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 . If status of the application as subject to 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 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 are pending in the application and are presently examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities. Claim 9 recites “a first section” and “a concentration gradient”, which were introduced in claim 1. If these terms remain in the claim, then replace “a” with “the”.
Examiner suggests amending claim 9 as follows, because all of the limitations removed in the following, proposed claim amendment were already introduced in claim 1:
“9. The positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein the lithium composite oxide is a non-aggregated single particle consisting of a single crystallite
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor(s) regard as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the cross-section of the lithium composite oxide”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the cross-section”. The phrases “cross-section” and “cross-sectional” are used throughout the claims, sometimes introduced with “a” and sometimes with “the”. Examiner urges the Applicant to ensure correct antecedent basis for each instance.
Claim 1 also recites:
“based on the cross-section of the lithium composite oxide, the lithium composite oxide is divided into a first section in which a concentration gradient in which a concentration of cobalt decreases from a surface portion to a central portion of the lithium composite oxide is formed”
The meaning of this claim limitation is unclear, and it seems unnecessarily wordy, with repeated “in which”. For present examination, Examiner presumes the following was intended:
“the lithium composite oxide includes a first section, in which cobalt concentration decreases from a surface portion to a central portion”
Claims 1 & 4 recite (underline added for emphasis):
Claim 1
“when the average radius measured from the cross-section of the lithium composite oxide is denoted by d, a ratio (d1/d) of a thickness (d1) of the first section to an average radius (d) is 0.08 to 0.27”
Claim 4
“wherein a ratio (d2/d) of the thickness (d2) of the second section to an average radius (d) is 0.73 to 0.92”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the average radius” in claim 1. After introducing “the average radius” in claim 1, claims 1 & 4 then refer to “an average radius (d)”. Examiner recommends the following amended language to replace the claim limitations listed above:
Claim 1
“d1/d is 0.08 to 0.27, where d1 is a thickness of the first section and d is an average radius of the lithium composite oxide”
Claim 4
“d2/d is 0.73 to 0.92, where d2 is a thickness of the second section”
Even with the above, reworded limitations, it is unclear what is meant by average radius of the lithium composite oxide. “Radius” is typically used for a spherical structure, such as a particle or an atom. The claim, however, doesn’t mention a particle or an atom. Examiner couldn’t find any clarification in the specification.
Claim 4 recites that d2/d is 0.73 to 0.92. This is an impossible range because claim 1 recites that d1/d is 0.08 to 0.27, but d1 must be bigger than d2. d1 must be bigger because d1 is for the first section, d2 is for the second section, and according to claim 1, the second section is part of the first section.
Claims 2-12 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Claims 7-8 recite “the imaginary straight line”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, & 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20180013129A1 (Lee).
Lee teaches the following claim 1 limitations:
A positive electrode active material comprising a lithium composite oxide comprising at least nickel and cobalt (paragraph 31),
wherein, based on the cross-section of the lithium composite oxide, the lithium composite oxide is divided into a first section in which a concentration gradient in which a concentration of cobalt decreases from a surface portion to a central portion of the lithium composite oxide is formed (paragraph 57: cobalt concentration increases from core center to core surface), and a second section in which a cobalt concentration is maintained within a predetermined range inside the first section (paragraph 57: Lee’s second section can be the core center or the core surface of the first section, where cobalt concentration is within a range), and
when the average radius measured from the cross-section of the lithium composite oxide is denoted by d, a ratio (d1/d) of a thickness (d1) of the first section to an average radius (d) is 0.08 to 0.27 (paragraph 65: core radius d1 divided by positive electrode active material radius d can be 0.1 to 0.2)
With regard to claim 4, Lee teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Claim 4 recites:
a ratio (d2/d) of the thickness (d2) of the second section to an average radius (d) is 0.73 to 0.92
As discussed under the 112(b) rejection above, it is impossible for d2/d to be 0.73 to 0.92, with d1/d equal to 0.08 to 0.27, because the second section is inside / part of the first section, so d2 must be smaller than d1. This impossible claim limitation is disregarded for prior art analysis.
With regard to claim 5, Lee teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Claim 5 recites:
a change rate of the cobalt concentration in the second section is 10 mol% or less
The present specification defines “change rate” as follows:
“the change rate of the cobalt concentration may refer to a change rate estimated by comparing the concentrations of cobalt at the starting and end points in any region” page 11, lines 14-15
Lee’s cobalt concentration changes, as discussed under claim 1 above. Regardless of Lee’s actual rate of change, defining the “region” small enough, such as 1 mm, 1 µm, or 1 nm, will result in a change rate that is ≤ 10 mol%.
With regard to claims 7-8, Lee teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Claims 7-8 recite:
Claim 7
in a cross-sectional SEM image obtained by photographing a cross-section of the lithium composite oxide using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) after cross-sectioning the lithium composite oxide, a grain boundary density calculated by Equation 1 below for crystallites lying on the imaginary straight line crossing a center of the lithium composite oxide in the minor axis direction is 0.50 or less, [Equation 1] Grain boundary density = (Number of grain boundaries between crystallites lying on the imaginary straight line / Number of crystallites lying on the imaginary straight line)
Claim 8
the positive electrode active material is an aggregate of a plurality of lithium composite oxides, and in a cross-sectional SEM image obtained by photographing a cross-section of the lithium composite oxide using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) after crosssectioning the lithium composite oxide of the positive electrode active material, a proportion of the lithium composite oxide with a grain boundary density of 0.50 or less calculated by Equation 1 for crystallites lying on the imaginary straight line crossing the center of the lithium composite oxide in the minor axis direction is 30% or more, [Equation 1] Grain boundary density = (Number of grain boundaries between crystallites lying on the imaginary straight line / Number of crystallites lying on the imaginary straight line)
Lee doesn’t teach the claimed Equation 1; however, Lee teaches the claimed positive electrode active material, as discussed above under claim 1; therefore, presumably Lee’s positive electrode active material meets the requirements of Equation 1. MPEP 2112(I) provides guidance for this issue:
“‘[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.’ Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).”
The patent office does not have the ability to test, or to obtain data for, every possible property. Measurement of a property does not make an old substance patentable.
With regard to claims 11-12, Lee teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Lee also teaches the following limitations of claims 11-12 (paragraph 123):
Claim 11
A positive electrode comprising the positive electrode active material of claim 1.
Claim 12
A lithium secondary battery using the positive electrode of claim 11.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 2, 6, & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20180013129A1 (Lee).
With regard to claim 2, Lee teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Claim 2 recites:
an average molar ratio of Co/Ni in the first section is 0.25 to 0.39
Lee teaches LiaNi1−x−yCoxMnyM1zM2wO2 in the core, where 0<x≤0.5 and 0<y≤0.5 (paragraphs 39-40). Selecting x=y=0.2, the ratio of Co/Ni is 0.2/(1-0.2-0.2)=0.33.
Not all of Lee’s values, however, fall within the 0.25 to 0.39 range. Lee’s range of possible values overlaps the claimed 0.25 to 0.39 range. MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A) provides the law for this issue:
“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”
Given that Lee’s range overlaps the claimed range, and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed for the claimed range, the range in claim 2 is an obvious variant of Lee’s range.
With regard to claim 6, Lee teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Claim 6 recites:
the lithium composite oxide is represented by Formula 1 below, [Formula 1] LiwNi1-(x+y+z)CoxM1yM2zO2, Wherein, M1 is at least one selected from Mn and Al, M2 is at least one selected from P, Sr, Ba, Ti, Zr, Mn, Al, W, Ce, Hf, Ta, Cr, F, Mg, V, Fe, Zn, Si, Y, Ga, Sn, Mo, Ge, Nd, B, Nb, Gd and Cu, M1 and M2 are different, 0.5≤w≤1.5, 0≤x≤0.50, 0≤y≤0.20, and 0≤z≤0.20
Selecting w=1, x=0.1, y=0.1, z=0, and , and M1=Mn, Formula 1 is
LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2.
Lee teaches LiaNi1−x−yCoxMnyM1zM2wO2 in the core, where 1.0≤a≤1.5, 0<x≤0.5, 0<y≤0.5, 0≤z≤0.03, 0≤w≤0.02, and 0<x+y<1 (paragraphs 39-40). Selecting a=1, x=0.1, y=0.1, z=0, and w=0, Lee’s compound is LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2, which is the same as the claimed compound.
Not all of Lee’s stoichiometric coefficients will result in the claimed Formula 1. MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A), quoted under claim 2 above, provides the law for this issue. Given that options for Lee’s compound overlaps the claimed Formula 1, the Formula 1 in claim 6 is an obvious variant of Lee’s compound.
With regard to claim 10, Lee teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Claim 10 recites:
a coating layer that covers at least a part of the surface of the lithium composite oxide, and wherein there is at least one type of metal oxide represented by Formula 2 below in the coating layer, [Formula 2] LiaM3bOc, Wherein, M3 is at least one selected from Ni, Mn, Co, Fe, Cu, Nb, Mo, Ti, Al, Cr, Zr, Zn, Na, K, Ca, Mg, Pt, Au, B, P, Eu, Sm, W, V, Ba, Ta, Sn, Hf, Ce, Gd and Nd, 0≤a≤10, 0≤b≤8, and 2≤c≤13
Selecting a=1; c=2; M3=Ni, Co, and Mn; and b=0.8 for Ni, 0.1 for Co, and 0.1 for Mn, Formula 2 is thus LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2.
Lee teaches LiaNi1−x−yCoxMnyM1zM2wO2 in the core, where 1.0≤a≤1.5, 0<x≤0.5, 0<y≤0.5, 0≤z≤0.03, 0≤w≤0.02, and 0<x+y<1 (paragraphs 39-40). Selecting a=1, x=0.1, y=0.1, z=0, and w=0, Lee’s compound is LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2, which is the same as the claimed compound.
Not all of Lee’s stoichiometric coefficients will result in the claimed Formula 2. MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A), quoted under claim 2 above, provides the law for this issue. Given that options for Lee’s compound overlaps the claimed Formula 2, the Formula 2 in claim 10 is an obvious variant of Lee’s compound.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20180013129A1 (Lee), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US20220407064A1 (Seo). Lee fails to teach the following claim 9 limitation, which is taught by Seo:
the lithium composite oxide is a non-aggregated single particle consisting of a single crystallite
Seo describes a positive electrode active material, formed as a single crystal and a single particle, for structural stability and high-density (paragraph 64). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Lee’s positive electrode active material to be a single crystal and a single particle, as taught by Seo, for structural stability and high-density.
The remainder of claim 9 merely repeats claim 1 limitations, which are discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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 following is a statement of reasons for allowable subject matter:
Claim 3 recites:
a ratio of the average Co concentration (c1) in the first section and an average Co concentration (c) measured based on ICP analysis for the lithium composite oxide is 1.70 to 2.60
US20180013129A1 (Lee) is the closest prior art of record. Lee teaches the cobalt concentration gradient in the first section. Lee, however, fails to teach relative cobalt concentrations in the first section compared to the entire active material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684.
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.
/R.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721