DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The foreign priority application No. 10-2020-0179584 filed on December 21, 2020 in the Republic of Korea has been received and it is acknowledged.
The examiner would like to make of record that the foreign priority application has been received with the pages out of order.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on April 24, 2026 is acknowledged.
Therefore, claims 1-12, 15, 16, 19, 20, and 22-25 are pending, with claims 19, 20, and 22-25 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.
Claims 13, 14, 17, 18, 21, and 26 have been canceled.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in fig.19-21 the definitions and the values on the x-axis and the y-axis are illegible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “m/g” on page 3, line 8 should be amended to read “m2/g” (see page 11, lines 5-10 of the specification).
The examiner suggests that the limitation “single particle” (page 2, line 20, page 5, line 23, page 6, line 3, page 9, line 13, page 14, line 3, page 15, line 1) is amended to recite “a single particle”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12, 15, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The examiner suggests that the limitation “single particle” in claim 1, line 4 is amended to recite “a single particle”.
The limitation “0.35 m/g” in claim 8 should be amended to recite “0.35 m2/g” (see page 11, lines 5-10 of the specification).
Claims 2-7, 9-12, 15, and 16 are objected as being dependent on the objected claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1, 2, 8, and 11 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 Nako et al. (JP 2015-204211 A, with attached machine translation), as evidenced by “Diamond-like carbon”.
With regard to claims 1 and 2, Nako et al. teach a composite particle including an active material particle that is a composite metal oxide having a surface coated with conductive diamond-like carbon (abstract, par.0009).
The active material particle may be a primary particle (par.0014).
A primary particle of a composite metal oxide meets the limitations of claim 1 for “a metal oxide particle including a center and a surface portion positioned on the surface of the center, composed of a single particle”.
Diamond-like carbon is an amorphous carbon material, as evidenced by the attached “Diamond-like carbon”. The coating of conductive diamond-like carbon of Nako et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 for “the surface portion includes a film in which no peak is observed during XRD measurement” (see lines 20-23 on page 2 of the specification), and meets the limitations of claim 2.
The composite particle of Nako et al. anticipates the positive electrode active material in claims 1 and 2.
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to place a conductive diamond-like carbon on a primary particle of a composite metal oxide of Nako et al., because Nako et al. teach that primary particles may be coated.
With regard to claim 8, Nako et al. teach that the composite metal oxide may be LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 with a BET of 0.12 m2/g, or LiNi0.5Co0.3 Co0.2O2 with a BET of 0.33 m2/g (see the table in par.0041). These values are within the claimed ranges.
With regard to claim 11, Nako et al. teach that the composite metal oxide may be LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 with an average particle size of 0.8 mm (par.0043). This value is within the claimed range.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 12 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 Baek et al. (US 2019/0165362).
With regard to claims 1 and 2, Baek et al. teach a core including a lithium composite metal oxide and a surface treatment layer which is disposed on the core and includes an amorphous oxide containing a lithium (Li) oxide, a boron (B) oxide, and an aluminum (Al) oxide (abstract).
The lithium composite metal oxide may be a primary particle (par.0031).
A primary particle of a composite metal oxide meets the limitations of claim 1 for “a metal oxide particle including a center and a surface portion positioned on the surface of the center, composed of a single particle”.
The amorphous oxide containing a lithium (Li) oxide, a boron (B) oxide, and an aluminum (Al) oxide of Baek et al. meets the limitations of claim 1 for “the surface portion includes a film in which no peak is observed during XRD measurement” (see lines 20-23 on page 2 of the specification), and meets the limitations of claim 2.
The particle of Baek et al. anticipates the positive electrode active material in claims 1 and 2.
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to place amorphous oxide containing a lithium (Li) oxide, a boron (B) oxide, and an aluminum (Al) oxide on a primary particle of a lithium composite metal oxide of Baek et al., because Baek et al. teach that primary particles may be coated.
With regard to claim 3, the amorphous oxide containing a lithium (Li) oxide, a boron (B) oxide, and an aluminum (Al) oxide of Baek et al. meets the limitations for “the compound of amorphous structure contains lithium”.
Baek et al. teach that Li2CO3 may be present on the surface of the core and reacts with boron- and/or aluminum-containing materials to be formed as the amorphous oxide (par.0039).
It is the examiner position that a small amount of unreacted amount of Li2CO3 is left in the amorphous oxide, so the amorphous oxide also contains carbon.
With regard to claim 5, Baek et al. teach that the lithium composite metal oxide may be a layered lithium composite metal oxide (par.0021).
With regard to claim 12, Baek et al. teach that the lithium composite metal oxide may be represented by the formula: Li(Ni0.83 Co0.11Mn0.06)0.97Zr0.03O2 (par.0091).
This is a metal oxide containing nickel, cobalt, manganese, and Zr as doping element.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9-12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (KR 10-2019-0117199, with citations from the English language equivalent US 2021/0020902) in view of Baek et al. (US 2019/0165362).
With regard to claims 1, 2, and 4, Yoo at al. teach a positive electrode active material comprising a lithium transition metal oxide doped with an element M2, wherein the lithium transition metal oxide is in a single particle form, and including a center portion having a layered structure and a surface portion having a rock salt structure (abstract).
The lithium transition metal oxide of Yoo et al. is the “metal oxide including a center and a surface portion positioned on the center” in claim 1, and meets the limitations of claim 1 for “composed of a single particle”.
The lithium metal transition oxide may further include a coating layer including an element M3, wherein M3 may be Al and B (par.0046, par.0060)
Yoo et al. teach that the coating layer blocks the contact between the electrolyte solution and the positive electrode active material (par.00487), but fail to teach the film in claim 1.
Baek et al. teach a positive electrode active material comprising a core including a lithium composite metal oxide and a surface treatment layer disposed on the core and including an amorphous oxide containing a lithium (Li) oxide, a boron (B) oxide, and an aluminum (Al) oxide (abstract). The positive electrode active material may prevent damage of the lithium composite metal oxide due to an electrolyte solution and hydrogen fluoride derived from an electrolyte solution by allowing the amorphous oxide on the core to prevent direct contact between the core and the electrolyte solution. Also, gas generation derived from the contact may be prevented (par.0013).
Yoo et al. allows for a coating containing Al and B (par.0046), which are present in the amorphous oxide containing a lithium (Li) oxide, a boron (B) oxide, and an aluminum (Al) oxide of Baek et al.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include a coating including the amorphous oxide containing a lithium (Li) oxide, a boron (B) oxide, and an aluminum (Al) oxide of Baek et al. on the surface of the positive electrode active material of Yoon et al. in order to prevent damage of the lithium composite metal oxide due to an electrolyte solution and diminish gas generation.
The amorphous oxide containing a lithium (Li) oxide, a boron (B) oxide, and an aluminum (Al) oxide of Yoo modified by Baek meets the limitations of claim 1 for “the surface portion includes a film in which no peak is observed during XRD measurement” (see lines 20-23 on page 2 of the specification), and meets the limitations of claims 2 and 4.
The surface portion having a rock salt structure of the lithium transition metal oxide (abstract of Yoo et al.) meets the limitations of claim 4.
Therefore, the positive electrode active material of Yoo modified by Baek is equivalent to the positive electrode active material in claims 1, 2, and 4.
With regard to claim 5, Yoo et al. teach that the center portion has a layered structure (abstract).
With regard to claims 9- 11, Yoo et al. teach that the lithium transition metal oxide has a D50 preferably of 4-6 mm (par.0038). This range overlaps the range in claim 11.
When D50= 4-6 mm, it would be expected that the amount of particles with a diameter of 2mm or less is in an amount that at least overlaps the range in claim 9, and the amount of particles with a diameter of more than 10mm is in an amount that at least overlaps the range in claim 10.
With regard to claim 12, Yoo et al. teach that the lithium transition metal oxide comprises Ni, Co, Mn and Sr, Zr, Mg, and Ti dopants (see Example 2 in par.0116).
With regard to claim 15, Yoo et al. do not specifically teach a lithium transition metal oxide comprises Ni, Co, Mn and Zr and Al as dopants.
However, Yoo et al. teach that the lithium transition metal oxide comprises Ni, Co, Mn and Sr, Zr, Mg, and Ti dopants (see Example 2 in par.0116), and teach that Al is functionally equivalent to Sr, Mg, and/or Ti as dopant (par.0012, par.0033).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to replace one of Sr, Mg, and Ti with Al in the lithium transition metal oxide in Examples 2 of Yoo et al., because these elements as functionally equivalents as dopants.
With regard to claim 16, Yoo et al. fail to specifically teach the amounts of Zr and Al dopants in the lithium transition metal oxide.
However, Yoo et al. teach that the amount of dopant M2 (such as Zr and Al) have influence over the structural stability and the life characteristics of the battery at high voltage (par.0036-0037, par.0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to vary the amounts of Zr and Al dopants in the lithium transition metal oxide of Yoo modified by Baek, in order to optimize the structural stability and the life characteristics of the battery at high voltage.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05.II.A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation)
12. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nako et al. (JP 2015-204211 A, with attached machine translation), as evidenced by “Diamond-like carbon” and in view of Hiratsuka (US 2020/0185712).
With regard to claim 6, Nako et al. teach the positive electrode active material of claim 1 (see paragraph 8 above). Nako et al. teach that the active material particle may be a primary particle (par.0014), but fail to teach the particle strength.
Hiratsuka teaches a positive electrode active substance containing secondary particles that are aggregates of primary particles. The primary particles have a compressive breaking strength of 1,000 MPa or greater (abstract). By setting the compressive breaking strength in this range, the fracture of the primary particles caused by charge/discharge of the battery is suppressed so that the degradation of charge/discharge cycle characteristics of the battery can be suppressed (par.0015).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to make the primary particles of Nako et al. with a compressive breaking strength of 1,000 MPa or greater in order to suppress the fracture of particles caused by charge/discharge of the battery and suppress the degradation of charge/discharge cycle characteristics of the battery.
The range of 1,000 MPa or greater is included in the range in claim 6.
With regard to claim 7, Nako et al. teach the positive electrode active material of claim 1 (see paragraph 8 above). Nako et al. teach that the active material particle may be a primary particle (par.0014), but fail to teach the claimed grain size.
Hiratsuka teaches a positive electrode active substance containing secondary particles that are aggregates of primary particles. The primary particles have a particle diameter of 0.5-2 mm and crystallite diameter of 100-280 nm (abstract). By setting the average particle diameter and the crystallite diameter of the primary particle in these ranges the conductivity and diffusivity of lithium ions is improved so higher output of the battery can be achieved (par.0015).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to make the primary particles of Nako et al. with a crystallite diameter of 100-280 nm, in order to improve the conductivity and diffusivity of lithium ions.
The range of 100-280 nm (1,000-2,800 Angstrom) overlaps the claimed range.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lee et al. (US 2021/0005875) teach a positive electrode active material which includes a lithium composite oxide including nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), and manganese (Mn), and is composed of single particles (abstract).
Park et al. (US 2021/0135187) teach a positive electrode active material which includes a lithium composite oxide including nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), and manganese (Mn), it is composed of a single particle, and has a crystallite size of 180 nm or more (abstract).
Lee et al. (US 2019/0341599) teach a positive electrode active material comprising a lithium metal oxide particles having nickel-based layered structure and a coating layer disposed of each of the lithium metal oxide particles (par.0004). The coating layer may include a hyaline amorphous phase which is vitreous and may include a mixture of spinel phase and rock salt phase (par.0008).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANCA EOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-9810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6:30pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights