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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed January 4, 2024 and September 19, 2024 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits (with the exception of the foreign language reference that does not have an English equivalent/translation/statement of relevance).
Drawings
The drawings received January 4, 2024 are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 9-14, the aforementioned claims are merely further defining subspecies of the active material. Nothing in the claims require that the aforementioned active materials are required and chosen as the active material. Accordingly, these further claims would not further define the claim if the active material within the prior is a different species than that set forth in the claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: not clearly/separately setting forth the ratio claimed in line 8; using “a ratio of a median particle diameter of the lithium ferromanganese phosphate to a median particle diameter of the active particles” is suggested over “a ratio of the median particle diameter of the lithium ferromanganese phosphate to that of the active particles” (setting forth the median particle dimeters with respect to different materials separately). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 11-14, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0145314 (Dumont et al.).
As to claim 1, Dumont et al. teach a battery positive electrode material, comprising:
lithium ferromanganese phosphate particles (lithiated phosphate – LiMn-1-yM”yPO4; para 0034) and active particles (lithiated oxide – Li1+xMO2; para 0032-0033) dispersed in voids between the lithium ferromanganese phosphate particles (para 0074-0075, 0083);
the active particles comprising one or more of lithium nickel cobalt manganate particles, lithium nickel cobalt aluminate particles, lithium-rich manganese-based material particles, lithium cobaltate particles, spinel lithium manganate LiMn2O4 particles and layered lithium manganate LiMnO2 particles (Li1.06Ni0.5Mn0.3Co0.2O2, Li1.01Ni0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2; table 1, examples 2-4, 9 (on p6));
a ratio of the median particle diameter of the lithium ferromanganese phosphate to that of the active particles being between 3 and 8 (examples 2-4 and 9 have a ratio of 18:6 = 3) (table 1); and
in the battery positive electrode material, a content of percentage by weight of the lithium ferromanganese phosphate being between 70% and 90%, and a content of percentage by weight of the active particles being between 10% and 30% (examples 2-4 and 9 have a content percentage of 70%, 80%, 90% and 20%, 20%, 10%, respectively) (table 1).
As to claim 5, Dumont et al. teach wherein a weight ratio of the lithium ferromanganese phosphate particles to the active particles is 1:(0.2-0.35) (table 1, examples 2-4 and 9 have a weight ratio of 18:6, which is equivalent to 1:0.33, which falls in the claimed range).
As to claim 6, Dumont et al. teach the lithium ferromanganese phosphate particles comprise LiMnxFe1-xPO4, wherein 0.5<x<0.9 (table 1, examples 2-4 and 9 exemplify LiFe0.33Mf0.67PO4, which fits the claimed formula).
As to claim 11, Dumont et al. teaches Li1.06Ni0.5Mn0.3Co0.2O2, Li1.01Ni0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2 (table 1, examples 2-4, 9) (lithium nickel cobalt manganate particles) as the active materials. Accordingly, the claim language is met, as the lithium nickel cobalt aluminate particles comprise LiNimConAl1-m-nO2, wherein 0<m<1, 0<n<1 and 0<1-m-n<1 only modifies lithium nickel cobalt aluminate without requiring such material be the active material. (See claim interpretation section above.)
As to claim 12, Dumont et al. teaches Li1.06Ni0.5Mn0.3Co0.2O2, Li1.01Ni0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2 (table 1, examples 2-4, 9) (lithium nickel cobalt manganate particles) as the active materials. Accordingly, the claim language is met, as the lithium nickel cobalt aluminate particles further comprise a doped element, and the doped element comprises one or more of Ti, V, Mn, Fe, Cu, Zn, Mg, Ca, Nb and Mo only modifies lithium nickel cobalt aluminate without requiring such material to be the active material. (See claim interpretation section above.)
As to claim 13, Dumont et al. teaches Li1.06Ni0.5Mn0.3Co0.2O2, Li1.01Ni0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2 (table 1, examples 2-4, 9) (lithium nickel cobalt manganate particles) as the active materials. Accordingly, the claim language is met as the lithium-rich manganese-based material particles comprise yLi2MnO3-(1-y)LiMO2, wherein 0<y<1, and the M comprises at least one of Mn, Ni or Co only modifies the lithium-rich manganese-based material without requiring such material to be the active material. (See claim interpretation section above.)
As to claim 14, Dumont et al. teaches Li1.06Ni0.5Mn0.3Co0.2O2, Li1.01Ni0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2 (table 1, examples 2-4, 9) (lithium nickel cobalt manganate particles) as the active materials. Accordingly, the claim language is met as the lithium-rich manganese-based material particles further comprise a doped element, and the doped element comprises one or more of Ti, V, Fe, Co, Cu, Zn, Mg, Ca, Nb and Mo only modifies the lithium-rich manganese-based material particles without requiring such material to be the active material. (See claim interpretation section above.)
As to claim 16, Dumont et al. teach there is no agglomeration between the lithium ferromanganese phosphate particles and the active particles, and the active particles are not attached to the surface of the lithium ferromanganese phosphate particles in the form of coating (para 0081 teaches an embodiment where particles are ground to the right size and kept (rather than agglomerated)) (note: as this is one of two examples of particles set forth, it constitutes sufficient specificity for anticipation).
As to claim 17, Dumont et al. teach the active particles have higher compaction density than that of the lithium ferromanganese phosphate particles (para 0085-0088 detail ratios of materials, wherein para 0086 states that lithium ferromanganese phosphate particles can hardly be compacted, thus indicating the active material has a higher compaction density).
As to claim 18, Dumont et al. teach a positive electrode plate, comprising: a current collector and a positive electrode material layer arranged on the current collector (para 0106-0110), the positive electrode material layer comprising the battery positive electrode material according to claim 1 (the teachings to claim 1 set forth above, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake).
As to claim 19, Dumont et al. teach a secondary battery, comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator and an electrolyte (para 0106-0114), the positive electrode comprising the positive electrode plate according to claim 18 (the teachings to claim 1 set forth above, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dumont et al. (The teachings of Dumont et al, as set forth above and applicable herein, are incorporated herein but are not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.)
As to claim 2, Dumont et al. exemplify a median particle diameter of the lithium ferromanganese phosphate particles 18 µm (table 1, examples 2-4, 9). This is close to the claimed range of 2-15 µm (particularly close to the upper limit), that obviousness is met. It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)) Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
Additionally, Dumont et al.’s teaches that Dv502 is greater than or equal to 15 µm (para 0075) (overlaps claimed range).
As to claim 3, Dumont et al. exemplify the median particle diameter of the active particle is 6 µm (table 1, examples 2-4, 9). This is close to the claimed range of 0.5-5 µm (particularly close to the upper limit), that obviousness is met. It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)) Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
Additionally, Dumont et al.’s teaches that Dv501 is greater than or equal to 5 µm (para 0075) (overlaps claimed range).
As to claim 8, Dumont et al. renders obvious that the lithium ferromanganese phosphate particles further comprise a doped element, and the doped element comprises one or more of Ti, V, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Mg, Ca, Al, Nb and Mo, as Dumont et al. teach LiMn-1-yM”yPO4; M” is at least one selected from the group consisting of Fe, Ni, Co Mg, and Zn; and 0< y < 0.5 (para 0034), which encompasses the claimed material..
As to claim 9, Dumont et al. teaches Li1.06Ni0.5Mn0.3Co0.2O2, Li1.01Ni0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2 (table 1, examples 2-4, 9) (lithium nickel cobalt manganate particles) as the active materials. Dumont et al. al renders obvious the lithium nickel cobalt manganate particles comprise LiNiaCobMn1-a-b wherein 0<a<1, 0<b<1 and 0<1-a-b<1, as Dumont et al. recognizes LiNi1/3Mn1/3Cl1/3 (para 0067) (set forth as one of multiple possibilities within different subgroups of a generic formula, thus renders obvious (teaching not sufficiently specific for anticipation)).
As to claim 10, Dumont et al. teaches Li1.06Ni0.5Mn0.3Co0.2O2, Li1.01Ni0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2 (table 1, examples 2-4, 9) (lithium nickel cobalt manganate particles) as the active materials. Dumont et al. render obvious the lithium nickel cobalt manganate particles further comprise a doped element, and the doped element comprises one or more of Ti, V, Fe, Cu, Zn, Mg, Ca, Al, Nb and Mo, as Dumont et al. recognizes LiNi0.3Mn0.5Co0.15Al0.05O2 (para 0070) (set forth as one of multiple possibilities within different subgroups of a generic formula, thus renders obvious (teaching not sufficiently specific for anticipation)).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dumont et al., as applied to claim 1 above, in view of WO 2020/153822 A1 (Jung et al.). (Note: US 2021/0344002 is relied upon as the English translation of the WO document, as bother pertain to the same PCT.)
Dumont et al. do not teach wherein the active particles comprise primary active particles and secondary active particles, the median particle diameter of the primary active particles is between 0.5 µm and 5 µm, and the median particle diameter of the secondary active particles is between 0.1 µm and 2 µm.
However, Jung et al., in the same field of endeavor, teach of having primary and secondary active particles (first and second lithium cobalt oxide materials), wherein the second lithium cobalt oxide (first primary active particles) has an average particle diameter D50 of 5-15 µm, and the first lithium cobalt oxide (secondary active particles) has an average particle diameter D50 of 1-4 µm (para 0040) (overlapping the claimed ranges, thus rendering it obvious). The motivation for having the second lithium cobalt oxide (first primary active particles) has an average particle diameter D50 of 5-15 µm, and the first lithium cobalt oxide (secondary active particles) has an average particle diameter D50 of 1-4 µm is to reduce porosity between the active material compounds and increase energy density. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have the second lithium cobalt oxide (first primary active particles) has an average particle diameter D50 of 5-15 µm, and the first lithium cobalt oxide (secondary active particles) has an average particle diameter D50 of 1-4 µm is to reduce porosity between the active material compounds and increase energy density (overlaps the median particle diameter of the primary active particles is between 0.5 µm and 5 µm, and the median particle diameter of the secondary active particles is between 0.1 µm and 2 µm) in order to reduce porosity between the active material compounds and increase energy density.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dumont et al., as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US 2018/0097232 (Yasumiishi et al.).
As to claim 7, Dumont et al. teach the lithium ferromanganese phosphate particles comprise carbon (para 0039).
Dumont et al. do not teach a content of percentage by weight of the carbon in the lithium ferromanganese phosphate particles is between 1% and 3%.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yasumiishi et al. teach of a lithium ferromanganese phosphate material (LiFexMn1-x-yMyPO4) coated with carbon in an amount of 0.5-2.5% by mass (abs) (overlaps claimed range thus renders it obvious). (Note: Mass and weight percentages would be the same; the difference between mass and weight is the gravitational constant.) The motivation for including a carbon coating on a lithium ferromanganese phosphate material in an amount of 0.5-2.5% by mass is to improve charge/discharge rate performance while keeping capacity per unit mass high (para 0036). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to include a carbon coating on a lithium ferromanganese phosphate material in an amount of 0.5-2.5% by mass is to improve charge/discharge rate performance while keeping capacity per unit mass high (para 0036).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Dumont et al. as evidenced by Xiang et al. (The teachings of Dumont et al., as set forth above and applicable herein are incorporated herein.)
As to claim 15, Dumont et al. do not mention the compaction density of the battery positive electrode material (Li1.06Ni0.5Mn0.3Co0.2O2, Li1.01Ni0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2 (table 1, examples 2-4, 9).
Thus Dumont et al. do not teach a compaction density of the battery positive electrode material is between 2.4g/cm3 and 3.2g/cm3.
However, Xiang et al. is relied upon as an evidentiary reference to teach that compaction density is dependent upon material, wherein compaction density of lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese oxides is 3.0-3.5 g/cm3 (para 0043, 0049, 0050, 0081) (overlaps claimed invention).
Note: If it is shown that the compaction density of Dumont’s material is outside of the claimed range, then the value is still close to that claimed, such that obviousness is maintained.
It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990))
Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
Conclusion
Note: No other prior art is considered pertinent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:00 -7:30 (AM) and 9:45-3:15 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights