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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, drawn to claims 7-20, in the reply filed on 12/08/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/28/2016.
Priority
This application is a CON of 371 of PCT/KR2021/011582 (filed on 08/30/2021). Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Republic of Korea on 12/24/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 05/17/2023, 08/28/2024, and 10/24/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered by the examiner. An initialed copy accompanies this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 05/17/2023 have been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-9 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 8 and 20 are objected from containing a capital word “Here” in the middle of the claimed. Applicant is suggested to replace the word “Here” with –-here-— or –wherein--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 8, 9, 15, and 20 are 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.
Claims 8 and 20 recite limitations within a parenthesis. It is unclear whether the limitations are part of the claims or not. Appropriate correction is required. To advance prosecution, the Examiner will assume that the limitations within the parenthesis are part of the instant claims.
Claim 9 depends from claim 8 and is indefinite based on its dependency.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the change rate of D50/D10 after sonication" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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 7-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 1020170033787 (hereinafter Choi) in view of JP 2004039539 A (hereinafter Toshiyuki).
Initially, it should be noted that the Choi reference is cited in the IDS filed on 05/17/2023 and as an “X” reference in the international search report filed on 05/17/2023.
With respect to claim 7, Choi disclose a method of manufacturing a positive electrode active material for lithium-ion secondary battery from waste battery material (See page 1, Title of Invention). Choi discloses the method comprises adding a solvent in a lungs cathode active material (a cathode active material collected from a waste lithium secondary battery) in a mixing ratio of 0.5:1-1:5 to form a positive electrode active material precursor (See middle of page 8). This step fulfills the claimed step of (a) preparing a slurry by mixing a waste positive electrode active material and a solvent as recited in claim 7.
Choi further discloses that the positive electrode active material precursor (claimed slurry) is crushed and milled to control uniform particle size (See middle of page 8). This step fulfills the claimed step of (b) grinding the waste positive electrode active material in the slurry as recited in claim 7.
Choi also discloses that the slurry of precursor is spray dried and jet dried (See top of page 9). This step fulfills the claimed step of (c) spray drying the slurry of grinded waste positive electrode active material in the slurry as recited in claim 7.
Choi discloses that the dried positive electrode active precursor is reacted with a lithium compound and heat treated (thermally treated) at 500-900C for 3-16 hours (See middle of page 9). This step fulfills the claimed step of (d) obtaining a lithium composite oxide by thermally treating the precursor as recited in claim 7.
Choi failed to disclose a ratio (D₅₀/D₁₀) of a 50% cumulative distribution of particles (D50) and a 10% cumulative distribution of particles (D₁₀) of the precursor prepared in (c) is 1.92 to 6.24 as required in claim 7.
However, Toshiyuki discloses a method for preparing a positive electrode active material for secondary battery having a ratio (D₅₀/D₁₀) of 3.0 or less in order to suppress deterioration in conductivity of the positive electrode of a lithium secondary battery and improves charge-discharge cycle characteristics (See Abstract and middle of unlabeled page 4). The ratio (D₅₀/D₁₀) of Toshiyuki overlaps the claimed range of 1.92 to 6.24 as required in claim 7.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to manufacture the positive electrode of a lithium secondary battery of Choi with a ratio (D₅₀/D₁₀) of 3.0 or less in order to suppress deterioration in conductivity of the positive electrode of a lithium secondary battery and improves charge-discharge cycle characteristics as suggested by Toshiyuki.
Regarding claim 8, Choi discloses that the positive electrode active material having a Chemical Formula 1 represented by Li1+aNibCocM1-(b+c)O2 (See bottom of page 7). Chemical Formula 1 of Choi fulfills the claimed Formula 1 when y=0.
Regarding claims 9, 16 and 19, Choi discloses that the lungs positive electrode active material (precursor, raw material) including metal oxide of Chemical Formula 2 and metal hydroxide of Chemical Formula 3 including metal such as Ni, Co, Mn, Al and a combination thereof (See top of page 8).
Regarding claims 10 and 12, Choi discloses that the positive electrode active material is mixed with a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF) binder in a slurry (See middled of page 12).
Regarding claims 11 and 18, Choi discloses that the milled positive electrode active material having a particle size of D50 600 nm (0.6 um) or less (See middle of page 10). The particle size of Choi overlaps with the claimed ground waste positive electrode active material 0.1-5 um.
Regarding claim 13, Choi does not disclose a viscosity of the slurry is 3,000-20,000 cp as recited in the instant claim. Given that the method of Choi comprises of the same components and within the claimed proportions, a skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation that the slurry of Choi would have the same or substantially same properties, including viscosity, as the claimed slurry. Moreover, a skilled artisan would have a desired to have a slurry with a low viscosity of 3,000-20,000 cp in order for the slurry to be spray dry. A high viscosity slurry will clog the nozzle of the spray dry. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to adjust the viscosity of the slurry to be spray dryable.
Regarding claim 14, Choi does not disclose a temperature for preparing the slurry of 15-75°C as recited in the instant claim. However, it would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to preparing the slurry at room temperature (25°C) in order to reduce manufacturing cost at elevated temperature.
Regarding claim 15, Choi discloses a method comprises of the same components, within the claimed proportions and within the claimed ratio D50/D10, a skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation that the slurry of Choi would have the same or substantially same properties, including a frequency of 40kHz, after sonication.
Regarding claim 17, Choi does not disclose a secondary particle formed by an aggregating of primary particles. However, the positive electrode active material of Choi was milled to a particle size of 600 nm or less (See middle of page 8). Such nanoparticles are commonly known to have high surface area and a high surface area particle can easily aggregate to form a secondary particle. Therefore, a person skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation that the nanoparticle (primary particle) of Choi would form aggregated secondary particle.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi and Toshiyuki as applied to the claims above, and further in view of US 2018/0241073 A1 (hereinafter You).
Choi and Toshiyuki are relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 20, Choi and Toshiyuki discloses that the positive electrode active material can be surface doped or surface coated with a hetero-metal (See bottom of page 9 of Choi), but failed to disclose that the coating (shell) having a lithium metal oxide of Formula 3 as required in the instant claim.
You discloses a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery having a core-shell structure comprises a core composed of lithium transition metal oxides including Ni, Mn, and Co, represented by Liy[NiaMnbCo1-(a+b+c)Mc]O2 and a shell composed of lithium transition metal oxides including Co represented by LiyCo(1-a)ZaO2 in order to improve lifetime of the battery and maintain thermal stability while exhibiting high capacity and excellent high output characteristics (See Abstract; [0019] and [0022] to [0028]). The lithium transition metal oxide shell of You fulfills the claimed Formula 3 shell of the instant claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to surface coat the lithium transition metal oxide (core) of Choi and Toshiyuki with a lithium transition metal oxide of You in order to improve lifetime of the battery and maintain thermal stability while exhibiting high capacity and excellent high output characteristics.
In view of the foregoing, the above claims have failed to patentably distinguish over the applied art.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHANH TUAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. 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.
/KHANH T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761