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 that the instant application was effectively filed on 14 June 2023, but claims priority to Application No. KR 10-2021-0008933, filed on 21 Jan 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 14 June 2023, 31 July 2023, and 14 November 2024 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Formula 2 recites “Mnc2”, rather than Mnc2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 11, the recitation “a concentration of Al in the surface portion of the primary particles is 2 to 6 times a concentration of Al in the center portion of the primary particles” does not define where a center portion begins. Therefore, the aforementioned recitation has been interpreted to mean “a concentration of Al in the surface portion of the primary particles is 2 to 6 times a concentration of Al inside the primary particles”.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2019/0393489), in view of Kwak et al. (KR 20180111323, Machine Translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Noh teaches a method (Comparative Example 7, see Table 1, [0124-0131]) of preparing a positive electrode active material (cathode active material, see [0131]), the method comprising:
(A) sintering (heated in calcination furnace, see [0127]) a mixture of a positive electrode active material precursor (nickel-cobalt-manganese hydroxide, [0126]) containing 70 mol% (80%, Comparative Example 7, see Table 1) or more of nickel, based on a total molar amount of metals in the precursor, and a lithium-containing raw material (lithium hydroxide, see [0127]) to prepare a pre-sintered product (LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2, see [0127] and Table 1);
(B) sintering (heated in calcination furnace, see [0129]) a mixture of the pre-sintered product (LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2) and an aluminum-containing raw material (Al2O3, see [0129]) in an oxygen atmosphere (10 mL/min oxygen flow, see [0129]) to prepare a lithium transition metal oxide (LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 with lithium-aluminum titanium-oxide surface, see [0129]); and
(C) heat treating (heated in calcination furnace, see [0131]) a mixture of the lithium transition metal oxide (LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 with lithium-aluminum titanium-oxide surface, see [0129]) and a boron-containing raw material (H3BO3, see [0131]) to form a coating layer (second oxide coating layer, see [0100]) on the lithium transition metal oxide (LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 with lithium-aluminum titanium-oxide surface, see [0129]),
but does not teach an oxygen atmosphere containing 20 vol% to 100 vol% of oxygen, wherein the concentration of oxygen in the oxygen atmosphere is reduced according to sintering time.
Examiner’s Note: It is the position of the Examiner that, while the disclosure of Noh refers to the lithium transition metal oxide produced following the second sintering step as lithium-aluminum-titanium oxide, the embodiment of Comparative Example 7 does not contain titanium, as can be seen in Table 1.
However, Kwak teaches an oxygen atmosphere containing 20 vol% to 100 vol% of oxygen (80%, see [0132]), wherein the concentration of oxygen in the oxygen atmosphere is reduced according to sintering time (oxygen concentration reduced to air atmosphere after 5 hours, see [0123]).
Examiner’s Note: It is the position of the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would know that the concentration of oxygen in an air atmosphere is ~21%. As such, transitioning from an 80% oxygen concentration atmosphere to air would constitute a reduction in oxygen concentration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the oxygen atmosphere of Noh to be between 20-100% oxygen by volume and to reduce in oxygen concentration according to sintering time, as taught by Kwak, to reduce the production cost incurred when maintaining a higher oxygen atmosphere (see [0139]).
Regarding claim 2, Noh, in view of Kwak, teaches wherein the positive electrode active material precursor has a composition represented by Formula 1-1 (Ni0.8Co0.1Mn0.1(OH)2, Comparative Example 7, see Table 1, [0126]) or Formula 1-2:
[Formula 1-1] Nia1Cob1Mnc1M1d1(OH)2
[Formula 1-2] Nia1Cob1Mnc1M1d1O-OH
wherein, in Formula 1-1 and Formula 1-2,
M1 is at least one selected from zirconium (Zr), boron (B), tungsten (W), magnesium (Mg), cerium (Ce), hafnium (Hf), tantalum (Ta), lanthanum (La), titanium (Ti), strontium (Sr), barium (Ba), fluorine (F), phosphorus (P), and sulfur (S), and
0.7≤a1≤1.0 (0.8, see Table 1, [0126]), 0≤b1≤0.3 (0.1, see Table 1, [0126]), 0≤c1≤0.3 (0.1, see Table 1, [0126]), and 0≤d1≤0.3 (0, see Table 1, [0126]).
