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 .
The amendment filed 8/1/23 has been considered and entered. Claims 1-3 and 10 have been canceled. Claims 15-24 have been added. Claims 4-9 and 11-24 remain in the application for prosecution thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-9 and 11-24 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 claims 4-7, the term “making” is vague and indefinite as to what is encompassed by the term “making” and if the specification has support for all the “possible” was encompassed thereof? Is it “mixing”, heating, cooling, etc? Clarification is requested. The claims recite improper Markush terminology whereby claiming a group of items the last item in the group should be recited in the alternative with the term “or” for example a,b,c or d and not “and” for example a,b,c and d.
Regarding claims 8,9 and 11-24, the claims are rejected as being based upon a rejected base claim and do not resolve the issue of indefiniteness of the term “making” and do not resolve the improper Markush issue noted above.
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 4,6,8,9,13,14,17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Li et al. (2019/0280296).
Li et al. (2019/0280296) teaches an Al-doped Co₃O₄ precursor was obtained by dissolving CoSO₄ (claimed cobalt source) and Al₂(SO₄)₃ (claimed 1st additive element source) in deionized water to prepare a mixed salt solution (Co:Al = 99.4:0.4 in molar ratio and would show acidity being dissolved) putting the mixed salt solution along with a complexing agent solution containing a concentrated ammonia solution (claimed alkaline solution) and distilled water into a precipitating agent containing a sodium carbonate solution and bringing about a reaction, thereby obtaining an Al-doped precursor cobalt salt (claimed cobalt compound), and subjecting the Al-doped precursor cobalt salt to high-temperature treatment (claimed first heating) (paragraphs [0126] and [0127]).
Li et al. (2019/0280296) also indicates that Al-Mn-doped was obtained by adding lithium carbonate (claimed lithium source) and manganese acetate (claimed second additive element source) to the Al-doped Co₃O₄ precursor and stirring so that the Li:Co:Mn ratio was brought to 102:99.4:0.2 in molar ratio, thereby obtaining a homogeneous mixture (claimed second mixture), and firing (claimed second heating) the homogeneous mixture at 1050°C (paragraph [0128]).
Li et al. (2019/0280296) furthermore indicates that a lithium cobalt oxide positive electrode material (0.005 0.995 was obtained by mixing lithium carbonate, nickel acetate, cobalt carbonate, manganese acetate, and then firing at 950°C (paragraph [0129]). Furthermore, the nickel acetate or the manganese acetate (claimed second additive element source and third additive element source).
Regarding claims 8,9,17 and 18, because the complexing agent solution (alkali solution) containing a concentrated ammonia solution (claimed alkaline solution) and distilled water of the invention described in document 1 contains distilled water, the specific resistance can be said to be 1 MΩ.cm or more.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the firing temperature (temperature for heating the second mixture) for obtaining the lithium cobalt oxide positive electrode material is lower than the firing temperature (firing temperature for heating the first mixture) for obtaining the Al-Mn-doped.
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.
Claims 11 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (2019/0280296) in combination with JP 2014-107125.
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Li et al. (2019/0280296) are incorporated here.
Li et al. (2019/0280296) fails to teach the first additive or second element source to include gallium sulfate, gallium chloride or gallium nitrate.
JP 2014-107125 teaches battery whereby when Ga is contained in a lithium-containing complex oxide, temporal stability of a battery is improved, and it is possible to configure a lithium-ion secondary battery having higher charge-discharge cycle characteristics (paragraph [0098]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li et al. (2019/0280296) lithium cobalt composite oxide material to include gallium as evidenced by JP 2014-107125 with the expectation of improving the battery as noted above.
Claims 5,7,15,16,19,20,23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (2019/0280296) in combination with JP 2009-221084.
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Li et al. (2019/0280296) are incorporated here.
Li et al. (2019/0280296) fails to teach forming the cobalt compound by making a cobalt source and alkaline solution react to form the cobalt compound.
JP 2009-221084 teaches hydrogen peroxide water was added to a cobalt sulfate aqueous solution in order to reduce the amount of Co removed together with Fe and to reduce the content of Fe to the extent possible, a sodium hydroxide aqueous solution was added to adjust the pH to 5.6, and a precipitated sediment was filtered out; cobalt hydroxide produced by adding 50 ml of 13.2 N sodium hydroxide to 100 ml of the cobalt sulfate aqueous solution; and tricobalt tetroxide was produced by firing the obtained cobalt hydroxide (paragraphs [0011], and [0034] and [0035]). The solution at the time when the sodium hydroxide aqueous solution was added to the cobalt sulfate aqueous solution is clearly alkaline.
Therefore, it would have been within the skill of one practicing in the art to have modified Li et al. (2019/0280296) process of forming a lithium cobalt composite oxide to form the cobalt compound source, CoSO₄, by reacting a cobalt course with a alkaline solution as evidenced by JP 2009-221084 with the expectation of producing a cobalt compound for producing a lithium cobalt composite oxide.
Regarding claims 5 and 7, the second and third additive element sources (the nickel acetate and the manganese acetate are added simultaneously to the lithium composite oxide before firing). The addition of the doping elements and firing step would be a matter of design choice by one skilled in the art to produce the doped lithium cobalt oxide composite absent a showing of criticality thereof. The additive elements are all different elements.
Regarding claims 15,16,19 and 20, because the complexing agent solution (alkali solution) containing a concentrated ammonia solution and distilled water of the invention described in document 1 contains distilled water, the specific resistance can be said to be 1 MΩ.cm or more.
Regarding claims 23 and 24, the firing temperature (temperature for heating the second mixture) for obtaining the lithium cobalt oxide positive electrode material is lower than the firing temperature (firing temperature for heating the first mixture) for obtaining the Al-Mn-doped.
Claims 12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (2019/0280296) in combination with JP 2009-221084 further in combination with JP 2014-107125.
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Li et al. (2019/0280296) in combination with JP 2009-221084 are incorporated here.
Li et al. (2019/0280296) in combination with JP 2009-221084 fails to teach the first additive or second element source to include gallium sulfate, gallium chloride or gallium nitrate.
JP 2014-107125 teaches battery whereby when Ga is contained in a lithium-containing complex oxide, temporal stability of a battery is improved, and it is possible to configure a lithium-ion secondary battery having higher charge-discharge cycle characteristics (paragraph [0098]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li et al. (2019/0280296) in combination with JP 2009-221084 lithium cobalt composite oxide material to include gallium as evidenced by JP 2014-107125 with the expectation of improving the battery as noted above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/
/BRIAN K TALBOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712