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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 20200313157 A1) in view of Kaneda (JP 2016115658 A, Machine Translation).
Regarding claims 1-3, Johnson discloses positive electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, the positive electrode active material comprising (see Fig. 18, 25, [0003][0135][0153]-[0160]):
a first lithium-metal composite oxide represented by a general formula xLiyM1O2 – (1-x)LizM1O2 wherein 0<x≤1, 1.5≤y≤2.5, 0.9≤z≤1.5, and M1 is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of transition metals, Al, Si, Sn, Ge, Sb, Bi, Mg, Ca, and Sr (Johnson discloses that a P3-m1 a disordered portion ([0160], disordered portion is not main portion) of the structure which is represented by x, will be Li2Ni0.5Co0.2Mn0.3 and an R3-m main portion of the structure which is represented by (1-x), will be LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2, note that x will necessarily be in the range above [0157]) wherein the first lithium-metal composite oxide has a layer structure, has a Li element coordinated at a tetrahedral site of oxygen (in the P3-m1 structure Li will be at tetrahedral site ([0160]).
However, Johnson does not disclose that the x which represents the over-lithiated phase (LiyM1O2) has a range of 0.01≤x<0.4.
Johnson discloses that while there is a higher capacity ([0170] when more of the over-lithiated phase exists there is also less capacity retention being cycled (see Table 2 [0171]) due to degradation of the anode ([0171]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at the time of filing to modify the amount of the over-lithiated phase in the battery material of Johnson so that it would be within the claimed range to optimize the balance between the capacity and the capacity retention after a large number of cycles.
However, Johnson does not disclose that the first lithium-metal composite oxide has a size of primary particles of 0.5~15 µm.
Kaneda discloses a positive electrode active material wherein there are primary particles formed of a lithium metal composite oxide of a substantially similar composition ([0017] and Abstract) wherein the size of primary particles and/or secondary particles formed of primary particles are between 0.8~15 µm and further discloses that having these size particles reduces the deterioration of the surface properties due to repeated charge and discharge ([0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the size of the particles, primary and/or secondary, to be with the range disclosed by Kaneda because as disclosed by Kaneda having primary particle size in the claimed range reduces the deterioration of the surface properties due to repeated charge and discharge.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 20200313157 A1) in view of Kaneda (JP 2016115658 A, Machine Translation) as applied to claims 1-3 above and in further view of Senoue (US 20120164533 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Johnson discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, modified Johnson does not disclose the positive electrode active material further comprising a second lithium-metal composite oxide represented by a general formula LiwM2O2 (wherein 0.9 ≤w ≤1.5, and M2 is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Ni, Co, Mn, Fe and Al).
Senoue discloses that a positive electrode active material can include a first and additional lithium oxide, wherein the additional lithium oxide can comprise LiNiO2, LiCoO2, LiNi0.8CO0.18Al0.02O2 ([0029]-[0038]) and Senoue discloses that having an additional lithium oxide increases the capacity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the positive electrode active material by having the additional lithium oxide as disclosed by Senoue because Senoue discloses that having an additional lithium oxide increases the capacity.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 20200313157 A1) in view of Kaneda (JP 2016115658 A, Machine Translation) in view of Senoue (US 20120164533 A1) as applied to claim 4 above and in further view of Lee (US 20200388830 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Johnson discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, modified Johnson does not disclose a ratio (D1/D2) of a particle size D1 of secondary particles of the first lithium-metal composite oxide with respect to a particle size D2 of secondary particles of the second lithium-metal composite oxide satisfies a condition of 0.15<D1/D2<1.0.
Lee discloses that two different compositions of lithium metal oxide ([0014]-[0019]) wherein one the lithium metal oxides has a smaller particle size versus the other because it allows for filling of voids between the primary particles of the other lithium metal oxide which results in voids between the positive electrode active material particles may be more effectively reduced, packing density may be increased, and positive electrode density may be improved to effectively improve capacity per volume of a positive electrode ([0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the ratio of D1/D2 of modified Johnson to be within the claimed range because having such a claimed range as disclosed by Lee allows for voids between the positive electrode active material particles may be more effectively reduced, packing density may be increased, and positive electrode density may be improved to effectively improve capacity per volume of a positive electrode
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that in the general formula recited in claim 1, the value of x, which represents the ratio of lithium-excessive LiyMlO2 is within a range of 0.01≤x<0.4. By setting the numerical value for x in the general formula to this range, the charge capacity and the discharge voltage can both be improved (paragraphs [0011] and [0024]). The range for x of the present claims has the unexpected benefit of achieving both improved charge capacity and improved discharge voltage. Here, "x" points to a much higher (than claimed) "x" value as being required to obtain improved results.
The argument is incommensurate with the scope of claim 1 since as noted in paragraph [0024] this is due to specific space groups being present for the over-lithiated versus normal phase. No specific phases are claimed in claim 1. Furthermore, all of the examples shown in the specification are drawn to a nickel manganese oxide (See specification examples) and claim 1 is not limited to a nickel manganese oxide. Furthermore, it appears from Table 2 that the highest capacity is achieved for when there is mixture of first lithium-metal composite oxide and second lithium-metal composite oxide. In addition, the ranges of primary particle size far exceeds those in the Examples (see Table 2).
Applicant argues that "x" is out of range of Johnson. Applicant further argues that the Office's proposed modification of Johnson could also impermissibly change its principle of operation and prevent it from adverse effects on impedance.
Johnson discloses that while there is a higher capacity ([0170] when more of the over-lithiated phase exists there is also less capacity retention after 100 cycles (see Table 2 [0171]) due to degradation of the anode ([0171]). Therefore the is motivation provided by Johnson to decrease the amount of over-lithiated phase relative to normal phase to preserve cyclability.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVINA PILLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-6:00.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 517-272-1307. 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.
DEVINA PILLAY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/DEVINA PILLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights