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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHINOHARA et al. (US 2023/0006191 A1) in view of WU (US 2023/0238529).
With regards to claims 1 and 8, SHINOHARA teaches a method for producing a positive electrode for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary batter (Abstract, ¶ 0011, ¶ 0041) and the resulting electrode product comprising obtaining a positive electrode active material having a volume average particle size equal to 1 micrometer (¶ 0055) and comprises a lithium transition metal composite oxide (¶ 0053) and an aluminum compound having a volume-average particle size equal to 0.1 micrometer or 100 nanometer (¶ 0067, 0069). SHINOHARA teaches dispersing the active material, a conduction aid (¶ 0061) and a binder (¶ 0059) in a solvent (¶ 0086, 0111) and applying the dispersion to the current collector and drying (¶ 0052, 0117-0119) in order to produce a density of the positive electrode between 2-4 g/cm3 (¶ 0056).
SHINOHARA does not explicitly teach a compression molding step subsequent to the drying of the dispersion nor a specific surface area of the active material particles.
In a similar field of endeavor, WU teaches a method of producing a positive active material of a lithium transition metal composite oxide (Abstract) in which it was known in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to control the BET specific surface area to within 0.72-2.5 m2/g to improve the stability of the positive active material improve cycle performance (¶ 0036). WU additionally teaches that it is conventional to include cold pressing after drying of the electrode material applied to the current collector (¶ 0050).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to include a step of cold pressing after drying in the method of producing a positive electrode of SHINOHARA as such is a conventional step performed in the production of positive electrodes as discussed in WU presenting a reasonable expectation of success and a predictable result of a degree of compaction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize a density between 2.6g/cm3 and 2.8 g/cm3 through routine optimization of the workable range taught by SHINOHARA and with reasonable application of the pressing step of WU that controls density through compaction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize a BET specific surface area of between 1.4 m2/g and 2.5 m2/g through routine optimization of the workable range taught by WU in the process of SHINOHARA as SHINOHARA does not teach a specific surface area prompting one of ordinary skill to look to related art and the range lies within that taught by WU to improve the performance and properties of the positive electrode yielding predictable results.
With regards to claim 2, SHINOHARA teaches using a lithium and nickel composition (¶ 0053) and the positive electrode has a layered structure as it forms a layer on the current collector (Fig. 3). Additionally, as noted in WU such lithium transition metal composite oxides have a crystal structure (Abstract) implying a layered structure of crystals.
With regards to claim 4, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize a BET specific surface area of between 1.7 m2/g and 2.5 m2/g through routine optimization of the workable range taught by WU in the process of SHINOHARA as SHINOHARA does not teach a specific surface area prompting one of ordinary skill to look to related art and the range lies within that taught by WU to improve the performance and properties of the positive electrode yielding predictable results.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHINOHARA et al. (US 2023/0006191 A1) in view of WU (US 2023/0238529 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of YAMASHITA et al. (WO 2018/221263 A1).
With regards to claim 3, SHINOHARA does not teach a specific porosity for the active material particles prompting one of ordinary skill to look to related art.
In a similar field of endeavor, YAMASHITA teaches a positive electrode active material (Abstract) comprising a lithium transition metal oxide similar to that of SHINOHARA. YAMASHITA teaches that the secondary particles of the nickel based metal oxide comprise voids to provide a porosity of 4-12% (bottom of pg 6) through secondary particle formation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize 10-12% porosity in SHINOHARA as SHINOHARA is silent with respect to secondary particle internal porosity prompting one of ordinary skill to look to related art and YAMASHITA teaches a workable range for similar sized lithium metal oxide particles presenting a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHINOHARA et al. (US 2023/0006191 A1) in view of WU (US 2023/0238529 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of SUN et al. (US 2023/0339771 A1).
With regards to claims 6 and 7, SHINOHARA teaches using a lithium transition metal composite oxide for the active material including a variety of transition metal compounds but does not explicitly teach including tungsten in the composition.
In a similar field of endeavor of producing a lithium transition metal composite oxide material for a positive electrode, SUN teaches including 0.01-2 mol% tungsten (W) in the composition (¶ 0027-0036) to produce a desirably flowable composition. Barring a showing of unexpected results it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to include 0.1-2 mol% W in the lithium transition metal composite oxide of SHINOHARA as such is a known added transition metal in the lithium transition metal composite oxides within the claimed amount presenting a reasonable expectation of success, and amounts to simple substitution of amounts of various transition metals in the composite oxide within the skill of a routineer in the art.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OKAJIMA (EP 3849007 A1) in view of SHINOHARA et al. (US 2023/0006191 A1) and WU (US 2023/0238529 A1).
With regards to claims 1 and 8, OKAJIMA teaches a method of producing a positive electrode for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Abstract) comprising active material particles with aluminum compounds (¶ 0081) along with a binder, solvent and conduction aid to obtain a dispersion (¶ 0044, 0082), applying the dispersion to a current collector, drying and pressing (¶ 0094) to produce a positive electrode. OKAJIMA teaches that the active material is a lithium transition metal oxide particle (¶ 0029-0033) having an average particle size from 0.05-2 micrometers (¶ 0034) and an aluminum compound (¶ 0036) having a particle size from 1-100 nm (¶ 0039). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to utilize primary particles having a volume average particle size from 1-2 micrometers for the primary particles of OKAJIMA through routine experimentation of the workable range as claimed ranges lying within a prior art range present a case of prima facie obviousness.
OKAJIMA does not teach a specific surface area of the active material particles or a resulting density of the electrode.
In a similar field of endeavor, SHINOHARA teaches a method for producing a positive electrode for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary batter (Abstract, ¶ 0011, ¶ 0041) and the resulting electrode product comprising obtaining a positive electrode active material having a volume average particle size equal to 1 micrometer (¶ 0055) and comprises a lithium transition metal composite oxide (¶ 0053). SHINOHARA teaches dispersing the active material, a conduction aid (¶ 0061) and a binder (¶ 0059) in a solvent (¶ 0086, 0111) and applying the dispersion to the current collector and drying (¶ 0052, 0117-0119) in order to produce a density of the positive electrode between 2-4 g/cm3 (¶ 0056) similar to the method of OKAJIMA.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize a density from 2.6-2.8 g/cm3 in the electrode of OKAJIMA as suggested by SHINOHARA as both relate to lithium transition metal oxide electrodes produced in the same manner presenting a reasonable expectation of success, and SHINOHARA does not teach a specific density prompting one of ordinary skill to look to related art.
In a similar field of endeavor, WU teaches a method of producing a positive active material of a lithium transition metal composite oxide (Abstract) in which it was known in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to control the BET specific surface area to within 0.72-2.5 m2/g to improve the stability of the positive active material improve cycle performance (¶ 0036). WU additionally teaches that it is conventional to include cold pressing after drying of the electrode material applied to the current collector (¶ 0050).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize a BET specific surface area of between 1.4 m2/g and 2.5 m2/g through routine optimization of the workable range taught by WU in the process of OKAJIMA as OKAJIMA does not teach a specific surface area prompting one of ordinary skill to look to related art and the range lies within that taught by WU to improve the performance and properties of the positive electrode yielding predictable results.
With regards to claim 2, OKAJIMA teaches using a lithium nickel composite oxide with a layered structure (¶ 0031).
With regards to claim 4, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize a BET specific surface area of between 1.7 m2/g and 2.5 m2/g through routine optimization of the workable range taught by WU in the process of OKAJIMA as OKAJIMA does not teach a specific surface area prompting one of ordinary skill to look to related art and the range lies within that taught by WU to improve the performance and properties of the positive electrode yielding predictable results.
With regards to claim 5, OKAJIMA teaches that the aluminum content ranges from 0.01% by mass to 0.15% mass determining various performance characteristics of the active material (¶ 0040-0041). Barring a showing of unexpected results it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to utilize 0.01-2 mol% through routine experimentation regarding the amount of aluminum as such is a result effective variable for the performance of the active material as discussed by OKAJIMA.
With regards to claim 6, OKAJIMA teaches that the active material includes tungsten (¶ 0048).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GALEN H HAUTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM to 6 PM EST.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights