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 § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 20210202940 A1 provided in the applicants IDS filed 08/24/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Li et al. teaches a cathode base material comprising lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NCM), which can also be in the form of lithium nickel manganese oxide as an alternative to NCM (0036), that may be coated with lithium vanadium fluorophosphate (LVPF) (0028) and both can be in the form of powders (0084). The base material has a particle diameter between 1 and 20 micrometers (0114) and the LVPF has a particle diameter between .01 and 10 micrometers (0062). This means that an ordinary person having skill in the art would be able to, with the optimization of ranges, form a cathode material where the particle diameter of the base material is more than 10 times the particle diameter of LVPF. Li et al. further teaches that the coating layer, LVPF, may be between 1 and 70 wt% of the cathode base material, and because the molar weights of the two compositions are close to each other, with LVPF having a molar weight of about 172g/mol and lithium nickel manganese oxide being about 143g/mol in the case of LiMn1.5Ni0.5O4 , it is reasonable to assume the molar ratio of LVPF to NCM can go down to a mole ratio of about .008 (assuming 1 mol of each component, 1% of 143g is 1.43g and 1.43g of LVPF is .8% of one mol at 172g/mol) which is significantly less than .5 (0048). Li et al. also mentions that the two compositions may be mixed via mechanofusion (0085).
Regarding claim 2, Li et al. teaches the cathode material of claim 1 as described above, and Li et al. further teaches the wt% of the LVPF coating on the base material is between 1 and 70%, and because the molar weights of the two compositions are close to each other, with LVPF having a molar weight of about 172g/mol and lithium nickel manganese oxide being about 143g/mol in the case of LiMn1.5Ni0.5O4 , it is reasonable to assume the molar ratio of LVPF to NCM can go down to a mole ratio of about .008 (assuming 1 mol of each component, 1% of 143g is 1.43g and 1.43g of LVPF is .8% of one mol at 172g/mol) which is significantly less than .2 (0048).
Regarding claim 3, Li et al. teaches the cathode material of claim 1 as described above, and Li et al. further teaches the wt% of the LVPF coating on the base material is between 1 and 70%, and because the molar weights of the two compositions are close to each other, with LVPF having a molar weight of about 172g/mol and lithium nickel manganese oxide being about 143g/mol in the case of LiMn1.5Ni0.5O4 , it is reasonable to assume the molar ratio of LVPF to NCM can go down to a mole ratio of about .008 (assuming 1 mol of each component, 1% of 143g is 1.43g and 1.43g of LVPF is .8% of one mol at 172g/mol) which is significantly less than .1 (0048).
Regarding claim 4, Li et al. teaches the cathode material of claim 1 as described above, and Li et al. further teaches that the base material has a particle diameter between 1 and 20 micrometers (0114, particle size is D50 (0063) which is the average diameter), which fully encompasses the instant application’s range of 10-20 micrometers and is therefore rendered obvious, see MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 5, Li et al. teaches the cathode material of claim 1 as described above, and Li et al. further teaches that the coating layer has a particle diameter between .01 and 10 micrometers (0062), which fully encompasses the instant application’s range of .2-2 micrometers and is therefore rendered obvious, see MPEP 2144.05.I..
Regarding claim 6, Li et al. teaches the cathode material of claim 1 as described above, and allows for the use of lithium nickel manganese oxide with the molecular formula , LiMnxNi2-xO4 (0 ≤ x ≤ 2), which meets the limitation of the claim as, with optimization of ranges, see MPEP 2144.05.I, x can be equal to 1.5 which results in the same composition as the instant application and it is by default a spinel structure and it is inherent to the composition (0036).
Regarding claim 7, Li et al. teaches the cathode material of claim 1 as described above, and Li et al further teaches that the coating can be lithium vanadium fluorophosphate, LiVPO4F, (0028) which by default has a tavorite-type structure as the composition being claimed is the exact same and the structure is inherent.
Regarding claim 8, Li et al. teaches the cathode material of claim 1 as described above, and Li et al further teaches that the mixing method used can be mechanofusion (0085).
Regarding claim 9, Li et al. teaches the cathode material of claim 8 as described above, and Li et al further teaches that the mixing method is at room temperature which is commonly understood to be 25oC and is a value within the range claimed by the instant application and therefore obvious.
Regarding claim 11, Li et al. teaches a method of making a cathode base material comprising lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NCM), which can also be in the form of lithium nickel manganese oxide (0036), that may be coated with lithium vanadium fluorophosphate (LVPF) (0028) and both can be in the form of powders (0084). The base material has a particle diameter between 1 and 20 micrometers (0114) and the LVPF has a particle diameter between .01 and 10 micrometers (0062). This means that an ordinary person having skill in the art would be able to, with the optimization of ranges, form a cathode material where the particle diameter of the base material is more than 10 times the particle diameter of LVPF. Li et al. further teaches that the coating layer, LVPF, may be between 1 and 70 wt% of the cathode base material, NCM, and because the molar weights of the two compositions are close to each other, with LVPF having a molar weight of about 172g/mol and lithium nickel manganese oxide being about 143g/mol in the case of LiMn1.5Ni0.5O4 , it is reasonable to assume the molar ratio of LVPF to NCM can go down to a mole ratio of about .008 (assuming 1 mol of each component, 1% of 143g is 1.43g and 1.43g of LVPF is .8% of one mol at 172g/mol) which is significantly less than .5 (0048). Li et al. also mentions that the two compositions may be mixed via mechanofusion (0085).
Regarding claim 12, Li et al. teaches the method of making the cathode material of claim 10 as described above, and Li et al. further teaches the wt% of the LVPF coating on the base material is between 1 and 70%, and because the molar weights of the two compositions are close to each other, with LVPF having a molar weight of about 172g/mol and lithium nickel manganese oxide being about 143g/mol in the case of LiMn1.5Ni0.5O4 , it is reasonable to assume the molar ratio of LVPF to NCM can go down to a mole ratio of about .008 (assuming 1 mol of each component, 1% of 143g is 1.43g and 1.43g of LVPF is .8% of one mol at 172g/mol) which is significantly less than .2 (0048).
Regarding claim 13, Li et al. teaches the method of making the cathode material of claim 11 as described above, and Li et al. further teaches the wt% of the LVPF coating on the base material is between 1 and 70%, and because the molar weights of the two compositions are close to each other, with LVPF having a molar weight of about 172g/mol and lithium nickel manganese oxide being about 143g/mol in the case of LiMn1.5Ni0.5O4 , it is reasonable to assume the molar ratio of LVPF to NCM can go down to a mole ratio of about .008 (assuming 1 mol of each component, 1% of 143g is 1.43g and 1.43g of LVPF is .8% of one mol at 172g/mol) which is significantly less than .1 (0048).
Regarding claim 14, Li et al. teaches the method of making the cathode material of claim 11 as described above, and Li et al. further teaches that the base material has a particle diameter between 1 and 20 micrometers (0114, particle size is D50 (0063) which is the average diameter), which fully encompasses the instant application’s range of 10-20 micrometers and is therefore rendered obvious, see MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 15, Li et al. teaches the method of making the cathode material of claim 11 as described above, and Li et al. further teaches that the coating layer has a particle diameter between .01 and 10 micrometers (0062), which fully encompasses the instant application’s range of .2-2 micrometers and is therefore rendered obvious, see MPEP 2144.05.I..
Regarding claim 16, Li et al. teaches the method of making the cathode material of claim 11 as described above, and allows for the use of lithium nickel manganese oxide with the molecular formula, LiMnxNi2-xO4 (0 ≤ x ≤ 2), which meets the limitation of the claim as, with optimization of ranges, see MPEP 2144.05.I, x can be equal to 1.5 which results in the same composition as the instant application and it is by default a spinel structure as it is inherent to the composition (0036).
Regarding claim 17, Li et al. teaches the method of making the cathode material of claim 11 as described above, and Li et al further teaches that the coating can be lithium vanadium fluorophosphate, LiVPO4F, (0028) which by default has a tavorite-type structure as the composition being claimed is the exact same and the structure is inherent.
Regarding claim 18, Li et al. teaches the method of making the cathode material of claim 11 as described above, and Li et al further teaches that the mixing method used can be mechanofusion (0085).
Regarding claim 19, Li et al. teaches the method of making the cathode material of claim 18 as described above, and Li et al further teaches that the mixing method is at room temperature which is commonly understood to be 25oC and is a value within the range claimed by the instant application and therefore obvious.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. and further in view of Yamashita et al. (US 20180053929 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Li et al. teaches the cathode material of claim 8 as described above regarding claim 8, and Li et al. further teaches that the rotational speed of the mechanofusion mixer is between 500 to 3000 RPM (0084), which has significant overlap with the instant applications claim and it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill, with the optimization of ranges, to use a rotation speed somewhere between 700 and 3000 RPM.
Li et al. does not explicitly teach a mixing time between 5 and 10 minutes. Yamashita, however, uses a Nobilta machine for the mixing of two substances (Yamashita, 0090), and is the same type of machine that Li et al. uses for mechanofusion (Li et al. 0084). Yamashita uses the machine to mix two substances for anywhere between 5 and 90 minutes (0088) which fully encompasses the instant application’s range. Even though the two substances being mixed in Yamashita are not the same as in Li et al., It would still have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a mixing time of at least 5 minutes as a baseline for mixing cathode materials via mechanofusion, which has sufficient overlap with the instant application and meets the limitation.
While Li et al. doesn’t explicitly note the time, it does say that the mixing time may be optimized based off the amount of coating particles and cathode base layer used (Li et al. 0117). In this case one would look to another art that references how long a Nobilta mechanofusion machine should be used for and it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to find Yamashita that, at the very least, gives a lower bound for how long cathode materials should be mixed.
Regarding claim 20, Li et al. teaches the method of making the cathode material of claim 18 as described above regarding claim 18, and Li et al. further teaches that the rotational speed of the mechanofusion mixer is between 500 to 3000 RPM (0084), which has significant overlap with the instant applications claim and it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill, with the optimization of ranges, to use a rotation speed somewhere between 700 and 3000 RPM.
Li et al. does not explicitly teach a mixing time between 5 and 10 minutes. Yamashita, however, uses a Nobilta machine for the mixing of two substances (Yamashita, 0090), and is the same type of machine that Li et al. uses for mechanofusion (Li et al. 0084). Yamashita uses the machine to mix two substances for anywhere between 5 and 90 minutes (0088) which fully encompasses the instant application’s range. Even though the two substances being mixed in Yamashita are not the same as in Li et al., It would still have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a mixing time of at least 5 minutes as a baseline for mixing cathode materials via mechanofusion, which has sufficient overlap with the instant application and meets the limitation.
While Li et al. doesn’t explicitly note the time, it does say that the mixing time may be optimized based off the amount of coating particles and cathode base layer used (Li et al. 0117). In this case one would look to another art that references how long a Nobilta mechanofusion machine should be used for and it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to find Yamashita that, at the very least, gives a lower bound for how long cathode materials should be mixed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN ROBERT BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-0640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/SEAN R. BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743