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 .
This is the initial office action for US Patent Application No. 18/251776 by Yamazaki et al.
Claims 1-21 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein after a cycle test is performed on a cell using the positive electrode active material for a positive electrode and a lithium electrode as a counter electrode”. The aforementioned limitation is a process limitation that involves using the claimed positive electrode active material and is not considered to be a limitation that further limits the structure or composition of the claimed positive electrode active material.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein after a cycle test is performed at an upper limit voltage of 4.7 V and at 25°C on a cell using the positive electrode active material for a positive electrode and a lithium electrode as a counter electrode”. The aforementioned limitation is a process limitation that involves using the claimed positive electrode active material and is not considered to be a limitation that further limits the structure or composition of the claimed positive electrode active material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-8, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Jo et al. (US 2020/0259172 A1), herein referred to as Jo.
Regarding claim 1, Jo teaches [0028] a lithium cobalt-based positive electrode active material that includes a core portion including a lithium cobalt-based oxide and a shell portion including a lithium cobalt-based oxide wherein the lithium cobalt-based positive electrode active material includes a doping element (additive element). Jo proceeds to teach [0032] a lithium defect having a three-dimensional structure is present in the shell portion of the lithium cobalt-based positive electrode active material. The core portion is disclosed to have a greater concentration of the doping element than the shell portion [0038-0039]. Since Jo teaches the shell portion contains an amount of doping element, the lithium defect in the shell portion is considered to be in a region in a vicinity of the doping element.
In the alternative, claim 1 is considered to be obvious in view of Jo because Jo teaches a positive electrode active material that includes a lithium cobalt-based positive electrode active material and a doping element as discussed above. Although Jo does not explicitly disclose a cycle test as recited in claim 1, Jo teaches [0045] obtaining a voltage profile measured by charging/discharging a secondary battery including the lithium cobalt-based positive electrode active material and evaluates the charging/discharging characteristics of the positive electrode active material. Jo suggests [0022-0023] improved structural stability, suppressed gas generation and suppressed cobalt elution are achieved based on the structural configuration of the lithium cobalt-based positive electrode active material.
Regarding claims 2-5, Jo teaches the lithium cobalt-based positive electrode active material and doping element (additive element) being contained in the shell portion. Since the doping element is present in the shell portion with the lithium defect, Jo teaches or in the alternative renders obvious the limitations of claims 2-5 because it would be expected that the doping element would be present near the lithium defect regardless of the type of defect present.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant’s claimed upper limit voltage of the cycle test being 4.65 V or 4.7 V does not further limit the claimed positive electrode active material recited in claim 1 and therefore Jo anticipates or in the alternative renders obvious the claimed positive electrode active material recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Jo teaches [0032] the lithium defect is present in the shell portion of the lithium cobalt-based positive electrode active material is therefore considered to be positioned in a surface portion of the lithium cobalt-based positive electrode active material.
Regarding claim 8, Jo teaches [0036] the doping element (additive element) can include aluminum (Al), magnesium (Mg) or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 18, Jo teaches [0086-0091] the lithium cobalt-based positive electrode active material is incorporated in a positive electrode for a secondary battery. The secondary battery also includes a negative electrode that may include graphite.
Regarding claim 19, Jo teaches [0099] the secondary battery may be included in a vehicle such as a hybrid electric vehicle.
Claims 9-17, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Jo et al. (US 2020/0067091 A1), herein referred to as Jo.
Regarding claim 9, Jo teaches [0026] a positive electrode active material comprising lithium cobalt oxide doped with aluminum (additive element) and the surface of lithium cobalt oxide is modified to have a rock salt crystal structure.
In the alternative, claim 9 is considered to be obvious in view of Jo because Jo teaches a positive electrode active material that includes lithium cobalt oxide doped with aluminum (additive element) and the surface of lithium cobalt oxide is modified to have a rock salt crystal structure as discussed above. Although Jo does not explicitly disclose a cycle test as recited in claim 9, Jo suggests [0030-0032] the positive electrode active material has improved structural stability and reduced cobalt elution is achieved based on the structural configuration of the lithium cobalt oxide positive electrode active material discussed above.
Regarding claim 10, Jo teaches [0026] the surface of the positive electrode active material is doped with aluminum (additive element).
Regarding claim 11, Jo teaches [0135] the surface of the positive electrode active material comprises a region with a spinel structure.
Regarding claim 12, Jo teaches [0011] the positive electrode active material may be formed to have the aluminum dopant (additive element) present only in a core particle portion of the positive electrode active material.
Regarding claims 13-16, Jo teaches the positive electrode active material and aluminum element (additive element). Since the doping element is present, Jo teaches or in the alternative renders obvious the limitations of claims 13-16 because it would be expected that the doping element would be present near the lithium defect regardless of the type of defect present.
Regarding claim 17, Jo teaches [0026] the positive electrode active material is doped with aluminum (additive element).
Regarding claim 20, Jo teaches [0066-0070] the positive electrode active material is incorporated in a positive electrode for a lithium rechargeable battery. The lithium rechargeable battery also includes a negative electrode that may include graphite.
Regarding claim 21, Jo teaches [0065-0070] the positive electrode active material is incorporated in a positive electrode for a lithium rechargeable battery. Multiple lithium rechargeable batteries may then be assembled in a battery pack. It would be obvious in view of Jo that a battery pack containing multiple lithium rechargeable batteries could be employed in an electric vehicle because a well-known application of battery packs is their use in electric vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEWART A FRASER whose telephone number is (571)270-5126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7am-4pm, EST.
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.
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724