DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination, wherein claims 12-16 are withdrawn.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on January 25, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 recites the limitation “the average length-to-width ratio” in “the average length-to-width ratio of primary particles.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner respectfully notes that the “an average length-to-width ratio” claimed in claim 2 does not provide antecedent basis to the limitation of claim 3, since claim 3 depends from claim 1, not claim 2.
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, 4-6, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al (CN 109390553, published 2019).
Regarding independent claim 1, Peng teaches a composite positive electrode material and an all-solid-state lithium battery comprising said composite positive electrode material, said battery cycled through at least 100 charging-discharging cycles,
wherein said composite positive electrode material has advantages of high initial coulombic efficiency, high specific discharge capacity, good rate performance, excellent cycle performance, low interface impedance of a solid electrolyte, and improve energy density and power density of said all-solid-state lithium battery,
wherein said composite positive electrode material comprises a core and a shell, wherein said shell covers a surface of said core, and said core is a primary particle,
wherein a broad teaching provided by the abstract and illustrative examples provide a general formula of said core as
LinNixCoyMzNmO2, wherein
n is no less than 0.95 and no more than 1.05;
x is no less than 0.5 and less than 1;
y is more than 0 and no more than 0.4;
z is more than 0 and no more than 0.4;
m is no less than 0 and no more than 0.05;
x, y, z and m sum to 1;
M is at least one selected from the group consisting of Mn and Al; and
N is at least one selected from the group consisting of Mg, Ti, Zr, Nb, Y, Cr, V, Ge and Mo; and,
wherein a broad teaching provided by the abstract and illustrative examples provide a general formula of said shell as
LiαCo1-βMaβO2, wherein
α is no less than 1 and no more than 1.08;
β is no less than 0 and no more than 0.1; and
Ma may be at least one selected from the group consisting of Al, Nb, Ti, and Zr
wherein a D50 particle size distribution of said primary particles of said core is controlled, preferably said primary particles of said core is 4-15 µm;
wherein a thickness of said shell layer is 0.05 μm to 3 μm; and,
wherein a D50 particle size distribution of said composite positive electrode material is 4-15 µm
(e.g. abstract, e.g. ¶¶ 0002, 07-14, 19-21, 25-27, 39, 46-50, and 105-123 plus e.g. Table 1), reading on “positive electrode material,” said composite positive electrode material comprising:
(1) said core is said primary particle (e.g. supra), reading on “a core;” and,
(2) said shell covering said surface of said core (e.g. supra), reading on “a shell layer,”
wherein said broad teaching provided by the abstract and illustrative examples provide said general formula of said core as
LinNixCoyMzNmO2, wherein
n is no less than 0.95 and no more than 1.05;
x is no less than 0.5 and less than 1;
y is more than 0 and no more than 0.4;
z is more than 0 and no more than 0.4;
m is no less than 0 and no more than 0.05;
x, y, z and m sum to 1;
M is at least one selected from the group consisting of Mn and Al; and
N is at least one selected from the group consisting of Mg, Ti, Zr, Nb, Y, Cr, V, Ge and Mo
(e.g. supra), severably establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed ranges, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “a molecular formula of the core is Li1+aNixCoyMn1-x-yM1zO2, 0.8 ≤ x < 1.0, 0 < y < 0.2, 0 < a < 0.1, 0 ≤ z < 0.1, and M1 is selected from at least one of Al, Ta, and B”
For said core, a comparative table is provided for illustrative purposes only:
Claim 1
Reference
Overlap
Li: 1+a
1.0 < 1+a < 1.1
n: no less than 0.95 and no more than 1.05: 0.95 ≤ n ≤ 1.05
(1.0, 1.05]
Ni: x
0.8 ≤ x < 1.0
x: no less than 0.5 and less than 1: 0.5 ≤ x < 1
[0.8, 1)
Co: y
0 < y < 0.2
y: more than 0 and no more than 0.4: 0 < y ≤ 0.4
(0, 0.2)
Mn: 1-x-y
0 ≤ 1-x-y < 0.2
M: Mn+Al;
z: more than 0 and no more than 0.4: Mn: 0 < z ≤ 0.4
Mn: [0, 0.2)
M1: Al, Ta, & B: z
0 ≤ z < 0.1
M: Mn+Al;
z: more than 0 and no more than 0.4: Al: 0 < z ≤ 0.4
Al: [0, 0.1)
O: 2
2
2
2
wherein said broad teaching provided by the abstract and illustrative examples provide a general formula of said shell as
LiαCo1-βMaβO2, wherein
α is no less than 1 and no more than 1.08;
β is no less than 0 and no more than 0.1; and
Ma may be at least one selected from the group consisting of Al, Nb, Ti, and Zr
(e.g. supra), severably establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed ranges, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “a molecular formula of the shell layer is Li1+bComAlnNb1-m-nM2cO2, 0.85 ≤ m < 1.0, 0 < n < 0.15, 0 < b < 0.1, 0.001 ≤ 1-m-n ≤ 0.02, 0 ≤ c < 0.05, and M2 is selected from at least one of W, Mo, Ti, Zr, Y, or Yb”
For said shell, a comparative table is provided for illustrative purposes only:
Claim 1
Reference
Overlap
Li: 1+b
1.0 < 1+b < 1.1
α: no less than 1 and no more than 1.08: 1 ≤ α ≤ 1.08
(1.0, 1.08]
Co: m
0.85 ≤ m < 1.0
β is no less than 0 and no more than 0.1: 0 ≤ β ≤ 0.1
1-β: 0.9 ≤ 1-β ≤ 1.0
[0.9, 1.0)
Al: n
0 < n < 0.15
Ma: Al, Nb, Ti, & Zr;
β is no less than 0 and no more than 0.1: 0 ≤ β ≤ 0.1
Al: (0, 0.1]
Nb: 1-m-n
0.001 ≤ 1-m-n ≤ 0.02
Ma: Al, Nb, Ti, & Zr;
β is no less than 0 and no more than 0.1: 0 ≤ β ≤ 0.1
Nb: [0.001, 0.02]
M2: W, Mo, Ti, Zr, Y, & Yb: c
0 ≤ c < 0.05
Ma: Al, Nb, Ti, & Zr;
β is no less than 0 and no more than 0.1: 0 ≤ β ≤ 0.1
Ti and/or Zr: [0, 0.05)
O: 2
2
2
2
Regarding claim 4, Peng teaches the composite positive electrode material of claim 1, wherein said primary particles of said core is 4-15 µm and said thickness of said shell layer is 0.05 μm to 3 μm (e.g. supra), severably establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed ranges, see e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “an average diameter of the core is 2 µm to 10 µm, and an average thickness of the shell layer is 0.5 µm-3 µm.”
Regarding claims 5-6, Peng teaches the composite positive electrode material of claim 1, wherein said D50 particle size distribution of said composite positive electrode material is 4-15 µm (e.g. supra), wherein the method of measuring said D50 does not patentably distinguish the instant invention from the art, severably establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed ranges, see e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “a median particle size by volume Dv50 of the positive electrode material is 3 µm-16 µm” (claim 5) and “the median particle size by volume Dv50 of the positive electrode material is 5 µm-11 µm” (claim 6).
Regarding claims 17-20, Peng is applied as provided supra, with the following modifications.
Still regarding independent claims 17-19, Peng teaches said all-solid-state lithium battery comprising said composite positive electrode material, said battery cycled through at least 100 charging-discharging cycles (e.g. supra), a battery capable of charging-discharging cycles being a “secondary battery,” reading on “secondary battery, wherein the secondary battery comprises the positive electrode material according to claim 1 or the positive electrode material prepared by using the preparation method according to claim 12” (claim 17), wherein said battery further reads on “battery module” and “battery pack,” as claimed, reading on “the secondary battery according to claim 17” (claim 18) and “battery pack, wherein the battery pack comprises the battery module according to claim 18” (claim 19).
Still regarding independent claim 20, Peng teaches said all-solid-state lithium battery comprising said composite positive electrode material, said battery cycled through at least 100 charging-discharging cycles (e.g. supra), said equipment associated with said cycling said battery reading on “electric apparatus,” reading on “the electric apparatus comprises at least one of the secondary battery according to claim 17, the battery module according to claim 18, and the battery pack according to claim 19.”
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al (CN 109390553, published 2019), as provided supra, in view of Kobayashi et al (US 2015/0093580).
Regarding claims 2-3, Peng teaches the composite positive electrode material of claim 1, wherein said D50 particle size distribution of said composite positive electrode material is 4-15 µm (e.g. supra), but does not expressly teach the limitations “an average length-to-width ratio of primary particles of the positive electrode material is 2-11” (claim 2) or “the average length-to-width ratio of primary particles of the positive electrode material is 5-8” (claim 3).
However, Kobayashi teaches a positive electrode active material for lithium secondary batteries, said positive electrode active material shaped as a plate-like particle with an aspect ratio of 2 or more, said plate-like shape resulting in said particles being easily arranged so as to be parallel to a positive electrode surface, and resulting in a high level of packability (e.g. ¶¶ 0002 and 54).
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to design the composite positive electrode material of Peng so that it has the plate-like particle shape of Kobayashi, wherein said aspect ratio is 2 or more, since Kobayashi teaches said aspect ratio used in a positive electrode active material results in particles being easily arranged so as to be parallel to a positive electrode surface and/or results in a high level of packability. Said range of aspect ratio severably establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed ranges, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “an average length-to-width ratio of primary particles of the positive electrode material is 2-11” (claim 2) and “the average length-to-width ratio of primary particles of the positive electrode material is 5-8” (claim 3).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al (CN 109390553, published 2019), as provided supra, in view of Nakayama et al (WO 2020/0262264, with citations to US 2022/0359860).
Regarding claims 7-9, Peng teaches the composite positive electrode material of claim 1, wherein said D50 particle size distribution of said composite positive electrode material is 4-15 µm (e.g. supra), but does not expressly teach the limitations “a particle size distribution of the positive electrode material satisfies 1.35 ≤ (Dv90-Dv10)/Dv50 ≤ 1.50” (claim 7); “a specific surface area of the positive electrode material is 0.2 m2/g-1m2/g” (claim 8); or, “the specific surface area of the positive electrode material is 0.3 m2/g-0.7 m2/g” (claim 9).
However, Nakayama teaches a positive electrode active material (e.g. item 100) for a lithium ion secondary battery,
wherein said electrode active material preferably has a specific surface area of 0.2 m2/g to 0.8 m2/g, as measured by a BET method, noting that when said positive electrode active material has said specific surface area in the above range, it is possible to obtain high battery characteristics; and,
wherein said positive electrode active material has a particle size distribution characterized by [(D90−D10)/Mv], measured by volume, of preferably 0.80 to 1.20, wherein a volume average particle size (Mv) is preferably 3 μm to 15 μm, noting that when said particle size distribution is wide, there are many fine particles, each having a particle size smaller than the volume average particle size (Mv), and many coarse particles, each having a particle size larger than the average particle size, thereby resulting in an appropriately mixed fine particles and coarse particles so that an energy density per volume may be increased (e.g. ¶¶ 0001, 32, 97-98, and 101-103).
As a result, it would have been obvious to design the composite positive electrode material of Peng so that it has said particle size distribution of Nakayama, wherein said [(Dv90−Dv10)/Dv50] is 0.80 to 1.20, since Nakayama teaches said particle size distribution results in an appropriately mixed fine particles and coarse particles, so that an energy density per volume may be increased. Said particle size distribution having an upper endpoint that is sufficiently close to the lower endpoint of the claimed range to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed range, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “a particle size distribution of the positive electrode material satisfies 1.35 ≤ (Dv90-Dv10)/Dv50 ≤ 1.50” (claim 7). See also instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0011 and 54.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to design the composite positive electrode material of Peng so that it has said specific surface are of Nakayama, wherein said specific surface area is 0.2 m2/g to 0.8 m2/g, since Nakayama teaches said range of specific surface area provides for high battery characteristics. Said range of specific surface area severably establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed ranges, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “a specific surface area of the positive electrode material is 0.2 m2/g-1m2/g” (claim 8) and “the specific surface area of the positive electrode material is 0.3 m2/g-0.7 m2/g” (claim 9).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al (CN 109390553, published 2019), as provided supra, in view of Ren (CN 113437266, published September 2021).
Regarding claims 10-11, Peng teaches the composite positive electrode material of claim 1, wherein said composite positive electrode material comprises said core and said shell, wherein said shell covers said surface of said core, and said core is said primary particle, wherein said D50 particle size distribution of said composite positive electrode material is 4-15 µm (e.g. supra), but does not expressly teach the limitations “a tap density (TD) of the positive electrode material is 1.8 g/cm3-2.5 g/cm3” (claim 10) or “the TD of the positive electrode material is 1.9 g/cm3-2.3 g/cm3” (claim 11).
However, Ren teaches a cathode composition for lithium-ion batteries, said cathode composition having a core-shell structure, i.e. having a core and a shell,
said cathode composition having a uniform particle distribution with an average particle size D50 of 3-5 μm,
said cathode composition having a tap density of 1.8-2.3 g/cm³,
wherein said battery may be e.g. a CR2032 button battery capable of at least 100 charging/discharging cycles
(e.g. ¶¶ 0001, 05-09, 17, 38-41, 49, 183, 198-202, 216-233, plus e.g. Figure 1).
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to design the composite positive electrode material of Peng so that it has the tap density of Ren, i.e. 1.8-2.3 g/cm³, since Ren teaches said tap density is suitable for use for a cathode active material used in a secondary battery. Said range of tap density severably establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed ranges, see e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “a tap density (TD) of the positive electrode material is 1.8 g/cm3-2.5 g/cm3” (claim 10) and “the TD of the positive electrode material is 1.9 g/cm3-2.3 g/cm3” (claim 11).
Conclusion
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Feng et al (US 2025/0174648);
Jung et al (US 2023/0402598);
Hayashi et al (US 2022/0367859);
Hayashi et al (US 2022/0344656);
Min et al (US 2021/0376317);
Choi et al (US 2021/0167380):
Toma et al (US 2019/0379038);
Kim et al (US 2016/0359165);
Kim et al (US 2016/0268594); and,
Je et al (US 2016/0156028).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI whose telephone number is (571)270-5828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-4.
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-THOMPSON 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.
/YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723