DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because a scale bar is missing for Figures 1A-7. 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.
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.
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.
Claim 1, 4, 5, 7, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (US 2017/01419051) in view of Deng et al. (Materials Today, Vol. 19, No. 4, May 2016).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Fujita teaches a positive electrode active material and lithium-ion secondary battery comprising:
a lithium complex oxide 110; and
a coating layer 120, which may include any one or more of highly thermal conductive compound, graphene, and multilayer graphene (para 0049; Fig. 2).
Figure 2 to Fujita is provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
444
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fujita does not teach the graphene is crumpled-graphene and has a thickness of 0.1 to 10 nm.
Deng, directed to an overview of wrinkled, rippled, and crumpled graphene, teaches crumpled graphene (title) and, in most cases, the thickness is assumed to be 0.34 nm (left col., p. 204).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use crumpled graphene instead of ordinary graphene because (1) graphenic wrinkles provide fast Li+ diffusion channels with a low activation barrier of about 0.1 eV, lower than that of a smooth graphene (0.3 eV) for lithium ion battery application, (2) graphenic materials exhibit high electrical conductivity, excellent thermal stability and remarkable mechanical and chemical robustness, and (3) is remarkably aggregation-resistant in either solution or solid state, and remains largely intact and redispersible after different treatments like, chemical treatments, wet processing, annealing, and pelletizing at high pressure (top p. 208).
Regarding claims 4, 7, and 13, Fujita teaches the graphene or multilayer graphene may have a film thickness of 50 to 500 nm (para 0026).
Regarding claim 5, Fujita teaches LixM1yM21-yO2 (para 0015); however, LiCoO2 and NCM-type lithium metal oxides are commonly used in the lithium secondary batteries.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (US 2017/01419051) in view of Deng et al. (Materials Today, Vol. 19, No. 4, May 2016) as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Zhao et al. (J Mater Sci (2019) 54:8108–8120).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Deng teaches wrinkled and crumpled graphene has a high surface area (right col., p. 207 and right col., p. 208) but does not teach an express value.
Zhao, directed to porous crumpled graphene, teaches surface areas up to up to 846.31 m2/g (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to turn to the prior art for an express teaching of the high surface area for crumpled graphene.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (US 2017/01419051) in view of Deng et al. (Materials Today, Vol. 19, No. 4, May 2016) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of evidentiary evidence to Paulsen et al. (US 2012/0134914).
Regarding claim 8, Fujita teaches LixM1yM21-yO2 (para 0015), specifically high nickel lithium oxides including Li1.0Ni0.83Co0.14Al0.03O2.0 (para 0086).
Fujita does not teach the electrical conductivity.
Paulsen, directed to cathode materials for secondary batteries, teaches high nickel materials such as LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 with a conductivity of about 3.47 x 10-2 S/cm (para 0074).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to that the lithium oxides of Fujita would have the recited electrical conductivity given the similarities in composition.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (US 2017/01419051) in view of Deng et al. (Materials Today, Vol. 19, No. 4, May 2016) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Shimamura et al. (US 2022/0013761).
Regarding claim 9, Fujita does not teach the surface area of the lithium metal oxides.
Shimamura, directed to a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery, teaches LiNi0.80Co0.15Al0.05O2 having a specific surface area of 2.0 m2/g (para 0054).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to turn to the prior art for an express teaching of the surface area of similar compositions used for the same.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, 12, 14, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS BARCENA whose telephone number is (571)270-5780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-5 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)272-3066. 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.
/CARLOS BARCENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723