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
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) 1-3 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao CN105428641A (using machine English translation provided; cited in IDS filed 09 February 2024) in view of Cui US20200075943A1.
Regarding claim 1, Xiao discloses an electrochemical device (Xiao, [0034]), comprising
a positive electrode (Xiao, [0034]),
a negative electrode (Xiao, [0035]),
a separator (Xiao, [0035]), and
an electrolytic solution (Xiao, [0035]),
wherein the positive electrode comprises
a positive active material layer (Xiao, [0041]), the positive active material layer comprises a lithium manganese oxide (Xiao, [0009]),
the lithium manganese oxide comprises aluminum and sodium (Xiao, [0009]), and,
based on a weight of the positive active material, a weight percentage of the aluminum is A %, a weight percentage of the sodium is B %, wherein 0.15≤A≤4.69 and 0.13≤B≤3.89 (Xiao, [0009], Li1-xNaxAlyMn2-yO4, where: x=0.01-0.3, y=0.01-0.3), rendering obvious the claimed range of 0.01≤A≤2 and 0.001≤B≤1, see MPEP § 2144.05. Xiao does not teach a positive current collector and a positive active material layer disposed on at least one surface of the positive current collector.
Cui teaches a positive current collector (Cui, [0028-0029]) and a positive active material layer disposed on at least one surface of the positive current collector (Cui, [0029]). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the current collector of Cui to Xiao thereby increasing the short-circuit resistance (Cui, [0027]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Xiao also teaches satisfying at least one of conditions (a) or (b): 0.28≤A+B≤8.46 (Xiao, [0009], Li1-xNaxAlyMn2-yO4, where: x=0.01-0.3, y=0.01-0.3) or 0.04≤A/B≤35.21 (Xiao, [0009], Li1-xNaxAlyMn2-yO4, where: x=0.01-0.3, y=0.01-0.3), rendering obvious the claimed range of 0.011≤A+B≤2.5 (a) or 0.1≤A/B≤125 (b), see MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, modified Xiao additionally teaches wherein 0.28≤A+B≤8.46 (Xiao, [0009], Li1-xNaxAlyMn2-yO4, where: x=0.01-0.3, y=0.01-0.3) or 0.04≤A/B≤35.21 (Xiao, [0009], Li1-xNaxAlyMn2-yO4, where: x=0.01-0.3, y=0.01-0.3), rendering obvious the claimed range of 0.03≤A+B<2 and 2<A/B≤125, see MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, modified Xiao further teaches wherein, in an XRD test, the lithium manganese oxide satisfies at least one of conditions (f) to (h):
(f) the lithium manganese oxide exhibits, at 18° to 20°, a first diffraction peak corresponding to a (111) crystal plane, and a peak intensity of the first diffraction peak is I(111) (Xiao, Fig. 1, b, (111)),
(g) the lithium manganese oxide exhibits, at 43 º to 45°, a second diffraction peak corresponding to a (400) crystal plane, and a peak intensity of the second diffraction peak is I(400) (Xiao, Fig. 1, b, (400)),
(h) the lithium manganese oxide exhibits, at 63° to 65°, a third diffraction peak corresponding to a (440) crystal plane, and a peak intensity of the third diffraction peak is I(440) (Xiao, Fig. 1, b, (440)).
PNG
media_image1.png
720
767
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, modified Xiao also teaches satisfying at least one of conditions (i) or (j): I(440)/I(400) = 0.41 (Xiao, annotated Fig. 1, I(440) = 0.82, I(400) = 2.02), satisfying the limitation 0.35<I(440)/I(400)<0.55 (j).
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao CN105428641A (using machine English translation provided; cited in IDS filed 09 February 2024) in view of Cui US20200075943A1 and further in view of Holzapfel US20130156683A1.
Regarding claim 4, modified Xiao does not teach wherein the lithium manganese oxide further comprising niobium, based on the weight of the positive active material, a weight percentage of the niobium is C %, and 0<C≤1.
Holzapfel teaches wherein the lithium manganese oxide (Holzapfel, [0051-0052], Li1−xM′yM″2−yO4, M′=Mn) further comprising niobium (Holzapfel, [0053], M″=Nb), based on the weight of the positive active material, a weight percentage of the niobium is C %, and 0<C≤74 (Holzapfel, [0051-0052], Li1−xM′yM″2−yO4, M′=Mn, M″=Nb, [0063], 0<x≤1, 0<y≤2), rendering obvious the claimed range of 0<C≤1, see MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the lithium manganese oxide of Holzapfel to modified Xiao thereby increasing the specific capacity (Holzapfel, [0050]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Xiao as further modified by Holzapfel above further teaches satisfying at least one of conditions (c) to (e): 0.15<A+C≤78.96, 0.28≤A+B+C≤82.6, and 0<C/B≤569 (Xiao, [0009], Li1-xNaxAlyMn2-yO4, where: x=0.01-0.3, y=0.01-0.3; Holzapfel, [0051-0053], Li1−xM′yM″2−yO4, M′=Mn, M″=Nb, [0063], 0<x≤1, 0<y≤2), rendering obvious the claimed range of 0.011<A+C≤2.8 (c), 0.011≤A+B+C≤3.3 (d), or 0<C/B≤40 (e), see MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, modified Xiao as additionally modified by Holzapfel above further teaches wherein 0.15<A+C≤78.96 (Xiao, [0009], Li1-xNaxAlyMn2-yO4, where: x=0.01-0.3, y=0.01-0.3; Holzapfel, [0051-0053], Li1−xM′yM″2−yO4, M′=Mn, M″=Nb, [0063], 0<x≤1, 0<y≤2), rendering obvious the claimed range of 0.07≤A+C≤2., see MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao CN105428641A (using machine English translation provided; cited in IDS filed 09 February 2024) in view of Cui US20200075943A1 and further in view of Kim KR20160002253A (using machine English translation provided).
Regarding claim 9, modified Xiao does not teach wherein the positive active material layer further comprises a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide, based on the weight of the positive active material, a weight percentage of cobalt in the lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide is less than or equal to 15%.
Kim teaches wherein the positive active material layer further comprises a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (Kim, formula 3, LioNi1-p-qMnpCoqOr 0.5≤o≤1.2, 0.15≤p≤0.45, 0.15≤q≤0.45, and 1.5≤r≤2.5). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide of Kim to modified Xiao, thereby having a nominal voltage of 1.5V to 2.7V and satisfies the driving voltage condition of 9V to 16.2V (Kim, [0028], [0030]).
Modified Cui as modified by Kim also teaches wherein based on the weight of the positive active material, a weight percentage of cobalt in the lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide is 2.5 to 10.3% (Xiao, [0009], Li1-xNaxAlyMn2-yO4, where: x=0.01-0.3, y=0.01-0.3; Kim, formula 3, LioNi1-p-qMnpCoqOr 0.5≤o≤1.2, 0.15≤p≤0.45, 0.15≤q≤0.45, and 1.5≤r≤2.5), satisfying the claim limitation of less than or equal to 15%.
Regarding claim 10, modified Xiao as modified above by Cui additionally teaches wherein a molar ratio between nickel and manganese in the positive active material layer is 0.04:1 to 0.4:1 (Xiao, [0009], Li1-xNaxAlyMn2-yO4, where: x=0.01-0.3, y=0.01-0.3; Kim, formula 3, LioNi1-p-qMnpCoqOr 0.5≤o≤1.2, 0.15≤p≤0.45, 0.15≤q≤0.45, and 1.5≤r≤2.5), satisfying the limitation of 0.02:1 to 0.7:1,
and a molar ratio between cobalt and manganese is 0.06:1 to 0.24:1 (Xiao, [0009], Li1-xNaxAlyMn2-yO4, where: x=0.01-0.3, y=0.01-0.3; Kim, formula 3, LioNi1-p-qMnpCoqOr 0.5≤o≤1.2, 0.15≤p≤0.45, 0.15≤q≤0.45, and 1.5≤r≤2.5), satisfying the claim limitation of less than or equal to 0.3:1.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao CN105428641A (using machine English translation provided; cited in IDS filed 09 February 2024) in view of Cui US20200075943A1 and further in view of Levy US20130323597A1.
Regarding claim 11, modified Xiao does not teach wherein the positive active material layer further comprises lithium iron phosphate, and an average particle size of the lithium iron phosphate is less than an average particle size of the lithium manganese oxide.
Levy teaches wherein the positive active material layer further comprises lithium iron phosphate (Levy, [0142]), and
an average particle size of the lithium iron phosphate (Levy, [0143], greater than 3 μm and/or of less than 10 μm) is less than an average particle size of the lithium manganese oxide (Levy, [0123], [0140], between 0.01 μm and 5 mm). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the lithium iron phosphate of Levy to modified Xiao thereby limiting the dissolution of the manganese (Xiao, [0141]).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao CN105428641A (using machine English translation provided; cited in IDS filed 09 February 2024) in view of Cui US20200075943A1 and Levy US20130323597A1 and further in view of Yamada US20020004169A1.
Regarding claim 12, modified Xiao does not teach wherein a molar ratio between iron and manganese in the positive active material layer is 0.02:1 to 0.25:1.
Yamada teaches wherein lithium iron phosphate comprises 20 wt% and lithium manganese oxide is 80% of the active material (Yamada, [0136]). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratio of lithium iron phosphate and lithium manganese oxide comprising the positive active material of modified Xiao to 20:80 as Yamada teaches it is known in the art to have positive active material comprising lithium iron phosphate and lithium manganese oxide having this ratio and thereby improving the discharge time vs potential (Yamada, Fig. 9, sample 18). The examiner notes the ratio as taught by modified Xiao as further modified by Yamada teaches wherein a molar ratio between iron and manganese in the positive active material layer is 0.08:1 to 0.09:1 (Xiao, [0009], Li1-xNaxAlyMn2-yO4, where: x=0.01-0.3, y=0.01-0.3; Yamada [0136], LiFePO4), satisfying the claimed range of 0.02:1 to 0.25:1.
Regarding claim 13, modified Xiao as modified by Levy above does not teach wherein, based on the weight of the positive active material layer, a weight percentage of the lithium iron phosphate is less than or equal to 30%.
Yamada teaches wherein based on the weight of the positive active material layer, a weight percentage of the lithium iron phosphate is 20% (Yamada, [0136]). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the weight of lithium iron phosphate of the positive active material of modified Xiao to 20% as Yamada teaches it is known in the art to have positive active material comprising lithium iron phosphate having this % and thereby improving the discharge time vs potential (Yamada, Fig. 9, sample 18).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao CN105428641A (using machine English translation provided; cited in IDS filed 09 February 2024) in view of Cui US20200075943A1 and further in view of Qianxin CN101764222B (using machine English translation provided).
Regarding claim 14, modified Xiao does not teach wherein a compacted density P of the positive active material layer satisfies 2.7 g/cm3≤P≤4.0 g/cm3.
Qianxin teaches wherein a compacted density P of the positive active material layer satisfies 3.0 g/cm3≤P≤3.5 g/cm3 (Qianxin, [0043]), satisfying the claimed range of 2.7 g/cm3≤P≤4.0 g/cm3. Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compacted density of the positive active material layer of modified Xiao 20 3.0-3.5 g/cm3 as Qianxin teaches it is known in the art to have positive active material layer having this compacted density and thereby improving capacity retention (Qianxin, [0051]).
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose US20120328915A1 in view of Xiao CN105428641A (using machine English translation provided; cited in IDS filed 09 February 2024).
Regarding claim 15, Hirose discloses an electronic device (Hirose, [0176]), comprising an electrochemical device (Hirose, [0176]), the electrochemical device comprises
a positive electrode (Hirose, Fig. 3, element 21),
a negative electrode (Hirose, Fig. 3, element 22),
a separator (Hirose, Fig. 3, element 23), and
an electrolytic solution (Hirose, [0127]),
wherein the positive electrode comprises a positive current collector (Hirose, Fig. 4, element 21A) and a positive active material layer (Hirose, Fig. 4, element 21B) disposed on at least one surface of the positive current collector (Hirose, [0111]),
the positive active material layer comprises a lithium manganese oxide (Hirose, [0114], LixM11O2, M11=Mn). Hirose does not disclose wherein the lithium manganese oxide comprises aluminum and sodium and based on a weight of the positive active material, a weight percentage of the aluminum is A %, a weight percentage of the sodium is B %, wherein 0.01≤A≤2 and 0.001≤B≤1.
Xiao teaches wherein the lithium manganese oxide comprises aluminum and sodium (Xiao, [0009]), and based on a weight of the positive active material, a weight percentage of the aluminum is A %, a weight percentage of the sodium is B %, wherein 0.15≤A≤4.69 and 0.13≤B≤3.89 (Xiao, [0009], Li1-xNaxAlyMn2-yO4, where: x=0.01-0.3, y=0.01-0.3), rendering obvious the claimed range of 0.01≤A≤2 and 0.001≤B≤1, see MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan to substitute the lithium manganese oxide of Xiao in Hirose thereby improving electrochemical performance (Xiao, [0006]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Hirose also teaches satisfying at least one of conditions (a) or (b): 0.28≤A+B≤8.46 (Xiao, [0009], Li1-xNaxAlyMn2-yO4, where: x=0.01-0.3, y=0.01-0.3) or 0.04≤A/B≤35.21 (Xiao, [0009], Li1-xNaxAlyMn2-yO4, where: x=0.01-0.3, y=0.01-0.3), rendering obvious the claimed range of 0.011≤A+B≤2.5 (a) or 0.1≤A/B≤125 (b), see MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 17, modified Hirose additionally teaches wherein 0.28≤A+B≤8.46 (Xiao, [0009], Li1-xNaxAlyMn2-yO4, where: x=0.01-0.3, y=0.01-0.3) or 0.04≤A/B≤35.21 (Xiao, [0009], Li1-xNaxAlyMn2-yO4, where: x=0.01-0.3, y=0.01-0.3), rendering obvious the claimed range of 0.03≤A+B<2 and 2<A/B≤125, see MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose US20120328915A1 in view of Xiao CN105428641A (using machine English translation provided; cited in IDS filed 09 February 2024) and further in view of Holzapfel US20130156683A1.
Regarding claim 18, modified Hirose does not teach wherein the lithium manganese oxide further comprising niobium, based on the weight of the positive active material, a weight percentage of the niobium is C %, and 0<C≤1.
Holzapfel teaches wherein the lithium manganese oxide (Holzapfel, [0051-0052], Li1−xM′yM″2−yO4, M′=Mn) further comprising niobium (Holzapfel, [0053], M″=Nb), based on the weight of the positive active material, a weight percentage of the niobium is C %, and 0<C≤74 (Holzapfel, [0063], 0<x≤1, 0<y≤2), rendering obvious the claimed range of 0<C≤1, see MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the lithium manganese oxide of Holzapfel to modified Hirose thereby increasing the specific capacity (Holzapfel, [0050]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhou CN103137972A (discloses it is well known in the art to decrease the particle size of LiFePO4 in order to increase ion mobility).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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.
/JARED HANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights