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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to because the term “molar weights” is used throughout the specification (see page 2, line 16, line 17, line 19 and line 20, page 7, line 24 and line 25, page 8, line 22, page 9, line 18, page 10, line 9 and line 10, and page 12, line 5) and it is unclear what this term means. It is unclear why the term “molar” is used in reference to the weight. The specification does not appear to contain enough information to determine what the term means. The term does not appear to mean “molar mass” or “molecular weight” because using the molar mass in the examples given (e.g., Example 2, Ni0.4Mn0.6(OH)2, m.w.=90.44 g/mol, NiO, m.w. =74.69 g/mol, MnO, m.w.= 70.94 g/mol) would not appear to achieve a total molar weight of the nickel source and the manganese source of 10-30% (or the 20% as stated for Example 2, page 8, line 23). The use of the term “molar” would seem to imply the term means something other than merely a weight or mass.
If Applicant meant “molar weight” to mean “weight”, the term “molar” should be removed for clarity.
The specification is objected to because the paragraph on page 6, lines 6-19 needs revision at least because it recites “material, meanwhile, meanwhile, defects that particles of the metal oxide synthesized positive electrode material are large and non-uniformly distributed are” which should be revised for clarity such as, for example (as best understood): “material, in particles of the metal oxide synthesized positive electrode material are large and non-uniformly distributed and are” or similar.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 11, 13, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 3 and 11 recite “molar weights” in lines 2 and 4 and it is unclear what is meant by this term. Specifically, it is unclear why the term “molar” is used in reference to the weight. The specification does not appear to contain enough information to determine what “molar weight” means. The term does not appear to mean “molar mass” or “molecular weight” because using the molar mass in the examples (e.g., Example 2, Ni0.4Mn0.6(OH)2, m.w.=90.44 g/mol, NiO, m.w. =74.69 g/mol, MnO, m.w.= 70.94 g/mol) given would not appear to achieve a total molar weight of the nickel source and the manganese source of 10-30% (or the 20% as stated for Example 2, page 8, line 23).
Claims 13, 15 and 19 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claims 3 or 11.
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 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (attached translation of CN 112133917B).
Regarding claim 1, Song et al. discloses a method for preparing a cobalt-free (Abstract) positive electrode material (cathode, para. [0001]), comprising the following steps: (1) mixing a lithium source, a cobalt-free precursor, a nickel source and a manganese source to obtain a matrix material (a nickel source and manganese source are mixed in deionized water, para. [0004], the cobalt-free precursor is added and mixed, para. [0004], the material is spray dried and then mixed with lithium hydroxide, para. [0004]); and (2) performing a primary sintering (roasted at high temperature for 10-16 hours, para. [0004]), and a secondary coating (a second sintering/roasting step, para. [0004], includes coating with a vitreous substance M1 such as strontium hydroxide, pars. [0004] and [0006]) and sintering (roasted for 6-16 hours, para. [0004]) on the matrix material in the step (1) to obtain the cobalt-free positive electrode material and Song et al. discloses wherein a chemical formula of the cobalt-free precursor is NixMny(OH)2, 0.4≤x≤0.75, 0.25≤y≤0.6, in that Song et al. at least discloses an overlapping range which includes 0.75 for x and 0.25 for y (claim 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Song et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003) and MPEP 2144.05.
Song et al. further discloses the nickel source comprises nickel oxide (para. [0009]), the manganese source comprises any one or a combination of at least two of manganese dioxide, trimanganese tetraoxide and manganese oxide (manganese dioxide, para. [0005]), and a molar ratio of the nickel source to the manganese source keeps consistent with a molar ratio of a nickel element to a manganese element in the cobalt-free precursor (para. [0004], the elemental ratio of Mn:Ni is 1:3 which is consistent with y:x - 0.25:0.75).
Regarding claim 8, Song et al. discloses a cobalt-free positive electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the secondary coating and sintering in the step (2) is performed at a temperature ranging from 300° C to 800° C for 4 h to 7 h because Song et al. teaches overlapping ranges (380-450° C, para. [0004] and 6-16 h, para. [0004]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Song et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (attached translation of CN 112133917B) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Li et al. (attached translation of CN 105529457A).
Regarding claim 2, Song et al. discloses wherein in the matrix material in the step (1), a molar ratio of Li to Me ranges from 1.02-1.04 (para. [0004]), and Me is a sum of a manganese element and a nickel element in the matrix material.
Song et al. discloses a similar range (para. [0004]) and does not expressly disclose 1.05-1.15, but “The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.”. See Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and MPEP 2144.05.
Further, Li et al. discloses a method for preparing a positive electrode material containing nickel and manganese (Abstract) and Li et al. teaches wherein a molar ratio of Li to Me ranges from 1.02-1.05 (para. [0004]) and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Li et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra.
Therefore, 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 teachings of Song et al. wherein in the matrix material in the step (1), a molar ratio of Li to Me ranges from 1.05 to 1.15, and Me is a sum of a manganese element and a nickel element in the matrix material.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use a molar ratio of Li to Me of 1.05 and thereby achieve the predictable result of producing the desired amount of cathode material.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (attached translation of CN 112133917B) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Lee et al. (US 20230155123).
Regarding claim 3, Song et al. does not expressly disclose wherein based on a sum of molar weights of the cobalt-free precursor, the nickel source and the manganese source in the step (1) being 100%, a total molar weights of the nickel source and the manganese source ranges from 10% to 30%.
However, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the total molar weight range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the method of Song et al. with the proportions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Further, Lee et al. discloses a method for preparing positive electrode material (Abstract) and Lee et al. teaches that nickel oxide or manganese oxides may be used (para. [0007]) and Lee et al. teaches that the positive electrode material may include lithium metal oxide based on a precursor (as indicated by Formula 1 in para. [0018] and in pars. [0093]-[0094]) and may also include lithium nickel oxide and lithium manganese oxides (para. [0070]) where the components besides the precursor, such as the nickel oxide and manganese oxides, would be in an amount of about 40% or less by weight (the remainder of about 60%, para. [0070]).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Song et al. wherein the total weight of the nickel source and manganese source is less than about 40% of the total weight of the cobalt-free precursor, the nickel source and the manganese source (which overlaps with 10-30%).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Lee et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use nickel and manganese sources with a precursor in an amount of 10-30% by weight to achieve the predictable result of producing a functional positive electrode material.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (attached translation of CN 112133917B) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Wang et al. (attached translation of CN 103199238A), Gao et al. (attached translation of CN 111883768A) and Tanaka et al. (US 20060093914).
Regarding claim 4, Song et al. is silent as to the particle sizes of the sources. However, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, supra and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the median particle sizes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the method of Song et al. with the proportions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Further, Wang et al. discloses a method for preparing an electrode material (Abstract) and Wang et al. teaches the precursor has a median particle size from 1.5-6 µm in that Wang et al. teaches an overlapping range (5-10 µm, para. [0003]) and Wang et al. teaches the manganese source has a particle size between 3-8 µm (5 µm, para. [0010]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Wang et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra.
Therefore, 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 teachings of Song et al. wherein the cobalt-free precursor has a median particle size ranging from 1.5 μm to 6 μm and the manganese source has a median particle size ranging from 3 μm to 8 μm.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select known particle sizes to achieve the predictable result of providing adequate electrode performance.
The above-cited refences are silent as to a lithium source particle size.
However, Gao et al. discloses a method for preparing an electrode material (Abstract) and Gao et al. teaches the lithium source has a median particle size of 8 μm or less in that Gao et al. teaches an overlapping range (6-20 μm, para. [0007]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Gao et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra.
Therefore, 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 teachings of Song et al. wherein the lithium source has a median particle size of 8 μm or less.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select known particle sizes to achieve the predictable result of providing adequate electrode performance.
The above-cited references are silent as to a nickel source particle size.
However, Tanaka et al. discloses a method for preparing an electrode material (para. [0012]) and Tanaka et al. teaches the nickel source has a median particle size ranging from 3 μm to 8 μm in that Tanaka et al. teaches an overlapping range for a nickel source (30 μm or smaller, para. [0107]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Tanaka et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra.
Therefore, 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 teachings of Song et al. wherein the nickel source has a median particle size ranging from 3 μm to 8 μm.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select known particle sizes to achieve the predictable result of providing for adequate electrode performance.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (attached translation of CN 112133917B) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Konishi et al. (attached translation of WO 2015004705).
Regarding claim 6, Song et al. does not disclose wherein the primary sintering in the step (2) is performed in an air atmosphere at a temperature ranging from 950° C to 1050° C for 8 h to 20 h.
However, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, supra and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the sintering temperature and duration, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the method of Song et al. with the proportions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Further, Konishi et al. discloses a method for preparing an electrode material (Abstract) where sintering is performed in an air atmosphere at a temperature ranging from 950° C to 1050° C for 8 h to 20 h in that Konishi et al. teaches an overlapping range (850 to 1050 ° C. for 12 hours, para. [0010]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Konishi et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra.
Therefore, 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 teachings of Song et al. wherein the primary sintering in the step (2) is performed in an air atmosphere at a temperature ranging from 950° C to 1050° C for 8 h to 20 h.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select known temperature ranges for sintering occurring prior to a coating step (Konishi et al., para. [0010]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (attached translation of CN 112133917B) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Zhang et al. (attached non-patent literature titled “Cobalt-Free Nickel-Rich Positive Electrode Materials with a Core−Shell Structure”).
Regarding claim 7, Song et al. is silent as to the use of TiO2, Al2O3, WO3 and H3BO3.
However, Zhang et al. discloses a method for preparing an electrode material (Abstract) and Zhang et al. teaches TiO2 and Al2O3 are among the commonly used coating materials (page 10151, left column).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Song et al. wherein a coating material of the secondary coating and sintering in the step (2) comprises any one or a combination of at least two of TiO2, Al2O3, WO3 and H3BO3.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select known coating materials.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (attached translation of CN 112133917B) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Sun et al. (attached non-patent literature titled “Cobalt-Free Nickel Rich Layered Oxide Cathodes for Lithium-Ion Batteries”).
Regarding claim 9, Song et al. discloses a cobalt-free positive electrode material, prepared by the method for preparing a cobalt-free positive electrode material according to claim 1 (see comments for claim 1 above) and while Song et al. does not explicitly disclose the final composition of the material, the material would meet the composition of wherein a chemical formula of the cobalt-free positive electrode material is LimNixMnyO2, wherein 0.4≤x≤0.75, m>1, 0.25≤y≤0.6, and x+y=1 because as discussed above for claim 1, Song et al. at least discloses an overlapping range which includes 0.75 for x and 0.25 for y (claim 1) where 0.75 + 0.25 = 1 and Song et al. teaches the lithium source is added in amount which is greater than x+y (1.02-1.04, para. [0004]) at least when x=0.75 and y=0.25 such that m>1 (1.02-1.04, para. [0004]).
Otherwise, Sun et al. discloses a cobalt-free positive electrode material (Title and Abstract) prepared by coprecipitation of a metal hydroxide precursor (page 11435, left column) where x+y=1 (several examples shown in Table 1) and where m may also be greater than 1 (Table 2).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Song et al. wherein the chemical formula of the cobalt-free positive electrode material is LimNixMnyO2, wherein 0.4≤x≤0.75, 0.25≤y≤0.6, and x+y=1 and m>1.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to synthesize a known composition for a cobalt-free positive electrode material using a metal hydroxide precursor.
Regarding claim 10, Song et al. discloses a lithium-ion battery (para. [0006]) comprising a cobalt-free positive electrode material according to claim 9.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (attached translation of CN 112133917B) in view of Li et al. (attached translation of CN 105529457A) as applied to claim 2 above and in further view of Lee et al. (US 20230155123).
Regarding claim 11, Song et al. does not expressly disclose wherein based on a sum of molar weights of the cobalt-free precursor, the nickel source and the manganese source in the step (1) being 100%, a total molar weights of the nickel source and the manganese source ranges from 10% to 30%.
However, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, supra and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the total molar weight range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the method of Song et al. with the proportions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Further, Lee et al. discloses a method for preparing positive electrode material (Abstract) and Lee et al. teaches that nickel oxide or manganese oxides may be used (para. [0007]) and Lee et al. teaches that the positive electrode material may include lithium metal oxide based on a precursor (as indicated by Formula 1 in para. [0018] and in pars. [0093]-[0094]) and may also include lithium nickel oxide and lithium manganese oxides (para. [0070]) where the components besides the precursor, such as the nickel oxide and manganese oxides, would be in an amount of about 40% or less by weight (the remainder of about 60%, para. [0070]).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Song et al. wherein the total weight of the nickel source and manganese source is less than about 40% of the total weight of the cobalt-free precursor, the nickel source and the manganese source (which overlaps with 10-30%).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Lee et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use nickel and manganese sources with a precursor in an amount of 10-30% by weight to achieve the predictable result of producing a functional positive electrode material.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (attached translation of CN 112133917B) and Li et al. (attached translation of CN 105529457A) as applied to claim 2 above and in further view of Wang et al. (attached translation of CN 103199238A), Gao et al. (attached translation of CN 111883768A) and Tanaka et al. (US 20060093914).
Regarding claim 12, Song et al. is silent as to the particle sizes of the sources. However, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, supra and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the median particle sizes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the method of Song et al. with the proportions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Further, Wang et al. discloses a method for preparing an electrode material (Abstract) and Wang et al. teaches the precursor has a median particle size from 1.5-6 µm in that Wang et al. teaches an overlapping range (5-10 µm, para. [0003]) and Wang et al. teaches the manganese source has a particle size between 3-8 µm (5 µm, para. [0010]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Wang et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra.
Therefore, 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 teachings of Song et al. wherein the cobalt-free precursor has a median particle size ranging from 1.5 μm to 6 μm and the manganese source has a median particle size ranging from 3 μm to 8 μm.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select known particle sizes to achieve the predictable result of providing adequate electrode performance.
The above-cited refences are silent as to a lithium source particle size.
However, Gao et al. discloses a method for preparing an electrode material (Abstract) and Gao et al. teaches the lithium source has a median particle size of 8 μm or less in that Gao et al. teaches an overlapping range (6-20 μm, para. [0007]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Gao et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra.
Therefore, 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 teachings of Song et al. wherein the lithium source has a median particle size of 8 μm or less.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select known particle sizes to achieve the predictable result of adequate electrode performance.
The above-cited references are silent as to a nickel source particle size.
However, Tanaka et al. discloses a method for preparing an electrode material (para. [0012]) and Tanaka et al. teaches the nickel source has a median particle size ranging from 3 μm to 8 μm in that Tanaka et al. teaches an overlapping range for a nickel source (30 μm or smaller, para. [0107]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Tanaka et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra.
Therefore, 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 teachings of Song et al. wherein the nickel source has a median particle size ranging from 3 μm to 8 μm.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select known particle sizes to achieve the predictable result of providing for adequate electrode performance.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (attached translation of CN 112133917B) in view of Lee et al. (US 20230155123) as applied to claim 3 above and in further view of Wang et al. (attached translation of CN 103199238A), Gao et al. (attached translation of CN 111883768A) and Tanaka et al. (US 20060093914)
Regarding claim 13, Song et al. is silent as to the particle sizes of the sources. However, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, supra and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the median particle sizes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the method of Song et al. with the proportions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Further, Wang et al. discloses a method for preparing an electrode material (Abstract) and Wang et al. teaches the precursor has a median particle size from 1.5-6 µm in that Wang et al. teaches an overlapping range (5-10 µm, para. [0003]) and Wang et al. teaches the manganese source has a particle size between 3-8 µm (5 µm, para. [0010]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Wang et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra.
Therefore, 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 teachings of Song et al. wherein the cobalt-free precursor has a median particle size ranging from 1.5 μm to 6 μm and the manganese source has a median particle size ranging from 3 μm to 8 μm.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select known particle sizes to achieve the predictable result of providing adequate electrode performance.
The above-cited refences are silent as to a lithium source particle size.
However, Gao et al. discloses a method for preparing an electrode material (Abstract) and Gao et al. teaches the lithium source has a median particle size of 8 μm or less in that Gao et al. teaches an overlapping range (6-20 μm, para. [0007]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Gao et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra.
Therefore, 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 teachings of Song et al. wherein the lithium source has a median particle size of 8 μm or less.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select known particle sizes to achieve the predictable result of providing adequate electrode performance.
The above-cited references are silent as to a nickel source particle size.
However, Tanaka et al. discloses a method for preparing an electrode material (para. [0012]) and Tanaka et al. teaches the nickel source has a median particle size ranging from 3 μm to 8 μm in that Tanaka et al. teaches an overlapping range for a nickel source (30 μm or smaller, para. [0107]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Tanaka et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra.
Therefore, 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 teachings of Song et al. wherein the nickel source has a median particle size ranging from 3 μm to 8 μm.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select known particle sizes to achieve the predictable result of providing for adequate electrode performance.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (attached translation of CN 112133917B) in view of Li et al. (attached translation of CN 105529457A) as applied to claim 2 above and in further view of Konishi et al. (attached translation of WO 2015004705).
Regarding claim 14, Song et al. does not disclose wherein the primary sintering in the step (2) is performed in an air atmosphere at a temperature ranging from 950° C to 1050° C for 8 h to 20 h.
However, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, supra and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the sintering temperature and duration, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the method of Song et al. with the proportions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Further, Konishi et al. discloses a method for preparing an electrode material (Abstract) where sintering is performed in an air atmosphere at a temperature ranging from 950° C to 1050° C for 8 h to 20 h in that Konishi et al. teaches an overlapping range (850 to 1050 ° C. for 12 hours, para. [0010]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Konishi et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra.
Therefore, 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 teachings of Song et al. wherein the primary sintering in the step (2) is performed in an air atmosphere at a temperature ranging from 950° C to 1050° C for 8 h to 20 h.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select known temperature ranges for sintering occurring prior to a coating step (Konishi et al., para. [0010]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (attached translation of CN 112133917B) in view of Lee et al. (US 20230155123) as applied to claim 3 above and in further view of Konishi et al. (attached translation of WO 2015004705).
Regarding claim 15, Song et al. does not disclose wherein the primary sintering in the step (2) is performed in an air atmosphere at a temperature ranging from 950° C to 1050° C for 8 h to 20 h.
However, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, supra and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the sintering temperature and duration, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the method of Song et al. with the proportions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Further, Konishi et al. discloses a method for preparing an electrode material (Abstract) where sintering is performed in an air atmosphere at a temperature ranging from 950° C to 1050° C for 8 h to 20 h in that Konishi et al. teaches an overlapping range (850 to 1050 ° C. for 12 hours, para. [0010]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Konishi et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra.
Therefore, 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 teachings of Song et al. wherein the primary sintering in the step (2) is performed in an air atmosphere at a temperature ranging from 950° C to 1050° C for 8 h to 20 h.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select known temperature ranges for sintering occurring prior to a coating step (Konishi et al., para. [0010]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (attached translation of CN 112133917B) in view of Wang et al. (attached translation of CN 103199238A), Gao et al. (attached translation of CN 111883768A) and Tanaka et al. (US 20060093914) as applied to claim 4 above and in further view of Konishi et al. (attached translation of WO 2015004705).
Regarding claim 16, Song et al. does not disclose wherein the primary sintering in the step (2) is performed in an air atmosphere at a temperature ranging from 950° C to 1050° C for 8 h to 20 h.
However, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, supra and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the sintering temperature and duration, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the method of Song et al. with the proportions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Further, Konishi et al. discloses a method for preparing an electrode material (Abstract) where sintering is performed in an air atmosphere at a temperature ranging from 950° C to 1050° C for 8 h to 20 h in that Konishi et al. teaches an overlapping range (850 to 1050 ° C. for 12 hours, para. [0010]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Konishi et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra.
Therefore, 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 teachings of Song et al. wherein the primary sintering in the step (2) is performed in an air atmosphere at a temperature ranging from 950° C to 1050° C for 8 h to 20 h.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select known temperature ranges for sintering occurring prior to a coating step (Konishi et al., para. [0010]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (attached translation of CN 112133917B) in view of Li et al. (attached translation of CN 105529457A) as applied to claim 2 above and in further view of Zhang et al. (attached non-patent literature titled “Cobalt-Free Nickel-Rich Positive Electrode Materials with a Core−Shell Structure”).
Regarding claim 18, Song et al. is silent as to the use of TiO2, Al2O3, WO3 and H3BO3.
However, Zhang et al. discloses a method for preparing an electrode material (Abstract) and Zhang et al. teaches TiO2 and Al2O3 are among the commonly used coating materials (page 10151, left column).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Song et al. wherein a coating material of the secondary coating and sintering in the step (2) comprises any one or a combination of at least two of TiO2, Al2O3, WO3 and H3BO3.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select known coating materials.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (attached translation of CN 112133917B) in view of Lee et al. (US 20230155123) as applied to claim 3 above and in further view of Zhang et al. (attached non-patent literature titled “Cobalt-Free Nickel-Rich Positive Electrode Materials with a Core−Shell Structure”).
Regarding claim 19, Song et al. is silent as to the use of TiO2, Al2O3, WO3 and H3BO3.
However, Zhang et al. discloses a method for preparing an electrode material (Abstract) and Zhang et al. teaches TiO2 and Al2O3 are among the commonly used coating materials (page 10151, left column).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Song et al. wherein a coating material of the secondary coating and sintering in the step (2) comprises any one or a combination of at least two of TiO2, Al2O3, WO3 and H3BO3.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select known coating materials.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (attached translation of CN 112133917B) in view of Wang et al. (attached translation of CN 103199238A), Gao et al. (attached translation of CN 111883768A) and Tanaka et al. (US 20060093914) as applied to claim 4 above and in further view of Zhang et al. (attached non-patent literature titled “Cobalt-Free Nickel-Rich Positive Electrode Materials with a Core−Shell Structure”).
Regarding claim 20, Song et al. is silent as to the use of TiO2, Al2O3, WO3 and H3BO3.
However, Zhang et al. discloses a method for preparing an electrode material (Abstract) and Zhang et al. teaches TiO2 and Al2O3 are among the commonly used coating materials (page 10151, left column).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Song et al. wherein a coating material of the secondary coating and sintering in the step (2) comprises any one or a combination of at least two of TiO2, Al2O3, WO3 and H3BO3.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select known coating materials.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 17 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.
It is noted that multiple dependent claims are dependent on claim 2 or claim 5 and these claims contain limitations found in other dependent claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record discloses methods for preparing cobalt-free positive electrode material which includes mixing a lithium source, a cobalt-free precursor, a nickel source and a manganese source and performing a primary and a secondary sintering where the secondary sintering includes coating to obtain the cobalt-free positive electrode material, and where a chemical formula of the cobalt-free precursor is NixMny(OH)2, 0.4≤x≤0.75, 0.25≤y≤0.6, the nickel source comprises nickel oxide, the manganese source comprises manganese dioxide and a molar ratio of the nickel source to the manganese source keeps consistent with a molar ratio of a nickel element to a manganese element in the cobalt-free precursor.
However, the prior art of record did not reasonably disclose, teach or otherwise suggest a method for preparing a cobalt-free positive electrode material which includes mixing a lithium source, a cobalt-free precursor, a nickel source and a manganese source to obtain a matrix material and performing a primary and a secondary sintering where the secondary sintering includes coating to obtain the cobalt-free positive electrode material, and where a chemical formula of the cobalt-free precursor is NixMny(OH)2, 0.4≤x≤0.75, 0.25≤y≤0.6, the nickel source comprises nickel oxide, the manganese source comprises at least one of manganese dioxide, trimanganese tetraoxide and manganese oxide and a molar ratio of the nickel source to the manganese source keeps consistent with a molar ratio of a nickel element to a manganese element in the cobalt-free precursor and wherein in the matrix material a molar ratio of Li to Me ranges from 1.05 to 1.15 where Me is a sum of a manganese element and a nickel element in the matrix material; and wherein the mixing step comprises:
(a) dividing the lithium source into a first lithium source and a second lithium source;
(b) mixing the first lithium source with the cobalt-free precursor in a molar ratio of Li to Me ranging from 1.05 to 1.15 to obtain a first matrix material;
(c) mixing the second lithium source, the nickel source and the manganese source in a molar ratio of Li to Me ranging from 1.05 to 1.15 to obtain a second matrix material; and
(d) mixing the first matrix material and the second matrix material to obtain the matrix material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kil (US 20210135215) discloses mixing a small diameter metal hydroxide precursor with a lithium source and a large diameter metal hydroxide precursor with a lithium source to obtain first and second mixtures which are heat treated and then mixed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/P.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights