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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 12/21/2020 . It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the foreign application as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(b).
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed 06/21/2023, 09/12/2023, 09/16/2024 and 08/15/2025 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 and 2 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 CN 111435743 to Bai (Bai, US 2022/0363562 is used as English language equivalent).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 15, Bai discloses a positive electrode active material (cathode) comprising of formula LixNiaCobMncAldMyO2, (Formula 1), wherein 1 ≤x≤ 1.05, ,0<y≤0.025, 0.3≤ a ≤ 0.95, 0 ,0.03≤b≤0.1, 0.01≤ c≤ 0.05, 0.01 ≤d≤ 0.05 and a'+b+c'+d=1 (i.e. lithium oxide particle, wherein, comprising nickel, cobalt, manganese and aluminium), wherein M is a dopant comprising one or more of Zr, Al, B, Ti, Mg, Nb, Ba, Si, P, W, Sr and F (reads on three doping elements, such as Nb, B and Zr (re claim 2).
Alternatively, since Bai teaches a finite number of dopants (Zr, Al, B, Ti, Mg, Nb, Ba, Si, P, W, Sr and F) It would have been obvious to choose three dopant Nb, B and Zr from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions i.e., it would have been "obvious to try" Nb, B and Zr See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale E, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007) in order to improve the cycling stability and the thermal stability of the battery using the quaternary cathode material, increase the specific capacity of the battery and prolong the cycle life of the battery (Abstract)
Regarding claim 15, Bai teaches lithium secondary battery, comprising: a positive electrode comprising the positive electrode active material a negative electrode; and a non-aqueous electrolyte (claim 10).
Claims 3, 6, 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over CN 111435743 to Bai in view of KR20180071714 to Park (Park, machine translation).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Bai discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 2 and incorporated therein. Bai does not expressly disclose wherein he doping amount of the Nb ranges from 0.00001 mole to 0.03 mole, based on 1 mole of the total of nickel, cobalt, manganese, aluminum and doping elements.
Park teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery, comprising a lithium composite oxide containing nickel (Ni) and cobalt (Co), and niobium (Nb) doped into the lithium composite oxide, wherein the central portion of the lithium composite oxide has a nickel content of 85% (re claim 13). Park also teaches he doping amount of the Nb ranges from 0.00001 mole to 0.02 mole (para 32). Because the prior art range overlaps the claimed range, the claimed range is obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the content of Nb based on the range disclosed by Park because doping niobium into a lithium composite oxide can reduce the amount of residual lithium and increase initial capacity and charge/discharge efficiency (para 35).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Bai discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 2 and incorporated therein. Bai does not expressly disclose wherein the ratio between dopants as 0.5 < [Zr]/[Nb] < 10 and 0.5 < [Zr]/[Nb] < 10.
Park teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery, comprising a lithium composite oxide containing nickel (Ni) and cobalt (Co), and niobium (Nb) doped into the lithium composite oxide (Abstract). Park also teaches that amount of Nb affects structural stability of the lithium composite oxide (para 32) and as such a result effective variable. It has been held by the courts that discovering an optimum value or workable ranges of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and thus not novel. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the amount of Nb versus other dopants in order to improve stability of cathode materials and increase initial capacity and charge/discharge efficiency (para 35).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Bai discloses compound of formula 1. Bai does not expressly disclose compound of claimed formula (1).
Park teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery, comprising a lithium composite oxide containing nickel (Ni) and cobalt (Co), and niobium (Nb) doped into the lithium composite oxide. Park also teaches ). Park also teaches he doping amount of the Nb ranges from 0.00001 mole to 0.02 mole (para 32). . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the amount of Nb versus other dopants in order to improve stability of cathode materials and increase initial capacity and charge/discharge efficiency (para 35).
Claims 4, 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over CN 111435743 to Bai in view of KR 20190078498 to Nam (Nam, machine translation).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Bai discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 2 and incorporated therein. Bai does not expressly disclose wherein the doping amount of B in the range 0.001 mol to 0.02 mol and Zr in the range 0.001 mol to 0.007 mol, based on 1 mol of the total of nickel, cobalt, manganese, aluminum and doping elements.
Nam teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery, is a lithium metal compound including nickel, cobalt, and manganese and doped with aluminum, zirconium, and boron (Abstract). Nam also teaches the amount of Zr in the range from 0.0015 mol to 0.005. Because the prior art range overlaps the claimed range, the claimed range is obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the content of Zr based on the range disclosed by Nam in order to avoid structural collapse of the active material and improve temperature stability for cathode materials. In addition Nam teaches the amount of born as 0.005 mol. It is noted that a specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range. See MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 13, Nam discloses wherein I(003)/I(004) =1.22. It is noted that a specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range. See MPEP 2131.03
Claims 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over CN 111435743 to Bai.
Regarding claim 10, Bai discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Regarding the limitation: an initial diffusion coefficient of the positive electrode active material is 7.30*10-9m2/sec to 8.10*10-9m2/sec range: since the cathode active material of Bai is substantially similar to the instant cathode active material as claimed , the claimed properties are inherently present. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and thus, the claimed property (i.e. the specific output energy density), is necessarily present in the prior art material. The courts have held that “[p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over CN 111435743 to Bai in view of US 20180294477 to Shin.
Regarding claim 11, Bai discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Bai does not expressly disclose wherein: a grain size of the metal oxide particle is 1,000 to 1,560 angstrom.
Shin teaches a positive electrode active material comprising metal oxide particles, having grain size in the range from 80 nm to 120 nm (para 81) exhibiting excellent structural stability and further improved output characteristics when used for the battery (para 81).It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the grain size for the metal oxide particles of shin based on the range disclosed by in order to provide excellent structural stability and further improved output characteristics when used for the battery (para 81). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 12, Bai discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Bai does not expressly disclose wherein: a grain size of the metal oxide particle is 1,000 to 1,560 angstrom.
Shin teaches a positive electrode active material comprising metal oxide particles, having grain size in the range from 80 nm to 120 nm (para 81) exhibiting excellent structural stability and further improved output characteristics when used for the battery (para 81).It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the grain size for the metal oxide particles of shin based on the range disclosed by in order to provide excellent structural stability and further improved output characteristics when used for the battery (para 81). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. MPEP 2144.05.Therefore, taking into account grain sizes of Bai in view of Shin, claimed FWHM parameters are inherently present. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and thus, the claimed property (i.e. the specific output energy density), is necessarily present in the prior art material. The courts have held that “[p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.MPEP 2112 V states that "once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the Examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show an unobvious difference."
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER USYATINSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-7703. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/Alexander Usyatinsky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751