Examiner’s Note: It is the position of the Examiner that, while Noh teaches titanium and zirconium as possible components of the cathode active material, the embodiment of Comparative Example 7 has a molecular formula with 0 titanium or zirconium composition. This is sufficient to teach the claimed limitation, since the lower bound of 0 is inclusive for the claimed range of values for d1, meaning no element M1 is required.
Regarding claim 5, Noh, in view of Kwak, teaches wherein a sintering temperature in the step (A) is in a range of 500°C to 775°C (710°C, see [0127]).
Regarding claim 6, Noh, in view of Kwak, does not teach wherein a sintering temperature in the step (B) is in a range of 730°C to 900°C.
However, in an alternate embodiment, Noh teaches a sintering temperature range of 600°C to 800°C (see [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sintering temperature of Noh, in view of Kwak, such that it is between 730°C and 800°C, as taught by Noh, to form a lithium-aluminum oxide coating (see [0027]). Further, it has been held that discovery of the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation requires only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Noh, in view of Kwak, does not teach wherein a sintering temperature in the step (B) is higher than a sintering temperature in the step (A) by 10°C to 250°C.
However, in an alternate embodiment, Noh teaches a sintering temperature in the step (B) (800°C, [0028]) is higher than a sintering temperature in the step (A) (710°C, [0127]) by 10°C to 250°C (90°C higher).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sintering temperature for step (B) of Noh, in view of Kwak, to be greater than the sintering temperature for step (A) by more than 10°C, as taught by Noh, to form a lithium metal oxide ([0127]) and a lithium-aluminum oxide coating ([0027]). Further, it has been held that discovery of the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation requires only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, Noh, in view of Kwak, teaches wherein the aluminum-containing raw material is at least one of selected from the group consisting of Al(OH)3, Al2O3 (Al2O3, see [0129]), AlF3, AlBr3, AlPO4, AlCl3, Al(NO3)3, Al(NO3)3-9H2O, Al2(SO4)3-H2O, Al(H2PO4)3, C2H5O4Al, Al2(SO4)3, Al(SO)4, NaAlO2, Al2CoO4, LaAlO3, and MgAl2O4.
Regarding claim 9, Noh, in view of Kwak, teaches wherein a heat treatment temperature in the step (C) is in a range of 250°C to 400°C (300°C, see [0131]).
Regarding claim 10, Noh, in view of Kwak, teaches wherein the boron-containing raw material is at least one selected from the group consisting of H3B03 (H3BO3, see [0131]), B2H404, B203, LiBO2, Li2B4O7, and AlBO3.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2019/0393489), in view of Kwak et al. (KR 20180111323, Machine Translation attached) and further in view of Toma et al. (U.S. Pub. US 20190379038).
Regarding claim 3, Noh, in view of Kwak, teaches wherein the step (B) further comprises:
(b1) cooling from a sintering temperature to room temperature after the sintering the mixture (naturally cooled to room temperature, see [0129]),
but does not teach the step (b1) is performed in an oxygen atmosphere containing 20 vol% to 75 vol% of oxygen.
However, Toma teaches (b1) cooling from a sintering temperature to room temperature after sintering the mixture (see [0260]), wherein the step (b1) is performed in an oxygen containing environment containing 20 vol% to 75 vol% of oxygen (21% oxygen by volume, see [0260]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the oxygen atmosphere of Noh, in view of Kwak, to contain 20-75% oxygen by volume, as taught by Toma, to achieve a product of sufficient crystallinity (see [0218]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2019/0393489), in view of Kwak et al. (KR 20180111323, Machine Translation attached) and further in view of Zhou et al. (CN 1297020, Machine Translation attached).
Regarding claim 4, Noh, in view of Kwak, teaches a reduction of the oxygen concentration according to the sintering time in the step B (oxygen concentration reduced to air atmosphere after 5 hours, see Kwak [0123] and rejection of claim 1),
but does not teach a reduction rate in a range of 0.5 vol%/hour to 15 vol%/hour.
However, Zhou teaches a reduction rate of the oxygen concentration according to the sintering time in a range of 0.5 vol%/hour to 15 vol%/hour (1/10 furnace volume per hour, see Page2:L16-17).
Examiner’s Note: It is the position of the Examiner that while Zhou does not explicitly disclose a reduction rate in oxygen concentration, Zhou teaches the claimed range when considered in concert with the teaching of Noh, in view of Kwak, to change from atmospheric conditions of 80% to ~21% oxygen. The rate of air renewal would be roughly equivalent to the rate at which the oxygen atmosphere is replaced with one having ~60% less oxygen volume. Therefore, 60% * 1/10 volume per hour would be an oxygen reduction rate of 6 vol%/hour, which falls within the claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the reduction of oxygen concentration according to sintering time of Noh, in view of Kwak, to have a rate in a range of 0.5 vol%/hour to 15 vol%/hour, as taught by Zhou, to obtain a temperature in the sintering environment, leading to high crystalline quality (see Page2:L35-39). Further, it has been held that discovery of the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation requires only routine skill in the art, unless there is evidence indicating the claimed oxygen reduction rate is critical.
Claims 11, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2019/0393489), in view of Park et al. (WO 2019/143047, Machine Translation attached) and Han et al. (ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2017, 9, 17, 14769–14778, Supporting Information attached).
Regarding claim 11, Noh teaches a positive electrode active material (115, Fig. 1, see [0057]) comprising:
a lithium transition metal oxide (LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2, see [0129]); and
a coating layer formed on the lithium transition metal oxide (integrated oxide coating layer, see [0100]),
wherein the coating layer comprises aluminum (Al2O3, see [0129]) and boron (H3BO3, see [0131]), wherein the lithium transition metal oxide contains 70 mol% or more of nickel (80%, Comparative Example 7, see Table 1) based on the total molar amount of metals excluding lithium present in the lithium transition metal oxide,
but does not teach wherein the lithium transition metal oxide is in a form of a secondary particle, wherein the secondary particle is an aggregate of primary particles; and
wherein the positive electrode active material has a core portion, wherein the core portion is a region of the positive electrode active material extending from a center of the positive electrode active material to 60 vol% of a total volume of the positive electrode active material,
wherein the primary particles in the core portion have an Al concentration gradient that decreases from a surface portion of the primary particles to a center portion of the primary particles, and a concentration of Al in the surface portion of the primary particles is 2 to 6 times a concentration of Al in the center portion of the primary particles.
However, Park teaches wherein the positive electrode active material (cathode active material, see Page4:L13) has a core portion (center portion, see Page4:L13-15), wherein the core portion is a region of the positive electrode active material extending from a center of the positive electrode active material to 60 vol% of a total volume of the positive electrode active material (50-95% by volume from the center, see Page4:L13-15), wherein the particles in the core portion have an Al concentration gradient (see Page4:L41-47),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the positive electrode material of Noh by adding a core portion extending from the center to 60 vol%, wherein there is an aluminum concentration gradient, as taught by Park, to provide excellent thermal stability (see Page4:L44-47).
Further, Han teaches wherein the lithium transition metal oxide (LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2 or NCM523, see Pg14770:C1:L22-24) is in a form of a secondary particle (see Pg14772:C2:L12-13), wherein the secondary particle is an aggregate of primary particles (Fig. 11a, see Pg14772:C2:L12-14); and
wherein the primary particles in the core portion have an Al concentration gradient that decreases from a surface portion (surface Al concentration, Annotated Fig. S7a, below, see Pg14773:C2:L11-15) of the primary particles to a center portion of the primary particles (surface Al concentration, Annotated Fig. S7a, below), and a concentration of Al in the surface portion (~1100 count, Annotated Fig. S7a, below) of the primary particles is 2 to 6 times a concentration of Al in the center portion of the primary particles (~500 count, Annotated Fig. S7a, below).
Examiner’s Annotated Fig. S7a
PNG
media_image1.png
297
619
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the lithium transition metal oxide of Noh, in view of Park, by forming primary particles in the core portion with an Al concentration 2 to 6 times on the surface than at the center, as taught by Han, to obtain a thinner, denser coating (see Page14777:C2:L7-13) rather than having aluminum diffuse into the bulk in high quantities as a dopant, which hinders electrochemical performance (see Page14777:C1:L18-24).
Examiner’s Note: It is the position of the Examiner that while Noh does not explicitly disclose the primary particles or aluminum concentration gradient, the findings of Han would suggest that the embodiment of Noh necessarily possesses the concentration gradient in primary particles taught by Han due to the similar annealing/sintering conditions disclosed in both references. Thus, it would not only be obvious to combine the teachings of Noh and Han, but Noh likely anticipates the gradient as an inherent property.
Regarding claim 12, Noh, in view of Park and Han, teaches wherein the lithium transition metal oxide has a composition represented by Formula 2 (LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2, see [0129]):
[Formula 2] LixNia2Cob2Mnc2Ald2M1e2O2
wherein, in Formula 2, M1 is at least one selected from the group consisting of zirconium (Zr), boron (B), tungsten (W), magnesium (Mg), cerium (Ce), hafnium (Hf), tantalum (Ta), lanthanum (La), titanium (Ti), strontium (Sr), barium (Ba), fluorine (F), phosphorus (P), and sulfur (S), and 0.9<x<1.12,0.7<a2<1.0,0<b2<0.3,O<c2<0.3,0<d2<0.2, and O<e2<0.1.
0.9≤x≤1.12 (1.05, see [0127]), 0.7≤a1≤1.0 (0.8, see [0129]), 0≤b1≤0.3 (0.1, see [0129]), 0≤c1≤0.3 (0.1, see [0129]), and 0≤d2≤0.2 (see Table 1, [0129] and explanation below), and 0≤e2≤0.2 (0, see [0129]).
Examiner’s Note: It is the position of the examiner, that while Noh does not explicitly disclose the atomic ratio of aluminum found in the lithium transition metal oxide, regardless of whether the entirety, a portion, or none of the added 3000 ppm of Al2O3 (Comparative Example 7, see Table 1) is found in the lithium transition metal oxide, Noh teaches the claimed range of 0≤d2≤0.2. The maximum possible value Noh teaches for d2 would be 0.003 (3000 ppm / 1,000,000 parts) and the minimum would be 0, if assuming all of the aluminum remained as a component of the coating layer. Therefore, the embodiment taught by Noh must necessarily teach the claimed range for d2. Further, as discussed in claim 2, while Noh teaches titanium and zirconium as possible components of the cathode active material, the embodiment of Comparative Example 7 has a molecular formula with 0 titanium or zirconium composition. This is sufficient to teach the claimed limitation, since the lower bound of 0 is inclusive for the claimed range of values for e2, meaning no element M1 is required.
Regarding claim 14, Noh, in view of Park and Han, teaches a positive electrode (130, Fig. 1) for a lithium secondary battery, the positive electrode comprising the positive electrode active material of claim 11 (see [0137]].
Regarding claim 15, Noh, in view of Park and Han, teaches a lithium secondary battery (battery contained in case 170, Fig. 1, [0118]) comprising the positive electrode of claim 14 (130, Fig. 1, [0137]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2019/0393489), in view of Park et al. (WO 2019/143047, Machine Translation Attached) and Han et al. (ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2017, 9, 17, 14769–14778, Supporting Information attached), further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2019/0341599).
Regarding claim 13, Noh, in view of Park and Han, does not teach wherein the coating layer comprises a spinel-like phase.
However, Lee teaches a coating layer comprising a spinel-like phase (spinel phase, see Claim 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the coating layer of Noh, in view of Park and Han, by forming a spinel-like phase, as taught by Lee, in order to reduce the rate of resistance increase (see [0035-0036]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, and 5-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 18/265,579 (hereinafter ‘579), in view of Noh et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2019/0393489) and Kwak et al. (KR 20180111323, Machine Translation attached). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1, ‘579 teaches a method of preparing a positive electrode active material, the method comprising:
(A) sintering a mixture of a positive electrode active material precursor containing nickel and a lithium-containing raw material to prepare a pre-sintered product;
(B) sintering a mixture of the pre-sintered product and an aluminum-containing raw material to prepare a lithium transition metal oxide; and
(C) heat treating a mixture of the lithium transition metal oxide and a boron-containing raw material to form a coating layer on the lithium transition metal oxide,
but does not teach a positive electrode active material precursor containing 70 mol% or more of nickel, based on a total molar amount of metals in the precursor, nor sintering in an oxygen atmosphere containing 20 vol% to 100 vol% of oxygen, wherein the concentration of oxygen in the oxygen atmosphere is reduced according to sintering time (claim 1 of ‘579).
However, Noh teaches a positive electrode active material precursor containing 70 mol% or more of nickel (Ni0.8Co0.1Mn0.1(OH)2, see Table 1, [0126]), based on a total molar amount of metals in the precursor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the nickel composition of the positive electrode active material precursor of ‘579 to be greater than 70 mol%, as taught by Noh, to exhibit high-density energy characteristics (see [0065]).
Further, Kwak teaches sintering in an oxygen atmosphere containing 20 vol% to 100 vol% of oxygen (80%, see [0132]), wherein the concentration of oxygen in the oxygen atmosphere is reduced according to sintering time (oxygen concentration reduced to air atmosphere after 5 hours, see [0123]).
Examiner’s Note: It is the position of the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would know that the concentration of oxygen in an air atmosphere is ~21%. As such, transitioning from an 80% oxygen concentration atmosphere to air would constitute a reduction in oxygen concentration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sintering conditions of ‘579, in view of Noh, to be between 20-100% oxygen by volume and to reduce in oxygen concentration according to sintering time, as taught by Kwak, to reduce the production cost incurred when maintaining a higher oxygen atmosphere (see [0139]).
Regarding claim 2, ‘579, in view of Noh and Kwak, teaches wherein the positive electrode active material precursor has a composition represented by Formula 1-1 or Formula 1-2:
[Formula 1-1] Nia1Cob1Mnc1M1d1(OH)2
[Formula 1-2] Nia1Cob1Mnc1M1d1O-OH
wherein, in Formula 1-1 and Formula 1-2,
M1 is at least one selected from zirconium (Zr), boron (B), tungsten (W), magnesium (Mg), cerium (Ce), hafnium (Hf), tantalum (Ta), lanthanum (La), titanium (Ti), strontium (Sr), barium (Ba), fluorine (F), phosphorus (P), and sulfur (S), and
0.7≤a1≤1.0, 0≤b1≤0.3, 0≤c1≤0.3, and 0≤d1≤0.3 (claim 1 of ‘579).
Regarding claim 5, ‘579, in view of Noh and Kwak, teaches wherein a sintering temperature in the step (A) is in a range of 500°C to 775°C (claim 2 of ‘579).
Regarding claim 6, ‘579, in view of Noh and Kwak, teaches wherein a sintering temperature in the step (B) is in a range of 730°C to 900°C (claim 3 of ‘579).
Regarding claim 7, ‘579, in view of Noh and Kwak, teaches wherein a sintering temperature in the step (B) is higher than a sintering temperature in the step (A) by 10°C to 250°C (claim 5 of ‘379).
Regarding claim 8, ‘579, in view of Noh and Kwak, teaches wherein the aluminum-containing raw material is at least one of selected from the group consisting of Al(OH)3, Al2O3, AlF3, AlBr3, AlPO4, AlCl3, Al(NO3)3, Al(NO3)3-9H2O, Al2(SO4)3-H2O, Al(H2PO4)3, C2H5O4Al, Al2(SO4)3, Al(SO)4, NaAlO2, Al2CoO4, LaAlO3, and MgAl2O4 (claim 4 of ‘579).
Regarding claim 9, ‘579, in view of Noh and Kwak, teaches wherein a heat treatment temperature in the step (C) is in a range of 250°C to 400°C (claim 6 of ’579).
Regarding claim 10, ‘579, in view of Noh and Kwak, teaches wherein the boron-containing raw material is at least one selected from the group consisting of H3B03, B2H404, B203, LiBO2, Li2B4O7, and AlBO3 (claim 7 of ‘579).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aidan L Papandria whose telephone number is (571)272-1831. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 ET.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/AIDAN LACHLAN PAPANDRIA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights