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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) with a filing date of 05/11/2022. The certified copy of JP2022-078370 has been filed in the present application, received on 06/23/2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation, "the primary particle" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that claim 1 provides antecedent basis for primary particles which makes it unclear “which” specific primary particle of the primary particles is being referred to in claim 3, or if applicant desired to refer to all of the primary particles, or a portion of primary particles. For the purposes of this Office Action, “the primary particle” is interpreted to be “the primary particles”.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas-Alyea at al. (US 20120328942 A1), in view of Ko et al. (US 20230253547 A1), Yun (US 20220069301 A1), and Tamura (JP 2016149258 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Thomas-Alyea discloses an electrode for a non-aqueous (i.e. nonaqueous solvents, [0147]) secondary battery (i.e. lithium-ion battery, [0051] and [0152]), comprising a positive electrode ([0153]), negative electrode ([0153]), non-aqueous electrolyte ([0147]), wherein the positive electrode includes a positive active material layer supported by the positive electrode current collector (i.e. electrode is disposed on the current collector, Abstract, [0133]).
Thomas-Alyea further discloses a positive electrode active material layer with a multilayer structure including a lower layer (i.e. back face closest to current collector, Abstract), and an upper layer disposed at a position further from the positive electrode current collector than the lower layer (i.e. front face furthest from the current collector, Abstract).
Thomas-Alyea discloses a positive electrode material that may include LiMO2, where M may include a mixture of Co, Mn, and Ni or other metal, as well as other positive-electrode materials known in the art including LiNiO2 which appears to be disclosed with sufficient specificity ([0143]) thus being within the scope of the claimed “the positive electrode lower layer includes a first positive electrode active material including a first Ni content lithium complex oxide containing 70 mol% or more of nickel relative to metal elements other than lithium” and “the positive electrode lower layer includes a second positive electrode active material including a second Ni content lithium complex oxide containing 70 mol% or more of nickel relative to metal elements other than lithium.”
Assuming, arguendo, that applicant is able to convincingly argue that Thomas-Alyea does not disclose LiNiO2 with sufficient specificity, the claim limitations would, nonetheless, still be obvious for the following reasons. Ko teaches a cathode active material containing lithium-nickel composite metal oxide with a nickel content of about 80 mol% or more among metals except for lithium ([0063]-[0064]), which is within the scope of the claim limitations. Ko teaches the employment of secondary particles of lithium transition metal oxide with an 80 mol% nickel or greater can obtain high power and capacitance characteristics for the positive electrode ([0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize as the positive electrode active materials of Thomas-Alyea lithium-nickel composite metal oxide with nickel content of about 80 mol% or more among metals except for lithium as taught by Ko to ensure a positive electrode with high power and capacitance characteristics.
Thomas-Alyea does not to disclose a covering element that includes at least one kind of element among elements belonging to Group 6 or 13 that is attached to the second Ni content lithium complex oxide.
Ko teaches a coating layer on the first and second active material particles and provides a list of suitable elements for the coating layer such as Al, Ti, Ba, Zr, Si, B, Mg, P, W or an alloy thereof, or an oxide thereof, used alone or in combination ([0087]), thus rendering the selection of B obvious with a reasonable expectation that such selection would lead to a successful coating layer, reading on Claim 2. Ko teaches the coating passivates the active material particles, increasing stability and improving lifespan against penetration of an external object ([0087]). By including such coating elements, Ko renders obvious the claim limitation in which the covering element belongs to Group 6 or 13 as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed covering elements overlaps with those listed in Ko, and that such elements are utilized as covering elements in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a covering element attached to the second Ni content lithium complex oxide as taught by Ko for the benefit of increasing stability of the electrode and improving lifespan from penetration of an external object.
Thomas-Alyea further discloses aggregate particles, referring to a collection of fused primary particles ([0075]), which reads on the claim limitation, “the second Ni content lithium complex oxide is a secondary particle in which primary particles are aggregated”.
Thomas-Alyea further discloses an electrode where the particle internal porosity decreases from the front to the back of the electrode, with the upper layer (i.e. electrode front face, close to separator, [0074]) being of higher porosity than the lower layer (i.e. electrode back face, near current collector, [0074]).
Thomas-Alyea discloses a porosity gradient provides a more uniform intercalation/de-intercalation reaction rate, thus improving ion transport ([0125]). Thomas-Alyea further discloses a high porosity is advantageous due to a higher specific surface area and low volumetric charge transfer, resulting in a greater power capacity, all of which are desirable characteristics closer to the separator ([0103]; [0111]). Furthermore, Thomas-Alyea discloses too high of a porosity will result in a structurally unstable framework ([0138]). Conversely, the lower layer has a lower porosity than the upper layer and thus a lower specific surface area and a greater amount of active material resulting in a greater energy density ([0103]).
While Thomas-Alyea does not explicitly disclose “a first Ni content lithium complex oxide with a porosity of less than 2%”, “a second Ni content lithium complex oxide porosity of 2% or more and 20% or less”, “in the second Ni content lithium complex oxide, a larger space than the average cross-sectional area of the primary particle not existing inside the secondary particle in a cross-sectional observation” as claimed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have arrived at these limitations by way of routine optimization in order to ensure that the lower layer possesses a desired energy density, the upper layer possesses a desired volumetric charge transfer, and to achieve a desired overall balance between these properties as well as avoid structural instability (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Further regarding the limitation “in the second Ni content lithium complex oxide, a larger space than the average cross-sectional area of the primary particle not existing inside the secondary particle in a cross-sectional observation”, because Tamura teaches that minimizing the voids inside the particles makes them less prone to cracking [(22)], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have arrived at the claimed “in the second Ni content lithium complex oxide, a larger space than the average cross-sectional area of the primary particle not existing inside the secondary particle in a cross-sectional observation” in an effort to ensure uniformity of intercalation/de-intercalation reaction rate and improved ion transport while also ensuring the second Ni content lithium complex oxide is less prone to cracking.
Modified Thomas-Alyea discloses active material particles with a coating layer results in increased stability of the electrode and improves lifespan from penetration of an external object (Ko:[0087]). Also, the skilled artisan recognizes that too much of the covering element proportionally results in less active material which decreases energy density by necessity. Therefore, while Thomas-Alyea does not explicitly disclose the claimed “covering element contained by 0.5 mol% or more and 3 mol% or less when a total of metal elements of the second Ni content lithium complex oxide is 100 mol%”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the amount of covering element as claimed in an effort to achieve a desired balance between overall stability, lifespan, and energy density (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Furthermore, Yun teaches a total amount of first and second boron coating portion that may be about 0.1 mol% to about 3 mol% based on 100 mol% of the positive active material ([0056]) which overlaps and/or encompasses the claimed range. Yun teaches a coating amount outside this range may have negative impacts on the initial discharge capacity and cycle-life characteristics of the positive electrode ([0056]). Yun further teaches an excessive amount of boron coating will increase resistance of the active material ([0056]).
Therefore, it would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected and optimized within the overlapping/encompassed portion of the ranges for the amount of covering element in modified Thomas-Alyea in order to achieve a desired balance between initial discharge capacity, cycle life characteristics, and electrode resistance.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood in view of the 112b rejection above, modified Thomas-Alyea discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Yun further teaches a first boron coating portion on a surface of the secondary particle, and a second boron coating portion on a surface of the primary particles inside the secondary particle (Abstract).
Yun teaches a boron coating only on the surface of an active material contributes to the battery resistance and decreases capacity and cycle-life. In coating the surface of both primary and secondary particles with boron, as disclosed in Yun, the active material may achieve high capacity and improved cycle-life characteristics without a negative impact on initial discharge capacity ([0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve modified Thomas-Alyea by utilizing a covering element on the surface of the primary particle inside the secondary particle as taught by Yun to ensure a positive electrode active material with a high capacity and improved cycle-life characteristics without negatively impacting initial discharge capacity or increasing resistance.
Regarding claim 4, modified Thomas-Alyea discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Thomas-Alyea teaches ion flux and electrochemical reaction rate at discharge is highest in the upper layer of the electrode ([0122]). Thomas-Alyea further teaches high energy density is desired in the electrode lower layer and attained through a lower porosity, contributing to the overall electrode energy density ([0103]; [0138];[0140]).
A skilled artisan would recognize too thick of an upper layer and too thin of a lower layer, while resulting in an electrode with a high electrochemical reaction rate and ion flux, risks too great an electrochemical reaction rate, a lack of structural stability, and a reduced overall energy density. Conversely, too thin of an upper layer and too thick of a lower layer would ensure greater structural stability and overall energy density for the electrode, but would sacrifice a satisfactory electrochemical reaction rate and ion flux. Therefore, while Thomas-Alyea does not explicitly disclose “a ratio of thickness of the positive electrode upper layer to an entire thickness of the positive electrode active material layer is 0.1 or more and 0.5 or less,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the relative thickness of the positive electrode upper layer to an entire thickness of the positive electrode material layer to within the claimed range in an effort to arrive at the desired balance between structural stability, overall energy density, ion flux, and electrochemical reaction rate of the electrode (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding claim 5, modified Thomas-Alyea discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Thomas-Alyea discloses a positive electrode material that may include LiMO2, where M may include a mixture of Co, Mn, and Ni or other metal, as well as other positive-electrode materials known in the art ([0143]).
Modified Thomas-Alyea does not disclose the nonaqueous secondary battery wherein at least one of the Ni content lithium complex oxides is a lithium-nickel-manganese complex oxide.
Ko teaches a first cathode active material that may be a lithium-nickel-cobalt-manganese complex oxide ([0066]-[0068]). Ko further teaches a positive electrode material with a molar ratio of nickel:cobalt:manganese of 8:1:1 for the first cathode active material ([0071]). Ko teaches nickel is often associated with output and/or capacity for lithium secondary batteries and having a molar ratio of 0.8 nickel will result in increased capacity and output ([0069]; [0071]). Furthermore, Ko teaches manganese is a metal associated with mechanical and electrical stabilities for lithium batteries, while cobalt is associated with conductivity and resistance in lithium batteries ([0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further improve modified Thomas-Alyea with the teachings of Ko by utilizing a lithium-nickel-cobalt-manganese complex oxide as one of the Ni content lithium complex oxides to ensure reinforced conductivity and lifespan characteristics as well as increased capacity and output for the positive electrode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESTHER J TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3479. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30PM.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/E.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 1/9/2026