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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because axis labels and numbering on graphs in Figures 6-8 and 10-16 are blurry and difficult to distinguish. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The text in Tables 1 and 2 are blurry and indistinguishable.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the secondary particle includes at least one primary particle” in lines 6-7. Following the recitation of the “at least one primary particle” in lines 6-7, Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, and 13 each recite “the primary particle”. The examiner suggests to amend each recitation of “the primary particle” to read “the at least one primary particle” for clarity and consistency.
Claim 1 recites “the primary particle includes at least one crystallite” in lines 7-8. Following the recitation of the “at least one crystallite” in lines 7-8, Claims 1, 5-7, 10-11, and 13 each recite “the crystallite”. The examiner suggests to amend each recitation of “the crystallite” to read “the at least one crystallite” for clarity and consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “the secondary particle includes at least one primary particle, and the primary particle includes at least one crystallite” in lines 6-8. As such, the scope of the limitation suggests that “the secondary particle includes at least one primary particle” could refer to a secondary particle which consists on a single primary particle (i.e., the secondary particle is the primary particle), or a secondary particle which consists of, for example, three primary particles. Likewise, the scope of the limitation suggests that “the primary particle includes at least one crystallite” could refer to a primary particle which consists on a single crystallite (i.e., the primary particle is the crystallite), or a primary particle which consists of, for example, three crystallite particles. The examiner notes that the broad scope of the above limitation will be considered when reviewing the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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.
Claims 1-14 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the phrase "may be" (line 17) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the examiner notes that the phrase “may be” will be considered to render the following limitation as optional. Claims 2-14 are also rejected due to their dependency on Claim 1.
Claim 3 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 3, the phrase "may be" (line 2) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the examiner notes that the phrase “may be” will be considered to render the following limitation as optional.
Claims 5-6 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.
Regarding Claim 5, the phrase "may be" (line 2) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the examiner notes that the phrase “may be” will be considered to render the following limitation as optional. Claim 3 is also rejected due to its dependency on Claim 5.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2014/0072874 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses a cathode active material for a secondary battery (lithium battery, 1), comprising a lithium composite oxide (lithium transition metal oxide) represented by Formula 1 (see below) and containing a layered structure of overlithiated oxide (Figures 1 and 3, [0022, 0027-0029, 0079]). Kim further discloses that the lithium composite oxide (lithium transition metal oxide) includes a secondary particle (composite cathode active material), the secondary particle (composite cathode active material) including a primary particle (composite cathode active material), and the primary particle (composite cathode active material) includes a crystallite (Figure 1, [0025-0026]). Kim further discloses that the secondary particle (composite cathode active material) comprises a core and a shell (coating layer) occupying at least a part of the surface of the core (Figure 1, [0023]). Kim further discloses that the shell (coating layer) of the secondary particle (composite cathode active material) comprises a crystalline metal oxide which is formed from a calcination process (Figure 1, [0015, 0024-0025]). Kim further teaches that the crystallization of the shell (coating layer) serves to improve electrical conductivity [0025]. Kim further discloses that the shell (coating layer) comprises a lithium metal oxide [0049, 0060]).
Kim further discloses that Formula 1 is: pLi2MO3-(1-p)LiMeO2, wherein 0<p<1 [0030-0031]. Kim further discloses that M is at least one of Mo, Nb, Fe, Cr, V, Zn, Mg, Ni, Al, Ti, Zr, Mn, Ba, Sr, W, Ca, and Si; and Me is at least one of Fe, Cr, V, Co, Cu, Mg, Ni, Al, Ti, Zr, B, and Mn [0031].
The examiner notes that (as detailed above in the 112(b) rejection of Claim 1) although Kim doesn’t explicitly disclose that the number of moles of at least one element selected from the group consisting nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), and manganese (Mn) to the total number of moles of M1 (M) and M2 (Me) in Formula 1 is NCM/M, wherein the NCM/M in the shell may be different than in the core of the secondary particle (composite cathode active material), such a limitation is rendered optional by the phrase “may be”. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 1 are met.
Regarding Claim 3, The examiner notes that (as detailed above in the 112(b) rejection of Claim 3), although Kim doesn’t explicitly disclose that the NCM/M in the shell may be different than in the core of the primary particle (composite cathode active material), such a limitation is rendered optional by the phrase “may be”. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 3 are met.
Regarding Claim 5, The examiner notes that (as detailed above in the 112(b) rejection of Claim 5), although Kim doesn’t explicitly disclose that the NCM/M in the shell may be different than in the core of the crystallite, such a limitation is rendered optional by the phrase “may be”. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 5 are met.
Regarding Claim 12, as described above in the rejection of Claim 1, Kim discloses that Formula 1 is: pLi2MO3-(1-p)LiMeO2, wherein 0<p<1 [0030-0031]. Kim further discloses that M is at least one of Mo, Nb, Fe, Cr, V, Zn, Mg, Ni, Al, Ti, Zr, Mn, Ba, Sr, W, Ca, and Si; and Me is at least one of Fe, Cr, V, Co, Cu, Mg, Ni, Al, Ti, Zr, B, and Mn [0031].
As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that there are numerous possible embodiments of Kim wherein the cathode active material contains no cobalt. For example, Formula 1 may be 0.5Li2NiO3-0.5LiFeO2. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 12 are met.
Regarding Claim 14, Kim discloses a secondary battery (lithium battery, 1) comprising the cathode active material of Claim 1 (Figure 3, [0022]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 14 are met.
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.
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.
Claims 2, 4, 6-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2014/0072874 A1), as applied to Claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0212237 A1).
In Regards to Claim 2 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Kim discloses the cathode active material of Claim 1 as set forth above. As described above in the rejection of Claim 1, Kim discloses that Formula 1 is: pLi2MO3-(1-p)LiMeO2, wherein 0<p<1 [0030-0031]. Kim further discloses that M is at least one of Mo, Nb, Fe, Cr, V, Zn, Mg, Ni, Al, Ti, Zr, Mn, Ba, Sr, W, Ca, and Si; and Me is at least one of Fe, Cr, V, Co, Cu, Mg, Ni, Al, Ti, Zr, B, and Mn [0031].
As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that there are numerous possible embodiments of Kim which read on the instant claims. For example, Formula 1 may be 0.5Li2NiO3-0.5LiFeO2.
Kim is deficient in disclosing that the shell of the secondary particle comprises a concentration gradient portion in which at least one element selected from nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), and manganese (Mn) has a concentration gradient.
Lee discloses a cathode active material (positive electrode active material, 10) for a secondary battery (Figure 1, [0028]). Lee further discloses that the cathode active material (positive electrode active material, 10) comprises a composite metal oxide comprising nickel, cobalt, and a metal element (M1), and has a core (1) – shell (2) particle structure (Figure 1, [0028, 0039-0040, 0050]). Lee further discloses that the cathode active material (positive electrode active material, 10) may have a concentration gradient in the shell (2), such that nickel, cobalt, and M1 may be distributed from the center to the surface of the shell (2) such that the concentration profile becomes positive or negative (Figure 1, [0050, 0052]). Lee further discloses that the concentration gradient results in improved structural stability and increased thermal stability [0052].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to implement a concentration gradient of in the shell of the secondary particle of metal particles (including nickel), as such a concentration gradient is known in the art as suitable for a shell in a cathode active material for a secondary battery to possess, as taught by Lee. By doing so, the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing a cathode active material with improved structural stability and increased thermal stability, as taught by Lee. Furthermore, the selection of a known configuration based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 2 are met.
In Regards to Claim 4 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Kim discloses the cathode active material of Claim 1 as set forth above. As described above in the rejection of Claim 1, Kim discloses that Formula 1 is: pLi2MO3-(1-p)LiMeO2, wherein 0<p<1 [0030-0031]. Kim further discloses that M is at least one of Mo, Nb, Fe, Cr, V, Zn, Mg, Ni, Al, Ti, Zr, Mn, Ba, Sr, W, Ca, and Si; and Me is at least one of Fe, Cr, V, Co, Cu, Mg, Ni, Al, Ti, Zr, B, and Mn [0031].
As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that there are numerous possible embodiments of Kim which read on the instant claims. For example, Formula 1 may be 0.5Li2NiO3-0.5LiFeO2.
Kim is deficient in disclosing that the shell of the primary particle comprises a concentration gradient portion in which at least one element selected from nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), and manganese (Mn) has a concentration gradient.
Lee discloses a cathode active material (positive electrode active material, 10) for a secondary battery (Figure 1, [0028]). Lee further discloses that the cathode active material (positive electrode active material, 10) comprises a composite metal oxide comprising nickel, cobalt, and a metal element (M1), and has a core (1) – shell (2) particle structure (Figure 1, [0028, 0039-0040, 0050]). Lee further discloses that the cathode active material (positive electrode active material, 10) may have a concentration gradient in the shell (2), such that nickel, cobalt, and M1 may be distributed from the center to the surface of the shell (2) such that the concentration profile becomes positive or negative (Figure 1, [0050, 0052]). Lee further discloses that the concentration gradient results in improved structural stability and increased thermal stability [0052].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to implement a concentration gradient of in the shell of the primary particle of metal particles (including nickel), as such a concentration gradient is known in the art as suitable for a shell in a cathode active material for a secondary battery to possess, as taught by Lee. By doing so, the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing a cathode active material with improved structural stability and increased thermal stability, as taught by Lee. Furthermore, the selection of a known configuration based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 4 are met.
In Regards to Claim 6 (Dependent Upon Claim 5):
Kim discloses the cathode active material of Claim 5 as set forth above. As described above in the rejection of Claim 1, Kim discloses that Formula 1 is: pLi2MO3-(1-p)LiMeO2, wherein 0<p<1 [0030-0031]. Kim further discloses that M is at least one of Mo, Nb, Fe, Cr, V, Zn, Mg, Ni, Al, Ti, Zr, Mn, Ba, Sr, W, Ca, and Si; and Me is at least one of Fe, Cr, V, Co, Cu, Mg, Ni, Al, Ti, Zr, B, and Mn [0031].
As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that there are numerous possible embodiments of Kim which read on the instant claims. For example, Formula 1 may be 0.5Li2NiO3-0.5LiFeO2.
Kim is deficient in disclosing that the shell of the crystallite comprises a concentration gradient portion in which at least one element selected from nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), and manganese (Mn) has a concentration gradient.
Lee discloses a cathode active material (positive electrode active material, 10) for a secondary battery (Figure 1, [0028]). Lee further discloses that the cathode active material (positive electrode active material, 10) comprises a composite metal oxide comprising nickel, cobalt, and a metal element (M1), and has a core (1) – shell (2) particle structure (Figure 1, [0028, 0039-0040, 0050]). Lee further discloses that the cathode active material (positive electrode active material, 10) may have a concentration gradient in the shell (2), such that nickel, cobalt, and M1 may be distributed from the center to the surface of the shell (2) such that the concentration profile becomes positive or negative (Figure 1, [0050, 0052]). Lee further discloses that the concentration gradient results in improved structural stability and increased thermal stability [0052].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to implement a concentration gradient of in the shell of the crystallite of metal particles (including nickel), as such a concentration gradient is known in the art as suitable for a shell in a cathode active material for a secondary battery to possess, as taught by Lee. By doing so, the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing a cathode active material with improved structural stability and increased thermal stability, as taught by Lee. Furthermore, the selection of a known configuration based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 6 are met.
In Regards to Claim 7 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Kim discloses the cathode active material of Claim 1 as set forth above. As described above in the rejection of Claim 1, Kim discloses that Formula 1 is: pLi2MO3-(1-p)LiMeO2, wherein 0<p<1 [0030-0031]. Kim further discloses that M is at least one of Mo, Nb, Fe, Cr, V, Zn, Mg, Ni, Al, Ti, Zr, Mn, Ba, Sr, W, Ca, and Si; and Me is at least one of Fe, Cr, V, Co, Cu, Mg, Ni, Al, Ti, Zr, B, and Mn [0031].
As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that there are numerous possible embodiments of Kim which read on the instant claims. For example, Formula 1 may be 0.5Li2NiO3-0.5LiFeO2.
Kim is deficient in disclosing that when the number of moles of nickel (Ni) to the total number of moles of M1 and M2 is Ni/M, the Ni/M is higher in the shell than in the core in at least one selected from the secondary particle, the primary particle, and the crystallite.
Lee discloses a cathode active material (positive electrode active material, 10) for a secondary battery (Figure 1, [0028]). Lee further discloses that the cathode active material (positive electrode active material, 10) comprises a composite metal oxide comprising nickel, cobalt, and a metal element (M1), and has a core (1) – shell (2) particle structure (Figure 1, [0028, 0039-0040, 0050]). Lee further discloses that the cathode active material (positive electrode active material, 10) may have a concentration gradient in the shell (2), such that nickel, cobalt, and M1 may be distributed from the center to the surface of the shell (2) such that the concentration profile becomes positive or negative (Figure 1, [0050, 0052]). Lee further discloses that the concentration gradient results in improved structural stability and increased thermal stability [0052].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to implement a concentration gradient of in the shell of the secondary particle of metal particles (including nickel) which decreases towards the core from the surface, as such a concentration gradient is known in the art as suitable for a shell in a cathode active material for a secondary battery to possess, as taught by Lee. By doing so, the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing a cathode active material with improved structural stability and increased thermal stability, as taught by Lee. Furthermore, the selection of a known configuration based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
The skilled artisan would appreciate that upon the above modification, when the shell possesses a concentration gradient of metal particles (Ni and Fe) while the core remains constant, it would be expected that the Ni/M is higher in the shell than in the core as M1 and M2 are both subject to change and the concentration of Ni is increasing as they move away from the core. Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 7 are met.
In Regards to Claim 8 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Kim discloses the cathode active material of Claim 1 as set forth above. As described above in the rejection of Claim 1, Kim discloses that Formula 1 is: pLi2MO3-(1-p)LiMeO2, wherein 0<p<1 [0030-0031]. Kim further discloses that M is at least one of Mo, Nb, Fe, Cr, V, Zn, Mg, Ni, Al, Ti, Zr, Mn, Ba, Sr, W, Ca, and Si; and Me is at least one of Fe, Cr, V, Co, Cu, Mg, Ni, Al, Ti, Zr, B, and Mn [0031].
As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that there are numerous possible embodiments of Kim which read on the instant claims. For example, Formula 1 may be 0.5Li2NiO3-0.5LiFeO2.
Kim is deficient in disclosing that the shell of the secondary particle comprises a concentration gradient portion in which the concentration of nickel (Ni) decreases toward the center from the surface of the secondary particle.
Lee discloses a cathode active material (positive electrode active material, 10) for a secondary battery (Figure 1, [0028]). Lee further discloses that the cathode active material (positive electrode active material, 10) comprises a composite metal oxide comprising nickel, cobalt, and a metal element (M1), and has a core (1) – shell (2) particle structure (Figure 1, [0028, 0039-0040, 0050]). Lee further discloses that the cathode active material (positive electrode active material, 10) may have a concentration gradient in the shell (2), such that nickel, cobalt, and M1 may be distributed from the center to the surface of the shell (2) such that the concentration profile becomes positive or negative (Figure 1, [0050, 0052]). Lee further discloses that the concentration gradient results in improved structural stability and increased thermal stability [0052].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to implement a concentration gradient of in the shell of the secondary particle of metal particles (including nickel) which decreases towards the core from the surface, as such a concentration gradient is known in the art as suitable for a shell in a cathode active material for a secondary battery to possess, as taught by Lee. By doing so, the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing a cathode active material with improved structural stability and increased thermal stability, as taught by Lee. Furthermore, the selection of a known configuration based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 8 are met.
In Regards to Claim 9 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Kim discloses the cathode active material of Claim 1 as set forth above. As described above in the rejection of Claim 1, Kim discloses that Formula 1 is: pLi2MO3-(1-p)LiMeO2, wherein 0<p<1 [0030-0031]. Kim further discloses that M is at least one of Mo, Nb, Fe, Cr, V, Zn, Mg, Ni, Al, Ti, Zr, Mn, Ba, Sr, W, Ca, and Si; and Me is at least one of Fe, Cr, V, Co, Cu, Mg, Ni, Al, Ti, Zr, B, and Mn [0031].
As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that there are numerous possible embodiments of Kim which read on the instant claims. For example, Formula 1 may be 0.5Li2NiO3-0.5LiFeO2.
Kim is deficient in disclosing that the shell of the primary particle comprises a concentration gradient portion in which the concentration of nickel (Ni) decreases toward the center from the surface of the primary particle.
Lee discloses a cathode active material (positive electrode active material, 10) for a secondary battery (Figure 1, [0028]). Lee further discloses that the cathode active material (positive electrode active material, 10) comprises a composite metal oxide comprising nickel, cobalt, and a metal element (M1), and has a core (1) – shell (2) particle structure (Figure 1, [0028, 0039-0040, 0050]). Lee further discloses that the cathode active material (positive electrode active material, 10) may have a concentration gradient in the shell (2), such that nickel, cobalt, and M1 may be distributed from the center to the surface of the shell (2) such that the concentration profile becomes positive or negative (Figure 1, [0050, 0052]). Lee further discloses that the concentration gradient results in improved structural stability and increased thermal stability [0052].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to implement a concentration gradient of in the shell of the primary particle of metal particles (including nickel) which decreases towards the core from the surface, as such a concentration gradient is known in the art as suitable for a shell in a cathode active material for a secondary battery to possess, as taught by Lee. By doing so, the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing a cathode active material with improved structural stability and increased thermal stability, as taught by Lee. Furthermore, the selection of a known configuration based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 9 are met.
In Regards to Claim 10 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Kim discloses the cathode active material of Claim 1 as set forth above. As described above in the rejection of Claim 1, Kim discloses that Formula 1 is: pLi2MO3-(1-p)LiMeO2, wherein 0<p<1 [0030-0031]. Kim further discloses that M is at least one of Mo, Nb, Fe, Cr, V, Zn, Mg, Ni, Al, Ti, Zr, Mn, Ba, Sr, W, Ca, and Si; and Me is at least one of Fe, Cr, V, Co, Cu, Mg, Ni, Al, Ti, Zr, B, and Mn [0031].
As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that there are numerous possible embodiments of Kim which read on the instant claims. For example, Formula 1 may be 0.5Li2NiO3-0.5LiFeO2.
Kim is deficient in disclosing that the shell of the crystallite comprises a concentration gradient portion in which the concentration of nickel (Ni) decreases toward the center from the surface of the crystallite.
Lee discloses a cathode active material (positive electrode active material, 10) for a secondary battery (Figure 1, [0028]). Lee further discloses that the cathode active material (positive electrode active material, 10) comprises a composite metal oxide comprising nickel, cobalt, and a metal element (M1), and has a core (1) – shell (2) particle structure (Figure 1, [0028, 0039-0040, 0050]). Lee further discloses that the cathode active material (positive electrode active material, 10) may have a concentration gradient in the shell (2), such that nickel, cobalt, and M1 may be distributed from the center to the surface of the shell (2) such that the concentration profile becomes positive or negative (Figure 1, [0050, 0052]). Lee further discloses that the concentration gradient results in improved structural stability and increased thermal stability [0052].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to implement a concentration gradient of in the shell of the crystallite of metal particles (including nickel) which decreases towards the core from the surface, as such a concentration gradient is known in the art as suitable for a shell in a cathode active material for a secondary battery to possess, as taught by Lee. By doing so, the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing a cathode active material with improved structural stability and increased thermal stability, as taught by Lee. Furthermore, the selection of a known configuration based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 10 are met.
In Regards to Claim 11 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Kim discloses the cathode active material of Claim 1 as set forth above. As described above in the rejection of Claim 1, Kim discloses that Formula 1 is: pLi2MO3-(1-p)LiMeO2, wherein 0<p<1 [0030-0031]. Kim further discloses that M is at least one of Mo, Nb, Fe, Cr, V, Zn, Mg, Ni, Al, Ti, Zr, Mn, Ba, Sr, W, Ca, and Si; and Me is at least one of Fe, Cr, V, Co, Cu, Mg, Ni, Al, Ti, Zr, B, and Mn [0031].
As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that there are numerous possible embodiments of Kim which read on the instant claims. For example, Formula 1 may be 0.5Li2NiO3-0.5LiCoO2.
Kim is deficient in disclosing that when the number of moles of cobalt (Co) to the total number of moles of M1 and M2 is Co/M, the Co/M is higher in the shell than in the core in at least one selected from the secondary particle, the primary particle, and the crystallite.
Lee discloses a cathode active material (positive electrode active material, 10) for a secondary battery (Figure 1, [0028]). Lee further discloses that the cathode active material (positive electrode active material, 10) comprises a composite metal oxide comprising nickel, cobalt, and a metal element (M1), and has a core (1) – shell (2) particle structure (Figure 1, [0028, 0039-0040, 0050]). Lee further discloses that the cathode active material (positive electrode active material, 10) may have a concentration gradient in the shell (2), such that nickel, cobalt, and M1 may be distributed from the center to the surface of the shell (2) such that the concentration profile becomes positive or negative (Figure 1, [0050, 0052]). Lee further discloses that the concentration gradient results in improved structural stability and increased thermal stability [0052].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to implement a concentration gradient of in the shell of the secondary particle of metal particles (including cobalt) which decreases towards the core from the surface, as such a concentration gradient is known in the art as suitable for a shell in a cathode active material for a secondary battery to possess, as taught by Lee. By doing so, the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing a cathode active material with improved structural stability and increased thermal stability, as taught by Lee. Furthermore, the selection of a known configuration based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
The skilled artisan would appreciate that upon the above modification, when the shell possesses a concentration gradient of metal particles (Ni and Co) while the core remains constant, it would be expected that the Co/M is higher in the shell than in the core as M1 and M2 are both subject to change and the concentration of Co is increasing as they move away from the core. Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 11 are met.
In Regards to Claim 13 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Kim discloses the cathode active material of Claim 1 as set forth above. As described above in the rejection of Claim 1, Kim discloses that Formula 1 is: pLi2MO3-(1-p)LiMeO2, wherein 0<p<1 [0030-0031]. Kim further discloses that M is at least one of Mo, Nb, Fe, Cr, V, Zn, Mg, Ni, Al, Ti, Zr, Mn, Ba, Sr, W, Ca, and Si; and Me is at least one of Fe, Cr, V, Co, Cu, Mg, Ni, Al, Ti, Zr, B, and Mn [0031].
As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that there are numerous possible embodiments of Kim which read on the instant claims. For example, Formula 1 may be 0.5Li2NiO3-0.5LiMnO2.
Kim is deficient in disclosing that when the number of moles of manganese (Mn) to the total number of moles of M1 and M2 is Mn/M, the Mn/M is lower in the shell than in the core in at least one selected from the secondary particle, the primary particle, and the crystallite.
Lee discloses a cathode active material (positive electrode active material, 10) for a secondary battery (Figure 1, [0028]). Lee further discloses that the cathode active material (positive electrode active material, 10) comprises a composite metal oxide comprising nickel, cobalt, and a metal element (M1), and has a core (1) – shell (2) particle structure (Figure 1, [0028, 0039-0040, 0050]). Lee further discloses that the cathode active material (positive electrode active material, 10) may have a concentration gradient in the shell (2), such that nickel, cobalt, and M1 may be distributed from the center to the surface of the shell (2) such that the concentration profile becomes positive or negative (Figure 1, [0050, 0052]). Lee further discloses that the concentration gradient results in improved structural stability and increased thermal stability [0052].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to implement a concentration gradient of in the shell of the secondary particle of metal particles (including manganese) which increases towards the core from the surface, as such a concentration gradient is known in the art as suitable for a shell in a cathode active material for a secondary battery to possess, as taught by Lee. By doing so, the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing a cathode active material with improved structural stability and increased thermal stability, as taught by Lee. Furthermore, the selection of a known configuration based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
The skilled artisan would appreciate that upon the above modification, when the shell possesses a concentration gradient of metal particles (Ni and Mn) while the core remains constant, it would be expected that the Mn/M is lower in the shell than in the core as M1 and M2 are both subject to change and the concentration of Mn is decreasing as they move away from the core. Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 11 are met.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY E FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1498. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)-270-5256. 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.
/E.E.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724