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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/20/2023 and 07/09/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Per MPEP 2111.01 IV, to act as their own lexicographer, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. The specification at [0058] states “the ratio of the area where the carbon nanotubes (CNT) of the fibrous conductor 32b cover the surface of the positive electrode active material 32a is defined as the CNT coverage
θ
(%) (or "coverage
θ
(%)").” Therefore, the claimed property “a coverage of the fibrous conductor to the positive electrode active material” within claim 1 is interpreted as meaning: the ratio of the area where the carbon nanotubes (CNT) of the fibrous conductor cover the surface of the positive electrode active material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 2-4 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.
Regarding claim 2 and claim 3: the phrase “when "M" represents one or more types of metals selected from a group consisting of Fe, Cu, Ti, Mg, Al, W, B, Mo, Nb, Zn, Sn, Zr, Ga, and V, …” renders both claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention, since “M” representing the listed metal(s) is not positively required by the claim but rather appears to be a conditional limitation (due to presence of the word “when”), so it is not clear whether the claimed Li/M ratio (in claim 2) nor the claimed chemical formula (in claim 3) following said conditions are always required, or if these limitations are only required “when "M" represents one or more types of metals selected from a group consisting of Fe, Cu, Ti, Mg, Al, W, B, Mo, Nb, Zn, Sn, Zr, Ga, and V”. That is, it is unclear whether an instance when “M” represents a different metal element (i.e., not from among the list in claims 2 and 3) if the limitations following this conditional limitation are in fact required in order to meet the claim. Claim 4 is similarly indefinite due to dependence upon claim 3.
Further regarding claim 2: “a composition ratio of Li/M is between 1.15 and 1.21, inclusive” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the ratio of Li/M is calculated, whether it is a molar ratio, mass ratio, or et cetera. The specification at [0011, 0064-0065, 0142] repeats the limitation but does not provide further clarification of this property.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurita et al. (US 20170187031 A1, as cited in the 07/09/2024 IDS) in view of Araki et al. (US 20210257610 A1) and Kawamura et al. (US 20150333319 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kurita teaches a positive electrode plate (positive electrode mix to be supported on a positive electrode current collector, Kurita [0089]) for a lithium-ion rechargeable battery (a positive electrode active material usable for a lithium ion battery capable of high charge/discharge cycle performance, abstract), the positive electrode comprising:
a positive electrode mixture layer (a positive electrode mix including positive electrode active material, a conductive material and a binder; [0089]), wherein:
in the positive electrode mixture layer, a fibrous conductor (a fibrous carbonaceous material as the conductive material, [0090-0091]) is combined with a positive electrode active material (lithium-containing composite metal oxide as positive electrode active material, [0020]; mixed per [0089])
in which an amount of lithium carbonate with respect to the positive electrode active material is between 0.31 wt% and 1.29 wt%, inclusive (with respect to the positive electrode active material, the lithium carbonate content in a residual alkali on the particle surfaces is 0.1% by mass to 0.8% by mass … more preferably 0.3% by mass or more for obtaining a lithium secondary battery with higher cycle performance and 0.77% by mass or less for suppressing the expansion of the battery during the charge/discharge cycle; [0057]).
Kurita fails to explicitly teach:
a composition ratio of the fibrous conductor to the positive electrode active material is between 0.5 wt% and 2.0 wt%, inclusive; and
a coverage of the fibrous conductor to the positive electrode active material is 11.0% or less.
However, Kurita does teach in [0091] that the amount of the conductive material in the positive electrode mix is preferably from 5 parts by mass to 20 parts by mass, relative to 100 parts by mass of the positive electrode active material, but that this amount may be decreased when using a fibrous carbonaceous material such as a graphitized carbon fiber or a carbon nanotube as the conductive material.
Araki, analogous in the art of positive electrodes including fibrous carbonaceous conductive material in addition to positive active material, teaches in the lithium-ion secondary battery positive electrode active material complex of the present invention, the amount of coverage of the first positive electrode active material with the carbon nanotube is preferably 1 to 1.5% by mass with respect to the total mass of the first positive electrode active material and the carbon nanotube ([0058]). Araki teaches in [0059] that such mass percentage of carbon nanotube covering the first positive electrode active material is a result-effective variable which affects the trade-off of resultant properties in the following way: In a case where the amount of coverage with the carbon nanotube with respect to the total mass of the first positive electrode active material and the carbon nanotube is less than 1% by mass, a region of contact between the first positive electrode active material and the carbon nanotube is narrower, and for this reason, it is difficult to obtain a resistance reduction effect. On the other hand, in a case where the coverage amount exceeds 1.5% by mass, the ratio of the carbon nanotube in the total of the carbon and the carbon nanotube contained in the covering layer is high. For this reason, coupling of the second positive electrode active material particles by the carbon is insufficient, and the resistance of the obtained battery increases. (Araki [0058-0059].)
Kawamura, also analogous in the art of positive electrode active material with carbonaceous conductive additives, teaches a positive electrode material for a lithium ion battery ([0031]) being in a matrix containing graphene to form a composite ([0030]) and further teaches that a value obtained by dividing a ratio (%) of a carbon element at a material surface by a ratio (%) of a carbon element in the whole material is not less than 1.5 and not more than 7. Kawamura [0034] teaches that such value obtained by dividing a ratio (%) of a carbon element at a material surface by a ratio (%) of a carbon element in the whole material is a result-effective variable which affects the trade-off of resultant properties in the following way: the value of not less than 1.5 and not more than 7 means that the matrix is in a state of being less-exposed to the surface since the distribution of the matrix is biased toward the inside of the composite particle. When the value is lower than 1.5, it is not preferred since the distribution of the matrix is excessively biased toward the inside of the composite particle and it becomes difficult to transfer electrons to or from the outside of the composite particle. When the value is higher than 7, it is not preferred since the distribution of the matrix is biased toward the surface of the composite particle to interfere with the transfer of lithium ions to or from the inside of the composite particle. (Kawamura [0034].)
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious at the time of filing to modify Kurita to decrease the amount of fibrous carbonaceous material used relative to the positive electrode active material, as contemplated by Kurita [0091] cited above, in view of the Araki teaching that the carbon nanotube is preferably 1 to 1.5% by mass is preferable to obtain a resistance reduction effect as well as mitigate resistance increase within the resultant battery. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious at the time of filing to also optimize the surface area coverage ratio of the carbonaceous material within modified Kurita in further view of the teachings of Kawamura (i.e., to achieve a desired balance of carbon at the material surface, among the carbon matrix throughout the positive active material) in order to optimize the resultant ease of transfer of electrons to or from the outside of the composite particle, as well as mitigate interference with the transfer of lithium ions to or from the inside of the composite particle.
Thereby, all limitations of claim 1 are rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 5, modified Kurita teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and wherein the fibrous conductor is formed by carbon nanotube or carbon nanofibers (a graphitized carbon fiber or a carbon nanotube as the conductive material, Kurita [0091]; see also carbon nanotube of Araki [0053], such that modification of Kurita in view of Araki as applied to claim 1 above also agrees with claim 5).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kurita teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and teaches a lithium-ion rechargeable battery (a lithium ion battery capable of high charge/discharge cycle performance, Kurita abstract), comprising: the positive electrode plate for a lithium-ion rechargeable battery (the positive electrode mix to be supported on a positive electrode current collector, Kurita [0089]) according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above, over modified Kurita).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurita et al. (US 20170187031 A1, as cited in the 07/09/2024 IDS) in view of Araki et al. (US 20210257610 A1) and Kawamura et al. (US 20150333319 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Toya et al. (US 20160172673 A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Kurita teaches the limitations of claim 1 above but fails to explicitly teach wherein:
the positive electrode active material is represented by a chemical formula of LiNixCoyMzO2; and
when "M" represents one or more types of metals selected from a group consisting of Fe, Cu, Ti, Mg, Al, W, B, Mo, Nb, Zn, Sn, Zr, Ga, and V, a composition ratio of Li/M is between 1.15 and 1.21, inclusive.
However, Kurita does teach formula LiaNi1-x-y-zMnxCoyMzO2 wherein M is at least one metal selected from the group consisting of Mg, Al and Zr (Kurita [0022]) which is similar to the claimed formula except for the presence of Mn in that of Kurita.
Araki teaches that the first positive electrode active material (i.e., that with a coverage of carbon nanotubes per Araki [0058] cited in regards to claim 1 above, in modifying Kurita) can be a lithium nickel cobalt-based oxide which has the general formula of LiNixCoyMzO2 wherein M can be at least one selected from Mn, Al, Mg, and W (Araki [0029]), where Al, Mg, and W fall in the claimed group of metals. Araki also specifically teaches in [0030] the first positive electrode active material being lithium nickel cobalt aluminum-based oxide, wherein Al is the metal M. Araki further teaches that in addition to the exemplary materials of their [0029-0030], i.e. lithium nickel cobalt-based oxide and lithium nickel cobalt aluminum-based oxide as cited above, lithium nickel cobalt manganese-based oxide (represented by the formula LiNiaCobMncO2) is also known as a suitable example of a first positive electrode active material (Araki [0031]). This is similar to the lithium nickel cobalt manganese-based oxide formula taught by Kurita [0022] as cited above. However, Araki fails to explicitly teach the ratio of Li/M falling within the claimed range.
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination per MPEP 2144.07 and the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness per MPEP 2143 I (B), such that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious at the time of filing to substitute the lithium nickel cobalt-based oxide (or specifically lithium nickel cobalt aluminum-based oxide) of Araki for the lithium nickel cobalt manganese-based oxide of Kurita since both are taught to suitably function as positive electrode active material that can have a surface coverage of fibrous carbonaceous material.
Regarding the Li/M ratio, Toya is analogous in the art of cathode active material specifically formed from lithium carbonate (Toya [0071]) and teaches a ratio (Li/Me) of the number of lithium atoms (Li) with respect to the total number of metal atoms (Me) when forming the target cathode active material is 0.95 to 1.20 (Toya [0070]) (overlaps claimed Li/M ratio range from 1.15 to 1.20). Toya teaches in [0150-0151] that this Li/Me ratio is a result-effective variable with the effects of: if the value of Li/Me is too small, the cathode resistance becomes large and the extremely low-temperature output decreases, or if the value of Li/Me is too large, the initial discharge capacity decreases.
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 I), and “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (MPEP 2144.05 II). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious at the time of filing to optimize the Li/M ratio of modified Kurita, such as to fall within the overlapping Li/Me range of Toya, in order to achieve a desired balance between resultant cathode resistance, low-temperature output, and initial discharge capacity.
Thereby, all limitations of claim 2 are rendered obvious.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurita et al. (US 20170187031 A1, as cited in the 07/09/2024 IDS) in view of Araki et al. (US 20210257610 A1) and Kawamura et al. (US 20150333319 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lv et al. (US 20220336796 A1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kurita teaches the limitations of claim 1 above but fails to explicitly teach when "M" represents one or more types of metals selected from a group consisting of Fe, Cu, Ti, Mg, Al, W, B, Mo, Nb, Zn, Sn, Zr, Ga, and V, the positive electrode active material is represented by a chemical formula of LiNixCoyMzO2; x = 1 - y - z is satisfied; 0<x< 0.5 is satisfied; 0.2 <y< 0.5 is satisfied; y + z > 0.5 is satisfied; and y/x> 0.98 is satisfied.
However, Kurita does teach formula LiaNi1-x-y-zMnxCoyMzO2 wherein M is at least one metal selected from the group consisting of Mg, Al and Zr (Kurita [0022]), which is similar to the claimed formula except for the presence of Mn in that of Kurita.
Araki teaches that the first positive electrode active material (i.e., that with a coverage of fibrous carbonaceous material per Araki [0058] cited in regards to claim 1 above, in modifying Kurita) can be a lithium nickel cobalt-based oxide which has the general formula of LiNixCoyMzO2 wherein M can be at least one selected from Mn, Al, Mg, and W (Araki [0029]), of which Al, Mg, and W fall in the claimed group of metals. Araki teaches within this formula: x+y+z=1 (Araki [0029]), such that x = 1 - y - z is satisfied. However, Araki also fails to teach that 0<x< 0.5 is satisfied; 0.2 <y< 0.5 is satisfied; y + z > 0.5 is satisfied; and y/x> 0.98 is satisfied. Araki does teach that in addition to the exemplary lithium nickel cobalt-based oxide material of their [0029], lithium nickel cobalt manganese-based oxide (represented by the formula LiNiaCobMncO2, Araki [0031]) (which is similar to the lithium nickel cobalt manganese-based oxide formula taught by Kurita [0022] as cited above) and lithium nickel cobalt aluminum-based oxide (Araki [0030]) are also known as suitable examples of first positive electrode active material.
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination per MPEP 2144.07, such that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious at the time of filing to select a lithium nickel cobalt aluminum-based oxide of Araki (including Al as the metal M) as the positive active material instead of the lithium nickel cobalt manganese-based oxide of Kurita, since both are taught toward by Araki as known positive electrode active materials that can have a surface coverage of fibrous carbonaceous material.
Further regarding the additional claimed compositional ranges, Lv is analogous in the art of positive electrode active materials and teaches in [0052] exemplary composite lithium cobalt oxide with a general formula of LiCo1-aMaO2 (where it is preferred that M in the formula is one or more of Mg, Sc, Ti, Fe, Ni, Cu, Zn, Ga, Zr, Nb, Mo, Ru, Rh, Pd, In, Sn, Hf, Ta, W, Re, Cr, Y, Sb, Lu, Au, Pb, Er, Na, Al, Si, Ge, Mn, Ca, Te, Hg, Bi, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, and V; wherein 0<a≤0.2) and specifically a lithium nickel-cobalt aluminate (i.e., similar to lithium nickel cobalt aluminum-based oxide taught by Araki as applied to modified Kurita above) with a general formula of LiNi1-x-yCoxAlyO2 wherein 0≤x≤1, 0≤y≤1 and 0≤x+y≤1 (Lv [0013, 0052]). As such, Lv teaches their positive electrode active material in which:
0<x< 0.5 is satisfied (Ni subscript 1-x-y can range from 1-1-1=-1[realistically 0] to 1-0-0=1 per Lv [0013, 0052], overlaps claimed range between 0 and 0.5);
0.2 <y< 0.5 is satisfied (Co subscript can range from 0 to 1, Lv [0013, 0052]; overlaps claimed range between 0.2 to 0.5);
y + z > 0.5 is satisfied (Co subscript plus Al subscript is x+y which can range from 0+0=0 to 1+1=2 per Lv [0013, 0052], overlaps claimed range between 0.5 and 2); and
y/x> 0.98 is satisfied (Co subscript divided by Ni subscript is x/[1-x-y] which can range from 1/-1=-1 to 1/1=1 per Lv [0013, 0052] data, which overlaps with the claimed range from 0.98 to 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 I).
The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness per MPEP 2143 I (B), such that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious at the time of filing to substitute the lithium nickel-cobalt aluminate of Lv satisfying the above subscript relationships, and predict functionality within modified Kurita, similar to the lithium nickel cobalt aluminum-based oxide of Araki as applied above.
Thereby, all limitations of claim 3 are rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 4, modified Kurita teaches the limitations of claim 3 above wherein the "x" satisfies x < 0.37 (Ni subscript 1-x-y can range from 1-1-1=-1[realistically 0] to 1-0-0=1 per Lv [0013, 0052], overlaps claimed range between 0 and 0.37). 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 I).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurita et al. (US 20170187031 A1, as cited in the 07/09/2024 IDS) in view of Araki et al. (US 20210257610 A1) and Kawamura et al. (US 20150333319 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yano et al. (US 20100119949 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kurita teaches the limitations of claim 1 above but fails to teach that the fibrous conductor has a length of 100 nm to 1000 nm.
Kurita is silent toward the length of the fibrous carbonaceous conductive material. Araki teaches that the average length of the carbon nanotube is not particularly limited, and for example, is preferably within a range of 5 to 20 μm.
Yano is analogous in the art of electrodes in which fibrous conductive materials are bonded to the conductive material that is adhered to a surface of the active-material powder (Yano abstract and Figs. 1-2) and teaches it is desirable that said fibrous conductive materials can exhibit a fibrous length of 100 nm-50 μm (Yano [0033]). Such range encompasses both the range of Araki and the instantly claimed range.
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 I). Further, changes in size/proportion are design choices within the ambit of a person having ordinary skill in the art, such that selecting a length of the conductive fibrous material within modified Kurita to fall within the lower region of the range taught toward by Yano would have been obvious and a person having ordinary skill in the art would have expected sufficient functionality (i.e., conductivity within the electrode while being bonded to surface of active material) of such fibrous conductive materials as taught by Yano.
Thereby, claim 6 is rendered obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessie Walls-Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-1664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, typically 10-4.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/JESSIE WALLS-MURRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728