DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-9 are pending and under consideration.
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 Interpretation
Claim 1 recites a separate metal solution, ammonia solution, sodium hydroxide solution, and “base solution” in step S2. Literally taken, this would require four separate solutions. However, the specification in paragraphs [45]-[48] describes that the base solution is the ammonia/sodium hydroxide solution. Accordingly, claim 1 is interpreted as requiring adding the metal salt and the described basic solution together in the reactor.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20050019659 (“Shiozaki”) in view of 20220112094 (“Xiao”).
Regarding claim 1, Shiozaki teaches a method for preparing a cathode material (see e.g. claim 7 and paragraph [0021]). Shiozaki teaches making an acidic solution of manganese, nickel, and cobalt salts (see e.g. paragraph [0171]). Shiozaki also teaches that the precursor can be formed with Bi2O3, which is a metal oxide of bismuth, or Sb2O3, which is a metal oxide of antimony (see e.g. paragraph [0085]). The metal solution is concurrently added to a base water with a solution of ammonia and sodium hydroxide (see e.g. paragraph [0171]). Shiozaki teaches that this process results in the composite oxide, which means that a reaction was allowed (Id.). Shiozaki allows the process to occur for a specified time, and as such, would result in a specific particle size (Id.). The slurry is then subjected to solid-liquid separation to obtain the composite precursor (Id.).
Shiozaki does not teach using a molten salt to obtain the lithium composite from the precursor. However, Xiao teaches a method for making a similar cathode material (see e.g. paragraph [0068]). Xiao teaches that the lithium can be inserted into the material using a molten salt method (see e.g. paragraph [0123]). A lithium source and a molten salt, namely NaCl are mixed with the precursor (see e.g. paragraph [0172]). After heating, Xiao teaches that the material can be sintered and ball-milled (see e.g. paragraphs [0172] and [0108] and FIG. 2b, step 212). Xiao further teaches washing, drying, and annealing the material (see e.g. paragraph [0172]). Xiao teaches that using an NaCl molten salt process to make the cathode material allows lower the sintering time/temperature of the single crystals, thereby reducing the cost of synthesizing the single crystals (Id.). Accordingly, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a molten salt method as taught by Xiao to finish the cathode material of Shiozaki in order to reduce the cost of synthesizing the crystals.
Regarding claim 2, Shiozaki teaches that the starting metal salt solution has a concentration of 0.147 mol/l manganese, 0.147 mol/l nickel and 1.464 mol/liter cobalt, for a total metal concentration of 1.76 mol/l, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0128]). Shiozaki does not provide the order in which the metals are added to the solution. However, per MPEP 2144.04.IV.C, changes in the sequence of adding ingredients is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. As no new or unexpected results appear to flow from the recited order of steps, the claim is prima facie obvious over the prior art method.
Regarding claim 4, Shiozaki teaches that the pH of the base solution is kept to 11.6±0.1, which includes the claimed 11.5 (see e.g. paragraph [0128]). It is unclear the exact ammonia concentration in the coprecipitation method of Shiozaki because the volumes of each solution are not given. However, in the other examples that do provide precise amounts of each material, the ammonia concentration ranges from 2 g/L in Example 1 (see e.g. paragraph [0119]) and 4 g/L in example 2 (see e.g. paragraph [0122]). As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the same or similar total ammonia concentrations in the co-precipitation process.
Regarding claim 5, Shiozaki teaches that the reaction temperature is 50 °C, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0128]). The pH during the reaction is kept at 11.4, which is within the claimed range (Id.). It is unclear the exact ammonia concentration in the coprecipitation method of Shiozaki because the volumes of each solution are not given. However, in the other examples that do provide precise amounts of each material, the ammonia concentration ranges from 2 g/L in Example 1 (see e.g. paragraph [0119]) and 4 g/L in example 2 (see e.g. paragraph [0122]). As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the same or similar total ammonia concentrations in the co-precipitation process.
Regarding claim 6, Xiao teaches that the molten salt is sodium chloride (see e.g. paragraph [0172]).
Regarding claim 7, Xiao teaches that the ratio of NaCl salt to transition metal precursor is from 0.2 : 1 to 1 : 0.2, which includes the entirety of the claimed range (see e.g. [0125]).
Regarding claim 8, Xiao teaches that the sintering is carried out at 800-900 °C for a total of 15 hours, both of which are within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0172]).
Regarding claim 9, Xiao teaches that the annealing steps can take place at 400-800 °C, which includes the entirety of the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0113]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiozaki in view of Xiao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of TWI392134 (“Wang”).
Regarding claim 3, Shiozaki in view of Xiao teach the limitations of claim 1 as described above, but do not give a specific molar ratio of bismuth oxide to the total nickel, cobalt, and manganese. However, Wang teaches a similar doped nickel-cobalt-manganese composite for a cathode material (see e.g. page 2, 7th and 8th paragraphs, starting “The object of…”). Like Shiozaki, Wang teaches that the dopant can be antimony or bismuth (Id.”). Wang teaches that chemical formula of the composite is LiNixCoyMnzM(1-xyz)O2 (Id.). Given the molar ratios provided, the molar ratio of bismuth to the combined amounts of nickel, cobalt, and manganese is 0-0.11 : 1 or 0-11 : 100, which overlaps significantly with the claimed range. Wang teaches that using the dopant in this range provides a more stable material and improved cycle performance (see e.g. paragraph spanning pages 3-4, starting “compared with the prior methods…”). Accordingly, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to use a molar ratio for bismuth as taught by Wang in the material of Shiozaki in order to improve stability and performance of the material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S SHERMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4784. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 ET.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571)270-3591. 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.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736