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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 (claims 1-16) in the reply filed on July 29th, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 29th, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “stirring to obtain mixed powder” in Line 13 and should read --stirring to obtain a mixed powder--.
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 1 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 1 recites the limitation "the lithium manganese iron phosphate" in Lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner will interpret the limitation as --the lithium manganese iron phosphate precursor--.
Claim 1 recites “lithium manganese iron phosphate (LiMnxFe1-xPO₄) powder and nickel-cobalt-lithium manganese oxide (LiNiaCobMn(1-a-b)O₂)” in Lines 10-11, however it is unclear if the formulas provided are positively required to meet the claim limitation, thereby failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. The examiner will interpret the bracketed formulas as optional.
Claims 2-16 are rejected as they depend from claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sha et al. (CN110649235 (A) and using Machine Translation of English version), hereinafter Sha, in view of Li et al. (CN 105406069 (A) as cited in IDS and using Machine Translation as English version), hereinafter Li, in view of He et al. (CN109786687 A1 as cited in IDS and using Machine Translation as English version), hereinafter He.
Regarding claim 1, Sha discloses a method for preparing a composite positive electrode material, comprising the following steps:
(1) mixing a first lithium source, a manganese source, an iron source, and a phosphorus source to obtain a lithium manganese iron phosphate precursor (i.e., at least as disclosed in [0010] preparation of nanoscale high-voltage lithium manganese iron phosphate cathode material: lithium salt, iron salt, manganese salt, phosphate, etc., (also see [0016]-[0017], Examples 1-5), and lacking any further chemical distinction thereof),
performing thermal treatment on the lithium manganese iron phosphate precursor to obtain a lithium manganese iron phosphate powder (i.e., at least as disclosed in [0010] resulting mixture is sintered to obtain nanoscale high-voltage lithium manganese iron phosphate cathode material, etc., such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that nanoscale lithium manganese iron phosphate cathode material at least provides a lithium manganese iron phosphate powder, lacking any further distinction thereof),
mixing a nickel cobalt manganese with a second lithium source (i.e., at least as disclosed in [0009] preparation of nickel-rich ternary cathode material: prepare a soluble mixed aqueous solution of nickel, cobalt, and manganese, etc., co-precipitate the metal ions using a precipitant and a complexing agent, and obtain the precursor by filtration and drying; sinter the precursor and lithium salt, etc., whereby as disclosed in [0013] the precipitant is one or more of sodium hydroxide, etc., and as disclosed in [0014] the lithium salt is one or more of lithium hydroxide, etc., also see Examples 1-5), and
performing sintering treatment to obtain a nickel-cobalt-lithium manganese oxide positive electrode material (i.e., at least as disclosed in [0009] sinter the precursor and lithium salt in a certain proportion in an atmosphere sintering furnace to obtain nickel-rich ternary cathode material, etc., so as to achieve nickel-rich ternary cathode material for lithium-ion batteries such as LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2, etc., as disclosed in Example 1 ([0027]), also see Examples 2-5);
(2) mixing the lithium manganese iron phosphate (LiMnxFe1-xPO₄) powder and nickel-cobalt-lithium manganese oxide (LiNiaCobMn(1-a-b)O₂) positive electrode material (i.e., at least as disclosed in [0018] whereby nickel-rich ternary material to the nano-scale high-voltage lithium iron manganese phosphate cathode material is 99:1-80-20, etc., whereby as disclosed in Example 1 ([0026]-[0030]) lithium manganese iron phosphate is at least LiFe0.2Mn0.8PO4, for example, and nickel-cobalt-lithium manganese oxide is at least LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2, for example, lacking any further distinction thereof, also see Examples 2-5), and
stirring to obtain a mixed powder (i.e., at least as disclosed in Example 1 whereby nickel-rich ternary cathode material for lithium-ion batteries and high-voltage lithium manganese iron phosphate material were mixed in an ultramixer, etc., also see Examples 2-5, [0018]); and
(3) performing calcination treatment on the mixed powder obtained in the step (2) to obtain the composite positive electrode material (i.e., at least as disclosed in Example 1 whereby nickel-rich ternary cathode material for lithium-ion batteries and high-voltage lithium manganese iron phosphate material were mixed in an ultramixer, and the mixed sample was then sintered in a tube furnace, etc., also see Examples 2-5, [0018]).
However, Sha is silent as to a solvent in step (1). Furthermore, Sha is silent as to mixing obtained in the step (1) with a metal-organic framework (MOF) material. Furthermore, Sha is silent as to mixing a nickel cobalt manganese hydroxide with a second lithium source.
Li teaches a method for processing ternary material by being clad with lithium ferric manganese phosphate (Title). Li further teaches in [0014] preparation of LFMP precursor slurry: weigh out the iron source, manganese source, lithium source and phosphorous source, etc., add dispersing solvent to the raw mixture, etc., which at least provides a solvent in step (1), lacking any further distinction thereof. Li further teaches in [0018] the dispersing solvent is deionized water, etc.
Li further teaches in [0026] Coating NMC materials with LFMP to prepare core-shell composite materials can not only reduce the residual alkali content on the surface of NMC materials during preparation, but also inhibit the further increase of residual alkali during storage, and this effectively reduces the alkalinity of the composite material, improves the coagulation phenomenon during homogenization, and helps to improve the coating consistency of ternary materials, and at the same time, it can improve the particle uniformity of composite materials, thereby improving the uniformity of material properties.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Sha with the teachings of Li, whereby a method for preparing a composite positive electrode material including step (1) as discussed above further includes the dispersing solvent such as deionized water as taught by Li so as to reduce the residual alkali content on the surface of NMC materials during preparation, and also inhibit the further increase of residual alkali during storage, thereby effectively reducing the alkalinity of the composite material, improving the coagulation phenomenon during homogenization, and help to improve the coating consistency of ternary materials, and at the same time, it can improve the particle uniformity of composite materials, thereby improving the uniformity of material properties.
He teaches preparation method for forming metal oxide-coated nickel manganese cobalt ternary lithium ion battery positive electrode material by induction of sacrifice template (Title). He further teaches mixing a nickel cobalt manganese hydroxide with a second lithium source (i.e., at least as disclosed in [0032] nickel-cobalt-manganese 811 precursor Ni0.8Co0.1Mn0.1(OH)2 and lithium hydroxide monohydrate (LiOH·H2O) are ground thoroughly for 30 min and place the ground mixture in a tube furnace, etc., also see [0009]-[0014], [0039]).
He further teaches mixing a ternary material with a metal-organic framework (MOF) material (i.e., at least as disclosed in [0034] nickel-cobalt-manganese 811 ternary material and ZIF-67 material were poured into a beaker with 10 mL ethanol, sonicated for 30 min, then stir for 30 min, etc., to obtain a mixture, etc., also see [0007]-[0011], [0023]).
He further teaches in [0007] provide a nickel-cobalt-manganese ternary lithium-ion battery cathode material with metal oxide coating induced by sacrificial template ZIF-67, suitable for large-scale production applications, and its preparation method, while achieve effective coating of ternary cathode materials with metal oxides induced by ZIF-67, so that it can effectively reduce the residual alkali on the surface of ternary materials, especially high-nickel ternary materials, prevent secondary intergranular cracking of ternary materials, and significantly improve the electrochemical performance of ternary cathode materials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Sha and Li with the teachings of He, whereby a method for preparing a composite positive electrode material including the lithium manganese iron phosphate powder and nickel-cobalt-lithium manganese oxide obtained in the step (1), etc., as disclosed by the combined teachings of Sha and Li further includes mixing a nickel cobalt manganese hydroxide with a second lithium source, and mixing with a metal-organic framework (MOF) material, and stirring to obtain a mixed powder as taught by He so as so that it can effectively reduce the residual alkali on the surface of ternary materials, especially high-nickel ternary materials, prevent secondary intergranular cracking of ternary materials, and significantly improve the electrochemical performance of ternary cathode materials.
Regarding claim 2, Sha and Li and He discloses the method as discussed above in claim 1. Sha further discloses in [0016] the lithium salt is one or more of lithium carbonate, etc., which at least provides the first lithium source in the step (1) comprises lithium carbonate from the group.
The following limitations are optional and are therefore are not positively required to meet the claim limitations. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, Sha discloses the following:
optionally, Sha discloses in [0016] the manganese salt is one or more of manganese carbonate, manganese acetate, manganese sulfate, manganese oxalate, etc., which at least provides the manganese source comprises any one of or a combination of at least two of manganese sulfate, manganese carbonate, manganese acetate, and manganese oxalate from the group;
optionally, Sha discloses in [0016] the phosphorous salt is one or more of phosphoric acid, ammonium dihydrogen phosphate, etc., which at least provides the phosphorus source comprises phosphoric acid and/or ammonium dihydrogen phosphate from the group;
optionally, Sha discloses in [0017] the temperature is 400°C-900°C, etc., which is a range that overlaps the claimed range of the thermal treatment is performed at a temperature ranging from 600°C to 950°C, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I., In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); and
optionally, Sha discloses in [0017] the holding time is 5-30h, which is a range that overlaps and/or encompasses the claimed range of the thermal treatment is performed for a time period ranging from 5 h to 24 h, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I., In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
The remaining limitations (if any) are optional and are therefore are not positively required to meet the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 3, Sha and Li and He discloses the method as discussed above in claim 2. Sha further discloses in [0014] the lithium salt is one or more of lithium hydroxide, lithium carbonate, etc., (also see Examples 1-5), which at least provides the second lithium source in the step (1) comprises lithium hydroxide and/or lithium carbonate from the group.
The following limitations are optional and are therefore are not positively required to meet the claim limitations. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, Sha discloses the following:
optionally, Sha discloses in [0015] the temperature is 600-900°C, which is a range within the claimed range of the sintering treatment is performed at a temperature ranging from 450°C to 1000°C, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I., Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); and
optionally, Sha discloses in [0015] the holding time is 5-30h, which is a range that overlaps and/or encompasses the claimed range of sintering treatment is performed for a time period ranging from 5 h to12 h, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I., In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
The remaining limitations (if any) are optional and are therefore are not positively required to meet the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 4, Sha and Li and He discloses the method as discussed above in claim 1. Sha further discloses in Example 1 ([0026]-[0030]) LiFe0.2Mn0.8PO4, which at least provides a chemical formula of the lithium manganese iron phosphate in step (2) is LiMnxFe1-xPO₄, such that x=0.8, which is within the claimed range of 0<x<1, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I., Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985));
The following limitations are optional and are therefore are not positively required to meet the claim limitations. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, Sha discloses the following:
optionally, Sha discloses in Example 1 ([0026]-[0030]) LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2, which at least provides a chemical formula of the lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide is LiNiaCobMn(1-a-b)O₂, such that a =0.8 and b =0.1, which are values within the claimed ranges of a=0.5 to 0.8, and b=0.1 to 0.2, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I., Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985));
optionally, Sha discloses in [0018] the mass ratio of the nickel-rich ternary material to the nano-scale high-voltage lithium iron manganese phosphate cathode material is 99:1-80:20, which is a range that overlaps and/or encompasses the claimed range of a mass ratio of the lithium manganese iron phosphate powder to the nickel cobalt manganese positive electrode material is 1:(0.1-10), thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I., In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
The remaining limitations (if any) are optional and are therefore are not positively required to meet the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 6, Sha and Li and He discloses the method as discussed above in claim 1. Sha further discloses in Example 1 whereby nickel-rich ternary cathode material for lithium-ion batteries and high-voltage lithium manganese iron phosphate material were mixed in an ultramixer, and the mixed sample was then sintered in a tube furnace, etc., also see Examples 2-5, whereby as disclosed in [0018] the sintering temperature is 50-300°C, which provides a range of temperatures that overlap the claimed range of the calcination treatment in the step (3) is performed at a temperature ranging from 200°C to 600°C thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I., In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
The remaining limitations (if any) are optional and are therefore are not positively required to meet the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 7, Sha and Li and He discloses the method as discussed above in claim 2. Sha further discloses in [0014] the lithium salt is one or more of lithium hydroxide, lithium carbonate, etc., (also see Examples 1-5), which at least provides the second lithium source in the step (1) comprises lithium hydroxide and/or lithium carbonate from the group.
The following limitations are optional and are therefore are not positively required to meet the claim limitations. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, Sha discloses the following:
optionally, Sha discloses in [0015] the temperature is 600-900°C, which is a range within the claimed range of the sintering treatment is performed at a temperature ranging from 450°C to 1000°C, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I., Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); and
optionally, Sha discloses in [0015] the holding time is 5-30h, which is a range that overlaps and/or encompasses the claimed range of sintering treatment is performed for a time period ranging from 5 h to12 h, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I., In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
The remaining limitations (if any) are optional and are therefore are not positively required to meet the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 8, Sha and Li and He discloses the method as discussed above in claim 2. Sha further discloses in Example 1 ([0026]-[0030]) LiFe0.2Mn0.8PO4, which at least provides a chemical formula of the lithium manganese iron phosphate in step (2) is LiMnxFe1-xPO₄, such that x=0.8, which is within the claimed range of 0<x<1, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I., Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985));
The following limitations are optional and are therefore are not positively required to meet the claim limitations. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, Sha discloses the following:
optionally, Sha discloses in Example 1 ([0026]-[0030]) LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2, which at least provides a chemical formula of the lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide is LiNiaCobMn(1-a-b)O₂, such that a =0.8 and b =0.1, which are values within the claimed ranges of a=0.5 to 0.8, and b=0.1 to 0.2, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I., Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985));
optionally, Sha discloses in [0018] the mass ratio of the nickel-rich ternary material to the nano-scale high-voltage lithium iron manganese phosphate cathode material is 99:1-80:20, which is a range that overlaps and/or encompasses the claimed range of a mass ratio of the lithium manganese iron phosphate powder to the nickel cobalt manganese positive electrode material is 1:(0.1-10), thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I., In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
The remaining limitations (if any) are optional and are therefore are not positively required to meet the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 9, Sha and Li and He discloses the method as discussed above in claim 3. Sha further discloses in Example 1 ([0026]-[0030]) LiFe0.2Mn0.8PO4, which at least provides a chemical formula of the lithium manganese iron phosphate in step (2) is LiMnxFe1-xPO₄, such that x=0.8, which is within the claimed range of 0<x<1, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I., Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985));
The following limitations are optional and are therefore are not positively required to meet the claim limitations. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, Sha discloses the following:
optionally, Sha discloses in Example 1 ([0026]-[0030]) LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2, which at least provides a chemical formula of the lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide is LiNiaCobMn(1-a-b)O₂, such that a =0.8 and b =0.1, which are values within the claimed ranges of a=0.5 to 0.8, and b=0.1 to 0.2, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I., Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985));
optionally, Sha discloses in [0018] the mass ratio of the nickel-rich ternary material to the nano-scale high-voltage lithium iron manganese phosphate cathode material is 99:1-80:20, which is a range that overlaps and/or encompasses the claimed range of a mass ratio of the lithium manganese iron phosphate powder to the nickel cobalt manganese positive electrode material is 1:(0.1-10), thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I., In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
The remaining limitations (if any) are optional and are therefore are not positively required to meet the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 13, Sha and Li and He discloses the method as discussed above in claim 2. Sha further discloses in Example 1 whereby nickel-rich ternary cathode material for lithium-ion batteries and high-voltage lithium manganese iron phosphate material were mixed in an ultramixer, and the mixed sample was then sintered in a tube furnace, etc., also see Examples 2-5, whereby as disclosed in [0018] the sintering temperature is 50-300°C, which provides a range of temperatures that overlap the claimed range of the calcination treatment in the step (3) is performed at a temperature ranging from 200°C to 600°C thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I., In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
The remaining limitations (if any) are optional and are therefore are not positively required to meet the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 14, Sha and Li and He discloses the method as discussed above in claim 3. Sha further discloses in Example 1 whereby nickel-rich ternary cathode material for lithium-ion batteries and high-voltage lithium manganese iron phosphate material were mixed in an ultramixer, and the mixed sample was then sintered in a tube furnace, etc., also see Examples 2-5, whereby as disclosed in [0018] the sintering temperature is 50-300°C, which provides a range of temperatures that overlap the claimed range of the calcination treatment in the step (3) is performed at a temperature ranging from 200°C to 600°C thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I., In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
The remaining limitations (if any) are optional and are therefore are not positively required to meet the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 15, Sha and Li and He discloses the method as discussed above in claim 4. Sha further discloses in Example 1 whereby nickel-rich ternary cathode material for lithium-ion batteries and high-voltage lithium manganese iron phosphate material were mixed in an ultramixer, and the mixed sample was then sintered in a tube furnace, etc., also see Examples 2-5, whereby as disclosed in [0018] the sintering temperature is 50-300°C, which provides a range of temperatures that overlap the claimed range of the calcination treatment in the step (3) is performed at a temperature ranging from 200°C to 600°C thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I., In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
The remaining limitations (if any) are optional and are therefore are not positively required to meet the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 16, Sha and Li and He discloses the method as discussed above in claim 5. Sha further discloses in Example 1 whereby nickel-rich ternary cathode material for lithium-ion batteries and high-voltage lithium manganese iron phosphate material were mixed in an ultramixer, and the mixed sample was then sintered in a tube furnace, etc., also see Examples 2-5, whereby as disclosed in [0018] the sintering temperature is 50-300°C, which provides a range of temperatures that overlap the claimed range of the calcination treatment in the step (3) is performed at a temperature ranging from 200°C to 600°C, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I., In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
The remaining limitations (if any) are optional and are therefore are not positively required to meet the claim limitations.
Claims 5 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sha and Li and He as applied to claims 1-4 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (CN111162271 (A) and using Machine Translation as English version), hereinafter Liu.
Regarding claim 5, Sha and Li and He discloses the method as discussed above in claim 1. However, Sha is silent as to the stirring in the step (2) is performed at a speed ranging from 300 rpm to 800 rpm; and optionally, the stirring is performed for a time period ranging from 0.5 h to 5 h.
Liu teaches multi-element cathode material, preparation thereof and lithium ion battery (Title). Liu further teaches in [0019]-[0021] a matrix material is provided with a chemical formula commensurate in scope with the nickel-cobalt-lithium manganese oxide as discussed above in claim 1, and as taught in [0022]-[0028] a coating material selected from at least one of polyanionic cathode materials with chemical formula that is commensurate in scope with lithium manganese iron phosphate, etc. (also see [0130], Example 2 [0159]-[0167], Table 1).
Liu further teaches in [0092] the diluted sol and the matrix material are mixed by mechanical stirring, etc., whereby the stirring conditions include: a stirring speed of 100-300 rpm, which at least provides a range that overlaps the claimed range of the stirring in the step (2) is performed at a speed ranging from 300 rpm to 800 rpm, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I., In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
The following limitations are optional and are therefore are not positively required to meet the claim limitations. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, Lui discloses the following:
optionally, Liu teaches in [0092] a stirring time of 10-60 min, which provides a range that overlaps the claimed range of the stirring is performed for a time period ranging from 0.5 h to 5 h, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I., In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Liu further teaches in [0032] the multi-element cathode material provided by the present invention has good structural stability and excellent cycle performance during charging and discharging.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the combined teachings of Sha and Li and He with the teachings of Liu, whereby a method for preparing a composite positive electrode material including steps (1)-(3), etc., as discussed above and disclosed by the combined teachings of Sha and Li and He further includes the stirring is performed at a speed ranging from 300 rpm to 800 rpm; and optionally, the stirring is performed for a time period ranging from 0.5 h to 5 h as taught by Liu, so as to provide a multi-element cathode material provided by the present invention has good structural stability and excellent cycle performance during charging and discharging.
The remaining limitations (if any) are optional and are therefore are not positively required to meet the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 10, Sha and Li and He discloses the method as discussed above in claim 2. However, Sha is silent as to the stirring in the step (2) is performed at a speed ranging from 300 rpm to 800 rpm; and optionally, the stirring is performed for a time period ranging from 0.5 h to 5 h.
Liu teaches multi-element cathode material, preparation thereof and lithium ion battery (Title). Liu further teaches in [0019]-[0021] a matrix material is provided with a chemical formula commensurate in scope with the nickel-cobalt-lithium manganese oxide as discussed above in claim 1, and as taught in [0022]-[0028] a coating material selected from at least one of polyanionic cathode materials with chemical formula that is commensurate in scope with lithium manganese iron phosphate, etc. (also see [0130], Example 2 [0159]-[0167], Table 1).
Liu further teaches in [0092] the diluted sol and the matrix material are mixed by mechanical stirring, etc., whereby the stirring conditions include: a stirring speed of 100-300 rpm, which at least provides a range that overlaps the claimed range of the stirring in the step (2) is performed at a speed ranging from 300 rpm to 800 rpm, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I., In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
The following limitations are optional and are therefore are not positively required to meet the claim limitations. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, Lui discloses the following:
optionally, Liu teaches in [0092] a stirring time of 10-60 min, which provides a range that overlaps the claimed range of the stirring is performed for a time period ranging from 0.5 h to 5 h, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I., In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Liu further teaches in [0032] the multi-element cathode material provided by the present invention has good structural stability and excellent cycle performance during charging and discharging.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the combined teachings of Sha and Li and He with the teachings of Li, whereby a method for preparing a composite positive electrode material including steps (1)-(3), etc., as discussed above and disclosed by the combined teachings of Sha and Li and He further includes the stirring is performed at a speed ranging from 300 rpm to 800 rpm; and optionally, the stirring is performed for a time period ranging from 0.5 h to 5 h as taught by Liu, so as to provide a multi-element cathode material provided by the present invention has good structural stability and excellent cycle performance during charging and discharging.
The remaining limitations (if any) are optional and are therefore are not positively required to meet the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 11, Sha and Li and He discloses the method as discussed above in claim 3. However, Sha is silent as to the stirring in the step (2) is performed at a speed ranging from 300 rpm to 800 rpm; and optionally, the stirring is performed for a time period ranging from 0.5 h to 5 h.
Liu teaches multi-element cathode material, preparation thereof and lithium ion battery (Title). Liu further teaches in [0019]-[0021] a matrix material is provided with a chemical formula commensurate in scope with the nickel-cobalt-lithium manganese oxide as discussed above in claim 1, and as taught in [0022]-[0028] a coating material selected from at least one of polyanionic cathode materials with chemical formula that is commensurate in scope with lithium manganese iron phosphate, etc. (also see [0130], Example 2 [0159]-[0167], Table 1).
Liu further teaches in [0092] the diluted sol and the matrix material are mixed by mechanical stirring, etc., whereby the stirring conditions include: a stirring speed of 100-300 rpm, which at least provides a range that overlaps the claimed range of the stirring in the step (2) is performed at a speed ranging from 300 rpm to 800 rpm, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I., In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
The following limitations are optional and are therefore are not positively required to meet the claim limitations. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, Lui discloses the following:
optionally, Liu teaches in [0092] a stirring time of 10-60 min, which provides a range that overlaps the claimed range of the stirring is performed for a time period ranging from 0.5 h to 5 h, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I., In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Liu further teaches in [0032] the multi-element cathode material provided by the present invention has good structural stability and excellent cycle performance during charging and discharging.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the combined teachings of Sha and Li and He with the teachings of Li, whereby a method for preparing a composite positive electrode material including steps (1)-(3), etc., as discussed above and disclosed by the combined teachings of Sha and Li and He further includes the stirring is performed at a speed ranging from 300 rpm to 800 rpm; and optionally, the stirring is performed for a time period ranging from 0.5 h to 5 h as taught by Liu, so as to provide a multi-element cathode material provided by the present invention has good structural stability and excellent cycle performance during charging and discharging.
The remaining limitations (if any) are optional and are therefore are not positively required to meet the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 12, Sha and Li and He discloses the method as discussed above in claim 4. However, Sha is silent as to the stirring in the step (2) is performed at a speed ranging from 300 rpm to 800 rpm; and optionally, the stirring is performed for a time period ranging from 0.5 h to 5 h.
Liu teaches multi-element cathode material, preparation thereof and lithium ion battery (Title). Liu further teaches in [0019]-[0021] a matrix material is provided with a chemical formula commensurate in scope with the nickel-cobalt-lithium manganese oxide as discussed above in claim 1, and as taught in [0022]-[0028] a coating material selected from at least one of polyanionic cathode materials with chemical formula that is commensurate in scope with lithium manganese iron phosphate, etc. (also see [0130], Example 2 [0159]-[0167], Table 1).
Liu further teaches in [0092] the diluted sol and the matrix material are mixed by mechanical stirring, etc., whereby the stirring conditions include: a stirring speed of 100-300 rpm, which at least provides a range that overlaps the claimed range of the stirring in the step (2) is performed at a speed ranging from 300 rpm to 800 rpm, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I., In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
The following limitations are optional and are therefore are not positively required to meet the claim limitations. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, Lui discloses the following:
optionally, Liu teaches in [0092] a stirring time of 10-60 min, which provides a range that overlaps the claimed range of the stirring is performed for a time period ranging from 0.5 h to 5 h, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I., In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Liu further teaches in [0032] the multi-element cathode material provided by the present invention has good structural stability and excellent cycle performance during charging and discharging.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the combined teachings of Sha and Li and He with the teachings of Li, whereby a method for preparing a composite positive electrode material including steps (1)-(3), etc., as discussed above and disclosed by the combined teachings of Sha and Li and He further includes the stirring is performed at a speed ranging from 300 rpm to 800 rpm; and optionally, the stirring is performed for a time period ranging from 0.5 h to 5 h as taught by Liu, so as to provide a multi-element cathode material provided by the present invention has good structural stability and excellent cycle performance during charging and discharging.
The remaining limitations (if any) are optional and are therefore are not positively required to meet the claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shon et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2017/0149039 A1) discloses electrode-composite separator assembly for lithium battery and battery including the same (Title), whereby as disclosed in [0087] MOF may be Zn-MOF, etc.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA PATRICK MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)272-2742. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached on (571) 272-1330. 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.
/JOSHUA P MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights