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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The examiner notes that applicant’s argument that “Bai discloses the following steps: a high-nickel ternary precursor and a lithium source are thoroughly mixed and milled, a dopant is then added to the mixture, followed by low-temperature sintering in an air atmosphere. In other words, as set forth in steps (1)-(2) of Bai's Claim 1, the precursor, lithium source, and dopant are mixed before low-temperature sintering in air. By contrast, in Claim 1 of the present application, the nickel-containing precursor and the lithium salt are first presintered (in an oxygen atmosphere), and only thereafter mixed with a dopant and subjected to primary high-temperature sintering. Thus, at least the following additional differences exist between Claim 1 and Bai: (i) the order in which the precursor, lithium salt, and dopant are introduced during the heating step (presintering/low-temperature sintering) differs, and (ii) the sintering atmosphere differs.” Is not persuasive as it is not commensurate in scope with claim 1, as currently drafted, and does not recite a step of mixing a dopant nor when said mixing would occur, nor what comprises the atmosphere.
Applicant further argues what appears to be a special definition for "presintering", which applicant also argues is not "annealing" in the prior art, for which there does not appear to be support in the Instant specification as originally filed. It is the examiner’s position that if the process is carried out under substantially similar conditions as that of the claimed invention (e.g., overlapping temperature, pressure, etc.) then the claim limitations would be met, absent either a special definition or additional metes and bounds to distinguish over the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai CN111009656A (cited in IDS filed 20 April 2023; using machine English translation provided) in view of Yamawaki US20010031401A1 and further in view of Liao CN111540901A (using machine English translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, Bai discloses a preparation method of a low-residual-alkali high-nickel ternary positive-electrode material (Bai, [0002]), comprising:
presintering a nickel-containing precursor (Bai, [0016]) and a lithium salt (Bai, [00], lithium source. [0037], Li2CO3) to obtain a presintered material (Bai, [0010-0011]), wherein the presintering is performed under a presintering temperature is 450-550°C (Bai, [0017], 450℃-600℃),
and performing a primary high-temperature sintering on the presintered material (Bai, [0010], [0013]) and a dopant (Bai, [0014]), and the primary high-temperature sintering is performed and a sintering temperature is controlled to be 700-850°C in a process of the primary high-temperature sintering (Bai, [0021], 700℃-900℃). Bai does not disclose wherein presintering is performed under a micro-negative pressure condition of -15 Pa to -2 Pa, and the primary high-temperature sintering is performed under a micro-negative pressure condition of -10 Pa to -0.1 Pa and then a micro-positive pressure condition of 0.1-10 Pa.
Yamawaki teaches presintering is performed under a pressure condition of 0.1 Pa or less (Yamawaki, [0027]), rendering obvious and encompassing the claimed range of a micro-negative pressure condition of -15 Pa to -2 Pa. See MPEP § 2144.05. Yamawaki further teaches the primary high-temperature sintering is performed under a pressure condition of 0.5 Pa or less (Yamawaki, [0031]), rendering obvious and encompassing the claimed range of a micro-negative pressure condition of -10 Pa to -0.1 Pa. See MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the presintering pressure of Bai in a range of -15 Pa to -2 Pa, because Yamawaki teaches it is known in the art to perform presintering at 0.1 Pa or less, and the primary high-temperature sintering of Bai in a range of -10 Pa to -0.1 Pa, Yamawaki teaches it is known in the art to perform primary high-temperature sintering at 0.1 Pa or less, thereby producing a material in which discharge capacity is high and charge-discharge cycle property is highly superior (Yamawaki, [0031]). Bai as modified by Yamawaki does not teach the primary high-temperature sintering is performed under then a micro-positive pressure condition of 0.1-10 Pa.
Liao teaches primary high-temperature sintering is performed under a micro-positive pressure condition of 10 Pa (Liao, [0024]), rendering obvious the claimed range of 0.1-10 Pa. See MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the high-temperature sintering is performed under a micro-positive pressure condition of Liao to Bai as modified by Yamawaki thereby leading to superior electrochemical performance (Liao, [0025]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai CN111009656A (cited in IDS filed 20 April 2023; using machine English translation provided) in view of Yamawaki US20010031401A1 and Liao CN111540901A (using machine English translation provided) and further in view of Min CN110690447A (using machine English translation provided).
Regarding claim 2, Bai as modified by Yamawaki above also teaches wherein the presintering is performed under a pressure condition of 0.1 Pa or less (Yamawaki, [0027]), rendering obvious and encompassing the claimed range of a micro-negative pressure condition of -12 Pa to -3 Pa. See MPEP § 2144.05. Yamawaki further teaches the primary high-temperature sintering is performed under a pressure condition of 0.5 Pa or less (Yamawaki, [0031]), rendering obvious and encompassing the claimed range of a micro-negative pressure condition of -8 Pa to -1 Pa. See MPEP § 2144.05. Bai as modified by Yamawaki and Liao however does not teach the primary high-temperature sintering is performed under then a micro-positive pressure condition of 1-8 Pa.
Min teaches high-temperature sintering is performed under then a micro-positive pressure condition of 3-10 Pa (Min, [0061]), rendering obvious the claimed range of 1-8 Pa. See MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the high-temperature sintering is performed under a micro-positive pressure condition of Min to Bai as modified by Yamawaki and Liao thereby obtain ternary single crystal cathode material (Min, [0061]).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai CN111009656A (cited in IDS filed 20 April 2023; using machine English translation provided) in view of Yamawaki US20010031401A1, Liao CN111540901A (using machine English translation provided) and Min CN110690447A (using machine English translation provided) and further in view of Fu CN204085150U (cited in IDS filed 20 April 2023; using machine English translation provided).
Regarding claim 3, modified Bai additionally teaches wherein the presintered material is crushed (Bai, [0012], “fully crush”) and then mixed with the dopant (Bai, [0012], “and grind it thoroughly”; the grinding of the presintered material with the dopant after the crushing satisfies the claim limitation) for the primary high-temperature sintering (Bai, [0013]), and the sintering temperature is controlled to be 750-800°C (Bai, [0021], 700℃-900℃). Bai as modified above however does not teach wherein in the process of the primary high-temperature sintering, a temperature is raised to the sintering temperature at a temperature raising rate of 2-4°C/min, and a volume fraction of oxygen in a sintering atmosphere is controlled to be more than 95%.
Fu teaches wherein in the process of the primary high-temperature sintering, a temperature is raised to the sintering temperature at a temperature raising rate of 2-4°C/min (Fu, [0010], “heating…rate is 1-20°C/min”), and a volume fraction of oxygen in a sintering atmosphere is controlled to be more than 95% (Fu, [0008], “oxygen with a purity of ≥98% is continuously introduced into the furnace”). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the temperature raising rate and volume fraction of oxygen in a sintering atmosphere of Fu to modified Bai thereby reducing atomic mixing and improving the electrochemical activity and cycle stability of the material (Fu, [0008]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Bai further teaches wherein the dopant is at least one selected from compounds containing Y (Bai, [0013]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai CN111009656A (cited in IDS filed 20 April 2023; using machine English translation provided) in view of Yamawaki US20010031401A1, Liao CN111540901A (using machine English translation provided) and Min CN110690447A (using machine English translation provided) and further in view of Tong CN109980219A (using machine English translation provided) and Petrovic US20120326077A1.
Regarding claim 5, modified Bai further teaches controlling the presintering temperature to be 480-520°C (Bai, [0017], 450℃-600℃) and a sintering time to be 4-6h (Bai, [0017], 4-6 hours) and the precursor is a nickel-cobalt-manganese precursor (Bai, [0016]). Modified Bai however does not teach wherein a process of the presintering comprises: mixing the precursor and the lithium salt according to a lithium proportion of 1.03-1.07, and controlling a volume fraction of oxygen in a sintering atmosphere to be more than 95% in the process of the presintering.
Tong teaches wherein a process of the presintering (Tong, [0020], step (3), “(3) Adding a lithium source to the full-gradient nickel-cobalt-manganese cathode material precursor obtained in step (2), grinding, pre-sintering,…”) comprises: mixing the precursor and the lithium salt according to a lithium proportion of 1.01-1.07 (Tong, [0041]), rendering obvious the claimed range of 1.03-1.07, see MPEP § 2144.05, and controlling the presintering temperature to be 480-520°C (Tong, [0044], 350-550°C) and a sintering time to be 4-6h (Tong, [0044], 3-6 hours), and the precursor is a nickel-cobalt-manganese precursor (Tong, [0041], “nickel-cobalt-manganese cathode material precursor”).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mixing the precursor and lithium salt of modified Bai in a range of lithium proportion of 1.03-1.07, because Tong teaches it is known in the art to have a lithium proportion at 1.01-1.07, thereby preventing low discharge specific capacity and a decrease in discharge specific capacity (Tong, [0041]). Modified Bai as modified above by Tong however does not teach controlling a volume fraction of oxygen in a sintering atmosphere to be more than 95% in the process of the presintering.
Petrovic teaches controlling a volume fraction of oxygen in a sintering atmosphere to be about 99% of more (Petrovic, [0031]), rendering obvious the claimed range of more than 95% in the process of the presintering, see MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore it would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the volume fraction of oxygen in a sintering atmosphere of modified Bai as modified by Tong above to be more than 95% in the process of the presintering, as Tong teaches it is well known in the art to be about 99% or more, thereby obtaining a significant reduction in overall process cost (Petrovic, [0026]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai CN111009656A (cited in IDS filed 20 April 2023; using machine English translation provided) in view of Yamawaki US20010031401A1, Liao CN111540901A (using machine English translation provided) and further in view of Xiao US20090146115A1 and Min CN110690447A (using machine English translation provided).
Regarding claim 6, modified Bai does not teach further comprising: performing a secondary high-temperature sintering on a material after the primary high- temperature sintering and a coating agent, the secondary high-temperature sintering being performed under a micro-positive pressure condition of 1-8Pa.
Xiao teaches further comprising: performing a secondary high-temperature sintering on a material after the primary high-temperature sintering (Xiao, [0022]) and a coating agent (Xiao, [0014]). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the step of Xiao to modified Bai thereby possessing higher tap density and specific capacity (Xiao, [0046]). Modified Bai as modified by Xiao does not teach the secondary high-temperature sintering being performed under a micro-positive pressure condition of 1-8Pa.
Min teaches high-temperature sintering is performed under then a micro-positive pressure condition of 3-10 Pa (Min, [0061]), rendering obvious the claimed range of 1-8 Pa. See MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the high-temperature sintering is performed under a micro-positive pressure condition of Min to modified Bai as modified by Xiao thereby obtain ternary single crystal cathode material (Min, [0061]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai CN111009656A (cited in IDS filed 20 April 2023; using machine English translation provided) in view of Yamawaki US20010031401A1, Liao CN111540901A (using machine English translation provided), Xiao US20090146115A1 and Min CN110690447A (using machine English translation provided) and further in view of Ruan CN103094523A (using machine English translation provided).
Regarding claim 7, modified Bai as modified by Xiao and Min above does not teach wherein the material after the primary high-temperature sintering is crushed and then mixed with the coating agent for the secondary high-temperature sintering; and the secondary high-temperature sintering is controlled to have a sintering temperature of 200-600°C and a sintering time of 6-10h, and a volume fraction of oxygen in a sintering atmosphere is controlled to be more than 95%.
Xiao teaches wherein the material after the primary high-temperature sintering is crushed and then mixed with the coating agent for the secondary high-temperature sintering (Xiao, [0014]) a sintering time of 8-15 hours (Xiao, [0022]), rendering obvious the claimed range of 6-10h, see MPEP § 2144.05, and a volume fraction of oxygen in a sintering atmosphere is controlled to be oxygen (Xiao, [0022], oxygen atmosphere), satisfying the claim limitation of more than 95%. Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the steps of Xiao to modified Bai, thereby possessing higher tap density and specific capacity (Xiao, [0046]). Modified Bai as further modified by Xiao however does not teach wherein the secondary high-temperature sintering is controlled to have a sintering temperature of 200-600°C.
Ruan teaches wherein the secondary high-temperature sintering is controlled to have a sintering temperature of 300-700°C (Ruan, [0016], 300-700°C), rending obvious the claimed range of 200-600°C, see MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sintering temperature of modified Bai as further modified by Xiao to 300-700°C, as Ruan teaches it is well known in the art to be 300-700°C, thereby improving the cycle performance of the battery under high voltage and high temperature conditions (Ruan, [0068]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai CN111009656A (cited in IDS filed 20 April 2023; using machine English translation provided) in view of Yamawaki US20010031401A1, Liao CN111540901A (using machine English translation provided), Xiao US20090146115A1, Min CN110690447A (using machine English translation provided) and Ruan CN103094523A (using machine English translation provided) and further in view of Wu US20200058933A1.
Regarding claim 8, modified Bai does not teach wherein the coating agent is at least one selected from compounds containing Al, Ti, B, Zr, and W.
Wu teaches wherein the coating agent is at least one selected from compounds containing Al (Wu, [0018], Fig. 3) and Ti (Wu, [0010]). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan to add the coating agent of Wu to modified Bai, thereby providing an increased average voltage and an improved energy retention (Wu, [0026]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai CN111009656A (cited in IDS filed 20 April 2023; using machine English translation provided) in view of Yamawaki US20010031401A1, Liao CN111540901A (using machine English translation provided) and further in view of Min CN110690447A (using machine English translation provided) and Xiao US20090146115A1.
Regarding claim 11, modified Bai does not teach further comprising: performing a secondary high-temperature sintering on a material after the primary high-temperature sintering and a coating agent, the secondary high-temperature sintering being performed under a micro-positive pressure condition of 1-8Pa.
Xiao teaches further comprising: performing a secondary high-temperature sintering on a material after the primary high-temperature sintering (Xiao, [0022]) and a coating agent (Xiao, [0014], “adding a binder and/or binder solution after the first-stage sintering, and the mixture of the binder and/or binder solution and the product of first-stage sintering is sintered in the second-stage sintering.”). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the step of Xiao to modified Bai thereby possessing higher tap density and specific capacity (Xiao, [0046]). Modified Bai as modified by Xiao does not teach the secondary high-temperature sintering being performed under a micro-positive pressure condition of 1-8Pa.
Min teaches high-temperature sintering is performed under then a micro-positive pressure condition of 3-10 Pa (Min, [0061]), rendering obvious the claimed range of 1-8 Pa. See MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the high-temperature sintering is performed under a micro-positive pressure condition of Min to modified Bai as modified by Xiao thereby obtain ternary single crystal cathode material (Min, [0061]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 can be reached at 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.
/JARED HANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights