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 .
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites the limitation " the first particles" and “ the second particles”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
Claims 1, 2, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US2022/0376244A1(Kuroda).
Regarding claim 1, 2 and 7, Kuroda teaches a secondary battery comprises a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator interposed therebetween and an electrolyte ([0011]), wherein the positive electrode includes a positive electrode core that is a foil of a metal, such as aluminum ([0017]), which meets a current collector, and a positive electrode mixture layer on a surface of the positive electrode core, wherein the positive electrode mixture layer includes a positive electrode active material ([0017]).
Kuroda teaches the positive electrode material comprise a space group P63mc as a main structure([0021] and [0054]), and the particle size distribution of the positive electrode active materials has a first peak in the small particle diameter side and a second peak in the large particle diameter side ([0026], ([0027], [0055] and Table 1), which meets the claimed positive electrode material.
Kuroda further teaches the abundance ratio of the particles in the first particle group corresponding to the first peak in the small particle diameter side included in the positive electrode active material was 10%, and the abundance ratio of the particles in the second particle group corresponding to the second peak in the large particle diameter side was 90% ([0028] and [0055]), thus the ratio of the first peak to the second peak is 10%:90%, i.e., 0.11, which meets the claimed range of S1/S2.
Regarding claim 10, Kuroda teaches that the particles in the first particle group preferably have an average particle diameter (Da) of 30 nm or more and 5 μm or less ([0029]), which anticipates a particle size of 5 μm thus meets the claimed size of the first particle, and the particles in the second particle group preferably have an average particle diameter of 1 μm or more and 15 μm or less ([0029]), which anticipates a particle size of 15 μm thus meets the claimed size of the second particle.
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda.
The teachings of Kuroda are set forth above.
Regarding claim 13, Kuroda discloses that improved filling density of the positive electrode active material results in improved capacity maintenance rate of the secondary battery([0029]), thus a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the compact density in order to obtain the desired capacity maintenance rate. Additionally, since Kuroda teaches the same positive electrode material of same bimodal size in the same respective abundance, one of ordinary skill would expect the same compacted density as claimed given similar compact pressure since compacted density attributes to the compacted volume (size) of particles and mass of the particles.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda in view of US2014/0079990A1 (Yanagida), which is listed in Applicant’s information disclosure statement.
The teachings of Kuroda are set forth above.
Regarding claims 3, 8 and 11, Kuroda teaches that the particles in the first particle group and the particles in the second particle group may have the same composition or different compositions within the range of a general formula Liα[LixMnyCozMe(1-x-y-z)]O2 ([0018] and [0030]), wherein Me is at least one selected from Ni, Fe, Ti, Bi, and Nb, 0.5<α<1, 0.05<x<0.25, 0.4<y<0.7, and 0<z<0.25 ([0018], and ([0019]).
Kuroda does not teach the instantly claimed formula wherein 0.85 <1-y1≤1 and 0.85 <1-y2≤1 since 0≤y1<0.15, 0≤y2<0.15, which corresponds to the molar amount of Co in the first and second particles, respectively.
Yangagida teaches a lithium transition metal oxide of a crystalline structure of P63mc space group having a formula of Lix1Nay1CoαMᵦOƳ, wherein M is includes at least Mn ([0007]-[0008]), and additional element selected from magnesium, nickel, zirconium, aluminum, titanium, iron etc. may be added to the lithium transition metal oxide in an amount of 10 percent by mole or less with respect to the total molar amount of cobalt and manganese ([0012]), which renders the claimed first particles obvious when the additional element is magnesium, zirconium, aluminum and/or titanium, and the second particles obvious when the additional element is nickel and/or iron.
Yangagida teaches ([0008]): 1.9≤Ƴ≤2.1 exemplified as 2 (Table 1), 0<y1≤0.05, which meets the claimed z; 0<x1<1.1, which encompasses the claimed x ; 0.75≤α<1 which encompasses the claimed 1-y1, 1-y2 and 1-y since 0.85<1-y1 (or 1-y2 or 1-y )<1; 0<β ≤0.25, which encompasses the claimed y1, y2 and y, and a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside range disclosed by the prior art”. In re Wertheim, 541 f. 2d 257,191 USPQ 90(CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Yangagida teaches that the lithium transition metal oxide as a positive electrode active material provides a nonaqueous electrolyte battery having a high charge-discharge efficiency ([0006]).
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in employ the lithium transition metal oxide of Yangagida of various additional element as the respective first and second particles of the positive electrode material in the secondary battery of Kuroda. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teachings of Kuroda that to do so would predictably provide a high charge-discharge efficiency ([0006]).
Regarding claims 4, 6 and 12, Kuroda teaches that the particles in the first particle group preferably have an average particle diameter (Da) of 30 nm or more and 5 μm or less ([0029]), which anticipates a particle size of 5 μm thus meets the claimed size of the first particle, and the particles in the second particle group preferably have an average particle diameter of 1 μm or more and 15 μm or less ([0029]), which anticipates a particle size of 15 μm thus meets the claimed size of the second particle.
Kuroda further teaches the abundance ratio of the particles in the first particle group corresponding to the first peak in the small particle diameter side included in the positive electrode active material was 10%, and the abundance ratio of the particles in the second particle group corresponding to the second peak in the large particle diameter side was 90% ([0028] and [0055]), thus the average particle size is about 10%X5 μm +90%X15 μm= 14 μm when the first particle is 5 μm and the second particle is 15 μm ([0029]), which meets the claimed range.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda in view of CN109860540A (Tang), which is listed in Applicant’s information disclosure statement.
The teachings of Kuroda are set forth above.
Kuroda does not teach the positive electrode material have pores and cracks.
Tang teaches a lithium transition metal oxide positive electrode material have pores and cracks inside, wherein the pores and cracks can reduce internal stress of the positive electrode material when the positive electrode material swells during charging and discharging and improve battery cycle characteristics ([0027]).
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to form pores and cracks of Tang inside the positive electrode particles of Kuroda. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teachings of Tang that to do so would reduce internal stress of the positive electrode material when the positive electrode material swells during charging and discharging and improve battery cycle characteristics ([0027]).
As to the surface area, since Kuroda teaches the same particle size of same positive electrode material, one of ordinary skill would have reasonable basis to expect the particles have similar specific surface area as claimed.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda in view of US2011/0059356A1 (Ogosawara), which is listed in Applicant’s information disclosure statement.
The teachings of Kuroda are set forth above.
Kuroda further teaches the electrolyte is a non-aqueous electrolyte comprising nitriles ([0012]).
Kuroda does not teach the instantly claimed nitrile compound, neither its amount.
Ogosawara teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte comprising a nitrile compound having two or more nitrile groups such as glutaronitrile, adiponitrile, 1,2,3-propanetricarbonitrile and 1,3,5-pentanetricarbonitrile can not only inhibit gas generation during continuous charging but also significantly reduce the deterioration in discharge characteristic after continuous charging of a secondary battery ([0014] and [0025]), wherein the amount of the nitrile compound contained in the nonaqueous electrolytic solution is preferably within the range from 0.1% to 10% by mass ([0027]), which meets the claimed range.
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the nitrile compound of Ogosawara and its amount in the nonaqueous electrolyte of Kuroda. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teachings of Ogosawara that to do so would predictably inhibit gas generation during continuous charging and significantly reduce the deterioration in discharge characteristic after continuous charging of a secondary battery ([0014]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIQUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-7736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am -4:00 pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-2721302. 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.
/AIQUN LI/ Ph.D., Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766