DETAILED ACTION
Application 18/394,462, “BATTERY POSITIVE ELECTRODE MATERIAL, PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR, AND APPLICATION THEREOF”, was filed with the USPTO on 12/22/2023 and has a foreign priority document of CN202111125874.6 filed on 9/24/2021.
This office action is in response to communication filed on 12/22/2023.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-11 and 20) in the reply filed on 7/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II: a method for preparing a battery positive electrode material, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/22/2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed on 2/5/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/22/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-19 are objected to because they do not have the correct status identified. To overcome the objection, Examiner suggests that they should be withdrawn not amended.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8 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.
Claim 8 is indefinite because of “a content in percentages by weight of”. It is unclear what each of the weight % of the core, the first shell layer and the second shell layer is based on. For examination purposes, weight % of the core, the first shell layer and the second shell layer are each based on the total weight of the battery positive electrode material.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qi et al. (CN 106340639 A, provided on IDS filed on 12/22/2023, citations see machine translation) in view of Hu et al. (CN 104868123 A, citations see machine translation) in view of Huang et al. (US 20190020015 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Qi et al. teaches a battery positive electrode material (lithium iron phosphate/carbon-coated core-shell lithium manganese iron phosphate composite positive electrode material, which has a general formula of LiMnxFe1‑xPO4/LiMnyFe1‑yPO4/LiFePO4and/C, see Abstract), comprising:
a core (1, Fig. 1) and a first shell layer (2, Fig. 1) arranged on a surface of the core (1, Fig. 1), the core comprising LiMnxFe1-xPO4 (core: LiMnxFe1‑xPO4 (0.8≤x≤0.9), see Abstract; note: core is 60-80 wt%, see Abstract), and the first shell layer comprising LiMnyFe1-yPO4 (shell: LiMnyFe1‑yPO4 (0.2≤y≤0.4), see Abstract; note: shell is 15-30 wt%, see Abstract).
Qi et al. does not teach wherein 0<x≤0.4, and 0.6≤y≤0.9.
Hu et al. teaches wherein 0<x≤0.4 (x = 1/3, see core: LiMn1/3Fe2/3PO4, see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the core LiMnxFe1‑xPO4 (0.8≤x≤0.9) taught by Qi et al. with LiMn1/3Fe2/3PO4 taught by Hu et al. to solve the problem of poor rate performance of high manganese content LiMnxFe1-xPO4 /C (X>0.5) positive electrode materials (see Hu et al. Abstract).
However, Qi et al. in view of Hu et al. does not teach 0.6≤y≤0.9.
Huang et al. teaches 0.6≤y≤0.9 (y (in LiMnyFe1‑yPO4) = 0.8 in LiMn0.8Fe0.2PO4, see second lithium manganese iron phosphate (shell) LixMn1-y-zFeyMzPO4, when x =1, y = 0.2, z = 0, see [0035]-[0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the shell LiMnyFe1‑yPO4 (0.6≤y≤0.9) taught by Qi et al. in view of Hu et al. with LiMn0.8Fe0.2PO4 taught by Huang et al. because such formula of the shell LiMn0.8Fe0.2PO4 is known in the art (see Huang et al. [0035]-[0039]).
Regarding claim 2, Qi et al. in view of Hu et al. in view of Huang et al. does not teach wherein a mass ratio of the core to the first shell layer is 1:(1.5-9).
Qi et al. teaches wherein a molar ratio of Mn element to Fe element is 2.08 (calculation see rejection of claim 5 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the molar ratio of Mn to Fe taught by Qi et al. in view of Hu et al. in view of Huang et al. to be 2.08 as taught by Qi et al. because Mn/Fe as 2.08 is known in the art and have good initial discharge capacity, good charge-discharge efficiency and good capacity retention rate (see Qi et al. [0046] and [0050]). When molar ratio Mn/Fe = 2.08, the mass ratio of the core (LiMn1/3Fe2/3PO4) to the first shell layer (LiMn0.8Fe0.2PO4) = 1:2.5 (calculation see below).
Set mass ratio of the core (LiMn1/3Fe2/3PO4) to the first shell layer (LiMn0.8Fe0.2PO4) as x/y, the molar ratio is also x/y because molecular weights of all LiMnxFe1‑xPO4 stay the same for examination purposes. Mol of Mn =
1
3
x + 0.8y; mol of Fe =
2
3
x + 0.2y, we know
m
o
l
o
f
M
n
m
o
l
o
f
F
e
= 2.08; therefore,
1
3
x
+
0.8
y
2
3
x
+
0.2
y
= 2.08, therefore x = 1 and y = 2.5.
Regarding claim 3, Qi et al. in view of Hu et al. in view of Huang et al. teaches wherein a diameter of the core is between 0.5 μm and 5 μm (~1 μm, see Hu et al. Fig. 2; scale bar is 1 μm).
Regarding claim 5, Qi et al. in view of Hu et al. in view of Huang et al. does not teach wherein in the battery positive electrode material, a molar ratio of Fe element to Mn element is 1:(1-9).
Qi et al. teaches wherein in the battery positive electrode material (Example 2, see [0046]), a molar ratio of Fe element to Mn element is 1:(1-9) (1 : 2.08; calculation see*).
*For examination purposes, all LiMnxFe1‑xPO4 regardless of the x values, their molecular weights are the same because Mn and Fe have almost same molecular weight, Mn = 55 g / mol and Fe = 56 g/mol. Therefore, weight% and mol% of all LiMnxFe1‑xPO4 regardless of the x values stay the same. In Example 2 of Qi et al., core is LiMn0.85Fe0.15PO4 at 70%, first shell LiMn0.3Fe0.7PO4 at 20% and second shell LiFePO4 at 7%, therefore, mole of Fe = 0.15*0.7 + 0.7*0.2 + 1*0.07 = 0.315; mole of Mn = 0.85 *0.7 + 0.3*0.2 = 0.655, therefore, molar ratio of Fe to Mn = 0.315 / 0.655 = 1 : 2.08.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the molar ratio of Fe to Mn taught by Qi et al. in view of Hu et al. in view of Huang et al. to be 1:2.08 as taught by Qi et al. because Fe / Mn = 1 /2.08 is known in the art and have good initial discharge capacity, good charge-discharge efficiency and good capacity retention rate (see Qi et al. [0046] and [0050]).
Regarding claim 6, Qi et al. in view of Hu et al. in view of Huang et al. teaches wherein a second shell layer (3, Qi et al. Fig. 1) comprising LiFePO4 and carbon (LiFePO4 and/C, see Qi et al. Abstract) is further arranged on a surface of the first shell layer (2, Qi et al. Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Qi et al. in view of Hu et al. in view of Huang et al. does not teach wherein in the battery positive electrode material, a content in percentages by weight of the core is between 10% and 40%; a content in percentages by weight of the first shell layer is between 45% and 80%; and a content in percentages by weight of the second shell layer is between 10% and 20%.
Qi et al. teaches a content in percentages by weight of the second shell layer (LiFePO4 (lithium iron phosphate) and C (carbon), see Example 2, [0046]) is between 10% and 20% (10%; see 7% by weight of LiFePO4 (lithium iron phosphate) and 3% by weight of carbon, see Example 2, [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the content of lithium iron phosphate and carbon taught by Qi et al. in view of Hu et al. in view of Huang et al. to be 10% by weight as taught by Qi et al. because it’s know in the art to have the coating layer of lithium iron phosphate accounts for 3-7% by weight, and carbon accounts for 2-3% by weight (see Qi et al. [0033]).
However, Qi et al. in view of Hu et al. in view of Huang et al. does not teach wherein in the battery positive electrode material, a content in percentages by weight of the core is between 10% and 40%; a content in percentages by weight of the first shell layer is between 45% and 80%.
Qi et al. teaches wherein in the battery positive electrode material (Example 2, see [0046]), a molar ratio of Mn element to Fe element is 2.08 (calculation see rejection of claim 5 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the molar ratio of Mn to Fe taught by Qi et al. in view of Hu et al. in view of Huang et al. to be 2.08 as taught by Qi et al. because Mn/Fe as 2.08 is known in the art and have good initial discharge capacity, good charge-discharge efficiency and good capacity retention rate (see Qi et al. [0046] and [0050]). When molar ratio Mn/Fe = 2.08, the mass ratio of the core (LiMn1/3Fe2/3PO4) to the first shell layer (LiMn0.8Fe0.2PO4) = 1:2.5 (calculation see rejection of claim 2). The total weight of the core and the first shell layer is 90% by weight (the second shell (LiFePO4 and C) is 10% by weight), therefore the core (LiMn1/3Fe2/3PO4) is 25.7% by weight and the first shell layer (LiMn0.8Fe0.2PO4) is 64.3% by weight.
