DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed 03/31/2023 and 02/04/2025 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-4, 6-11, 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2020/0350579 to Lee (Lee) in view of US 2020/0403246 to Takeda (Takeda)
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Lee discloses a positive electrode and a battery (re claim 8), comprising: a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode active substance layer located on at least a part of one surface or two surfaces of the positive electrode current collector (Abstract), the positive electrode active substance layer comprises a positive electrode material comprising a lithium transition metal oxide particle represented by Formula 2 (LiaNi1-x-yCoxMnyMzOb , 0.5≤ a≤1,3, 1.9≤b 2.1, 0≤x≤0.4, 0≤y≤0.4, 0≤x+y≤0.4 and 0≤z≤0.2, M one or more elements selected from Al, Mg, Zr, and B, re claims 2,9). In addition. Lee teaches based on density of the positive electrode material that an amount of said material affects amount of CO2 generated by the reaction between said cathode material and electrolyte solutions and can be decreased (para 46-49). Lee does not expressly disclose wherein a mass percentage of element Li of the positive electrode in the positive electrode active substance layer as tested using an inductively coupled plasma spectrometer (ICP) ranges from 1.45% to 1.55%, an integral intensity of CO2 obtained by testing the positive electrode using a differential electrochemical mass spectrometry is Q<2000 nmol/mg.
Takeda teaches current collector for electrical storage device includes a sheet-shaped conductive substrate and a coating layer disposed on one or both sides of the conductive substrate (Abstract). Takeda also teaches that a coating weigh of the protective layer is in the range from 0.1 g/m2 to 0.5 g/m2 and said layer prevents the current collector from corrosion (para 76). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to find a suitable coating weight (and therefore amount) of the positive electrode active substance layer of Lee within the range disclosed by Takeda because in order to minimize amount the active substance layer without corrosion of the current collector.
Since modified Lee discloses the cathode active material substantially similar to that of the instant application (Lee, para 71) and the coating weight encompasses claimed value (Takeda para 46) the claimed percentage of Li and amount of CO2 are inherently present. MPEP 2112 V states that "once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the Examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show an unobvious difference."
Regarding claims 3 and 10, modified Lee discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claims 1 and 8 and incorporated therein, including compound of Formula 2 LiaNi1-x-yCoxMnyMzOb , 0.5≤ a≤1,3, 1.9≤b 2.1, 0≤x≤0.4, 0≤y≤0.4, 0≤x+y≤0.4 and 0≤z≤0.2, M one or more elements selected from Al, Mg, Zr, and B. Modified Lee does not expressly disclose wherein a mass percentage of element Zr in the positive electrode material is greater than or equal to that of element B, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was file to adjust amount of Zr and B, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233(MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, modified Lee discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claims 1 and 8 and incorporated therein. In addition, Lee discloses a compacted density of 3.3 g/cc (para 136). It is noted that a specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range. See MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, modified Lee discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claims 1 and 8 and incorporated therein. Regarding the limitation: “an elongation of the positive electrode material is less than or equal to 1%” since the positive electrode material of modified Lee is substantially similar to that as claimed, the above mentioned property is inherently present. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and thus, the claimed property (i.e. the specific output energy density), is necessarily present in the prior art material. The courts have held that “[p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” 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. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 15, modified Lee discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 8 and incorporated therein. Regarding the limitation: “the N-th cycle is present during cycling of the electrochemical apparatus at 450C, wherein N>400, a capacity retention rate P(N-3) after the (N-3)-th cycle and a capacity retention rate P(N+3) after the (N+3)-th cycle satisfy P(N-3)-P(N+3)>10%, and a volume swelling rate of the electrochemical apparatus after the N-th cycle is less than 10%”:Applicant sets forth the manner in which the claimed apparatus operates. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP § 2114. In the instant case, modified Lee discloses all structural limitation of the electrochemical device as claimed and as such, is fully capable of perform claimed functions Therefore, the instantly claimed apparatus is unpatentable over the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses an electronic device (electric vehicle nessarely having electronic devices , para 3) powered by a battery (Title, Abstract) comprising a positive electrode and a battery comprising: a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode active substance layer located on at least a part of one surface or two surfaces of the positive electrode current collector (Abstract), the positive electrode active substance layer comprises a positive electrode material comprising a lithium transition metal oxide particle represented by Formula 2 (LiaNi1-x-yCoxMnyMzOb , 0.5≤ a≤1,3, 1.9≤b 2.1, 0≤x≤0.4, 0≤y≤0.4, 0≤x+y≤0.4 and 0≤z≤0.2, M one or more elements selected from Al, Mg, Zr, and B). In addition. Lee teaches based on density of the positive electrode material that an amount of said material affects amount of CO2 generated by the reaction between said cathode material and electrolyte solutions and can be decreased (para 46-49). Lee does not expressly disclose wherein a mass percentage of element Li of the positive electrode in the positive electrode active substance layer as tested using an inductively coupled plasma spectrometer (ICP) ranges from 1.45% to 1.55%, an integral intensity of CO2 obtained by testing the positive electrode using a differential electrochemical mass spectrometry is Q<2000 nmol/mg.
Takeda teaches an electronic device laptop computers, mobile phones, power tools, electronic communication devices, para 3) powered by a battery and comprising current collector which includes a sheet-shaped conductive substrate and a coating layer disposed on one or both sides of the conductive substrate (Abstract). Takeda also teaches that a coating weigh of the protective layer is in the range from 0.1 g/m2 to 0.5 g/m2 and said layer prevents the current collector from corrosion (para 76). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to find a suitable coating weight (and therefore amount) of the positive electrode active substance layer of Lee within the range disclosed by Takeda because in order to minimize amount the active substance layer without corrosion of the current collector.
Since modified Lee discloses the cathode active material substantially similar to that of the instant application (Lee, para 71) and the coating weight encompasses claimed value (Takeda para 46) the claimed percentage of Li and amount of CO2 are inherently present. MPEP 2112 V states that "once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the Examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show an unobvious difference."
Regarding claim 17, modified Lee discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 16 and incorporated therein. Regarding the limitation: “the N-th cycle is present during cycling of the electrochemical apparatus at 450C, wherein N>400, a capacity retention rate P(N-3) after the (N-3)-th cycle and a capacity retention rate P(N+3) after the (N+3)-th cycle satisfy P(N-3)-P(N+3)>10%, and a volume swelling rate of the electrochemical apparatus after the N-th cycle is less than 10%”:Applicant sets forth the manner in which the claimed apparatus operates. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP § 2114. In the instant case, modified Lee discloses all structural limitation of the electrochemical device as claimed and as such, is fully capable of perform claimed functions Therefore, the instantly claimed apparatus is unpatentable over the cited prior art.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2020/0350579 to Lee in view of US 2020/0403246 to Takeda and further in view of US 20210280848 to Liu (Liu).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, modified Lee discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claims 1 and 8 and incorporated therein. Modified Le does not expressly disclose wherein the positive electrode material comprises primary particles wherein the positive electrode material comprises primary particles, wherein an average particle size of the primary particles ranges from 1.5 µm to 2.5 µm.
Liu teaches a positive electrode material includes secondary particles formed from primary particles represented by following Formula LixNiyM1zM2uO2 wherein M1l is selected from the group consisting of Co, Mn, Al, and any combination thereof, and M2 is selected from the group consisting of Sc, V, Cr, Fe, Cu, Zn, Y, Zr, Nb, Mo, Tc, Ru, Rh, Pd, Ag, Cd, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Pm, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu, Mg, Ti, and any combination thereof (claim 15). Liu also teaches an average particle size of the primary particles of the positive electrode material is 0.5μm to 3 μm and that an average particle size range of the primary particles of the positive electrode material makes it easier for the secondary particles to form soft agglomerates, thereby improving the cycle performance of the electrochemical device (para 40).It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode material of modified Lee with the primary particles having size based on range disclosed by Lui in order to make it easier for the secondary particles to form soft agglomerates, thereby improving the cycle performance of the electrochemical device (para 40).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 11 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record- US 2020/0350579, US 20210280848, US 2021/0367236 fail to teach or suggest each and every limitation of claims 4 and 11. Specifically, US 2021/0367236 teaches a cathode active material comprising primary particles and secondary particles, wherein Dv50 of the secondary particles is greater than 1.5 times Dv50 of the primary particles, (Table 2, Example 1) but does not expressly disclose wherein a full width at half maximum FWHM1 of a diffraction peak of plane (003) in an X-ray diffraction spectrum of the secondary particles satisfies 0.140°<FWHM<0.25° and a full width at half maximum FWHM2 of a diffraction peak of plane (003) in an X-ray diffraction spectrum of the primary particles satisfies 0.12°<FWHM2<0.1 as well as a content of Li from 1.45% to 1.55 when it measured by ICP. US 2021/0280848 positive electrode material includes secondary particles and formed from primary particles, Dv50 for secondary particles but does not expressly disclose wherein a full width at half maximum FWHM of a diffraction peak of plane (003) in an X-ray diffraction spectrum of the secondary particles satisfies 0.140°<FWHM1<0.25°;and a full width at half maximum FWHM2 of a diffraction peak of plane (003) in an X-ray diffraction spectrum of the primary particles satisfies 0.12°<FWHM2<0.1 as well as a content of Li from 1.45% to 1.55 when it measured by ICP.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER USYATINSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-7703. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/Alexander Usyatinsky/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751