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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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, 2, 10, 11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (US 2019/0372109 A1) in view of Yun et al. (US 2020/0119351 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Moon et al. teaches a positive electrode active material comprising:
a lithium manganese-based oxide 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 (paragraphs 0062-0063 and Formulae 4a and 4b),
wherein the lithium manganese-based oxide comprises a secondary particle formed by aggregating a plurality of primary particles (paragraph 0032, secondary particle may be an aggregate of the plurality of primary particles),
wherein the lithium manganese-based oxide comprises at least one selected from tungsten, molybdenum and niobium as a dopant (paragraphs 0036 and 0065, M in Formula 4b may be Nb or Mo and the second layered crystalline phase of Formula 4b may be doped with a first metal, which may be Mo),
an interparticle porosity between the primary particles, measured from a cross-sectional SEM image of the secondary particle, is 10% or less (paragraph 0151, secondary particle of Example 2 had a porosity of about 0.76%).
Moon et al does not teach at least some of the oxygens present in the lithium manganese-based oxide are substituted with a halogen.
Yun et al. teaches at least some of the oxygens present in the lithium manganese-based oxide are substituted with a halogen (paragraphs 0080-0081 and Formula 3, X can be fluorine and 0<α≤0.01).
Yun et al. is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of lithium-manganese based oxides. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active material as taught by Moon et al. with the teachings of Yun et al. so that at least some of the oxygens present in the lithium manganese-based oxide are substituted with a halogen. Doing so would enhance the structural stability of the positive active material due to the high electronegativity of the replacement anion (Yun et al., paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 2, modified Moon teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 1. Moon et al. teaches a secondary particle shell (paragraph 0032), but does not teach wherein when the distance from the center to surface of the secondary particle set from the cross- sectional SEM image of the secondary particle is r, and a region at a distance of 0.5r to 1.0r from the center of the secondary particle is an external bulk region, the porosity in the external bulk region is 1% or less.
Yun et al. teaches wherein when the distance from the center to surface of the secondary particle set from the cross-sectional SEM image of the secondary particle is r, and a region at a distance of 0.8r to 1.0r from the center of the secondary particle is an external bulk region (paragraph 0048, the shell portion 30 is a region corresponding to, from the outermost surface of the particulate structure 100, 5 length % to 20 length % of a total distance between the center and the outermost surface of the particulate structure 100), the porosity in the external bulk region is 0.1% to 2% (paragraph 0048).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active material as taught by modified Moon with the teachings of Yun et al. so that wherein when the distance from the center to surface of the secondary particle set from the cross-sectional SEM image of the secondary particle is r, and a region at a distance of 0.5r to 1.0r from the center of the secondary particle is an external bulk region, the porosity in the external bulk region is 1% or less. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)). Doing so would further enhance the structural stability of the active material (Yun et al. paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 10, modified Moon teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 1. Moon et al. further teaches:
wherein the lithium manganese-based oxide is represented by the formula
rLi2MnO3-b’X'b’•(1-r)LiaM1xM2yM3zO2 (paragraph 0066 and Formula 5, aLi2MnO3•(1-a)LiMO2) wherein,
M1 is at least one selected from Ni and Mn (paragraph 0067, at least a portion of M may be Ni),
M2 is at least one selected from Ni, Mn, Co, Al, P, Nb, B, Ti, Zr, Ba, K, Mo, Si, Fe, Cu, Cr, Zn, Na, Ca, Mg, Pt, Au, Eu, Sm, W, V, Ta, Sn, Hf, Ce, Gd and Nd (paragraph 0067, M may include at least two elements selected from Ni, Co, Mn, V, Cr, Fe, Zr, Re, Al, B, Ru, Ti, Nb, Mo, Mg, and Pt)
M3 is at least one selected from W, Mo and Nb (paragraphs 0036 and 0067, M may include at least two elements selected from Ni, Co, Mn, V, Cr, Fe, Zr, Re, Al, B, Ru, Ti, Nb, Mo, Mg, and Pt and the oxide of Formula 5 includes a first metal which may be Mo),
M1 to M3 do not overlap (paragraphs 0036 and 0067, M may include at least two elements selected from Ni, Co, Mn, V, Cr, Fe, Zr, Re, Al, B, Ru, Ti, Nb, Mo, Mg, and Pt),
0<r≤0.7 (paragraph 0067, 0<a<1), 0≤a≤1 (Formula 5, Li1), 0≤b'≤0.1 (Formula 5, b’=0), 0<x≤1 (paragraph 0067, Ni content in M may be about 90 mol % or greater), 0≤y≤1 (paragraph 0067 and Formula 5, M may include at least two elements), 0<z≤0.1 (paragraph 0067 and Formula 5, Ni content in M may be about 90 mol % or greater, so z may be about 10 mol % or less), and 0<x+y+z≤1 (Formula 5, M1).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Moon et al does not teach wherein the lithium manganese-based oxide is represented the formula
rLi2MnO3-b’X'b’•(1-r)LiaM1xM2yM3zO2-bXb, X and X' are halogens capable of substituting for at least some of the oxygens in the lithium manganese-based oxide, and 0≤b≤0.1, provided that b and b’ are not 0 at the same time.
Yun et al. teaches a nickel-based active material represented by Formula 3,
Lia(Ni1-x-y-zCoxMnyMz)O2-αXα (paragraph 0080), X can be fluorine (paragraph 0081), 0≤b≤0.1 (paragraph 0081, 0<α≤0.01), provided that b and b’ are not 0 at the same time (paragraph 0081, 0<α≤0.01).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active material as taught by modified Moon with the teachings of Yun et al. so that wherein the lithium manganese-based oxide is represented the formula rLi2MnO3-b’X'b’•(1-r)LiaM1xM2yM3zO2-bXb, X and X' are fluorine capable of substituting for at least some of the oxygens in the lithium manganese-based oxide, and 0≤b≤0.1, provided that b and b’ are not 0 at the same time. Doing so would enhance the structural stability of the positive active material due to the high electronegativity of the replacement anion (Yun et al., paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 11, modified Moon teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 10, wherein the primary particle is doped with fluorine (primary particles contain the material with formula rLi2MnO3-b’X'b’•(1-r)LiaM1xM2yM3zO2-bXb, X is fluorine at a 0≤b≤0.1 dopant level).
Regarding claim 14, modified Moon teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 1, and Moon et al. further teaches a positive electrode comprising the positive electrode active material according to claim 1 (paragraph 0007, a cathode including the composite cathode active material).
Regarding claim 15, modified Moon teaches the positive electrode according to claim 14, and Moon et al. further teaches a lithium secondary battery using the positive electrode of claim 14 (paragraph 0008, a lithium battery including the cathode).
Claims 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (US 2019/0372109 A1) in view of Yun et al. (US 2020/0119351 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (CN 113036119 A).
Regarding claims 3-9, modified Moon teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 1. Moon et al. does not teach wherein the average value of the minor axis lengths of the primary particles exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is 160 nm or more and 500 nm or less (claim 3), wherein the minimum value of the minor axis length measured for the primary particle exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is 80 nm or more (claim 4), wherein the maximum value of the minor axis length measured for the primary particle exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is 1 μm or less, (claim 5), wherein the average value of the major axis lengths of the primary particles exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is 570 nm or more and 1 μm or less (claim 6), wherein the minimum value of the major axis length measured for the primary particle exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is 245 nm or more (claim 7), wherein the maximum value of the major axis length measured for the primary particle exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is 1.5 μm or less (claim 8), wherein the average value of the major axis lengths and minor axis lengths of the primary particles exposed on the surface of the secondary particle ([major axis length+minor axis length]/2) is 0.1 to 5 μm (claim 9)
Liu et al. teaches primary particle sizes with distribution and frequencies (paragraph 0074 and Table 2, Example 2), wherein the average value of the minor axis lengths of the primary particles exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is 160 nm or more and 500 nm or less (calculated average thickness of primary particles is 0.16 μm), wherein the minimum value of the minor axis length measured for the primary particle exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is 80 nm or more (minimum thickness of the primary particles is 0.05 μm), wherein the maximum value of the minor axis length measured for the primary particle exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is 1 μm or less, (maximum thickness of the primary particles is 0.3 μm), wherein the average value of the major axis lengths of the primary particles exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is 570 nm or more and 1 μm or less (calculated average length of primary particles is 0.63 μm), wherein the minimum value of the major axis length measured for the primary particle exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is 245 nm or more (minimum length of the primary particles is 0.30 μm), wherein the maximum value of the major axis length measured for the primary particle exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is 1.5 μm or less (maximum length of the primary particles is 1.1 μm), wherein the average value of the major axis lengths and minor axis lengths of the primary particles exposed on the surface of the secondary particle ([major axis length+minor axis length]/2) is 0.1 to 5 μm (calculated average of the thicknesses and lengths of primary particles is 0.40 μm).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active material as taught by modified Moon to have primary particles with the dimensions of Liu et al. so that wherein the average value of the minor axis lengths of the primary particles exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is 160 nm or more and 500 nm or less (claim 3), wherein the minimum value of the minor axis length measured for the primary particle exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is 80 nm or more (claim 4), wherein the maximum value of the minor axis length measured for the primary particle exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is 1 μm or less, (claim 5), wherein the average value of the major axis lengths of the primary particles exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is 570 nm or more and 1 μm or less (claim 6), wherein the minimum value of the major axis length measured for the primary particle exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is 245 nm or more (claim 7), wherein the maximum value of the major axis length measured for the primary particle exposed on the surface of the secondary particle is 1.5 μm or less (claim 8), wherein the average value of the major axis lengths and minor axis lengths of the primary particles exposed on the surface of the secondary particle ([major axis length+minor axis length]/2) is 0.1 to 5 μm (claim 9). Doing so would reduce the residual lithium in the cathode material, which is beneficial to improving the electrochemical performance of the cathode material (Liu et al., paragraphs n0009 and 0034).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (US 2019/0372109 A1) in view of Yun et al. (US 2020/0119351 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 2015/0060725 A1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Moon teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 1. Moon et al. teaches a second composite cathode active material with a remarkably small specific surface area (paragraph 0152), but does not teach wherein the BET specific surface area of the secondary particle is 0.3 m2/g or more and 2.0 m2/g or less.
Yamamoto et al. teaches wherein the specific surface area of the positive electrode active substance particles is more preferably 0.3 to 9 m2/g (paragraph 0042).
Yamamoto et al. is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of lithium-manganese based oxides. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active material as taught by modified Moon with the teachings of Yamamoto et al. so that the BET specific surface area of the secondary particle is 0.3 m2/g or more and 2.0 m2/g or less. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)). Doing so would prevent deterioration in charge/discharge rate characteristics and discharge capacity (Yamamoto et al., paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 13, modified Moon teaches the positive electrode active material according to claim 1. Moon et al. does not teach wherein a press density in the pressurization of the positive electrode active material with a pressure of 4.5 tons is greater than 2.53 g/cc.
Yamamoto et al. teaches wherein the compressed density of the positive electrode active substance particles is preferably 2.4 to 3.0 g/cc (paragraph 0041).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active material as taught by modified Moon with the teachings of Yamamoto et al. so that a press density in the pressurization of the positive electrode active material with a pressure of 4.5 tons is greater than 2.53 g/cc. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.05(I)). Doing so would prevent deterioration in charge/discharge rate characteristics and discharge capacity (Yamamoto et al., paragraph 0041).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jackie Liang whose telephone number is (571)-272-0880. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM - 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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571)-272-1307. 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.
/J.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 23 January 2026