Regarding claim 9, Qi et al. in view of Hu et al. in view of Huang et al. does not teach wherein the battery positive electrode material further comprising a dopant element, the dopant element comprising one or more of Ti, V, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Mg, Al, Ca, Mo, or W; and a content in percentages by weight of the dopant element in the battery positive electrode material is between 0.1% and 0.5%.
In a different embodiment of Huang et al. teaches wherein the battery positive electrode material (Example 1, [0065]-[0066]; note: both core (first lithium manganese iron phosphate-based nanoparticles) and shell (second lithium manganese iron phosphate-based nanoparticles) are Li1.02Mn0.8Fe0.15Mg0.05PO4, see [0066]) further comprising a dopant element, the dopant element comprising one or more of Ti, V, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Mg (Li1.02Mn0.8Fe0.15Mg0.05PO4, see [0066]), Al, Ca, Mo, or W; and a content in percentages by weight of the dopant element in the battery positive electrode material is between 0.1% and 0.5%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the shell LiMn0.8Fe0.2PO4 taught by Qi et al. in view of Hu et al. in view of Huang et al. with Li1.02Mn0.8Fe0.15Mg0.05PO4 taught by Huang et al. to enhance a structural stability of the lithium manganese iron phosphate-based powdery material thus manufactured (see Huang et al. [0056]). Further, it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art.
When the shell becomes Li1.02Mn0.8Fe0.15Mg0.05PO4 at 15-30 wt% and the core is LiMn1/3Fe2/3PO4 at 60-80 wt%, the weight% of Mg is between 0.12% and 0.24%. Calculation see: Mn of both the core and shell ~ 155.60 g/mol; 1 mol of the material is 155.6 g and has 155.6 * (15-30wt%) g shell, therefore mass of Mg = 0.05 * 24.31 * (0.15 -0.3) = 0.183-0.366 g; weight % of Mg = 0.183-0.366 g / 155.6g = 0.12% - 0.24%. Therefore, the content of Mg by weight is between 0.12% and 0.24%.
Regarding claim 10, Qi et al. in view of Hu et al. in view of Huang et al. teaches wherein the first shell layer (Li1.02Mn0.8Fe0.15Mg0.05PO4, see the first shell layer of Qi et al. substituted with Huang et al. Example 1 [0066]; also see rejection of claim 9) comprises the dopant element (Mg).
Regarding claim 11, Qi et al. in view of Hu et al. in view of Huang et al. teaches wherein a content in percentages by weight of the carbon in the battery positive electrode material is between 1% and 3% (the carbon accounts for 2-3 wt%, see Qi et al. Abstract).
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qi et al. (CN 106340639 A, provided on IDS filed on 12/22/2023, citations see machine translation) in view of Hu et al. (CN 104868123 A, citations see machine translation) in view of Huang et al. (US 20190020015 A1) in view of Cai et al. (CN 105810897 A, provided on IDS filed on 12/22/2023, citations see machine translation).
Regarding claim 4, Qi et al. in view of Hu et al. in view of Huang et al. does not teach wherein a thickness of the first shell layer is between 0.09 μm and 2.7 μm.
Cai et al. teaches wherein a thickness of the first shell layer (the thickness of the first shell layer, [0066]) is between 0.09 μm and 2.7 μm (50-290 nm, [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of LiMn0.8Fe0.2PO4 taught by Qi et al. in view of Hu et al. in view of Huang et al. to be 90-290 nm as taught by Cai et al. because the 90-260 nm thick first shell layer is known in the art (see Cai et al. [0066]).
Regarding claim 7, Qi et al. in view of Hu et al. in view of Huang et al. does not teach wherein a thickness of the second shell layer is between 20 nm and 600 nm.
Cai et al. teaches wherein a thickness of the second shell layer (the thickness of the second shell layer, [0066]) is between 20 nm and 600 nm (1-20 nm, [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of LiFePO4 and/C taught by Qi et al. in view of Hu et al. in view of Huang et al. to be 20 nm as taught by Cai et al. because the 20 nm thick second shell layer is known in the art (see Cai et al. [0066]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (CN 108039449 A, citations see machine translation) in view of Qi et al. (CN 106340639 A, provided on IDS filed on 12/22/2023, citations see machine translation) in view of Hu et al. (CN 104868123 A, citations see machine translation) in view of Huang et al. (US 20190020015 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Cheng et al. teaches a secondary battery (a lithium-ion battery, see Example 1, [0138]-[0146]), comprising a positive electrode (positive electrode, [0146]) having a positive electrode plate (a positive electrode sheet, [0143]), the positive electrode plate (a positive electrode sheet, [0143]) comprising a current collector (the pretreated positive electrode current collector, [0143]) and a positive electrode material layer (coated by positive electrode material slurry, [0143]) arranged on the current collector (the pretreated positive electrode current collector, [0143]), the positive electrode material layer (coated by positive electrode material slurry, [0143]) comprising a battery positive electrode material (the positive electrode active material: LiCoO<sub>2</sub>10%, LiNiO<sub>2</sub>30% and LiMn<sub>0.6</sub>Fe<sub>0.4</sub>PO<sub>4</sub>60%; [0142]), and further comprising:
a negative electrode (negative electrode, [0146]), a separator (separator, [0146]), and an electrolyte solution (electrolyte, [0146]).
Cheng et al. does not teach battery positive electrode material, comprising:
a core and a first shell layer arranged on a surface of the core, the core comprising LiMnxFe1-xPO4, and the first shell layer comprising LiMnyFe1-yPO4, wherein 0<x≤0.4, and 0.6≤y≤0.9.
Qi et al. teaches a battery positive electrode material (lithium iron phosphate/carbon-coated core-shell lithium manganese iron phosphate composite positive electrode material, which has a general formula of LiMnxFe1‑xPO4/LiMnyFe1‑yPO4/LiFePO4and/C, see Abstract), comprising:
a core (1, Fig. 1) and a first shell layer (2, Fig. 1) arranged on a surface of the core (1, Fig. 1), the core comprising LiMnxFe1-xPO4 (core: LiMnxFe1‑xPO4 (0.8≤x≤0.9), see Abstract; note: core is 60-80 wt%, see Abstract), and the first shell layer comprising LiMnyFe1-yPO4 (shell: LiMnyFe1‑yPO4 (0.2≤y≤0.4), see Abstract; note: shell is 15-30 wt%, see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the positive electrode material taught by Cheng et al. with the LiMnxFe1‑xPO4/LiMnyFe1‑yPO4/LiFePO4and/C taught by Qi. et al. to reduce the dissolution of Mn while maintaining a high specific capacity, thus significantly improving the cycle performance of the material (see Qi et al. [0009]).
Cheng et al. in view of Qi et al. does not teach wherein 0<x≤0.4, and 0.6≤y≤0.9.
Hu et al. teaches wherein 0<x≤0.4 (x = 1/3, see core: LiMn1/3Fe2/3PO4, see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the core LiMnxFe1‑xPO4 (0.8≤x≤0.9) taught by Cheng et al. in view of Qi et al. with LiMn1/3Fe2/3PO4 taught by Hu et al. to solve the problem of poor rate performance of high manganese content LiMnxFe1-xPO4 /C (X>0.5) positive electrode materials (see Hu et al. Abstract).
However, Cheng et al. in view of Qi et al. in view of Hu et al. does not teach 0.6≤y≤0.9.
Huang et al. teaches 0.6≤y≤0.9 (y (in LiMnyFe1‑yPO4) = 0.8 in LiMn0.8Fe0.2PO4, see second lithium manganese iron phosphate (shell) LixMn1-y-zFeyMzPO4, when x =1, y = 0.2, z = 0, see [0035]-[0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the shell LiMnyFe1‑yPO4 (0.6≤y≤0.9) taught by Cheng et al. in view of Qi et al. in view of Hu et al. with LiMn0.8Fe0.2PO4 taught by Huang et al. because such formula of the shell LiMn0.8Fe0.2PO4 is known in the art (see Huang et al. [0035]-[0039]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NING CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1163. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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 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.
/NING CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights