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 .
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.
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erk et al. (US 2021/0376318, hereinafter “Erk”), in view of Jeon et al. (US 2019/0165377, hereinafter “Jeon”) and Nishio et al. (WO 0214/034775 A1, hereinafter “Nishio”).
Regarding claim 8, Erk teaches the cathode active material for the lithium secondary battery analyzed by the method according to claim 1, wherein an amount of a residual LiOH is 0.1 to 0.4% by weight (0.05 to 0.30 by weight, see [0062]), an amount of a residual Li2CO3 is 0.1 to 1.0% by weight (0.05 to 0.30% by weight). 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 MPEP §2144.05(I).
Erk is silent to an amount of a residual Li2SO4 is 0.1% to 1.3% by weight, and an amount of a residual Li2O is 0.2 to 0.5% by weight, based on the total amount of the cathode active material.
Jeon teaches that using a cathode additive may have reduced by-products, i.e., a residual amount of lithium oxide (Li2O), to an amount of about 5 wt.% or less (see [0043]). Jeon teaches that this helps to suppress generation of oxygen gas or gelation of an electrode slurry composition (see [0009]).
In view of Jeon’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the cathode active material of Erk to include wherein an amount of residual Li2O is in an amount of 5 wt.% or less because this helps to suppress generation of oxygen gas or gelation of an electrode slurry composition. 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 MPEP §2144.05(I).
The combination of Erk and Jeong is silent to an amount of a residual Li2SO4 is 0.1% to 1.3% by weight.
Nishio teaches that when the remaining amount of sulfur impurities exceeds 0.08 wt %, impurities such as lithium sulfate are formed, and these impurities undergo a decomposition reaction during charging and discharging, and the resistance increase during high-temperature cycle characteristics becomes severe (see [0065]). Therefore, the presence of lithium sulfate is a result effective variable.
In view of Nishio’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination of Erk and Jeong to include an amount of a residual Li2SO4 is 0.1% to 1.3% by weight, because lithium sulfate can undergo a decomposition reaction during charging and discharging, and the resistance increase during high-temperature cycle characteristics becomes severe. Therefore, as the presence of lithium sulfate is a result effective variable, it is not inventive to discover its optimum range through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
The combination of Erk, Jeong, and Nishio is silent to wherein the weight ranges are based on the total amount of the cathode active material. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to do so in order to minimize the amounts of the residual lithium compounds.
Regarding the limitation “analyzed by the method according to claim 1”, Applicant is reminded that the process of determining measurements/analyzing of a product fails to further limit the structure of the product itself.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 1: The prior art, either taken alone or in combination, fails to teach:
analyzing a cathode active material sample with an Oxygen/Nitrogen/Hydrogen analyzer and a Karl Fischer analyzer to measure an amount of hydrogen components;
analyzing the cathode active material sample with a Carbon-Sulfur analyzer to measure an amount of carbon components and an amount of sulfur components;
analyzing the cathode active material sample with an Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical Emission Spectrometer to measure an amount of lithium components; and
calculating an amount of each of LiOH, Li2CO3 and Li2SO4 in the cathode active material sample by using a measurement result of the amount of each of the hydrogen, carbon, and sulfur components, and calculating an amount of Li2O in the cathode active material sample by using a measurement result of the amount of lithium components, and
calculating the amount of LiOH by Equation 1:
[Equation 1]
L
i
O
H
w
t
%
=
H
1
,
w
t
%
-
H
2
,
w
t
%
*
M
W
L
i
O
H
A
M
H
wherein,
H1 is the amount of hydrogen components (wt %) analyzed by the Oxygen/Nitrogen/Hydrogen analyzer,
H2 is the amount of hydrogen components (wt %) analyzed by the Karl Fischer analyzer,
MWLiOH is a weight average molecular weight of LiOH, and
AMH is an atomic mass of hydrogen, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1.
The closest prior art is Takamori et al. (US 2021/0013506, hereainfter “Takamori”).
Takamori teaches:
It is preferable that a lithium carbonate content in residual alkali of the lithium metal composite oxide powder as measured by neutralization titration is 0.7% by mass or less, based on a total mass of the lithium metal composite oxide powder, and a lithium hydroxide content in residual alkali of the lithium metal composite oxide powder as measured by neutralization titration is 0.7% by mass or less, based on a total mass of the lithium metal composite oxide powder (see [0088]), and after dissolving the lithium metal composite oxide powder in hydrochloric acid, an inductively coupled plasma emission spectrometry (ICP) is performed to measure the amount of sulfur atoms and the amount of alkali metal atoms other than lithium. Then, the measured amount of sulfur atoms is converted to the amount of sulfate radicals, assuming that all of the sulfur atoms are derived from the sulfate radicals. From the measured amounts of alkali metal atoms other than lithium and sulfate radicals, the alkali metal content (% by mass) excluding lithium and the sulfate radical content (% by mass) in the lithium metal composite oxide powder is calculated, and the alkali metal content (% by mass) excluding lithium is divided by the sulfate radical content (% by mass) to calculate the ratio of the alkali metal content (% by mass) excluding lithium to the sulfate radical content (% by mass) (see [0076]).
Takamori fails to teach:
analyzing a cathode active material sample with an Oxygen/Nitrogen/Hydrogen analyzer and a Karl Fischer analyzer to measure an amount of hydrogen components;
analyzing the cathode active material sample with a Carbon-Sulfur analyzer to measure an amount of carbon components and an amount of sulfur components;
analyzing the cathode active material sample with an Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical Emission Spectrometer to measure an amount of lithium components; and
calculating an amount of each of LiOH, Li2CO3 and Li2SO4 in the cathode active material sample by using a measurement result of the amount of each of the hydrogen, carbon, and sulfur components, and calculating an amount of Li2O in the cathode active material sample by using a measurement result of the amount of lithium components, and
calculating the amount of LiOH by Equation 1:
[Equation 1]
L
i
O
H
w
t
%
=
H
1
,
w
t
%
-
H
2
,
w
t
%
*
M
W
L
i
O
H
A
M
H
wherein,
H1 is the amount of hydrogen components (wt %) analyzed by the Oxygen/Nitrogen/Hydrogen analyzer,
H2 is the amount of hydrogen components (wt %) analyzed by the Karl Fischer analyzer,
MWLiOH is a weight average molecular weight of LiOH, and
AMH is an atomic mass of hydrogen.
Claims 2-7: Depend either directly or indirectly from claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HA whose telephone number is (571)270-5934. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458 . 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.
/S.S.H/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 18 June 2026
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights