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 § 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.
Claims 9 and 19 are 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.
With respect to claims 9 and 19, it is not clear how either the conductive filler or binder can extend all the way to 10 wt% when the composite cathode material has a lower limit of only 90 wt%. If either the filler or binder are 10 wt%, then the active material can at best be 89.5 wt% because the other minimum is 0.5 wt%.
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 –
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 13, and 18 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 Sun et al (US 2008/0193841).
With respect to claim 1, Sun discloses a method of manufacturing a cathode electrode comprising forming a composite cathode active material with a first cathode active material (core) comprising a lithium and manganese rich cathode active material (e.g. Li[Mn1.9Mg0.1]2O4). Sun further discloses forming an outer layer (shell) including a second cathode active material that can be Li1+a[MyMn1-y]2O4 with specific embodiment where M is Ni (par. 0021 and fig. 7).
With respect to the molar ratio of nickel and manganese, Sun teaches y in the above composition can range from 0.01 to 0.5, which overlaps the claimed range from 3/7 to 5/5 (par. 0021). Although there are no specific examples of the use of this claimed range, it is deemed that Sun discloses overlapping ranges with sufficient specificity to anticipate the composition of claim 1. In the alternative, even if it were determined the overlapping ranges did not anticipate the claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the entire set forth range of Sun as overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
With respect to claim 2, the working example of fig. 7 contains no cobalt.
With respect to claim 7, Sun teaches the shell is 3-50% the thickness of the total diameter of the particular, which appears to overlap the broadly defined weight ratio range of the claim.
With respect to claim 8, Sun discloses a mixture (slurry) of composite cathode active material, conductive filler (acetylene black), and binder (PVdF) is applied to an aluminum foil (current collector). See par. 0080.
With respect to claim 10, Sun discloses a co-precipitation process (par. 0068-0072).
With respect to claims 13 and 18, the process of Sun is for forming a cathode electrode (see rejections above and par. 0030).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 9, 12, 14, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Han et al (US 2020/0083522).
With respect to claims 3, 4, 14 and 15, Sun teaches the first cathode material can comprise a M in the MxMn1-x can be combinations of Ni and at least one other element including Co, Fe, Al among others (par. 0021). Sun did not explicitly teach a particular combination of Ni and at least one other element. Han explicitly teaches the particular advantages of Mn with Ni and at least one other element such as Co because the combination of Mn, Co, and Ni are particularly advantageous for balancing charge-discharge efficiency, price, structural stability, and air sensitivity (see abstract and par. 0007-0011). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize the particular combination of Ni and Co as the combination of elements for Sun in order to balance the various property advantages of the cathode active material. With respect to Sun’s formula reading on the formula of claims 3 and 14, Sun appears to have written their composition in spinel nomenclature (i.e. like LiM2O4). Han shows that these same compositions can be more in the format of the present claims with O2 and the metal concentrations all adding up to 1 (abstract).
With respect to claims 9 and 19, Sun set forth all the limitations of claims (see discussion of claim 8 above), but did not explicitly recite a composition overlapping the wt%. Han discloses in further detail the consideration for the mixture compositions and states the conductive material (conductive filler) can run from 0.1- 30 wt%, the binder from 0.1-30 wt%, and the cathode active material include “at least 80% by weight”. See par. 0067-0069. See also the particular example of par. 0106. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize composition wt% overlapping the claims as suggested by Han in order to find the desired balance of charge density, conductivity, and structural integrity.
With respect to claim 12, Han further discloses that dry mixing is a suitable manner of making the core/shell structure of Han and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize alternative known synthetic methods for Sun because the substitution of one known means for another requires only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 3-6 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Toya et al (US 2016/0244336).
With respect to the claims 5, 6, 16, and 17, Sun discloses that the second cathode active material is Li1+a[MyMn1-y]2O4 with specific examples of M being Ni (fig. 7) and with y being up to 0.5 (par. 0021). This already anticipates or renders obvious the claimed composition portion NixMny with x and y overlapping the claimed range. As to the additional Mz element in relatively trace amounts, Sun already set forth that the M of Li1+a[MyMn1-y]2O4 could be a combination of elements selected from Ni, Mg, Cu, and Zn (par. 0021) which potentially renders obvious a combination of Ni and one of the additional elements where the combination of Ni plus this additional element adds up to 0.5, which would read on the claims where y = 0.5 and x+z = 0.5 (e.g. x = 0.4-0.49 and z = 0.01-0.1). However, for the sake of examination here, the examiner will interpret this teaching of Sun as not being sufficiently specific to render obvious these claimed conditions.
To further motivate this modification already alluded to in Sun, Toya teaches alternative cathode active materials where the cathode active material is primarily Ni and Mn with small amounts of W, where this addition of W is in both the base and coating aspect of the active material. This additional use of W in addition to Ni and Mn is presumably due to the increase in initial characteristics provided with the addition of W (par. 0019, 0020, and 0086-0098). Moreover, Toya explicitly teaches that the surface layer of the cathode active material (equivalent to the second cathode active material of Sun) should contain an additional additive material A selected from Al, Mo, V, Zr, Nb, and Ta to improve the thermal stability of the cathode active material particles (abstract, par. 0039, 0101-0105). These additional components are disclosed as being added in small amounts in comparison to the Ni and Mn (WsAt has s < 0.05 and s+t ≤ 0.15) rendering obvious the interpretation of x, y, and z in Sun discussed above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize additional additive elements either in the cathode active material of Sun as a whole (i.e. both the first and second cathode active materials) or to utilize these additional elements explicitly in the coating (second cathode active material) of Sun because the utility of these additional elements provided greater thermal stability of the final cathode active material particle.
With respect to Sun’s formula reading on the formula of claims 5 and 16, Sun appears to have written their composition in spinel nomenclature (i.e. like LiM2O4). Toya shows that these same compositions can be more in the format of the present claims with O2 and the metal concentrations all adding up to 1 (par. 0214).
With respect to claims 3, 4, 14, and 15, it is noted the rejection above motivated the addition of a small amount of W to the already combination of Ni and Mn already suggested by Sun for the first cathode active material in order to provide additional initial characteristics behavior. See the discussion above. This would render obvious the addition of Md where M is W in amounts overlapping 0.01 to 0.2 to the first cathode material.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Xu et al (US 2018/0114982).
With respect to these claims, Sun set forth all the limitations of the claims, but did not explicitly recite the use of either spray drying or dry mixing. Xu is drawn to similar core/shell particles and explicitly suggest the use of both spray drying and dry mixing for forming the particles (see claims 5, 14, and 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize alternative known synthetic methods for Sun like those suggested by Xu because the substitution of one known means for another requires only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Meehan et al (US 2011/0059365).
Sun set forth all the limitations of the claim (see discussion of claim 13) and further disclosed an anode (counter electrode to the cathode) that was constructed with Li metal (foil) and a separator (polyethylene membrane separator with LiPF6). See par. 0080. Sun did not explicitly disclose more than one of all of the cathode, anode, and separator. However, Meehan discloses that it is entirely obvious to provide plural elements of each as that is how larger voltages and current capacities are generated. See par. 0002-0007 and fig. 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to scale up the number of battery elements to provide the desired levels of voltages and currents.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAJ K OLSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 AM - 5 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, 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.
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights