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) 1,2, 4, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang (CN 110451585), Yang (CN 106684323), and Tsunozaki (US 9444099).
Regarding claim 1, Fang teaches a method of preparing the ternary cathode material, comprising the following steps:
(1) mixing a lithium source and a precursor of nickel-cobalt-manganese to obtain a mixture (“mix high nickel NCM ternary precursor, lithium hydroxide” paragraph 69) and ball-milling the mixture (“wet high-speed mixing method” paragraph 69 and “mixing equipment may be selected from one of a high-speed ball mill” paragraph 27) to obtain a milled powder;
(2) subjecting the milled powder to a first calcinating process (“one sintering was performed” paragraph 69), crushing, and screening (“crushed, and sieved” paragraph 70) to obtain a calcinated material;
(3) adding the calcinated material (“prepared silica sol is injected into a fired base material in the form of a spray solution” paragraph 71) and a compound (“ethyl orthosilicate as a precursor” paragraph 71) into a mixed solution of an organic solvent and water (“adding ethanol and water solvents” paragraph 71) to obtain a calcinated material mixture, stirring the calcinated material mixture (“high nickel NCM ternary cathode material and the coating agent B are wet-mixed” paragraph 71), and evaporating the calcinated material mixture to dryness (“slurry is dried” paragraph 71) to obtain a residue, wherein the organic solvent is ethanol (“adding ethanol and water solvents” paragraph 71);
(4) subjecting the residue to a second calcinating process (“secondary sintering” paragraph 71), followed by cooling (“cooling” paragraph 71) to obtain the ternary cathode material;
in step (1), the precursor of nickel-cobalt-manganese has a chemical formula of NixCoyMn(1-x-y)(OH)2, wherein 0.5 ≤ x ≤ 1, y ≥ 0, and 1 – x – y > 0 (“precursor material Ni0.6Co0.2Mn0.2 (OH) 2” paragraph 68). (average particle diameter D50: 1-5 μm).
Fang does not teach the ternary cathode material specifically has a D50 of 3-6 µm. Additionally, Fang does not teach the compound of step (3) in Example 4 is a niobium compound, a boron compound, or a titanium compound. Moreover, Fang does not teach the mass ratio of the organic solvent and water.
However, Fang teaches average particle diameter D50 of 1-5 μm for the high nickel single crystal positive electrode material (paragraph 32). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Additionally, Yang teaches a similar method for preparing a ternary cathode positive electrode material (paragraph 58) where the lithium source and nickel cobalt manganese hydroxide precursor material were mixed, sintered, and cooled to obtain uncoated cathode material (paragraph 60). A niobium source was added to a dispersant to prepare a mixed solution, where the uncoated cathode material was then added (paragraph 61). The mixed solution was stirred and dried to coat niobium on the positive electrode material (paragraph 61). The niobium source is any one or more of niobium pentoxide, niobium trioxide (paragraph 31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fang to coat the high nickel NCM ternary cathode material with the niobium source, in Yang in the preparation of coating agent B. This has the advantage of promoting lithium ion migration, reducing occurrence of side effects of the material with the electrolyte material, significantly improving the rate performance and cycle performance, and improving the material’s high temperature performance and safety (Yang: paragraph 33).
Moreover, Tsunozaki teaches a mixed solvent of water and a water-soluble alcohol, which may be ethanol, and the total content of the ethanol is preferably 0% to 20% mass of the total amount of solvent ([0056]). The solvent can be used to dissolve or disperse ([0052]) compound containing an oxide of the metal element M ([0054]), which is preferably niobium ([0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of modified Fang to use the ethanol and water mass ratio of Tsunozaki (Tsunozaki: [0056]) to prepare coating agent B because Fang did not specify a mass ratio to use for Example 4, and Tsunozaki disclosed a preferable ratio for dissolving the niobium oxide (Tsunozaki: [0056]). If the solvent only contains ethanol and water, the mass ratio of ethanol to water would be (0-0.25):1. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Modified Fang does not specifically teach the calcinated material and the compound are in a mass ratio of (0.28-1): 100. Additionally, modified Fang does not specifically teach the calcinated material and the mixed solution are in a mass ratio of (0.1-5): 1.
However, modified Fang teaches chemical formula LiNi1-a-bCoaMnbO2 • cNb2O5, wherein a, b and c are the number of moles, 0 ⟨a ≦ 0.4, 0 ⟨b ≦ 0.4 and 0 ⟨c ⟨0.05 (Yang: paragraph 8). The niobium source is weighed according to the ratio of Nb: (Ni + Co + Mn) = 2c: 1 (Yang: paragraph 61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of modified Fang to use the mole ratio of Yang necessary for coating the cathode material with a niobium source as Fang does not disclose the amount for coating the cathode material.
For example, after 0.2 mol of Ni0.6Co0.2Mn0.2(OH)2 reacted with Li2Co3 (Yang: paragraph 91), 0.0006 mol of Nb2O3 was added as coating (Yang: paragraph 92) to prepare LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 · 0.003Nb2O5 (Yang: paragraph 93) where c = 0.003. For a range of 0 ⟨c ⟨0.05 (Yang: paragraph 8), the corresponding mol of Nb2O3 to coat 0.2 mol of Ni0.6Co0.2Mn0.2(OH)2 would be 0 mol to 0.01 mol, or 0 grams to 233.81 grams.
In the context of Example 4 of Fang (paragraph 69), if 0.2 mol of LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 (19.3858 grams) were prepared, 0 mol to 0.01 mol, or 0 grams to 233.81 grams, would be used for coating LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Additionally, modified Fang teaches the solid / liquid mass ratio: 1 to 5 (Fang: paragraph 26). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 2, modified Fang teaches the lithium source is LiOH (Fang: “mix high nickel NCM ternary precursor, lithium hydroxide” paragraph 69).
Regarding claim 4, modified Fang teaches the niobium compound is Nb2O5 (Yang: “the niobium source is any one or more of niobium pentoxide” paragraph 31).
Regarding claim 6, modified Fang teaches the second calcinating process is carried out at a heating rate of 1-10°C/min (Fang: “heating rate is 3 ～ 10 ℃ / min” paragraph 31); wherein the second calcinating process is carried out in an oxygen atmosphere (Fang: “oxygen atmosphere” paragraph 31).
Modified Fang does not specifically teach the second calcinating process is carried out at 400°C-700°C for 2-10 h.
However, modified Fang teaches the temperature is 300 ～ 800 ℃ (Fang: paragraph 31). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Additionally, modified Fang also teaches the holding time is 6 ～ 24h (Fang: paragraph 31). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang (CN 110451585), Yang (CN 106684323), and Tsunozaki (US 9444099) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guan (CN 109273710).
Regarding claim 3, modified Fang teaches a first-stage calcinating is carried out at a first temperature of 400-800°C (Fang: “sintering temperature is 300 ～ 800 ℃” paragraph 27), and at a heating rate of 1-10°C/min (Fang: “heating rate is 3 ～ 10 ℃ / min” paragraph 27);
Modified Fang does not specifically teach the heating time is 2-8 h. Additionally, Modified Fang does not teach a second-stage calcinating is carried out at a temperature of 650-1100°C for 8-16 h.
However, modified Fang teaches the holding time is 6 ～ 24h (Fang: paragraph 27). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Additionally, Guan teaches a first sintering at 400-600 ℃ at the heating rate of 1-6 ℃/min, kept for 4-12 h (paragraph 32), and a second sintering at 720-910 ° C, kept for 14-24 h (paragraph 32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of modified Fang to additionally perform the second sintering of Guan after performing the sintering in step (2) (Fang: paragraph 27) to promote further formation of solid phase reaction for longer time to guarantee complete single crystallization (Guan: paragraph 32). The second sintering step of Guan is applicable to the method of modified Fang, specifically step (2) of Fang, because the oxide additives of Fang, such as Al2O3, TiO2, MgO, and CaO (Fang: paragraph 24), added to the mixture of NCM and LiOH are also used as the McOd of Guan that were also mixed with Lithium, Nickel, Cobalt, and Manganese compounds prior to the first sintering (Guan: paragraph 31). The sintering condition in step (2) of Fang (“sintering temperature 300 ～ 800 ℃, heating rate 3 ～ 10 ℃ / min, and holding time 6 ～ 24h” Fang: paragraph 27) is also similar to the first sintering condition of Guan (“keeps the temperature 4-12h after rising to 400-600 DEG C with 1 DEG C/min~6 DEG C/min heating rate” Guan: paragraph 32). These two similarities would enable one of ordinary skill in the art to consider including the second sintering step for the advantages mentioned.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 5 of the applicant’s remarks, applicant argued that “Fang's coating approach is rooted in sol-gel oxide coating (e.g., silica/alumina/zirconia, etc.) and does not teach the claimed approach in which the coating compound is selected from niobium/boron/titanium compounds and is used in the claimed mixed-solution step in the claimed manner.” In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
On page 5 of the applicant’s remarks, applicant argued that “Yang discloses niobium-related modification/coating, but in a context and process flow that differs from Fang's sol-gel coating route and does not provide a teaching that would have led a skilled artisan to re-engineer Fang's coating agent B (silica sol system) into Applicant's claimed Nb/B/Ti compound-in-mixed-solution step with the claimed mass ratio requirements and process sequence” and that “Fang's coating agent B is prepared by a sol-gel method and then sprayed/injected and dried as part of a specific sol-gel coating route. Yang's teachings regarding niobium sources and dispersants do not reasonably suggest that Fang's sol-gel approach should be replaced with Applicant's claimed approach and process constraints.” On page 6 of the applicant’s remarks, the applicant argued that “the Examiner's rationale is not merely "adding a known ingredient to a known process," but instead involves converting Fang's coating route and chemistry into a different system. Such a modification is not supported by a clear teaching in the prior art, and it would not have been undertaken with a reasonable expectation of success to obtain Applicant's claimed ternary cathode material prepared via the claimed steps.”
In response to applicant's argument, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In this case, the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Fang to add the niobium in the Coating Agent B, using the water and ethanol as the dispersant for niobium. While Yang only teaches ethanol as the dispersant (Yang: paragraph 0032), Tsunozaki teaches in view of the stability and the reactivity of the compound containing niobium oxide (Tsunozaki: [0054], [0055]), a solvent containing water and ethanol is preferred (Tsunozaki: [0056]). Yang teaches providing a niobium coating on the ternary cathode material has the advantages of promoting lithium ion migration, reducing occurrence of side effects of the material with the electrolyte material, significantly improving the rate performance and cycle performance, and improving the material’s high temperature performance and safety. These mentioned advantages reasonably suggest the motivation for modification of the method of Fang as stated above to obtain the applicant’s claimed approach. Moreover, to achieve the improvements taught by Yang, Yang suggests the mole ratio of niobium necessary for coating the cathode material with a niobium source. Therefore, those of ordinary skill in the art would have been suggested to use the mole ratio taught by Yang to achieve the advantages taught by Yang.
Additionally, the coating step of Yang is performed after the first sintering and before the second sintering. Such coating step is analogous to the coating step of Fang being performed after the first sintering and before the second sintering. It would have been reasonably suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art that modifying Fang’s coating process with Yang’s as they are both performed at a similar point in the process sequence and both to coat a ternary cathode material containing Li and NCM with a coating layer. Because the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art the claimed process, the combined teachings would have suggested a reasonable expectation of success to obtain Applicant's claimed ternary cathode material prepared via the claimed steps.
