DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 and 16-19 in the reply filed on 5/1/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 7-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claim 1, and thus dependent claims 2-6; claim 2; claim 6; claim 15, and thus dependent claims 16-19; claim 16; and claim 19 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.
A) Claims 1 and 15 are rejected for the use of the term, “a Li-Ni-Co-Mn-M-based material, where M is a transition metal” because the metes and bounds of what is required are not clear. For example, looking to the instant application specification for clarity, all of the examples utilize LiNi0.89Co0.04Mn0.07O2 in which there is no “M” component. Accordingly, it is not clear what is or is not required to meet ““a Li-Ni-Co-Mn-M-based material, where M is a transition metal” and what components must be present. Given “M” may be absent based on the examples, can any of Li, Ni, Co, and/or Mn also be absent? The answer is entirely unclear from the claim or the specification and the terminology of “a Li-Ni-CO-Mn-M-based material” is not clear. It is noted that removing “based” would not solve the issue given this terminology is absent from the specification such that it would still not be clear how to interpret such a hypothetical term consistent with the disclosure, and what is or is not required to meet the claim.
B) Claims 1 and 15 recite, “about 1-5 wt%,” wherein the use of “about” renders the claim indefinite because there is nothing in the specification or prior art to provide any indication as to what range is covered by the term "about" (see Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 18 USPQ2d 1016 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (MPEP 2173.05(b)].
It is noted that the use of approximation terms or terms of degree such as “about” are not indefinite when the specification provides some standard allowing for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand the scope of the term. If the specification does not provide some standard for measuring that degree, a determination must be made as to whether one of ordinary skill in the art could nevertheless ascertain the scope of the claim (e.g., a standard that is recognized in the art for measuring the meaning of the term of degree). For example, in Ex parte Oetiker, 23 USPQ2d 1641 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992), the phrases "relatively shallow," "of the order of," "the order of about 5mm," and "substantial portion" were held to be indefinite because the specification lacked some standard for measuring the degrees intended. The meaning of every term used in a claim should be apparent from the prior art or from the specification and drawings at the time the application is filed. Claim language may not be "ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention." Packard, 751 F.3d at 1311. In the instance scenario, there specification fails to make clear what would or would not be covered by the term “about” in conjunction with the range specified, and there is not a known standard in the state of the prior art for interpreting the term. Accordingly, the use of the term renders the claims indefinite.
C) Claims 2 and 16 each recite that the core comprises LiNixCoyMnzM1-x-y-zO2, where 0.3<x<1, 0<y<0.4, and 0<z<0.7; however, this chemical formula is not linked to whether this is one in the same as the “Li-Ni-Co-Mn-M-O-based material” or whether this is a second entity that is part of the core. For this reason, claims 2 and 16 are also rejected as being indefinite because it is not clear whether the claims require the core to comprise a “Li-Ni-Co-Mn-O-based material” and a second entity that is the defined formula of claim 2; or if this is a failure in invoking proper antecedent basis and the chemical formula defined in the dependent claims is supposed to be that of the “Li-Ni-Co-Mn-M-O-based material” of the parent claims.
D) Claims 6 and 19 each recite “wherein the electrode material has a ratio, of D-band width to G-band width, corresponding to 0.49 or less.” The claim is indefinite because it does not define what “D-band width” and “G-band width” are in relation to. Looking to the specification, it appears this is related to Raman spectroscopy (P62 of the PGPUB); however, no specific method is given, wherein it is known that both the D-band and G-band measurements depend on the excitation laser energy (wavelength) utilized. See, Matthews et al., “Origin of dispersive effects of the Raman D band in carbon materials,” Physical Review B, Volume 59, No. 10, March 1999-II, pages R6585-6589 (copy provided), the entire reference describing the differences in the Raman spectroscopy achieved for the same sample for the D-band and G-band relative to different laser wavelengths utilized (see Fig. 1; pages 1-2). See also Ban et al. (US 2011/0070495) describing how the “lines and widths” of these modes (in reference to D-band and G-bands) may vary significantly depending on how close the excitation energy is to the nanotube resonance (P39). Sample preparation for Raman spectroscopy is also critical as it is known that whether a substrate is utilized or not will affect the D-band achieved, as well as what type of substate is utilized will also affect the D-band achieved (see: Luo et al, “The origin of sub-bands in the Raman D-band of graphene,” Carbon 50 (2012) 4252-4258 (abstract; entire disclosure)). Accordingly, given there is no method disclosed for the Raman spectroscopy test being utilized, it is not clear under what parameters the D-band and G-band are achieved, wherein the method matters for the results achieved.
Furthermore, the “width” for each of the D-band width and the G-band width being utilized in the ratio calculation is also not clear, wherein, for example, one common measurement practice is to use the full-width half maximum versus just any random width of the peaks (although the use of this specific width is not always the case). Thus, in the case of the claims, it is not clear which widths are being selected for the ratio, or if they are even the same width (i.e., is one width the base of the corresponding peak, and the other width is a non-base width?). Accordingly, for at least the above reasons, the metes and bounds of 6 and 19 are not clear and the claims are indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required. For compact prosecution purposes, the Examiner recommends claims 1-2 be amended to the following to overcome the rejections set forth above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph (as well as the pertinent portions of claims 15-16) against these claims.
Examiner Recommendation:
An electrode material comprising:
an electrode active material core comprising LiNixCoyMnzM1-x-y-zO2, where 0.3<x<1, 0<y<0.4, and 0<z<0.7, where M is a transition metal; and
a carbon nanotube coating layer on a surface of the electrode active material core,
wherein the carbon nanotube coating layer comprises carbon nanotubes in an amount of 1-5 wt%, based on 100 wt% of the electrode active material core.
It is noted that the formula set forth is interpreted as follows: each of Li, Ni, Co, Mn and O are required in the amounts presented, and depending on what x, y, or z are, M may or may not be present.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dunn et al. (US 2021/0066721).
Regarding claim 1, Dunn teaches a cathode material (“electrode material”) comprising:
an electrode active material core comprising LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 (“NCA”) (“a Li-Ni-Co-Mn-M-O-based material, where M is a transition metal1”) (abstract; P77; 90-94, 104-106, 131); and
a carbon nanotube (“CNT”) coating layer on a surface of the electrode active material core (abstract; P77; 90-94, 104-106, 131),
wherein the carbon nanotube coating layer comprises carbon nanotubes in an amount of 4.44 wt% based on 100 wt% of the electrode active material core (see P93 in which CNT relative to NCA is provided in a weight ratio of 90: 4 which equates to 100: 4.4 weight ratio). Accordingly, the specific example anticipates the range presented:
"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is 'anticipated' if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original) See MPEP § 2131.03.
Regarding claim 4, Dunn teaches wherein the carbon nanotube coating layer in the example has a thickness of 15 nm (P105), thereby anticipating the range claimed of 5-21 nm.
7. Claims 1-3 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Araki et al. (US 2021/0257610).
Regarding claim 1, Araki teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery positive electrode active material complex (“an electrode material”) comprising:
a first positive electrode active material core comprising a Li-Ni-Co-Mn-M-O-based material, where M is a transition metal (P25-32) including the genus of LiNixCoyMzO2 where M is at least one selected from Mn, Al, Mg, W (note W (tungsten) is a transition metal) with x, y, and z specified (P29) along with at least the specific example of NCM811 (LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 – P87-93); and
a covering layer including carbon nanotubes (“CNT”) (“a carbon nanotube coating layer”) on a surface of the electrode active material core (P33),
wherein the carbon nanotube (“CNT”) coating layer comprises carbon nanotubes in a mass/weight ratio of 90: 1 (i.e., 100: 1.1 wt% relative to 100 wt% of the electrode active material core) (P88), a mass/weight ratio of 97: 1 (i.e., a 1.03 wt% relative to 100 wt% of the electrode active material core) (P90), and 80: 1.5 (i.e., a 1.88 wt% relative to 100 wt% of the electrode active material core) (P89). Each of the examples anticipates the claimed range of “ about 1-5 wt%, based on 100 wt% of the electrode active material core” given:
"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is 'anticipated' if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original) See MPEP § 2131.03.
Note also the teaching at P58 with respect to the amount CNT relative to the first positive electrode active material.
Regarding claim 2, Araki teaches wherein the electrode active material core may comprise NCM811 (LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 – P87-93) which is a species that anticipates the genus presented of (“LiNixCoyMnzM1-x-y-zO2, where 0.3<x<1, 0<y<0.4, and 0<z<0.7”). Note also the general genus teaching of LiNixCoyMzO2 where M is at least one selected from Mn, Al, Mg, W (note W (tungsten) is a transition metal) with x, y, and z specified (P29).
Regarding claim 3, Araki teaches wherein the electrode active material core comprises particles with an average particle size of 6 µm in the examples relied upon (P87-90), thereby anticipating the range presented. Note also the teaching at P32 teaching the average particle size of the electrode active material core is preferably within a range of 4-10 µm.
Regarding claim 15, Araki teaches a lithium secondary battery (title; P74) comprising:
a positive electrode (P65-72) comprising a positive electrode active material complex (“an electrode material”) that comprises the components claimed (see the rejection of claim 1; entirely incorporated into the instant rejection and not repeated here);
a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode material (P75-79); and an electrolyte (P80-81).
Regarding claim 16, Araki teaches wherein the electrode active material core may comprise NCM811 (LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 – P87-93) which is a species that anticipates the genus presented of (“LiNixCoyMnzM1-x-y-zO2, where 0.3<x<1, 0<y<0.4, and 0<z<0.7”). Note also the general genus teaching of LiNixCoyMzO2 where M is at least one selected from Mn, Al, Mg, W (note W (tungsten) is a transition metal) with x, y, and z specified (P29).
Regarding claim 17, Araki teaches wherein the electrode active material core comprises particles with an average particle size of 6 µm in the examples relied upon (P87-90), thereby anticipating the range presented. Note also the teaching at P32 teaching the average particle size of the electrode active material core is preferably within a range of 4-10 µm.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 3, 5, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunn et al. (US 2021/0066721) as applied to at least claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Dunn teaches wherein the NCA core (“electrode active material core”) comprises “micron-sized” NCA particles (P105) with one example shown in the SEM image of Fig. 2a having a diameter of 10 µm. Accordingly, the claimed range for the particle size is held prima facie obvious in view of the general teaching of “micron-sized” particle, and the teaching of a suitable particle size being 10 µm in the example shown (Fig. 2a). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05). Furthermore, “Where 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.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, Dunn teaches wherein each of the carbon nanotubes has a length of 3-6 µm, thereby rending the claimed range of “200 nm or longer” prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 15, Dunn teaches a cathode (“positive electrode”) comprising a positive electrode material that comprises the features presented (see rejection of claim 1; entirely incorporated into the instant rejection and repeated here. Dunn does not explicitly teach a lithium secondary battery; however, the entire construct is aimed at providing the composite NCA-CNT material as a cathode material for a lithium ion battery (5, 88, 149; claim 19, claim 25, etc.). A lithium ion battery intrinsically requires a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode material and an electrolyte to be functional; without such entities, the lithium ion battery would not function. Accordingly, the construct of a lithium ion battery utilizing the positive electrode and positive electrode active material of Dunn is considered prima facie obvious in view of the explicit teachings of the intention to use the taught positive electrode and positive electrode active material in such a construct, wherein the implementation of a negative electrode material and an electrolyte are intrinsic to providing a functional lithium ion battery.
Regarding claim 17, Dunn teaches wherein the NCA core (“electrode active material core”) comprises “micron-sized” NCA particles (P105) with one example shown in the SEM image of Fig. 2a having a diameter of 10 µm. Accordingly, the claimed range for the particle size is held prima facie obvious in view of the general teaching of “micron-sized” particle, and the teaching of a suitable particle size being 10 µm in the example shown (Fig. 2a). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05). Furthermore, “Where 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.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 18, Dunn teaches wherein the carbon nanotube coating layer in the example has a thickness of 15 nm (P105), thereby anticipating the range claimed of 5-21 nm.
10. Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunn et al. (US 2021/0066721) as applied to at least claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Araki et al. (US 2021/0257610)
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Dunn fails to disclose the electrode active material core comprises the material recited within the claim and teaches the core is Ni0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 (“NCA”). In the same field of endeavor, Araki teaches analogous art of a positive electrode active material that is provided with a covering layer including carbon nanotubes and teaches the functional equivalency of the use of the following materials (i.e., NCA taught by Dunn being a species of the genus of formula 2; formula 1 reading on claim 2 genus):
PNG
media_image1.png
276
318
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, Araki teaches the first positive electrode material core material may be either of these genera of materials and their known functional equivalency in terms of providing a suitable cathode active material core on which to coat carbon nanotubes such that the substitution of this type of material for the NCA material of Dunn is considered prima facie obvious in order to provide the predictable results of a desired output, stability, cost, etc. of the selected active material core material. Additionally, the finding of obviousness is considered two fold in view of the case law from MPEP § 2144.07:
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ("…selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious).
11. Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunn et al. (US 2021/0066721) as applied to at least claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0285690) and Elabd et al. (US 2010/0285392).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Araki fails to disclose wherein the electrode material has a ratio, of D-band width to G-band width, corresponding to 0.49 or less. The claim is being examined as best as possible for compact prosecution purposes given the indefinite issues outlined above.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches a positive electrode comprising positive electrode active material and carbon nanotubes, wherein the carbon nanotubes have an ID/IG of 0.10 or less, with ID/IG being a ratio of peak intensity of a D band divided by a peak intensity of a G band in Raman spectrum (abstract) carried out by the method defined at P40-41. When this ratio is achieved for the carbon nanotubes in the positive electrode, the high temperature cycle characteristics of the positive electrode are improved and stable electrical properties are secured (P39, 42). As taught by Elabd, the D-band is a measure of the disordered state of carbon, and the G-band is a measure of the graphitic, ordered nature of the carbon (P167), wherein Elabd teaches that the position and width of the peaks is a measure of the system order as well (P167). Thus, a ratio of D relative to G, whether peak intensity, width of the peaks, position of peaks, etc. is considered a ratio optimizing the amount of disordered, amorphous carbon relative to the amount of ordered, graphitic carbon, with Lee teaching it is desirable for this ratio for intensity ID/IG to be 0.10 or less (i.e., there is more ordered carbon present than disordered carbon).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the electrode material of Dunn comprising carbon nanotubes such that any ratio of its D-band relative to its G-band (intensity, width, peak position) has a ratio such that there is more ordered carbon present than disordered carbon which correlates to a range of 0.49 or less (i.e., at 0.5, the amounts would be equal, and any value over 0.5 there would be more disordered carbon than ordered carbon) given Lee teaches the desirability of keeping this ratio such that there is more ordered carbon present than disordered carbon provides the benefits of high temperature cycle characteristics of the positive electrode using said active material are improved and stable electrical properties are secured (P39, 42).
12. Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki et al. (US 2021/0257610) as applied to at least claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Dunn et al. (US 2021/0066721).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Araki is silent as to the coating thickness of the covering layer (claimed range is 5-21 nm); however, it intrinsically has some thickness value and as demonstrated by the weight ratio of components described generally and in the specific examples, must be a thin layer relative to the first positive electrode active material core material (P87-90; entire disclosure).
In the same field of endeavor, Dunn teaches analogous art of a protective coating layer on a cathode active material of a “Li-Ni-Co-Mn-M-O-based material” that includes carbon nanotubes (“CNT”) that is applied to similar-sized core particles in weight percentage ratios similar to that taught by Araki, wherein the resulting thickness of the coating achieved is 15 nm (P105). Dunn thus teaches this is a suitable thickness of an analogous coating layer, and further teaches that the thickness has to be evaluated such that it is electrically conductive as well as permeable to ions (P105).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to determine a suitable thickness range of the covering layer of Araki, and to look to known constructs and apply the same/similar thickness ranges such as that taught by Dunn of 15 nm to ensure that the thickness does not inhibit ion conduction and is electrically conductive to provide a suitable positive electrode active material.
Furthermore, it is noted that,“Where 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.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Accordingly, it is considered an additionally obvious expedient to determine the optimum or workable thickness values or ranges for the specific construct of Araki’s covering layer to provide workable or optimum covering layers that are electrically conductive and maintain ionic conduction as taught by Dunn in the absence of new or unexpected results for which objective evidence exists and is fully commensurate in scope with the claim.
13. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki et al. (US 2021/0257610) as applied to at least claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Araki teaches wherein each of the carbon nanotubes has a fiber length of less than 10 µm in the examples utilized (P87-90), and a teaching at P56 that the average length is in a range of 5 to 20 µm (P56). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05).
14. Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki et al. (US 2021/0257610) as applied to at least claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0285690) and Elabd et al. (US 2010/0285392).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Araki fails to disclose wherein the electrode material has a ratio, of D-band width to G-band width, corresponding to 0.49 or less. The claim is being examined as best as possible for compact prosecution purposes given the indefinite issues outlined above.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches a positive electrode comprising positive electrode active material and carbon nanotubes, wherein the carbon nanotubes have an ID/IG of 0.10 or less, with ID/IG being a ratio of peak intensity of a D band divided by a peak intensity of a G band in Raman spectrum (abstract) carried out by the method defined at P40-41. When this ratio is achieved for the carbon nanotubes in the positive electrode, the high temperature cycle characteristics of the positive electrode are improved and stable electrical properties are secured (P39, 42). As taught by Elabd, the D-band is a measure of the disordered state of carbon, and the G-band is a measure of the graphitic, ordered nature of the carbon (P167), wherein Elabd teaches that the position and width of the peaks is a measure of the system order as well (P167). Thus, a ratio of D relative to G, whether peak intensity, width of the peaks, position of peaks, etc. is considered a ratio optimizing the amount of disordered, amorphous carbon relative to the amount of ordered, graphitic carbon, with Lee teaching it is desirable for this ratio for intensity ID/IG to be 0.10 or less (i.e., there is more ordered carbon present than disordered carbon).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the electrode material of Araki comprising carbon nanotubes such that any ratio of its D-band relative to its G-band (intensity, width, peak position) has a ratio such that there is more ordered carbon present than disordered carbon which correlates to a range of 0.49 or less (i.e., at 0.5, the amounts would be equal, and any value over 0.5 there would be more disordered carbon than ordered carbon) given Lee teaches the desirability of keeping this ratio such that there is more ordered carbon present than disordered carbon provides the benefits of high temperature cycle characteristics of the positive electrode using said active material are improved and stable electrical properties are secured (P39, 42).
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Additional references which each anticipate the subject matter of at least claim 1:
Zhang et al., “Mechanical Composite of LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2/Carbon Nanotubes with Enhanced Electrochemical Performance for Lithium-Ion Batteries,” Nanoscale Research Letters (2017) 12:376 (copy provided).
Kim et al. (US 2015/0325854) teaches electrode material such as LiCoO2 coated with an electrically conductive carbon coating that may be carbon nanotube (P25; 33; entire disclosure).
Oh et al. (US 2021/0184206) teaches:
PNG
media_image2.png
304
470
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The latter reference shares multiple inventors with the instant application as well as an assignee; Applicant is reminded of their Duty of Disclosure (MPEP 2001) with respect to copending applications and any prior art references considered “material to patentability” cited in said applications:
The individuals covered by 37 CFR 1.56 have a duty to bring to the attention of the examiner, or other Office official involved with the examination of a particular application, information within their knowledge as to other copending United States applications which are "material to patentability" of the application in question. This may include providing the identification of pending or abandoned applications filed by at least one of the inventors or assigned to the same assignee as the current application that disclose similar subject matter that are not otherwise identified in the current application. As set forth by the court in Armour & Co. v. Swift & Co., 466 F.2d 767, 779, 175 USPQ 70, 79 (7th Cir. 1972).
For example, if a particular inventor has different applications pending which disclose similar subject matter but claim patentably indistinct inventions, the existence of other applications must be disclosed to the examiner of each of the involved applications. Similarly, the prior art references from one application must be made of record in another subsequent application if such prior art references are "material to patentability" of the subsequent application. See Dayco Prod., 329 F.3d at 1369, 66 USPQ2d at 1808.
It is noted that Ni-rich Li(NiCoMn)O2 materials is an extremely well-explored area, with entire CPC classifications dedicated to specific sub-genera of compounds:
PNG
media_image3.png
84
863
media_image3.png
Greyscale
For a study on altering the nickel amount in such oxides and the outcome, see Noh et al., “Comparison of the structural and electrochemical properties of layered Li[NixCoyMnz]O2 (x = 1/3, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8 and 0.85) cathode materials for lithium ion batteries,” J. Power Sources 233 (2013) 121-130 (copy provided).
Doping of this genus of materials with transition metal elements (i.e., optional “M” as presented in the claim) is also an extremely well-studied area.
See at least:
Kumakura et al. (US 2022/0271274) teaches the genus of Li(NiCoMn)O2 materials (P1) in which a dopant Ak is optimized relative to (NizMnyCox)1-k and may be any of those recited in at least P52:
PNG
media_image4.png
210
443
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
83
448
media_image5.png
Greyscale
See also any of Blangero et al. (US 2022/0255067), Dou et al. (US 2022/0123302), or Wang et al. (US 2022/0045322) for optimization of transition metal element “M” in this type of material.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA J BARROW whose telephone number is (571)270-7867. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am - 6pm CST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/AMANDA J BARROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
1 The phrase for prior art purposes is being interpreted as broadly as it is presented, and so long as the prior art teaches at least one of these elements within the electrode active material core chemical composition, it will be considered a “Li-Ni-Co-Mn-M-O-based material, where M is a transition metal”
Prosecution Insights