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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 are pending. Claims 2 and 8 are amended and claim 12 is newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-8 of the Applicant’s remarks, filed 7/08/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered. The examiner agrees the results would be unexpected and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Muramatsu et al. (WO 2019244955 A1); these new rejections are outlined below.
Applicant amended claims 2 and 8 to overcome rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner agrees the modifications overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections; thus, the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara et al. (WO 2020022452 A1; Henceforth, Sugawara, and further in view of Muramatsu et al. (WO 2019244955 A1, published 12/26/2019; Henceforth, Muramatsu).
Regarding claim 1, the instant claim is drawn to a positive active material for a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device, comprising: a lithium transition metal compound having a polyanion structure and represented by a general formula LiMPO4 (M is one or more elements selected from Fe, Mn, Ni, and Co) or Li3V2(PO4)3; and a lithium transition metal composite oxide having an α-NaFeO2 type crystal structure and represented by a general formula Li1+αMel-αO2 (0 < α, Me is a transition metal element including Ni and Mn, or Ni, Mn, and Co), the lithium transition metal composite oxide having a molar ratio of Mn to the transition metal (Me) of 0.4 ≤ Mn/Me ≤ 0.6. The motivation for this is to create a positive electrode to have a high power performance at a low SOC after charge-discharge cycles ([0015])
Regarding claim 1, Sugawara teaches a positive active material (A positive electrode active material [0114]) for a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device (The lithium secondary battery of this disclosure comprises […] a non-aqueous electrolyte, [0102]), comprising: a lithium transition metal compound having a polyanion structure and represented by a general formula LiMPO4 (M is one or more elements selected from Fe, Mn, Ni, and Co) or Li3V2(PO4)3 (transition metal oxides or transition metal sulfides, such as […] LiFePO4, LiMnPO4 [0114]); and a lithium transition metal composite oxide having an α-NaFeO2 type crystal structure and represented by a general formula Li1+αMel-αO2 (0 < α, Me is a transition metal element including Ni and Mn, or Ni, Mn, and Co) (Li(1+a)Me(1-a)O2 having an a-NaFeO2 crystal structure (Me is a transition metal containing Mn, Ni and Co, 1.0 ≤ (1+a)/(1-a) ≤ 1.6 […] the positive electrode active material may be used in one type, or may be used by mixing two or more types [0114]).
Sugawara does not explicitly teach the lithium transition metal composite oxide must have a molar ratio of Mn to the transition metal (Me) of 0.4 ≤ Mn/Me ≤ 0.6.
Muramatsu teaches a positive active material for a secondary battery containing lithium transition metal oxide composites, wherein the composites have an a-NaFeO2 structure, having Ni, Co, and Mn (Abstract) and having a ratio of Mn to transition metal be 0.4 or more (Claim 3). Muramatsu also describes the use of a molar ratio of Mn/Me of 0.3≤Mn/Me≤0.55, in another embodiment ([0058]). Muramatsu teaches examples (Tables 4 and 5, reproduced below) where the ratio of Mn/Me is 0.4 (Table 5, Examples 3-1 through 3-10), 0.45 (Table 5, Examples 3-11 through 3-14), 0.46 (Table 4, Examples 2-1 through 2-3), 0.5 (Table 5, Example 3-16), and 0.55 (Table 4, Examples 2-4 and 2-5). The examiner notes each of these examples lie within the claimed range and therefore anticipates it. See MPEP 2131.03 (I). Muramatsu teaches utilizing a Mn/Me ratio of greater than or equal to 0.4 stabilizes the layered structure of the active materials ([0047]), and the utilizing a Mn/Me ratio between 0.3≤Mn/Me≤0.55 results in a positive electrode active material is provided that has a large amount of charge per unit volume in the overcharge region and a large discharge capacity per unit volume ([0057]).
PNG
media_image1.png
873
1125
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Table 4, reproduced from Muramatsu.
