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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the positive electrode active material comprises a region where distribution of magnesium is closer to the surface than distribution of aluminum”. It is unclear what is meant by this since a distribution doesn’t have a location allowing one to determine whether one distribution is closer to a particular point compared to another distribution. Although the recitation could mean many things, such as requiring the deepest portion of the particle containing aluminum to be deeper than the deepest portion of the particle containing magnesium, for examination purposes the Office will construe this term as requiring the peak of the magnesium distribution to be closer to the surface than the peak of the aluminum distribution. None of claims 3-5 which depend from claim 2 cure this ambiguity, thus they are indefinite for the same reason.
Claim 11 recites “wherein a concentration peak of aluminum is positioned deeper than a concentration peak of magnesium” without giving any context to understand what is meant by “deeper”. It is unclear if this refers to a position of the peak within the particle (and if so, deeper relative to what point), or if it refers to a magnitude of the peak itself. Claims 12-20 depend from claim 11 and fail to clarify this ambiguity and thus are indefinite for this same reason.
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) 1-5, 8-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0145317 to Momma at al. (“Momma”). Regarding claims 1, 2, 8-12, and 18-20, Momma discloses positive electrode active material for use in lithium ion batteries, the batteries to be used in various electronic devices including electric vehicles. Momma at Abstract and paragraph [0004]. The active material includes a first innermost region comprised of lithium transition metal oxide, including lithium nickel cobalt oxide material, a second region at least partially coating the first region comprising aluminum in addition to the lithium transition metal oxide, and a third region at least partially coating the second region comprising magnesium and oxygen. Id. at paragraphs [0059], [0063], [0069], and [0075].
More particularly, the peak concentration of magnesium is closer to the surface of the particle than a peak concentration of aluminum, with the magnesium peak falling in the range of 0.5 to 3nm deep from the surface and the aluminum peak concentration falling in the range of 0.5 to 20nm deep from the surface, such that both aluminum and magnesium are included in the outer 50nm surface region of the particles. Id. at paragraphs [0087], [0092], and [0093]. The purpose disclosed in Momma for including the aluminum and magnesium in this manner is to improve the cycle characteristics of the battery by stabilizing the layer rock-salt crystal structure of the particles. Id.
The electrolyte system of the batteries using this active material include a solvent, which may include two or more solvents selected from a group that includes ethylene carbonate (EC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC) and ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC). Id. at paragraph [0167]. Thus, although Momma doesn’t disclose the specific combination of EC, DMC, and EMC as electrolyte solvents, the combination amounts to nothing more than the obvious combination of disclosed materials for their intended purpose of electrolyte solvents in order to achieve a predictable result. Lithium hexafluorophospate is disclosed as a useful electrolyte salt to include in the electrolyte solvent. Id. at paragraph [0170].
Regarding the recited second discharge capacity relative to first discharge capacity, the Office notes that, as discussed herein, the materials of Momma are substantially similar to those disclosed by Applicant for achieving this property, including having the same crystal structure, the same elemental composition, and the same distribution of magnesium and aluminum. Indeed, Momma discloses that the purpose of its invention is to improve the cycle characteristics of its batteries (i.e., ensuring second and later charge/discharge cycles have a capacity as close to the original discharge capacity as possible). Moreover, Momma discloses capacity retention rates that remain greater than 90% for at least 50 cycles. Id. at Figure 22B, sample 1. Thus, although the measurement conditions to measure the discharge capacities in Momma differ from those recited in the claims, those results combined with structural similarity of Momma to the materials disclosed by Applicant are sufficient factual evidence to establish that the second discharge capacity of Momma would be greater than 70% of the first discharge capacity, if the measurements were made in accordance with the claimed method.
Further regarding claims 3, 4, 13, and 14, like Applicant, Momma discloses that the crystal structure of the second and third regions are aligned with the layered rock salt R-3m crystal structure of the inner first region. Thus, given the similar composition and same crystal structure disclosed by Momma, the Office finds sufficient factual evidence exists to support a finding that the remaining crystal structure and compositional features recited in claims 3, 4, 13 and 14 are also the same in Momma.
Further regarding claims 5 and 15, Momma discloses the positive electrode material is in particulate form with a D50 ranging from 1 to 40 microns, a range that substantially overlaps with the recited range thereby rendering it obvious. Id. at paragraph [0060].
Claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Momma further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0176754 to Lho (“Lho”). Momma is applied as described above. As noted, teaches that each of EC, DMC, and EMC can be used as the electrolyte solvent, it doesn’t directly disclose the combination of those three solvents, much less a ratio amongst the three. Lho is directed to similar lithium ion battery systems. Lho at Title and paragraph [0006]. Lho discloses that a combination of cyclic carbonate (EC) and chain carbonate (DMC, EMC) solvents in a volume ratio of 1:1 to 1:9 can allow for a battery system having an electrolyte with a good balance between ion conductivity/dielectric properties and desired viscosity can be achieved. Lho at paragraph [0081]. Lho similarly discloses that a lithium salt concentration ranging from 0.1 to 2 M is desirable in order to arrive at an electrolyte with preferred balance of conductivity and viscosity. Id. at paragraph [0082]. More specifically, Lho discloses specific electrolyte compositions having EC, EMC, and DMC as solvent in a ratio of 3:3:4 with LiPF6 concentration of 1.15 M as an exemplary electrolyte. Id. at paragraph [0101]. Thus, the Office finds that an electrolyte EC:EMC:DMC of 5-35:0-65:5-95 and an LiPF6 concentration ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 M to be an obvious product of routine experimentation with the suggested solvent components of Momma as a means of arriving at an electrolyte having a desired balance between ionic conductivity and viscosity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYATT P MCCONNELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7531. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 5pm M-F.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
/WYATT P MCCONNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1727