On page 5 of the applicant’s remarks, applicant argued that “Tsunozaki is directed to a distinct coating paradigm involving formation of a covering layer containing metal element M and fluorine by mixing particles with a compound that generates HF upon heating. Tsunozaki's discussion of mixed solvents (water + water-soluble alcohol) is provided in use of that fluorination/coating approach, not Applicant's residual lithium consumption to form lithium niobate/borate/titanate layers while simultaneously addressing micro powder deposition/defect repair.” In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., residual lithium consumption to form lithium niobate/borate/titanate layers while simultaneously addressing micro powder deposition/defect repair) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On page 5 of the applicant’s remarks, applicant argued that “the asserted "simple substitution" of Fang's coating with Yang's niobium teachings is an impermissible hindsight modification that changes Fang's principle of operation.” In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
On page 6 of the applicant’s remarks, applicant argued that “the Examiner's view that Fang discloses the "organic solvent and water mixture" of the present application involves an imperfect characterization of our technical solution. The "organic solvent and water mixture" is introduced at fundamentally distinct processing stages. In the present application, the mixture serves as the solvent environment for ball-milling base material and compounds, enabling uniform dispersion of coating agents.” In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the mixture serves as the solvent environment for ball-milling base material and compounds, enabling uniform dispersion of coating agents) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument on page 6 that “in Fang, the ethanol-water solution constitutes the preparation medium for Coating Agent B. Given this critical difference in introduction timing, implementing Fang's protocol would not result in mixing base material and compounds in the organic solvent/water mixture during processing step,” while the ethanol-water solution was used as the preparation medium for Coating Agent B, it is also present when wet-mixing the NCM ternary cathode material with the Coating Agent B prior to drying. This meets the claimed limitation of “adding the calcinated material and a compound into a mixed solution of an organic solvent and water to obtain a calcinated material mixture, stirring the calcinated material mixture.”
In response to applicant’s argument on page 7 that “Claim 1 now includes additional limitations directed to the quantified addition level of the Nb/B/Ti compound relative to the calcinated material, and the solid-to-liquid relationship between the calcinated material and the mixed solution in step (3). These limitations are not taught or suggested by the cited combination,” the limitation previously in claim 5 was rejected by the combination of Fang, Yang, and Tsunozaki in the previous office action, which rejected claims 1, 2, and 4-6, with claim 3 further being rejected by Guan. As the rejections using the combination of Fang, Yang, and Tsunozaki for the stated claims were not overcame by the applicant, the previous rejections for all claims is used for rejecting dependent claims 2-4 and 6 after applicant’s amendment of claim 1 to include the limitations of claim 5.
In response to applicant’s argument on page 7 that “none of Fang, Yang, or Tsunozaki teaches or suggests the above paired mass-ratio constraints in the context of claim l's step (3), nor does the Office Action identify any disclosure that would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to select these particular windows” and on page 8 that “even if Tsunozaki is combined with Fang and Yang, the cited references still fail to disclose or teach the specific mass-ratio limitations now recited in amended claim 1,” it is identified in the office action that the combination of Fang, Yang, and Tsunozaki teaches the paired mass-ratio constraints of claim 5, which is now included in claim 1. Additionally, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
On page 8 of the applicant’s remarks, applicant argued that
“(1) Fang does not disclose the specific mass ratio of (0.28-1):100 for "compound calcinated material" as now claimed, nor does Fang disclose applying a Nb/B/Ti compound in step (3) under the claimed paired mass-ratio constraints.
(2) Yang describes selecting niobium source amounts based on molar relationships (Nb:(Ni+Co+Mn)) and does not provide a direct teaching of the claimed mass ratio of the coating compound relative to the calcinated material.
(3) Tsunozaki's disclosure of water/alcohol solvent systems concerns dissolving or dispersing metal-element-containing compounds and describes preferred alcohol content ranges in the solvent. Tsunozaki does not teach the claimed compound loading relative to the calcinated material, nor does Tsunozaki teach the claimed calcinated material : mixed solution mass-ratio.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to An Bach Phan whose telephone number is (571)272-7244. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-3 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, Len Tran can be reached at (571)272-1184. 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.
/A.B.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights