches by controlling the carbon content of the material surface and controlling the proportional relationship of the surface carbon content and the overall carbon content to guarantee the transport of lithium ions.
Also, the proportion of carbon elements at the surface of the composite particles can be determined by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, the mass ratio of the carbon element contained in the composite particles of the present invention can be quantified using a carbon-sulfur analysis device in which the compounding is heated in air using high frequency to completely oxidize the contained carbon, and infrared rays are used to detect the carbon dioxide produced (Details way section). In the instant application, Para 67 shows that the combustion-infrared absorption method is performed by heating and combusting cathode positive material to a predetermined temperature in an oxygen stream in a tubular electric resistance furnace.
The court has held that absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results, optimization of a result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP §2144.05.
Therefore, absent the showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of the carbon as taught by Meng et al to arrive claimed range such that 0<Cy/Cz ≤500 as taught by ‘756 for increasing the output of the lithium-ion secondary battery and improving the electron conductivity and the ion conductivity for the positive electrode active material ( para 7-8 of problem to be solved by the invention section).
Regarding claim 3, 16, modified Meng et al the claimed limitation, but Meng et al does not teach Cy.
‘756 teaches a positive electrode active material-graphene composite particle ( abstract technical field section). ‘756 teaches the composite particles of the present invention are characterized in that, a value obtained by dividing the proportion (%) of the carbon element on the surface of the material by the proportion (%) of the carbon element on the whole of the material is greater than or equal to 1.5 and less than or equal to 7 (abstract para 3 of means for solving problem section) which refers to a state in which the matrix is not excessively exposed to the surface because the matrix is partly inside the composite particles. When this value is less than 1.5, the matrix is excessively biased inside the composite particle and assumes a state in which electron acceptance between the composite particle and the outside becomes difficult, and is not preferable. In order to facilitate the electron transfer from the composite particles and the outside, the value is more preferably 2 or more In addition, when this value is greater than 7, the matrix is biased at the surface of the composite particles, and entry of lithium ions into the composite particles is hindered, and is not preferred. In order to allow lithium ions to easily enter and exit inside the composite particles, the value is more preferably 6 or less (para 3 of the effect of this invention section). Thus, ‘756 teaches by controlling the carbon content of the material surface and controlling the proportional relationship of the surface carbon content and the overall carbon content to guarantee the transport of lithium ions.
The court has held that absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results, optimization of a result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP §2144.05.
Therefore, absent the showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of the carbon as taught by modified Meng et al to arrive claimed range such that 0<Cy ≤50 as taught by ‘756 for increasing the output of the lithium-ion secondary battery and improving the electron conductivity and the ion conductivity for the positive electrode active material ( para 7-8 of problem to be solved by the invention section).
Regarding claim 4-5, 17-18, modified Meng et al the claimed limitation, but Meng et al does not tech Cz.
‘756 teaches a positive electrode active material-graphene composite particle ( abstract technical field section). ‘756 teaches the composite particles of the present invention are characterized in that, a value obtained by dividing the proportion (%) of the carbon element on the surface of the material by the proportion (%) of the carbon element on the whole of the material is greater than or equal to 1.5 and less than or equal to 7 (abstract para 3 of means for solving problem section) which refers to a state in which the matrix is not excessively exposed to the surface because the matrix is partly inside the composite particles. When this value is less than 1.5, the matrix is excessively biased inside the composite particle and assumes a state in which electron acceptance between the composite particle and the outside becomes difficult, and is not preferable. In order to facilitate the electron transfer from the composite particles and the outside, the value is more preferably 2 or more In addition, when this value is greater than 7, the matrix is biased at the surface of the composite particles, and entry of lithium ions into the composite particles is hindered, and is not preferred. In order to allow lithium ions to easily enter and exit inside the composite particles, the value is more preferably 6 or less (para 3 of the effect of this invention section). Thus, ‘756 teaches by controlling the carbon content of the material surface and controlling the proportional relationship of the surface carbon content and the overall carbon content to guarantee the transport of lithium ions.
The court has held that absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results, optimization of a result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP §2144.05.
Therefore, absent the showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust Cz as taught by modified Meng et al to arrive claimed range as taught by ‘756 for increasing the output of the lithium-ion secondary battery and improving the electron conductivity and the ion conductivity for the positive electrode active material ( para 7-8 of problem to be solved by the invention section).
Regarding claim 6 and 19, modified Meng et al teaches the proportion of carbon elements at the surface, that is, the proportion of the number of carbon atoms in the surface atoms of the composite particles is preferably 50% or less, more preferably the proportion of carbon elements at the surface of the composite particles is 30% or less, further preferably 20% or less; the carbon element proportion of the composite particles as a whole is preferably 2% or more and 10% or less which overlapped the claimed range.
Regarding claim 7 and 20, modified Meng et al teaches LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 and further contain carbon [abstract]
Regarding claim 8 and 21, modified Meng et al teaches Li2Ti03 and LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 with complex phase containing element X.
Regarding claim 9, 22, since modified Meng et al teaches the claimed structure and material, it is considered that a BET specific area is 2.0m2/g or less. It is noted that "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN M TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at 5712721307. 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.
/UYEN M TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights