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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 03/02/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 9-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR102388848B1, hereinafter ‘Han’, in view of Li et al. (Facilitated Coating of Li3PO4 on the Rough Surface of LiNi0.85Co0.1Mn0.05O2 Cathodes by Synchronous Lithiation, ACS Applied Energy Materials, 2021), hereinafter ‘Li’.
All references made to Han are made according to the English language equivalent publication US20200335790A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Han discloses an additive for a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery ([0006], [0077]),
the additive comprising a lithium transition metal oxide and Li5AlO4 ([0017]-[0018]: one embodiment of the present invention provides a cathode additive of which the composition is represented by the following Chemical Formula 1: {x(Li2+aNibM1−bO2+c)}·{y(NiO)}·{z(Li2O)}·{wLi5MO4}, wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, M is one or more metal atoms forming a divalent cation or a trivalent cation, −0.2≤a≤0.2, 0.5≤b≤1.0, −0.2≤c≤0.2, 0.6≤x≤1.0, 0<y≤0.15, 0<z≤0.15, 0≤w≤0.1, and x+y+z+w=1; in this formula, (Li2+aNibM1−bO2+c) is a transition metal oxide; [0033]: The cathode additive obtained may include doped and/or coated Al. In this case, M of Chemical Formulas 1 and 1-1 may include Al, 0.5≤b<1.0 (doping), and 0<w≤0.1 (coating); [0035]: during the heat treatment process, the nickel-based oxide and the lithium oxide react to synthesize lithium nickel oxide represented by Chemical Formula 1-1. Then, Al of the aluminum oxide (Al2O3) may be doped in the crystal structure of the lithium nickel oxide represented by Chemical Formula 1-1, and the aluminum oxide (Al2O3) may react with lithium oxide (Li2O) that did not participate in the reaction, to form Li5AlO4)
wherein the lithium transition metal oxide is doped with aluminum ([0033]: The cathode additive obtained may include doped and/or coated Al).
Further regarding Claim 1, Han discloses that the compound may have a coating layer on the surface, and that coating layer may include, as a coating element compound, an oxide or hydroxide of the coating element, an oxyhydroxide of the coating element, an oxycarbonate of the coating element, or a hydroxycarbonate of the coating element ([0074]).
Han does not disclose that the additive includes Li3PO4 as claimed.
Li discloses the fabrication and performance of a Ni-rich cathode material used in power cells (Abstract). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Li as analogous to Han, as both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, lithium-based nickel-rich cathode materials - a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Further, Li discloses Li3PO4 coatings as Li-ion conduction layers in said Ni-rich cathode materials shows high ionic conductivity, a broad array of PO4 polyanions with stable chemical bond capable of resisting the erosion of electrolytes, improved thermostability and electrochemical performance of cathode materials (Abstract). Li synthesized Li3PO4@LiNi0.85Co0.1Mn0.05O2, and found as a result of the Li3PO4 coating an improved initial Coulombic efficiency, specific discharge capacity, and improved rate performance of the material compared to the pristine cathode material (Conclusion).
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to coat the cathode material of Han with Li3PO4 as taught by Li, as such a coating has been shown to improve initial Coulombic efficiency, specific discharge capacity, and rate performance of such cathode materials compared to pristine, uncoated cathode materials.
Regarding Claim 2, Han as modified above makes obvious the lithium transition metal oxide is represented by Formula 1 as claimed (as discussed above, the formula for the material of Han is {x(Li2+aNibM1−bO2+c)}·{y(NiO)}·{z(Li2O)}·{wLi5MO4} – further, when M is Al, 0.5≤b<1.0, which corresponds to a range of possible values for the coefficients of Ni and Al in the formula of 0.5-1 and 0-0.5, respectively, which overlaps with and makes obvious the claimed range for x – as set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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) – as such, the instant claimed range is obvious over the prior art range).
Regarding Claim 3, Han as modified above makes obvious the lithium transition metal oxide is contained in an amount of 75 to 90% by weight based on a total weight of the additive (Example 1 and Table 1 of Han: the material comprises 17 wt% of NiO, Li2O, and Li5AlO4, leaving 83 wt% of the material to be Li2Ni0.97Al0.03O2, i.e., the transition metal oxide).
Regarding Claim 4, Han as modified above does not disclose that Li3PO4 is contained in an amount of 1 to 10% by weight based on a total weight of the additive. However, Li discloses that the discharge capacity of the cathodes improves with the increase of impregnation concentration within a certain range. When the impregnation concentration reaches 0.3 mol·L–1, the initial discharge capacity of the cathode material reaches the maximum value of 208.2 mA h·g–1 - however, on further increasing the impregnation concentration to 0.75 mol·L–1, LPO-3 delivers an inferior discharge capacity of 195.5 mA h·g–1 with 85.0% Coulombic efficiency. From this, it is clear that the precise amount of Li3PO4 affects the performance characteristics of the resulting cathodes.
Therefore, as the performance characteristics of the resulting cathode is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of Li3PO4 coated on said cathode, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed range cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of Li3PO4 coated in Han to obtain the desired performance characteristics of the resulting cathode, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 5, Han as modified above makes obvious that Li5AlO4 is contained in an amount of 0.5 to 5% by weight based on a total weight of the additive (Table 1, Example 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Han as modified above makes obvious a portion of the Li3PO4 is present in a coated state on the lithium transition metal oxide (as discussed above, Li suggests an Li3PO4 coating).
Regarding Claims 7-8, Han as modified above makes obvious the inclusion of NiO in an amount of 5 to 15% by weight based on a total weight of the additive (Table 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOGAN LACLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-1815. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30-5:30 PST.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571) 270-3591. 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.
LOGAN LACLAIR
Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/L.E.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights