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 .
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 6 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.
In line 5 of claim 6, the limitation “a coating oxide” is indefinite because “a coating oxide” has already been introduced in claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention would not have been able to interpret if the coating oxide of claim 6 is the same as that of claim 1 or different, making the claim indefinite.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim interpretation of claim 1 of the instant are acknowledged. In particular, argument (1) found on page 7 of the applicant’s remarks is persuasive because the applicant has indicated where in the specification “coating oxide” is defined as being distinct from “lithium composite oxide”. Argument (2) found on pages 7-8 is persuasive because interpreting the claim to mean that there must be 100% coverage of the particles would narrow the scope of the claim beyond the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Additionally, argument (3) found on pages 8-9 is persuasive because the applicant has indicated a standard definition in the art that agrees with the applicant’s interpretation of the claim language.
The claim will now be interpreted to mean that the coating oxide and lithium composite oxides have different compositions.
The claim will further be taken to mean that as long as a coating oxide of a reference occupies one of “the surfaces of the secondary particle, grain boundaries between the primary particles, or surfaces of the primary particles”, it will anticipate the limitation “a coating oxide occupying at least a part of at least one of surfaces of the secondary particle, grain boundaries between the primary particles, or surfaces of the primary particles” of the instant claims 1 and 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-14 of the applicant’s remarks, filed 5/5/26, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. In particular, argument (b) starting on page 12 was particularly persuasive as the reference used did not teach the appropriate NaOH washing conditions. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over US-20210296691-A1 (K) in view of US-20220407055-A1 (C).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1, 4, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20210296691-A1 (K) in view of US-20220407055-A1 (C).
Regarding claim 1, K teaches a positive electrode active material [0035] comprising: a first lithium composite oxide particle ([0092], the cathode active material is a particle) including a core (112) and a coating oxide (113, “shell” which is an oxide represented by Formula 3 [0051-52]) which occupies the surface of the core [0049]. K teaches an example where the core is made of NCA [0134—149].
K does not teach that the core is a secondary particle formed of primary particles.
C teaches a cathode active material including a lithium transition metal oxide [0098] made of secondary particles formed from primary particles [0104]. C teaches the benefit of such a structure is that increased grain boundaries around the surfaces improves lithium diffusion which improves initial efficiency and discharge capacity [0104]. C teaches an example where NCA is used form a cathode active material [0203].
K and C both teach NCA cathode materials. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to form the core of K as a secondary particle formed from primary particles in the same manner as C in order to achieve the benefit of improved efficiency and discharge capacity due to the increased grain boundaries of the primary-secondary particle structure. This would have been obvious to do because K and C teach compatible materials, C teaches a clear benefit, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable chance of success in improving the performance of the cathode active material of K using the known method of C.
This resulting combination would teach the claim limitation “a secondary particle formed by aggregation of one or more primary particles”.
K teaches the NCA is represented by a formula 2a [0043-44]. The range of subscripts for the Ni is 0.65-0.93, the range of subscripts for Co is 0.005-0.3, and the range of subscripts of Al is 0.002-0.05 [0044].
The instant teaches the lithium composite oxide making up the primary/secondary particles is represented by formula 1 (p13/l17-25). The instant teaches Ni may have a subscript of 0.6-1, Co may have a subscript of 0.0-0.4, and that M1 may have a subscript of 0-0.4 (p13/l23-25). The applicant has stated in their arguments that M1 is preferably Al (Remarks 05/05/2026, p11-12), and is further evidenced by the examples only involving M being Al.
The ranges of subscripts of K are encompassed by those disclosed by the instant.
K nor C explicitly teach a positive electrode active material satisfying an equation of 1.3 < a/b 3.0, wherein a represents a max peak intensity at 2theta = 44.750 to 44.800 and b represents a max peak intensity at 2theta = 45.3 to 45.60 in X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis using Cu Ka radiation.
K teaches the shell is represented by a formula 3a [0056-57], where Ni has a subscript of 0.35-0.68, Co has a subscript of 0.3-0.6, and Al has a subscript of 0.002-0.05 [0057]. K teaches that the shell of the positive active material has a Co content of 30 mol% to 60 mol% and that when the cobalt content is in this range that internal resistance of the cathode active material is decreased [0050]. K additionally teaches the high cobalt content in the shell suppresses the deterioration of the cathode structure [0054].
The instant teaches the coating oxide is represented by Formula 3 (p14/l15-25). The instant teaches Li may have a subscript of 0-10, M3 may have a subscript of 0-8, and O may have a subscript of 2-13 (p14/l15-25). If M3 is taken to be Co, the ranges of subscript for K overlap with the ranges of the instant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of Co in the shell of K in order to improve the internal resistance of the cathode active material and improve the durability. Doing so would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to seek high cobalt content in the shell because K teaches high cobalt content improves durability. In the process of this optimization, the amount of Co in the shell of K would be at the high end of the range disclosed in K, meaning it would be placed into the overlapping portion of the range disclosed in the instant and the range disclosed in K.
The instant teaches that the peak corresponding to “a” is due to a phase of a region rich in the coating element (p18/l6-22).
The instant teaches that the peak corresponding to “b” is due to the coat/LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI/Examiner, Art Unit 1721 ing oxide (p18/l22-25).
Therefore, the positive active material of K after optimization would likely have an a/b value that falls within the claimed range of the instant claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, as stated above, K teaches the shell is represented by a formula 3a [0056-57], where Ni has a subscript of 0.35-0.68, Co has a subscript of 0.3-0.6, and Al has a subscript of 0.002-0.05 [0057]. As explained above, these ranges for subscripts and materials overlap with those of the instant claim 4, which is encompassed because M may be “at least one of” Ni, Mn, Co, Fe, Cu, Nb, Mo, Ti, Al, Cr, Zr, Zn, Na, K, Ca, Mg, Pt, Au, B, P, Eu, Sm, W, Ce, V, Ba, Ta, Sn, Hf, Gd, and Nd. This renders claim 4 unpatentable over the combination of K and C.
Regarding claim 5, the teachings of K are explained in the rejection of claim 1.
K does not teach a grain boundary density of primary particles on a straight line crossing the center of the secondary particle and a grain boundary between the primary particles in a uniaxial direction in a cross-sectional SEM image of the secondary particle obtained with a scanning electron microscope (SEM) is 0.85 or more.
C does not explicitly teach a value for a grain boundary density.
However, C teaches a benefit of relatively increased grain boundaries is that lithium diffusion rate may be increased in the secondary particles [0104], meaning the amount of grain boundaries is a result effective variable that controls the rate of lithium diffusion. A high lithium diffusion rate improves initial efficiency and discharge capacity of a lithium battery using the cathode material of C [0104].
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention would have found it obvious to optimize the amount of grain boundaries in the secondary particle of the combination of K and C in order to improve the initial efficiency and discharge capacity. Absent of evidence to the contrary, doing so one of ordinary skill would have arrived without undue experimentation at an amount of grain boundaries that would correspond to a grain boundary density which is greater than 0.85, which would therefore render claim 5 of the instant unpatentable over the combination of K and C.
Regarding claim 9, K teaches a positive electrode comprising the positive electrode active material [0151].
Regarding claim 10, K teaches a battery comprising the positive electrode [0156].
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20210296691-A1 (K) in view of US-20220407055-A1 (C), and in further view of US-20230109315-A1 (J).
Regarding claim 6, the teachings of K and C are explained in the rejection of claim 1.
K teaches the particle diameter of the positive active material is not particularly limited and may be in a range applicable to that of a standard battery [0092].
K does not teach a second lithium composite oxide particle including a secondary particle formed by aggregation of one or more primary particles; and a coating oxide occupying at least a part of at least one of surfaces of the secondary particle of the second lithium composite oxide particle, grain boundaries between the primary particles, or surfaces of the primary particles of the second lithium composite oxide particle, wherein the first lithium composite oxide particles in the positive electrode active material have an average diameter (D50) of 8 m or more, and the second lithium composite oxide particles in the positive electrode active material have an average diameter (D50) of 7 m or less.
J teaches a positive active material with large and small particles which provides high capacity and high energy density [0037]. J teaches that it is this particle size difference in particular that enables this benefit [0037]. J teaches the size of the particles of the first positive active material is in a D50 range of 10 to 20 μm [0037], J also teaches that the size of the particles of the second positive active material is in a D50 range of 0.1 to 0.7 μm [0067].
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention would have found it obvious form the active material particles of the K and C combination in the sizes specified by J in order to improve energy density and capacity in the positive active material. It would have been obvious to do so because K states that a particle diameter which is applicable to a standard battery is applicable as stated above, and because J teaches a clear benefit of increased capacity and energy density.
In doing so both active materials would be secondary particles formed from primary particles, and both would have shells.
The first positive active material is in a D50 range of 10 to 20 μm [0037], which is encompassed by the claimed range of greater than 8 μm for the first positive active material of the instant claim 6.
The second positive active material is in a D50 range of 0.1 to 0.7 μm [0067], which is less than of less than 7 μm for the second positive active material of the instant claim 6.
The instant claim 6 does not claim that the first and second positive active materials need to have different compositions.
Therefore, the combination of K, C and J render claim 6 unpatentable.
Regarding claim 7, the teachings of J are explained in the rejection of claim 6.
J does not teach the second lithium composite oxide particle has a grain boundary density of 0.95 or less.
C does not explicitly teach a value for a grain boundary density.
However, C teaches a benefit of relatively increased grain boundaries is that lithium diffusion rate may be increased in the secondary particles [0104], meaning the amount of grain boundaries is a result effective variable that controls the rate of lithium diffusion. A high lithium diffusion rate improves initial efficiency and discharge capacity of a lithium battery using the cathode material of C [0104].
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention would have found it obvious to optimize the amount of grain boundaries in the secondary particles of the second active material of the combination of K and C in order to improve the initial efficiency and discharge capacity. Absent of evidence to the contrary, doing so one of ordinary skill would have arrived without undue experimentation at an amount of grain boundaries that would correspond to a grain boundary density which is greater than 0.95, which would therefore render claim 5 of the instant unpatentable over the combination of K and C.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of K, C and J is explained in the rejection of claim 6.
J teaches the first positive active material is present in an amount of about 60 to 90 wt% and the second active material is present in an amount of about 10 to 40 wt% [0079]. J teaches when the positive active materials are in these ranges that this improves mixture density which results in high capacity and energy density [0079].
In the implementation of the particle sizes of J in the combination of K and C described in the rejection of the claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to mix the first and second positive active materials according to wt% in these ranges in order to achieve the benefit of improved mixture density, resulting in high capacity and energy density.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI whose telephone number is (571)272-6917. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M..
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights