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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
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.
Claims 1-21 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (US Pub 2017/0222211 cited in IDS) in view of Song et al. (US Pub 2015/0340689 newly cited).
In regard to claim 1 and 28, Ryu et al. teach a lithium secondary battery comprising an anode, electrolyte (see coin cells created in Examples – paragraphs [0128-0133], electrolytes in paragraphs [0097-0101] including solid electrolytes) and a composite positive active material for a lithium secondary battery, the composite position active material comprising:
a lithium cobalt-based oxide (paragraph [0031]),
a particle coating part in a form of islands on one surface of the lithium cobalt- based oxide (paragraph [0029] – “surface modifying layer including a lithium compound discontinuously distributed” in the form of islands), the particle coating part comprising a first coating layer containing a lithium titanium-based oxide (paragraphs [0047-0048]), and
a lithium deficient cobalt oxide phase (lithium deficient second lithium cobalt oxide A with an overall lithium ratio of 0.95 for example, close enough to the claimed range that a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the same properties, see MPEP 2144.05) composed in an inner portion of the lithium cobalt-based oxide corresponding to the particle coating portion (paragraphs [0039-0042]).
Additionally, Ryu et al. teach the presence of both layered and spinel structure lithium cobalt oxide (see figure 2, paragraph [0127]), i.e. there are different phases and composition of lithium cobalt oxide within the particles of the prior art. A person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that spinel structured lithium cobalt oxide would have local regions with a composition such as LiCo2O4 which may also correspond to the claimed “lithium-deficient cobalt oxide phase having a molar ratio of lithium to cobalt of 0.9 or less”.
Claim 1 differs from Ryu et al. in calling for a first lithium zirconium-based oxide spaced apart from a surface of the lithium cobalt-based oxide toward a center of the lithium cobalt-based oxide. However, Song et al. teach a similar composite cathode material for a lithium ion battery including primary particles of a lithium cobalt oxide core 11 (paragraph [0068]) with island shaped surface modification portions (see figure 3B) coating layers 12 and 13, and the desirability to further include nanometer size ZrO2 particles (which appear as dots) dispersed in a lithium conductive medium in the coating layer paced apart from a surface of the lithium cobalt-based oxide toward a center of the lithium cobalt-based oxide (see paragraphs [0122-0125], figures 2 and 3) because such improves the lifespan and electrochemical properties of the cathode active materials (paragraphs [0036-0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention filed to include a lithium zirconium oxide particle dispersed in the coating layers in the cathode active material particles of Ryu et al. in order to improve the lifespan and electrochemical properties of the cathode active materials as taught by Song et al. As the layers of Song et al. are formed as a composite under high heat treatments the zirconium oxide of the prior art is reasonably expected to include or be considered lithium zirconium oxide as the zirconium oxide of Song et al. is intended to be encased in a layer which is lithium ion conductive (paragraph [0036]) and is formed in conjunction with excess lithium remaining on the core (paragraph [0039]).
In regard to claims 2-4, Ryu et al. teach the composite positive active material of claim 1 and wherein the first lithium cobalt oxide represented by LiCoMxO2 and an amount of M which may be dopant of aluminum and magnesium may be included (Mx where x may be up to 0.02, i.e. 20,000 ppm – paragraphs [0031-0036]) up to 20,000 ppm in the lithium cobalt-based oxide which overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
In regard to claim 5, 12 and 15, Ryu et al. teach wherein a surface coating portion (see A) Fd3m spinel phase in Figure 2) is on an inner portion of another surface of the lithium cobalt-based oxide, and the surface coating portion comprises a third coating layer having a spinel crystalline structure and the lithium- deficient cobalt oxide phase has a spinel crystalline structure, the lithium-deficient cobalt oxide phase is present in a portion within 100 nm from an outermost surface of the lithium cobalt-based oxide (see figure 2, paragraph [0127] – various crystal phases corresponding to the claimed coating layers).
In regard to claim 6, Song et al. teach the particle coating portion further comprises a second coating layer 13, and the second coating layer is on the first coating layer 12 (islands) and comprises some of the lithium zirconium-based oxide (figure 2 and 3, paragraph [0122]). Ryu et al. teach the particle coating part may further comprise a second coating layer, and the second coating layer is on the first coating layer and comprises lithium zirconium-based oxide (see lithium compound produced via reaction of the surface treating agent containing Zr and the lithium cobalt oxide – paragraphs [0047] – note all the layers of the prior art are considered “on” each other) which may include Zr instead of Ti in a manner which obviates the claimed Formula 2.
In regard to claim 7, Song et al. teach the content of the zirconium precursors are provided in an amount such as 0.01 to 2 mol percent based on the core (paragraph [0094]) which is taken to overlap the claimed range for weight parts in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
In regard to claim 8 and 11, Song et al. teach the first and second lithium zirconium-based oxide comprises zirconium oxide (see paragraphs [0037]) which is formed with excess lithium from the core (paragraph [0039]) and therefore some proportion of lithium zirconium oxide of the claimed formulas is taken to be formed in the layered structure.
In regard to claim 9, Song et al. teach the inner portion is in contact with the particle coating portion, and the first lithium zirconium-based oxide is present in a particle state at a position spaced apart from the inner portion (figures 3a and 3b – paragraphs [0125]).
In regard to claim 10, Song et al. teach the first lithium zirconium-based oxide is present within 1-10 nm from a surface of the lithium cobalt-based oxide (figure 3A and 3B– paragraph [0125]).
In regard to claim 13, Ryu et al. teach the lithium-deficient cobalt oxide phases which overlaps the claimed ranges in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05):
PNG
media_image1.png
218
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 14, Ryu et al. teach the lithium titanium-based oxide is a compound represented by a formula such as Li2TiO3 which may further include Zr or Mg and has reactivity with the lithium deficient structure (paragraphs [0047-0048]) and is therefore presumed to include some amount of Co in a manner which obviates the claimed formula 1 as such overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
In regard to claim 16, Ryu et al. teach a content of the lithium cobalt-based oxide A (lithium deficient oxide) is dependent on the amount of lithium reactive surface treatment agent is used during formation of the cathode material, where 50 to 50,000 ppm or 0.01 to 0.5 parts by weight relative to the first lithium cobalt oxide should be used (paragraphs [0073-0074]) which obviates the claimed amount of lithium cobalt oxide A as such overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
In regard to claim 17, Ryu et al. teach the lithium cobalt-based oxide is a compound represented by formula 1 in paragraph [0031-0032] which obviates the claimed lithium cobalt oxide as such overlaps the claimed ranges in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
In regard to claim 18, Ryu et al. teach varying the amount of lithium reactive element (such as Zr or Mg which forms the lithium deficient cobalt oxide A) in an amount between 50 and 50,000ppm (paragraph [0049], i.e. .05 parts by weight) and varying a thickness of the surface coating part from 1 to 100nm (paragraph [0053]) which overlaps the claimed range for the amount of lithium cobalt-based oxide A, amount of the titanium based oxide and/or an amount of zirconium based oxide in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
In regard to claims 19-21, Ryu et al. teach the lithium cobalt-based oxide is in a form of particles with a D50 of 3–50-micron particles, preferably 10-50 micron (i.e. unimodal large particles and/or mixture of small and large particles – paragraph [0057]) in a manner which obviates the claimed particle distributions i.e. comprising mostly large particles by weight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US PG Pub 2014/0045067 and 2018/0248179 teach cathode materials relevant to the claimed invention.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas P D'Aniello whose telephone number is (571)270-3635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm 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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723