DETAILED ACTION
(1)
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 first office action on the merits. Applicant’s preliminary amendment, filed August 4, 2023, is entered. Applicant amended claims 1-8 and added claims 9-19. No new matter is entered. Claims 1-19 are pending before the Office for review.
(2)
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 1-3, 5, 8, 9, 14, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0006762), which is cited in Applicant’s information disclosure statement, in view of Hu et al. (CN 104347865 B). Hu et al. (CN 104347865 B) is also cited to support a statement of fact. The citations to Hu refer to the included English language machine translation.
With respect to claims 1 and 5, Park teaches a method of manufacturing a positive electrode active material comprising first obtaining an M’-based precursor from the co-precipitation of metal salts with a base, wherein M’ is Mn, Ni and Co. Paragraphs 21 and 22. This step takes place in a reaction vessel in the form of a continuous stirred tank reactor and in the presence of sodium hydroxide as the base. Paragraph 74. The Mn, Ni and Co salts are sulfate salts, which are water-soluble. Paragraph 74. Examiner relies on Hu to support this statement of fact. Hu teaches the Mn, Ni and Co sulfate salts are water-soluble. Claim 8.
Although one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would expect the water-soluble salts to be dissolved in an aqueous solution, Park is explicitly silent as to this feature of the claimed invention.
However, Hu, which deals with precipitation reactions for positive electrode active materials, teaches the water-soluble salts are dissolved in water and added to a base, which is also in an aqueous solution. Page 2, Last two paragraphs and Page 3, First paragraph.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the combination of Park in view of Hu is the use of a known technique to improve a similar method in the same way. Both Park and Hu deal with precipitation reactions to obtain positive electrode active materials. Hu teaches the water-soluble ingredients are included in an aqueous solution to facilitate the reaction. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use water for Park’s reaction because Hu teaches it to be effective for the purpose of obtaining the precipitate compound, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success.
Park further teaches the precipitated cobalt compound is mixed with a lithium compound and mixed at a first temperature. Paragraphs 23 and 24. Park teaches the mixture is in powder form after the first heating step, meaning it is ground or crushed in situ, which is within the scope of the claimed invention. Paragraphs 23 and 24.
Park then teaches the powder is heated at a second temperature that is higher than the first temperature. Paragraph 26.
Finally, Park teaches an additional mixture (second mixture) is obtained by mixing the first mixture and an aluminum compound (M”, which can be aluminum) and heating the mixture at a third temperature. Paragraphs 26 and 27.
With respect to claim 2, Park teaches the first temperature is between 650 and 850 °C and the third temperature is between 600 and 800 °C. Paragraph 26. Accordingly, it is within the scope of Park’s disclosure that the third temperature is higher than the first temperature, such as when the third temperature is 800 °C and the first temperature is 700 °C. As per the MPEP, "where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists." MPEP 2144.05(I) (internal citation omitted).
With respect to claims 3 and 9, Park further teaches the M’-based precursor also comprises dopants, such as magnesium. Paragraph 20. Regarding whether the magnesium is supplied as an aqueous solution, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the same delivery mechanism for magnesium as is used for the other materials of the precursor to simplify the process. To that end, Park teaches magnesium can be added as a sulfate salt. Claim 30.
With respect to claims 8, 14, 15 and 17, Park teaches the first temperature is between 650 and 850 °C and the second temperature is between 800 and 1,000 °C. Paragraphs 24 and 26. As per the MPEP, "where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists." MPEP 2144.05(I) (internal citation omitted).
(3)
Claims 4, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0006762) in view of Hu et al. (CN 104347865 B) as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 8, 9, 14, 15 and 17 above, and further in view of Jiang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0280205), which is cited in Applicant’s information disclosure statement.
With respect to claims 4 and 10, Park teaches an aqueous solution containing magnesium is supplied to the reaction vessel but is silent as to whether an aqueous solution containing calcium is supplied to the reaction vessel.
However, Jiang, which deals with positive electrode active materials, teaches calcium and magnesium are recognized equivalents as dopants for positive electrode active materials and can be used individually or in combination. Paragraphs 32 and 37. Jiang teaches the dopants are used to achieve a battery with desirable properties, such as high thermal stability and good capacity retention. Paragraph 41. Furthermore, Jiang uses the same sulfate salt starting material for calcium as Park uses for Mg, Ni, Co and Mn. Paragraph 37.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an aqueous solution containing calcium in addition to or in place of the aqueous solution containing magnesium because Jiang teaches doing so achieves a battery with desirable properties. An additional basis for obviousness of the modification is that magnesium and calcium are recognized equivalents.
With respect to claim 16, Park teaches the first temperature is between 650 and 850 °C and the second temperature is between 800 and 1,000 °C. Paragraphs 24 and 26. As per the MPEP, "where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists." MPEP 2144.05(I) (internal citation omitted).
(4)
Claims 6, 11, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0006762) in view of Hu et al. (CN 104347865 B) as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 8, 9, 14, 15 and 17 above, and further in view of Kaneda et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0293952), which is cited in Applicant’s information disclosure statement.
With respect to claims 6, 11 and 12, Park teaches the method comprising mixing the aqueous solution and the alkaline solution to obtain the cobalt precipitate, which also includes nickel, but is silent as to the pH of the mixed solution.
However, Kaneda, which deals with positive electrode active materials, teaches the pH of a precipitation reaction that included nickel should be between 10 and 11 to keep the obtain particulate filterable and to allow for precipitate formation at a speed that is not significantly low. Paragraph 48. As per the MPEP, "where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists." MPEP 2144.05(I) (internal citation omitted).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to maintain the pH within the parameters taught by Kaneda so that the nickel portion of Park’s cobalt-containing precipitate compound is filterable and forms at a speed that is not significantly low.
With respect to claim 18, Park teaches the first temperature is between 650 and 850 °C and the second temperature is between 800 and 1,000 °C. Paragraphs 24 and 26. As per the MPEP, "where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists." MPEP 2144.05(I) (internal citation omitted).
(5)
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0006762) in view of Hu et al. (CN 104347865 B) as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 8, 9, 14, 15 and 17 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (CN 109244436 A). The citations to Liu refer to the included English language machine translation.
With respect to claim 7, Park is silent as to whether glycine is added as an aqueous solution when the cobalt compound is precipitated by mixing the aqueous solution and the alkaline solution.
However, Liu, which deals with lithium battery active material preparation, teaches an aqueous solution of glycine is included within the aqueous solution containing nickel, cobalt and manganese salts to function as a complexing agent. Claim 5.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an aqueous solution of glycine at the time of mixing the aqueous solution and the alkaline solution because Liu teaches the glycine functions as a complexing agent.
With respect to claim 19, Park teaches the first temperature is between 650 and 850 °C and the second temperature is between 800 and 1,000 °C. Paragraphs 24 and 26. As per the MPEP, "where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists." MPEP 2144.05(I) (internal citation omitted).
(6)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0006762) in view of Hu et al. (CN 104347865 B) and Jiang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0280205) as applied to claims 4, 10 and 16 above, and further in view of Kaneda et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0293952), which is cited in Applicant’s information disclosure statement.
With respect to claim 13, modified Park teaches the method comprising mixing the aqueous solution and the alkaline solution to obtain the cobalt precipitate, which also includes nickel, but is silent as to the pH of the mixed solution.
However, Kaneda teaches the pH of a precipitation reaction that included nickel should be between 10 and 11 to keep the obtain particulate filterable and to allow for precipitate formation at a speed that is not significantly low. Paragraph 48. As per the MPEP, "where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists." MPEP 2144.05(I) (internal citation omitted).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to maintain the pH within the parameters taught by Kaneda so that the nickel portion of modified Park’s cobalt-containing precipitate compound is filterable and forms at a speed that is not significantly low.
(7)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELI S MEKHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 am to 5:00 pm 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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/ELI S MEKHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759