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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/6/23, 5/21/24, 6/20/24, 12/4/24 are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 6/6/23 has been considered.
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.
Claim 12 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. Specifically, “in a metal ratio” of the metal oxide in the metal oxide layer coated on the surface of the lithium nickel cobalt manganese-based positive electrode active material is unclear. Normally a ratio would have a contrasting component, however the claim is unclear what the metal is in contrast to yield a ratio proportion. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Analysis
For the purpose of the compact prosecution, claim 12 will be interpreted as 80-88% of metal in the metal oxide layer in contrast to the total metal in the metal oxide layer.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated Joo et al. (KR20160100854).
Regarding claim 10, the Joo et al. reference discloses the positive electrode material is for a lithium secondary battery comprising a lithium nickel cobalt manganese based positive electrode active material and a metal oxide layer coating on the surface of the positive electrode material.
Regarding claim 11, the Joo et al. reference discloses the thickness of the metal oxide layer is 1nm or less.
Regarding claim 12, the Joo et al. reference discloses the coating layer is a metal oxide, therefore, 80-88% of the metal to the ratio of 100% metal in the metal oxide in the metal oxide layer comprises an metal ratio of 80-88%
Claim(s) 10, 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (KR20150085414).
Regarding claim 10, the Choi et al. reference discloses the positive electrode material is for a lithium secondary battery comprising a lithium nickel cobalt manganese based positive electrode active material and a metal oxide layer coating on the surface of the positive electrode material.
Regarding claim 12, the Choi et al. reference discloses the coating layer is a metal oxide, therefore, 80-88% of the metal to the ratio of 100% metal in the metal oxide in the metal oxide layer comprises an metal ratio of 80-88%
Regarding claim 14, the Choi et al. reference discloses a lithium secondary battery which comprise a negative electrode, a positive electrode and an electrolyte interposed between the positive and negative electrode.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed 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.
Claim(s) 14 is/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 Joo et al. (KR20160100854).
Regarding claim 14, the Joo et al. reference discloses a lithium secondary battery which inherently comprise a negative electrode, a positive electrode and an electrolyte interposed between the positive and negative electrode. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention's features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. MPEP2112.01 I
Claim(s) 13 is/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 Choi et al. (KR20150085414).
Regarding claim 13, the Choi et al. reference discloses positive active material and the metal oxide coating layer comprising 100 parts by weight to 2-10 parts by weight, respectively. At 2 parts by weight of metal oxide coating layer, the claim limitation is anticipated. At the range outside of 2 parts by weight of the metal oxide layer, the claims are obvious. It is the Examiner’s position that the amounts in question are so close that it is a prima facie obvious that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo et al. (KR20160100854).
Regarding claims 1, the Joo et al. reference discloses a method for preparing a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery comprising a method of coating a metal oxide on the a surface of a lithium nickel cobalt manganese-based (Fig. 7-9) positive electrode active material through atomic deposition. The coating comprises placing the cathode positive active material in the reactor and supplying the metal oxide precursor and oxidant gas then purging with nitrogen (Applicant’s carrier gas). The positive active material is stirred (Fig. 4) during the atomic deposition. The Joo et al reference further discloses in a different embodiment that the process of atomic layer deposition and chemical vapor deposition can be employed for the same purposes. That is, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate chemical vapor deposition for atomic layer deposition since it is known to be employed for the very same purposes. A patent claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was obvious to try. When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR v. Teleflex
Regarding claim 2, the modified Joo et al. reference does not explicitly disclose that the oxidant is supplied to the deposition apparatus at room temperature (25°C), however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate supplying oxidant to the deposition apparatus at room temperature (25°C) since at this temperature, the process doesn’t require further heating or cooling which would require more energy input and a less cost effective process of making the positive active material.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Joo et al. reference does not explicitly disclose the oxidant gas supplied for 10-200 minutes but discloses that the time for injecting the oxidizing agent is set in consideration of the content of the coating source adsorbed on the surface of the powder. If the injection time of the oxidizing agent is too short, sufficient oxidation reaction cannot occur. If the injection time of the oxidizing agent is too long, sufficient oxidation reaction may occur. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to choose the instantly claimed value through process optimization, since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable values involve only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Thus, oxidant supply for 10-200 minutes is obvious.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Joo et al. reference also disclose the carrier gas can be nitrogen (purging gas can also be interpreted as the carrier gas based on the claimed limitations).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Joo et al. reference discloses preparing the positive electrode material for the lithium secondary battery comprising the metal oxide is selected from the group consisting of A1203, TiO2, SiO2, ZrO2, V02, V205, Nb205, MgO, TaO2, Ta205, B202, B403, B405, ZnO, SnO, HfO2, Er203, La203, In203, Y203, Ce203, Sc203 and W203 (under Experimental Examples).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Joo et al. reference discloses preparing the positive electrode material for the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the metal oxide precursor is trimethylaluminum (Under Experimental Examples).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Joo et al. reference does not explicitly disclose continuous stirring is performed during the reaction process, however, the Joo et al. reference discloses the effect of stirring can improved uniform coating on the surface of the powder. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate continuous stirring during the reaction of the positive active material so to provide uniform coating for improved properties of the positive active material. If a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so, §103 likely bars its patentability. KSR v. Teleflex
Regarding claim 9, the modified Joo et al. reference discloses the process can be repeated (repeatedly performed 60 times S1-S12).
Claim(s) 8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joo et al. (KR20160100854) in view of Choi et al. (KR20150085414).
Regarding claims 8 and 13, the modified Joo et al. reference disclose the claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. The Joo et al. reference does not explicitly disclose the positive active material and the metal oxide coating layer are supplied to the reactor in a weight ratio of 100-120:1-10 or 100 parts by weight to 0.05-2 parts by weight. However, the Choi et al. reference discloses the positive active material for lithium ion battery comprises a metal oxide coating layer in 100 parts by weight to 2-10 parts by weight, respectively, and further discloses the positive active materials improved output characteristics and battery life. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the parts by weight of the positive active material to metal oxide precursor coating layer disclosed by the Choi et al. reference for the positive active material and coating layer disclosed by the Joo et al. reference to produce an improve the life of the battery.
As a result, the modified Joo et al. in view of the Choi et al. reference discloses the positive active material to metal oxide coating layer comprising a weight ratio of 100:1-10.
In addition, the modified Joo et al. in view of the Choi et al. reference discloses a positive active material and the metal oxide coating layer comprising 100 parts by weight to 2-10 parts by weight, respectively. At 2 parts by weight of metal oxide coating layer, the claim limitation is anticipated. At the range outside of 2 parts by weight of the metal oxide layer, the claims are obvious. It is the Examiner’s position that the amounts in question are so close that it is a prima facie obvious that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN OI CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5162. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at 5712728760. 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.
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752