PNG
media_image2.png
851
949
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Table 5, reproduced from Muramatsu.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create a positive active material for a nonaqueous battery with the composition taught by Sugawara using the Mn to transition metal ratio taught by Muramatsu, from the same field of endeavor. There would have been a motivation, as taught by Muramatsu in the same field of endeavor, to use a Mn to metal ratio of greater than or equal to 0.4, to stabilize the layered structure of the active material ([0047]), and a Mn/Me ratio between 0.3≤ Mn/Me ≤0.55 in order to make a positive electrode active material is provided that has a large amount of charge per unit volume in the overcharge region and a large discharge capacity per unit volume ([0057]).
Regarding claim 3, the instant claim is drawn to the positive active material for a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device according to claim 1, wherein the lithium transition metal composite oxide has a molar ratio (1 + α)/(1 - α) of Li to the transition metal (Me) of 1.1 ≤ (1 + α)/(1 - α).
Sugawara and Muramatsu teach the positive active material for a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device according to claim 1. Sugawara teaches the ratio of Li to transition metal to be 1.0 ≤ (1+a)/(1-a) ≤ 1.6 ([0114]). Muramatsu claims the ratio of Li to Me to be greater than or equal to 1.15 (Claim 4) and less than or equal to 1.35 (Claim 5), and teaches a plurality of examples in Tables 4 and 5 wherein the ratio of Li to Me is 1.2 (Table 5, Examples 3-1 through 3-6, 3-8 and 3-9; Table 4, Examples 2-4 and 2-5). The examiner notes this lies within the claimed range and therefore anticipates it. See MPEP 2131.03 (I). Muramatsu teaches the lower bound results in a secondary battery in which a sudden increase in battery voltage is not observed until reaching a higher SOC ([0048]) while being within the upper bound improves the discharge capacity of the battery ([0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create a positive active material for a nonaqueous battery with the composition taught by Sugawara using the Li to transition metal ratio taught by Muramatsu, from the same field of endeavor. There would have been a motivation, as taught by Muramatsu in the same field of endeavor, to use a Li to metal ratio of greater than of between 1.15 and 1.35, since the lower bound results in a secondary battery in which a sudden increase in battery voltage is not observed until reaching a higher SOC ([0048]) while being within the upper bound improves the discharge capacity of the battery ([0049]).
Regarding claim 4, the instant claim is drawn to the positive active material for a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device according to claim 1, wherein the lithium transition metal composite oxide has a molar ratio (1 + α)/(1 - α) of Li to the transition metal (Me) of (1 + α)/(1 - α) ≤ 1.3.
Sugawara and Muramatsu teach the positive active material for a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device according to claim 1. Sugawara teaches the ratio of Li to transition metal to be 1.0 ≤ (1+a)/(1-a) ≤ 1.6 ([0114]). Muramatsu claims the ratio of Li to Me to be greater than or equal to 1.15 (Claim 4) and less than or equal to 1.35 (Claim 5), and teaches a plurality of examples in Tables 4 and 5 wherein the ratio of Li to Me is 1.2 (Table 5, Examples 3-1 through 3-6, 3-8 and 3-9; Table 4, Examples 2-4 and 2-5). The examiner notes this lies within the claimed range and therefore anticipates it. See MPEP 2131.03 (I). Muramatsu teaches the lower bound results in a secondary battery in which a sudden increase in battery voltage is not observed until reaching a higher SOC ([0048]) while being within the upper bound improves the discharge capacity of the battery ([0049])
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create a positive active material for a nonaqueous battery with the composition taught by Sugawara using the Li to transition metal ratio taught by Muramatsu, from the same field of endeavor. There would have been a motivation, as taught by Muramatsu in the same field of endeavor, to use a Li to metal ratio of greater than of between 1.15 and 1.35, since the lower bound results in a secondary battery in which a sudden increase in battery voltage is not observed until reaching a higher SOC ([0048]) while being within the upper bound improves the discharge capacity of the battery ([0049]).
Regarding claim 6, in the instant claim is drawn to a positive electrode for a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device comprising the positive active material according to claim 1.
Sugawara and Muramatsu teach the positive active material for a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device according to claim 1. Sugawara teaches a positive electrode comprised of the above-described positive active material and a positive current collector ([0114]). Therefore, Sugawara teaches all the additional limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, in the instant claim is drawn to a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device comprising the positive electrode according to claim 6.
Sugawara and Muramatsu teach the positive electrode for a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device according to claim 6. Sugawara teaches a positive electrode comprised of the above-described positive active material and a positive current collector ([0114]). Sugawara teaches the use of this positive electrode in a lithium secondary battery ([0116]). Therefore, Sugawara teaches all the additional limitations of claim 7.
Regarding claim 10, in the instant claim is drawn to an energy storage unit formed by connecting in series a plurality of the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage devices according to claim 7.
Sugawara and Muramatsu teach the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device according to claim 7. Sugawara does not teach using the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device to make an energy storage unit. Muramatsu teaches an energy storage unit formed by connecting in series a plurality of the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage devices (Figure 12, annotated below, element 20; [0138]). This configuration is utilized to provide power for electric automobiles ([0138]), that requires high safety, storage performance, efficiency, and high power ([0235]).
PNG
media_image3.png
485
874
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 12, reproduced from Muramatsu, annotated by the examiner.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create a positive active material for a positive electrode in a nonaqueous battery with the composition taught by Sugawara using the Mn to transition metal ratio taught by Muramatsu, from the same field of endeavor. There would have been a motivation, as taught by Muramatsu in the same field of endeavor, to use a Mn to metal ratio of greater than or equal to 0.4, to stabilize the layered structure of the active material. The resulting battery would be highly useful, as taught by Muramatsu, to provide power for an electric automobile that requires high safety, storage performance, efficiency, and high power ([0235]).
Regarding claim 11, the instant claim is drawn to an energy storage apparatus formed by connecting a plurality of the energy storage units according to claim 10.
Sugawara and Muramatsu teach the energy storage unit according to claim 7. Sugawara does not teach using the energy storage unit to make an energy storage apparatus. Muramatsu teaches an energy storage unit formed by connecting in series a plurality of the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage devices (Figure 12, above, element 20). Muramatsu teaches a plurality of these energy storage units are configured into an energy storage apparatus (Figure 12, above, element 30; [0138]). This configuration is utilized to provide power for electric automobiles ([0138]), that requires high safety, storage performance, efficiency, and high power ([0235]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create a positive active material for a positive electrode in a nonaqueous battery with the composition taught by Sugawara using the Mn to transition metal ratio taught by Muramatsu, from the same field of endeavor, for the same reasons outlined in claim 10 above.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara and Muramatsu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watanabe et al. (US 20120032647 A1; Henceforth, Watanabe).
Regarding claim 2, the instant claim is drawn to the positive active material for a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device according to claim 1, wherein when the positive electrode including the lithium transition metal compound as a positive active material is charged so that a positive electrode potential reaches 3.7 V (vs. Li/Li+), a region where a potential change with respect to an amount of charge is flat is observed within a positive electrode potential range of 3.2 V (vs. Li/Li+) or more and less than 3.4 V (vs. Li/Li+).
Sugawara and Muramatsu teach the positive active material for a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device according to claim 1. Neither teaches that, upon charging the positive electrode including the lithium transition metal compound as a positive active material having a region where a potential change with respect to an amount of charge is flat is observed within a positive electrode potential range of 3.2 V (vs. Li/Li+) or more and less than 3.4 V (vs. Li/Li+).
Watanabe teaches a positive active material of an olivine LiFePO4 complex ([0052]) which has a region where a potential change with respect to an amount of charge is relatively flat is observed within at 3.35V with respect to Li/Li+ (Figure 1, annotated below). Watanabe teaches that, for the long term life-span of the battery, it is preferable to charge over a small SOC range, ([0042]) in a region that is flat, as to better determine the SOC of the battery ([0044]). The use of the olivine crystal structure is superior in terms of cost and stability, and two or more types of positive electrode active materials help increase the accuracy of detection of the SOC ([0044-0045]). The examiner notes that the value taught by the prior art lies within the range of the instant claim and therefore anticipates it. UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). See MPEP 2131.03 (I).
PNG
media_image4.png
650
893
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 1, reproduced from Watanabe, annotated by the examiner.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create a positive active material for a nonaqueous battery with the composition taught by Sugawara, using the Mn to transition metal ratio taught by Muramatsu, from the same field of endeavor, with a region where a potential change with respect to an amount of charge is relatively flat is observed within a positive electrode potential range of 3.2 V (vs. Li/Li+) or more and less than 3.4 V (vs. Li/Li+), taught by Watanabe in the same field of endeavor. There would have been a motivation, as taught by Watanabe in the same field of endeavor, to use a positive active material of solely LiFePO4 to have a region where a potential change with respect to an amount of charge is relatively flat is observed within a positive electrode potential range of 3.2 V (vs. Li/Li+) or more and less than 3.4 V (vs. Li/Li+), in order to better determine the SOC of the resulting battery, and for the flat region to occur at low voltages, to help extend the lifetime of the battery.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara and Muramatsu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishiyama et al. (US 9306214 B2; Henceforth, Nishiyama).
Regarding claim 5, the instant claim is drawn to the positive active material for a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device according to claim 1, wherein a ratio of the lithium transition metal composite oxide in the positive active material is 20% by mass or less.
Sugawara and Muramatsu teach the positive active material for a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device according to claim 1. Neither teaches having a ratio of the lithium transition metal composite oxide in the positive active material is 20% by mass or less.
Nishiyama teaches a lithium secondary battery with a positive and negative electrode, and a positive electrode active material composed of a mixture of a layered lithium nickel manganese cobalt composite oxide (NMC) and an olivine lithium iron phosphate (LFP) complex (page 5, column 2, lines 65-66 and page 6, column 3, lines 1-16). The mass ratio of the composite is 10/90 NMC/LFP or more and 60/40 or less (column 3, lines 1-16). Nishiyama teaches when the NMC/LFP ratio dips below 10/90, there is fear the energy density of the battery is lowered, and, when it is above 60/40, there is a concern about safety deterioration and the additional need for other safety measures (page 7, column 5, lines 39-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create a positive active material for a nonaqueous battery with the composition taught by Sugawara, using the Mn to transition metal ratio taught by Muramatsu, from the same field of endeavor, with the mass ratio taught by Nishiyama in the same field of endeavor. The examiner notes the prior art range for the ratio of NMC to LFP encompasses or overlaps the claimed range for the same parameter. It has been held that, 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) . See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed range because the prior art teaches the same utility over the entire range. There would have been a motivation, as taught by Nishiyama in the same field of endeavor, to use a ratio of NMC to LFP between 10/90 and 60/40, inclusive, to have a high energy density while ensuring the overall safety of the resulting battery.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara, Muramatsu, and Watanabe as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kishimi et al. (US 20140087260 A1; Henceforth Kishimi).
Regarding claim 8, the instant claim is drawn to the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device according to claim 7, wherein when the positive electrode is charged so that a positive electrode potential reaches 3.7 V (vs. Li/Li+), a region where a potential change with respect to an amount of charge is flat is observed within a positive electrode potential range of 3.2 V (vs. Li/Li+) or more and 3.7 V (vs. Li/Li+) or less.
Sugawara, Muramatsu and Watanabe teach the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device according to claim 7. They do not teach, wherein when the positive electrode is charged so that a positive electrode potential reaches 3.7 V (vs. Li/Li+), a region where a potential change with respect to an amount of charge is flat is observed within a positive electrode potential range of 3.2 V (vs. Li/Li+) or more and 3.7 V (vs. Li/Li+) or less.
Kishimi teaches a positive electrode for a secondary battery ([0029]) wherein the positive electrode material is a combination of LiFePO4 and a composite of yLi2MNO2(1-y)LIMO3 (y is more than or equal to 0.3 and less than or equal to 0.7) ([0031]). The composite has a rock-salt type layered crystal structure ([0040]). The two materials have a ratio of 80 to 90% or less of LiFePO4 to yLi2MNO2(1-y)LIMO3 ([0045-0046]). Kishimi teaches four examples of note, which are provided in Table 1 below (also see Tables 1 and 2 in Kishimi). Example 3 ([0118]) corresponds to a structure with a ratio of lithium to transition metal of 1.30, a ratio of Mn to Me of 0.48, and a charging profile shown in Figure 3, below. Example 1 ([0012]), using a composition that corresponds to an Mn/Me of 0.73, has a charging profile with a relatively flat region (Figure 2, reproduced below). Examples 4 ([0119]) uses a composition that corresponds to an Mn/Me of 0.56, but the charging profiles are not depicted.
Table 1: Compositions Taught by Kishimi, with Relevant Parameters Calculated by the Examiner
Example Number
Composition
Combined Formula, Normalized to O = 2
Mn/Me
a
(1+a) / (1-a)
3
0.3(Li2MnO3) and 0.7[Li(Ni0.25Mn0.25Co0.5)O2]
Li1.13(Mn0.41Ni0.15Co0.30)O2*
0.48
0.13
1.30
1
0.55(Li2MnO3) and 0.45[Li(Ni0.4Mn0.4Co0.2)O2]
Li1.22(Mn0.57Ni0.14Co0.07)O2
0.73
0.21
1.53
4
0.45(Li2MnO3) and 0.55[Li(Ni0.2Mn0.2Co0.6)O2]
Li1.18(Mn0.46Ni0.09Co0.27)O2
0.56
0.18
1.44
*The examiner notes that for Example 3 above, rounding to the hundreds’ place results in the sum of (α + Me) to be 0.99. This is a result of rounding during calculations, and the sum is 1 when all digits are utilized.
PNG
media_image5.png
518
694
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 2, reproduced from Kishimi.
PNG
media_image6.png
490
687
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 3, reproduced from Kishimi.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create a positive active material for a nonaqueous battery with the composition taught by Sugawara, using the Mn to transition metal ratio taught by Muramatsu, from the same field of endeavor, with a region where a potential change with respect to an amount of charge is flat is observed within a positive electrode potential range of 3.2 V (vs. Li/Li+) or more and less than 3.7 V (vs. Li/Li+), taught by Kishimi in the same field of endeavor. The range the instant claim is drawn to is the result of routine optimization of the composition taught by Kishimi in the same field of endeavor, optimizing for the amount of Mn, Ni, and Co, in order to have a charging profile with a region that is relatively flat. There is a motivation, taught by Watanabe in the same field of endeavor, that, to extend the long term life-span of the battery, it is preferable for a battery to charge over a small SOC range, ([0042]) in a region that is flat, as to better determine the SOC of the battery ([0044]), and the use of two or more types of positive electrode active materials help increase the accuracy of detection of the SOC ([0044-0045]). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had the reasonable expectation that varying the compositions taught by Kishimi would result in a charging profile in between those shown in Figures 2 and 3, with the reasonable expectation that, at a composition, likely akin to the compositions of Example 4 ([0119]), that the charging profile would approximate the average of the plots depicted in Figures 2 and 3, with a region that would be reasonably flat, while having a Mn/Me below 1.6.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara, Muramatsu, Watanabe, and Kishimi as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Takagi et al. (WO 2012023501 A1; Henceforth, Takagi).
Regarding claim 9, the instant claim is drawn to the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device according to claim 8, wherein the energy storage device is used at a voltage at which a maximum achieved potential of the positive electrode in a fully charged state (SOC 100%) is 3.7 V (vs. Li/Li+) or less.
Sugawara, Muramatsu, Watanabe, and Kishimi teach the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device according to claim 7. They do not teach the energy storage device is used at a voltage at which a maximum achieved potential of the positive electrode in a fully charged state (SOC 100%) is 3.7 V (vs. Li/Li+) or less.
Takagi teaches a nonaqueous secondary battery having a positive and negative electrode (Claim 1) having a hexagonal rock-salt type lithium nickel manganese cobalt composite oxide in the R3m space group (Claim 2), with the formula of Li1+a[NixMnyCoz]O2, where 0 ≤ a ≤ 1.3, x + y + z=1, 0 < x < 0.5, 0 < z ≤ 0.15 (Claim 3). The use of this composite oxide (specifically, when a = 0, x = y = 0.45, z = 0.10) results in a capacity that does not change before 3.7 V (Figure 2, reproduced below). Takagi teaches that is advantageous, as having an initial slope before a flat region helps with the detection of SOC ([0086]). The examiner notes α-NaFeO2 has a hexagonal rock-salt type crystal structure with an R3m space group, per Yamuuchi et al (Electrochem. 2012, 80(10), 716-719).
PNG
media_image7.png
377
657
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 2, reproduced from Takagi.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create a positive active material for a nonaqueous battery with the composition taught by Sugawara, using the Mn to transition metal ratio taught by Muramatsu, from the same field of endeavor, with the voltage at which a maximum achieved potential of the positive electrode in a fully charged state (SOC 100%) is 3.7 V (vs. Li/Li+) or less, taught by Takagi in the same field of endeavor. The range the instant claim is drawn to is the result of routine optimization of the compositions taught by Kishimi and Takagi in the same field of endeavor, for the amount of Mn, Ni, and Co, in order to have a charging profile with a region that is relatively flat, and 100% capacity is reached by 3.7 V. There is a motivation, taught by Watanabe in the same field of endeavor, that, to extend the long term life-span of the battery, it is preferable for a battery to charge over a small SOC range, ([0042]) in a region that is flat, as to better determine the SOC of the battery ([0044]), and the use of two or more types of positive electrode active materials help increase the accuracy of detection of the SOC ([0044-0045]). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had the reasonable expectation that varying the compositions taught by Kishimi with ratios taught by Takagi would result in a charging profile in between those shown in Figures 2 and 3 of Kishimi and Figure 2 of Takagi, with the reasonable expectation that, at a composition within the extremes of Kishimi, the full charge voltage and flat regions would be found.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara and Muramatsu in view of Yukiko et al. (JP 2011198629 A; Henceforth, Yukiko).
Regarding claim 12, the instant claim is drawn to the positive active material for a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device according to claim 1, wherein the lithium transition metal compound has the polyanion structure and is represented by a general formula LiMPO4 (M is one or more elements selected from Ni and Co) or Li3V2(PO4)3.
Sugawara and Muramatsu teach the positive active material for a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device according to claim 1. Neither teach the lithium transition metal compound has the polyanion structure and is represented by a general formula LiMPO4 (M is one or more elements selected from Ni and Co) or Li3V2(PO4)3.
Yukiko teaches an electrode for a non-aqueous secondary battery which contains at least a first active material consisting of LiaV2(PO4)3, where 0 ≤ a ≤ 3, and a second active material Lib[LicNidMneCof]O2, where 0 ≤ b ≤ 1.2 and c + d + e + f = 1, and is characterized in that the ratio of the first active material to the sum of the first and second active materials is 30% by mass or less ([0013]). Yukiko teaches the first active material consisting of a lithium vanadium phosphate compound has a NASICON-type crystal structure and the second active material consisting of a lithium transition metal composite oxide having an α-NaFeO2-type crystal structure and lithium, nickel, manganese, and cobalt ([0013]). Yukiko teaches this composition has sufficient low-rate discharge performance and a high ratio of high-rate discharge capacity to low-rate discharge capacity ([0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive active material of Sugawara and Muramatsu with the LiaV2(PO4)3 complex taught by Yukiko. There would have been a motivation, as taught by Yukiko, to utilize a combination of LiaV2(PO4)3 with the lithium transition metal composite oxide having an α-NaFeO2-type crystal structure and lithium, nickel, manganese, and cobalt, since it has a sufficient low-rate discharge performance and a high ratio of high-rate discharge capacity to low-rate discharge capacity ([0014]). Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the reasonable expectation that the simple substitution of the active material component taught by Sugawara for that of Yukiko would have predictable results, since Yukiko teaches a similar combination of active materials that results in a battery with a sufficient low-rate discharge performance and a high ratio of high-rate discharge capacity to low-rate discharge capacity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20210036362 A1 (Ueno).
Ueno teaches an all-solid-state battery (Title), wherein the positive electrode active material can be lithium oxide, lithium sulfide, or lithium-containing compounds such as lithium iron phosphate, lithium cobalt phosphate, lithium cobalt phosphate and the like ([0072]). Ueno also teaches transition metal oxides or transition metal complex oxides are preferably used as the positive electrode active material, and can include olivine type LiMbPO4 (here, Mb is one or more elements selected from Co, Ni, Mn, Fe, Mg, Nb, Ti, Al and Zr) and lithium vanadium phosphate (Li3V2(PO4)3. The examiner notes Ueno teaches these would work in equivalent manners in the solid-state battery.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN P MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)272-9321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 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, Nicholas A Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/RPM/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights