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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6, line 3, “a total transition metals” should read “total transition metals”
In claim 6, line 4, “a total transition metals” should read “total transition metals”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al. (US 2020/0119351 A1) in view of Shim et al. (ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2019).
Regarding claim 1, Yun et al. teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery (paragraph 0002, a nickel-based active material for a lithium secondary battery), comprising:
lithium transition metal oxide particles having a core-shell structure including a core portion (paragraph 0086, core portion and intermediate layer portion on the core portion) and a shell portion (paragraph 0086, shell portion),
wherein the shell portion is disposed on a surface of the core portion (paragraph 0086, shell portion on the intermediate layer portion),
wherein an amount of nickel among total transition metals included in the core portion and the shell portion is 80 atm% or more (paragraph 0083, the content of Ni in the nickel-based active material may be in a range of about 33 mol % to about 97 mol % with respect to a total amount of transition metals, and paragraph 0084, the nickel-based active material is, for example, Li(Ni0.91Co0.06Mn0.03)1-aMaO2-αXα, wherein 0<a≤0.01 and 0<α≤0.01).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Yun et al. does not teach wherein an average crystallite size of the core portion is smaller than an average crystallite size of the shell portion.
Shim et al. teaches wherein an average crystallite size of the core portion is smaller than an average crystallite size of the shell portion (page 2, small particles in the core structure and large particles in the shell structure).
Yun et al. and Shim et al. are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lithium-nickel composite positive electrode active materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active material as taught Yun et al. to incorporate the teachings of Shim et al. so that wherein an average crystallite size of the core portion is smaller than an average crystallite size of the shell portion. Doing so would result in enhanced capacity, rate capability, and improved cycle life (Shim et al. page 2).
Regarding claims 2-4, modified Yun teaches the limitations of claim 1. Yun et al. further teaches wherein the average crystallite size of the shell portion is in a range of 180 nm to 250 nm (paragraph 0058, plate particles wherein the average of the minor axis and major axis is in a range of 175 nm to 675 nm).
Yun et al. does not teach wherein a difference between the average crystallite size of the core portion and the average crystallite size of the shell portion is in a range of 20 nm to 150 nm (claim 2), wherein a difference between the average crystallite size of the core portion and the average crystallite size of the shell portion is in a range of 30 nm to 100 nm (claim 3), or wherein the average crystallite size of the core portion is in a range of 100 nm to 180 nm (claim 4).
Shim et al. teaches wherein the average crystallite size of the core portion is in a range of 100 nm to 180 nm (page 3, small primary particles ~100 nm or smaller in sample C2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active material as taught by modified Yun to incorporate the teachings of Shim et al. so that the average crystallite size of the core portion is in a range of 100 nm to 180 nm. Doing so would provide enhanced capacity and rate capability (Shim et al., page 2).
As to claims 2 and 3, this further modification of Yun teaches wherein the average crystallite size of the core portion is in a range of 100 nm to 180 nm and wherein the average crystallite size of the shell portion is in a range of 180 nm to 250 nm (Yun et al. paragraph 0058, range of 175 nm to 675 nm). From these dimensions, it also teaches wherein a difference between the average crystallite size of the core portion and the average crystallite size of the shell portion is in a range of 20 nm to 150 nm, (claim 2, difference in modified Yun is in a range of 75 nm to 575 nm), and wherein a difference between the average crystallite size of the core portion and the average crystallite size of the shell portion is in a range of 30 nm to 100 nm (claim 3, difference in modified Yun is in a range of 75 nm to 575 nm). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
As to claim 4, this further modification of Yun teaches wherein the average crystallite size of the core portion is in a range of 100 nm to 180 nm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 5, modified Yun teaches the limitations of claim 1. Yun et al. further teaches wherein the average crystallite size of the shell portion is in a range of 180 nm to 250 nm (paragraph 0058, plate particles wherein the average of the minor axis and major axis is in a range of 175 nm to 675 nm). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 9, modified Yun teaches the limitations of claim 1. Yun et al. further teaches a positive electrode comprising the positive electrode active material of claim 1, and a current collector (paragraph 0103, positive electrode fabricated by applying a composition for forming a positive active material layer on a current collector and drying).
Regarding claim 10, modified Yun teaches the limitations of claim 1. Yun et al. further teaches a lithium secondary battery (paragraph 0122 and Fig. 4, lithium secondary battery 1) comprising: the positive electrode of claim 9 (paragraph 0122 and Fig. 4, positive electrode 3); a negative electrode (paragraph 0122 and Fig. 4, negative electrode 2); a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (paragraph 0122 and Fig. 4, separator 4); and an electrolyte (paragraph 0122, organic electrolytic solution).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al. (US 2020/0119351 A1) in view of Shim et al. (ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2019) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamauchi et al. (JP 6631320 B2, machine translation relied upon herein).
Regarding claim 6, modified Yun teaches the limitations of claim 1. Yun et al. does not teach wherein, in the lithium transition metal oxide particles, a mole fraction of the nickel among a total transition metals of the core portion is smaller than a mole fraction of the nickel among a total transition metals of the shell portion.
Yamauchi et al. teaches wherein, in the lithium transition metal oxide particles, a mole fraction of the nickel among a total transition metals of the core portion is smaller than a mole fraction of the nickel among a total transition metals of the shell portion (paragraph 0019 and Fig. 4, nickel-rich layer extending from the particle surface to interior of the particles).
Yun et al. and Yamauchi et al. are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lithium-nickel composite positive electrode active materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active material as taught Yun et al. to incorporate the teachings of Yamauchi et al. so that wherein, in the lithium transition metal oxide particles, a mole fraction of the nickel among a total transition metals of the core portion is smaller than a mole fraction of the nickel among a total transition metals of the shell portion. Doing so would result in high charge/discharge capacity and excellent cycle characteristics (Yamauchi et al. paragraph 0014).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, modified Yun teaches the limitations of claim 6. Yun et al. further teaches
wherein the core portion has a composition represented by [Formula 1]: Lix1Nia1Cob1Mnc1Ald1M1e1O2, (claim 7), and wherein the shell portion has a composition represented by [Formula 2]: Lix2Nia2Cob2Mnc2Ald2M2e2O2 (claim 8) (paragraphs 0080-0081 and Formula 3, Lia(Ni1-x-y-zCoxMnyMz)O2-αXα, M can be Al and X can be F), and
wherein, in Formula 1, 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) (claim 7), and wherein, in Formula 2, M2 is at least one selected from the group consisting of Zr, B, W, Mg, Ce, Hf, Ta, La, Ti, Sr, Ba, F, P, and S (claim 8) (paragraph 0081 and Formula 3, M can be Al and X can be F), and
wherein x1, a1, b1, c1, d1, and e1 are 0.90≤x1≤1.1, 0.80≤a1≤0.95, 0<b1<0.20, 0<c1<0.20, 0<d1≤0.10, and 0≤e1<0.10 (claim 7), and wherein x2, a2, b2, c2, d2, and e2 are 0.90≤x2≤1.1, 0.83≤a2<1.0, 0<b2<0.17, 0<c2<0.17, 0<d2≤0.10, and 0≤e2<0.10 (claim 8) (paragraph 0082 and Formula 3, 1.0≤a≤1.1, 0.33≤(1-x-y-z)≤0.95, 0.1<x≤1/3, 0.05≤y≤0.3, 0<z≤0.009, and 0≤α≤0.0013, and paragraph 0084, for example, Li(Ni0.91Co0.06Mn0.03)1-aMaO2-αXα, wherein 0<a≤0.01 and 0<α≤0.01).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jackie Liang whose telephone number is (571)-272-0880. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM - 4:30PM.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571)-272-1307. 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.
/J.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 9 February 2026