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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 7, lines 19-20 of the disclosure, "When the lithium composite oxide particle according to one aspect of the present invention are coated" is grammatically incorrect.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 1, “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” defines “a coating oxide” as different from the ordinary meaning of the term in the art. The examiner will interpret this to mean that the claimed lithium composite oxide particle’s composition as a whole is substantially the same as the composition provided in claim 4 for the oxide coating because of the quantity of potential surfaces it may cover.
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 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 6 recites the limitation "the primary particles" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Both claim 1 and claim 6, which depends on claim 1, mention a first and second lithium composite oxide particle formed by “an aggregation of one or more primary particles”. Referencing “the primary particles” introduces uncertainty as to which set of primary particles are being referred to.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20230109315-A1, Jang et. al., 2023.
As a preface to the following rationale, the equation 1.3 ≤ a/b ≤ 3.0 of claim 1 is a unique way of analyzing two peak intensities in XRD, and is uncommon in the art outside of the work of the assignee and inventors of the instant. The same is true for the manner of quantifying “grain boundary density” shown in claim 5. The novelty of these methods of manipulating data about natural properties do not necessarily make this invention patentable, because the intrinsic properties of two materials are the same as long as the two materials’ compositions are the same. The examiner is using this reasoning to show that prior art renders the instant invention obvious because a material manufactured in the same way as that of the instant should be the same as the material of the instant, and, therefore, have the same properties claimed in the instant.
Regarding claim 1, Jang et. al. teaches a positive electrode active material (Abstract) comprising:
a first lithium composite oxide particle (Paragraph 37, “a first positive active material”) including a secondary particle (Paragraph 32) formed by aggregation (Paragraph 32) of one or more primary particles (Paragraph 32);
and a coating oxide (Paragraph 34) occupying at least a part of at least one of surfaces of the secondary particle (Paragraph 33).
Jang et. al. does not teach the positive electrode active material satisfies an equation of 1.3 ≤ a/b ≤ 3.0, wherein a represents a max peak intensity at 2theta = 44.75° to 44.80° and b represents a max peak intensity at 2theta = 45.3° to 45.6° in X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis using Cu Kα radiation.
However, Jang et. al. does teach an example of a method of manufacture of the positive electrode active material in Example 1 which closely matches the preferred method described in the specification of the instant (Pages 20-24, also Example 1 of instant).
Jang et. al. teaches steps where hydroxide precursor particles are converted to oxide precursors (referred to as “the first precursor” and “the second precursor” going forward) and are prepared for a bimodal-type positive electrode active material, where the precursors are prepared in two forms of large particles and small particles having different particle sizes (Paragraphs 144-145).
Jang et. al. teaches a first hydroxide precursor comprises Ni0.95Co0.04Mn0.01(OH)2 in Example 1, however, Formula 21 (Paragraph 84) teaches that Al may be substituted for Mn in the first precursor. This meets the ratio requirements of Example 1 of the instant. Jang et. al. also teaches that the first precursor has a Formula LiNi0.95Co0.04Mn0.01O2 and has an average particle diameter of about 13.8 μm (Paragraph 144), this is similar to the particle size of the large oxide precursor of the instant’s Example 1 and meets the ratio requirements of the instant’s Example 1.
Jang et. al. teaches a second hydroxide precursor is prepared by a co-precipitation method using nickel sulfate, cobalt sulfate and aluminum sulfate (Paragraph 145). The second hydroxide precursor has the formula of Ni0.94Co0.05Mn0.01(OH)2 (Paragraph 145). Jang et. al. teaches the second precursor is mixed with LiOH to satisfy Li/(Ni+Co+Mn)=1.05 and put in a furnace and then, is subjected to second heat-treatment at 910° C. for 8 hours under an oxygen atmosphere. Subsequently, the obtained product is pulverized for about 30 minutes and then, separated/dispersed into a plurality of second nickel-based oxides having a single particle structure (e.g., individual, separate particle structures). The second precursor has a formula LiNi0.94Co0.05Mn0.01O2 and an average particle diameter of about 3.7 μm (Paragraph 146).
Jang et. al. teaches that the first and second oxide precursors are mixed in a weight ratio of 7:3, and this mixture is washed in a weight ratio of 1:1 with water in a stirrer and dried at 150° C. Herein, 5 parts by mole of lithium hydroxide and 2.5 parts by mole of cobalt oxide based on 100 parts by mole of the total amount of metals excluding lithium in the first nickel-based oxide and the second nickel-based oxide of the nickel-based oxides are additionally mixed therewith and then, put in a furnace and thirdly heat-treated at about 710° C. for 15 hours under an oxygen atmosphere. Subsequently, the furnace is cooled to room temperature, obtaining a final positive active material in which the first positive active material and the second positive active material are mixed (Paragraph 147). The mixing ratio of the first and second oxide precursors is similar to the mixing ratio of the instant’s Example 1. The mole% of lithium hydroxide and cobalt hydroxide are the same or similar to those specified in the instant’s specification and Example 1. The temperatures of drying and heat-treatment are within or close to the ranges of temperatures provided for those processes in the specification and Example 1 of the instant.
Therefore, because the process of manufacturing the positive active electrode material that Jang et. al. teaches follows steps similar to or identical to those of the instant, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the positive active electrode material method of Jang et. al. would produce a similar product having the near similar properties, because the instant disclosed method is so similar to the prior art disclosed method and there is nothing identified in the instant disclosure that states what is actually required for the claimed ratio. The positive active electrode material of Jang et. al. would then satisfy an equation of 1.3 ≤ a/b ≤ 3.0, wherein a represents a max peak intensity at 2theta = 44.75° to 44.80° and b represents a max peak intensity at 2theta = 45.3° to 45.6° in X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis using Cu Kα radiation. This renders the matter of claim 1 unpatentable.
Regarding claim 2, as stated above, because the positive active material of Jang et. al. is the same as that of the instant, the positive electrode active material would satisfy an equation of 400 ≤ a ≤ 1,200. This renders the matter of claim 2 unpatentable.
Regarding claim 3, as stated above, because the positive active material of Jang et. al. is the same as that of the instant, the positive electrode active material would satisfy an equation of an equation of 150 ≤ b ≤ 500. This renders the matter of claim 3 unpatentable.
Regarding claim 4, Jang et. al. teaches the coating oxide may comprise LiCoO2- (Paragraph 53), which meets the requirements of Formula 3 of the instant. This renders the matter of claim 4 unpatentable.
Regarding claims 5 and 7, as mentioned above, because the positive active material of Jang et. al. is the same as that of the instant, the grain boundary density of the first precursor will be 0.85 or more because this is an intrinsic property of the first precursor. This renders the requirements of claim 5 unpatentable. The same is true for the second precursor, which will have a grain boundary density of 0.95 or less. This renders the matter of claim 7 unpatentable.
Regarding claim 6, Jang et. al. teaches Example 1, where the size of the particles of the first precursor is 13.8 μm (Paragraph 144), which is larger than 8 μm. Jang et. al. also teaches in Example 1 that the size of the particles of the second precursor is 3.7 μm (Paragraph 146), which is smaller than 7 μm. This renders the matter of claim 6 unpatentable.
Regarding claim 8, Jang et. al. teaches Example 1, where the first and second precursors are mixed in a weight ratio of 7:3, which would translate to w1/w2 of two and a third. This falls within the range of claim 8, which renders the matter of claim 8 unpatentable.
Regarding claim 9, Jang et. al. teaches a positive electrode manufactured from the positive active material (Paragraph 150).
Regarding claim 10, Jang et. al. teaches a secondary battery comprising the positive electrode (Paragraph 151).
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