DETAILED ACTION
Application 18/303832, “POSITIVE ELECTRODE ACTIVE MATERIAL AND LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY COMPRISING THE SAME”, was filed with the USPTO on 4/20/23 and claims priority from a foreign application filed on 10/26/22.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action on the merits is in response to communication filed on 4/14/25.
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 11 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 11, the recitation, “wherein the minor axis length of the primary particle has a proportional relationship with the content of fluorine doped into the primary particle” lacks proper antecedent basis since base claim 1 does not require a fluorine doped primary particle.
Moreover, it is unclear what additional structure is actually claimed since the limitation appears to be drawn to a scientific understanding of the effects of doping on a material, rather than a new structural feature of the product.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-14, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or alternatively under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over, Liu (Siyu Liu et al., “Fluorine doping and Al2O3 coating Co-modified Li[Li0.20Ni0.133Co0.133Mn0.534]O2 as high performance cathode material for lithium-ion batteries”, Journal of Alloys and Compounds, Volume 731, 15 January 2018, Pages 636-645).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Liu teaches a positive electrode active material (“cathode material”, title; section 2.1), comprising: a lithium manganese-based oxide with at least some of the oxygens present in the lithium manganese-based oxide are substituted with halogens [doped with fluorine as in claim 10] (“Li[Li0.20Ni0.133Co0.133Mn0.534]O2-xFx”, sections 2.1 and 3.1), in which in which a phase belonging to a C2/m space group and a phase belonging to an R3-m space group are dissolved or complexed (section 3.1 indicates that R3m and C2/m phases are present together, interpreted as “complexed”), and wherein the lithium manganese-based oxide comprises a secondary particle formed by aggregating a plurality of primary particles (Fig. 2).
Liu does not calculate an average value of minor axis lengths of primary particles using the technique recited in claim 1, and therefore is silent as to an average value of a minor axis lengths of primary particles calculated from 20 primary particles selected in the order from longest-to-shortest minor axis lengths from the primary particles exposed on a surface of the secondary particle from a SEM image of the secondary particle is 110 nm or more and less than 400 nm.
However, Liu does teach the primary particles as made up of “rock-shaped grains” having average size of “300-400 nm” (section 3.1; see also the image of the primary particles at Fig. 2).
The particles as illustrated and described appear to be substantially isometric; therefore, the 300-400 nm “particle size” of section 3.1 appears to suggest that were the average value of minor axis lengths of the primary particles determined in the manner described in the claims, the average minor axis lengths would lie in the 300 to 400 nm range, and thus lie within the claimed 110 to 400 nm range, anticipating claim 1.
Alternatively, the claims are found to be obvious because if a difference in size exists, this difference is merely a matter of scale with the 300-400 nm rock shaped primary particles of Liu having average minor axis length lying outside the 100 nm to 400 nm range, if measured as described in the claims. More specifically, it has been held that “a change in form, proportions, or degree “will not sustain a patent… It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions” (MPEP 2144.05 II); see also “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (MPEP 2144.04 IVA) Here, if the Liu particles were found to have average minor axis length lying outside the claimed range, if measured as described in the claims, this difference does not appear to be associated with the functional consequence that is necessary to create patentable distinction, meaning that 300-400 nm rock shaped primary particles as in Liu would perform in substantially the same the claimed particles characterized by the claimed particles which have an average minor axis length of 110 to 400 nm, supporting a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 3-5 and 7-8, Liu remains as applied to claim 1. These claims further require: 3) the minor axis length of the primary particle exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is 50 nm or more and 500 nm or less, 4) the minimum value of the minor axis length measured for the primary particle exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is 60 nm or more, 5) the maximum value of the minor axis length measured for the primary particle exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is 450 nm or less, 7) wherein, among the 20 primary particles selected in the order from longest-to-shortest minor axis lengths from the primary particles exposed on the surface of the secondary particle from the SEM image of the secondary particle, the proportion of primary particles having a minor axis length of 100 nm or more is more than 40% and 100% or less, and 8) wherein the average value of the major axis length and the minor axis length ([major axis length+minor axis length]/2) of the primary particles exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is 0.1 to 5 μm.
Liu’s teaching that the particles are rock shaped and have an average size of 300-400 nm (section 3.1; see also the scale of Fig. 2) appears to teach particles of a size which lie within the claimed ranges, or at least is similar enough to generate the same properties; therefore, these claims are rejected under 35 USC 102/103 for substantially the same reasons as given in the rejection of claim 1. It is noted that the minor length of a rock shaped particle is, absent a disclosure that the rock shaped particles are anisometric, approximately equal to the major axis length. Therefore, the reported average size of Liu corresponds to each of a minor axis length, a major axis length, and an average length.
Regarding claim 11, Liu remains as applied to claim 1. Claim 11 further requires that “the minor axis length of the primary particle has a proportional relationship with the content of the fluorine doped into the primary particle”. However, this limitation is not found to further limit the structure of the particle beyond that required in claim 1, particularly since claim 1 is drawn to a positive electrode active material having a certain minor axis length and, optionally, a certain fluorine content, not a variable minor axis length and fluorine content that could be scaled to demonstrate a proportional relationship.
The limitation appears to be drawn to a scientific understanding of the effects of doping on a material, rather than a new structural feature of the product.
Regarding claim 12-13, Liu remains as applied to claim 1. Liu teaches a compound of the form Li[Li0.20Ni0.133Co0.133Mn0.534]O2-xFx , which suggests the named M1, M2 and X=F constituents of claim 12 and 13, but does not expressly teach the lithium manganese oxide satisfying Formula 1.
However, Liu does teach a structure having a strong R3m peak, associated with the major phase, and a weak C2/m peak, associated with an Li2MnO3 type phase (Section 3.1).
This appears to be consistent with applicant’s Formula 1 since “r” may be a small number approaching zero, and the M1M2O2X type compound appears to be consistent with the major phase of Liu, represented by the Liu formula given above. Therefore, the claimed Formula 1 is found to be anticipated by Liu because the mixed phase compound is consistent with Formula 1 and could be written with that notation, or alternatively is obvious over Liu because the Liu compound does contain the Li2MnO3 and LiM1M2O2 type phases, so that the materials are compositionally similar with the formulaic difference in notation not associated with consequential functional difference in behavior.
Regarding claim 14, Liu remains as applied to claim 1. Claim 12 further requires that the minor axis length of the primary particle has a proportional relationship with the content of the fluorine, which corresponds to b or b’. However, this limitation is not found to further limit the structure of the particle beyond that required in claim 12, particularly since claim 12 is drawn to a positive electrode active material having a certain composition which includes a halogen, not a variable minor axis length and halogen content that could be scaled to demonstrate a proportional relationship.
The limitation appears to be drawn to a scientific understanding of the effects of doping on a halogen on the material, rather than a new structural feature of the product.
Regarding claim 16 and 17, Liu remains as applied to claim 1. Liu further teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 1 used to form a positive electrode of a lithium secondary battery (section 2.3, first paragraph where the CR2032 coin cell with lithium metal reference electrode is a lithium secondary battery).
Claims 2, 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Liu (Siyu Liu et al., “Fluorine doping and Al2O3 coating Co-modified Li[Li0.20Ni0.133Co0.133Mn0.534]O2 as high performance cathode material for lithium-ion batteries”, Journal of Alloys and Compounds, Volume 731, 15 January 2018, Pages 636-645) and Nakamura (US 2019/0260024).
Regarding claim 2 and 6, Liu remains as applied to claim 1. Liu teaches primary particles having an average size of 300-400 nm, but as to claim 2, does not appear to teach wherein the average value of the minor axis lengths of primary particles calculated from 20 primary particles selected in the order from longest-to-shortest minor axis lengths from the primary particles exposed on the surface of the secondary particle from the SEM image of the secondary particle is 116 nm or more and 200 nm or less, and as to claim 6, does not appear to teach the primary particles having a major/minor axis length ratio of 1.28 to 5.69.
In the battery art, Nakamura teaches a positive electrode active material comprised of primary particles having an average minor axis length of 200 to 500 nm and major/minor axis length ratio within the range of at least 2 or about 2.5 to 3, for the benefit of providing enhanced battery characteristics (paragraph [0099-0092] with approximate major/minor axis ratio taken from aspect ratio of smaller particles 200short vs 500long and larger particles 500short vs 1500long).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the primary particles of Liu to have an average minor axis length within the range of 200 to 500 nm and to have a minor/major axis ratio of greater than 2, such as 2.5 to 3, since such particles may provide improved battery characteristics as taught by Nakamura. The claimed ranges are found to be obvious for overlapping the obvious ranges suggested by the prior art (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 9, Liu remains as applied to claim 1. Liu does not appear to teach wherein the average value of the major and minor axis of the secondary particles is 0.5 to 15 microns.
In the battery art, Nakamura teaches a positive electrode active material having an average diameter preferably in the 6 to 15 micron range, for the benefit of providing desirably excellent output characteristics and packing density (paragraph [0095]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the active material of Liu such that the average value of the major and minor axis of the secondary particles is 0.5 to 15 microns since Liu teaches that particles having a diameter of 6-15 microns provide desirably excellent output characteristics and packing density.
Claims 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Liu (Siyu Liu et al., “Fluorine doping and Al2O3 coating Co-modified Li[Li0.20Ni0.133Co0.133Mn0.534]O2 as high performance cathode material for lithium-ion batteries”, Journal of Alloys and Compounds, Volume 731, 15 January 2018, Pages 636-645) and Lho (US 2022/0052331).
Regarding claim 15, Liu remains as applied to claim 1. Liu does not appear to teach wherein the lithium manganese-based oxide has a BET specific surface area of more than 0.58 m2/g and less than 2.46 m2/g.
In the battery art, Lho teaches a manganese based active material that is configured to have a specific surface area of 0.5 to 1.0 m2/g so that excessive manganese dissolution may be suppressed while manganese participates properly in the reaction (paragraph [0075]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the lithium manganese-based oxide of Liu to have a specific surface area of 0.5 to 1.0 m2/g so that excessive manganese dissolution may be suppressed while manganese participates properly in the reaction as taught by Lho. The claimed range of 0.58 m2/g and less than 2.46 m2/g is found to be obvious because the range suggested by Lho largely lies within and substantially overlaps the claimed range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9 AM-5 PM (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached on (571)270-7078. 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.
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723