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 (IDS) submitted on 09/05/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on 09/05/2023 were received and are acceptable.
Specification
The specification received on 09/05/2023 was received and is acceptable.
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 - 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki et al (US 2015372344A1, hereinafter Iwasaki) in view of Shin et al (KR 20200073552A, hereinafter Shin) and in further view of Suzuki (US 20100123096A1) and in further view of Esaka et al (DOI: 10.1016/0167-2738(89)90040-4, hereinafter Esaka).
Regarding claim 1, and the following elements:
A coated positive electrode active material comprising: (Iwasaki, [008])
a positive electrode active material; (Iwasaki, [008])
a first coating layer coating at least a portion of a surface of the positive electrode active material; (Iwasaki, [0011])
a second coating layer coating at least a portion of a surface of a fundamental active material that includes the first coating layer and the positive electrode active material, (Shin, [0019])
wherein the first coating layer contains an oxide solid electrolyte, (Iwasaki, [0009])
and the second coating layer contains Li, Ti, M, and F, where M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Ca, Mg, Al, Y, and Zr.
Iwasaki teaches a composite active material that could be contained in either a positive or negative electrode. Iwasaki also teaches that this composite active material contains active material particles and a coating of an oxide solid electrolyte. Iwasaki does not disclose a second coating layer containing at least a portion of a surface of a fundamental active material that includes the first coating layer and the positive electrode active material. Iwasaki does not disclose wherein the second coating layer contains Li, Ti, M, and F, where M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Ca, Mg, Al, Y, and Zr. Shin teaches that such composite active materials can contain two coatings of materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive active material of Iwasaki with Shin’s second coating because all claimed elements were known, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (coatings to coat active materials) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (A).” Iwasaki in view of Shin does not disclose wherein second coating layer contains Li, Ti, M, and F, where M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Ca, Mg, Al, Y, and Zr. Suzuki teaches that a high-resistance film may form on the surface of positive electrode active materials inhibiting cycling (Suzuki, [0008]). Suzuki also teaches adding a lithium metal fluorocomplex(es) including Ti and Al to the surface of the positive active material through a solution method (Suzuki, [0010]). Esaka teaches two materials Li2TiF6 and Li3AlF6, produced by a sintering method, and that these materials may increase conduction (Esaka, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the composite active material and first coating of Iwasaki with the second coating of Shin with the method of coating the positive active material of Suzuki with the specific combination of Al and Ti from Esaka to enhance the electronic and structural properties of the composite active material.
Regarding claim 2, modified Iwasaki teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Modified Iwasaki is silent however on the following elements of claim 2:
The coated positive electrode active material according to claim 1, wherein a volume ratio of the second coating layer to the positive electrode active material is greater than or equal to 0.1% and less than or equal to 5%.
However, modified Iwasaki teaches that the second coating layer can have a thickness ratio with respect to the particle it is coating from 30:1 to 95:1 (mean particle diameter):(mean thickness of second layer)(Iwasaki, [0052]). Taking the thickness ratio of 95:1 and converting it into a volume ratio using the volume of a sphere a percentage of 6.45% is found. However, modified Iwasaki also teaches that this second layer can cover as little as 76% of the particle (Iwasaki, [0009]) and taking 76% of 6.45% we get 4.9%. This falls within the claimed range of 0.1% <= x <= 5%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to take the coated positive electrode active material of modified Iwasaki and use a volume ratio of between 0.1% and 5%.
Regarding claim 3, modified Iwasaki teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Modified Iwasaki additionally teaches all of the following elements of claim 3:
The coated positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein M is Al. (Esaka, Abstract)
Regarding claim 4, modified Iwasaki teaches all of the elements of claim 3, as shown above. Modified Iwasaki is silent however on the following elements of claim 4:
The coated positive electrode active material according to claim 3, wherein a material that forms the second coating layer is represented by the composition formula (1) below: LiαTiβAlγF6 where α, β, and γ satisfy α + 4β + 3γ = 6 and γ > 0.
However, modified Iwasaki teaches a secondary coating layer with the necessary elements in combination (Shin, [0058]). Including particularly Lithium, Titanium, Aluminum, and Fluorine in any combination. Shin is again silent on the specific amounts of each given element, however, the equation α + 4β + 3γ = 6 with γ > 0 is taken to be a charge balance equation with Li having an oxidation state of +1, Ti having an oxidation state of +4, Al having an oxidation state of +3, and F having and oxidation state of -1. Since these charges must be balanced in the prior art as well, there must be an overlap of ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to take a combination of known elements for a secondary coating from modified Iwasaki and balance the equation give the most common oxidation states of each species.
Regarding claim 5, modified Iwasaki teaches all of the elements of claim 4, as shown above. Modified Iwasaki is silent however on the following elements of claim 5:
The coated positive electrode active material according to claim 4, wherein γ satisfies 0.5 <= γ < 1.
Modified Iwasaki is again silent on the specific amounts of each given element, however, the equation α + 4β + 3γ = 6 with 0.5 <= γ < 1 is still taken to be a charge balance equation with Li having an oxidation state of +1, Ti having an oxidation state of +4, Al having an oxidation state of +3, and F having and oxidation state of -1. Since these charges must be balanced in the prior art as well, there must be an overlap of ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to take a combination of known elements for a secondary coating from modified Iwasaki and balance the equation give the most common oxidation states of each species.
Regarding claim 6, modified Iwasaki teaches all of the elements of claim 4, as shown above. Modified Iwasaki is silent however on the following elements of claim 6:
The coated positive electrode active material according to claim 4, wherein α, β, and γ satisfy 2.5 <= α <= 2.9, 0.1 <= β <= 0.5, and 0.5 <= γ <= 0.9.
Modified Iwasaki is again silent on the specific amounts of each given element, however, even with the equation α + 4β + 3γ = 6 being given further constraints it is still taken to be a charge balance equation with Li having an oxidation state of +1, Ti having an oxidation state of +4, Al having an oxidation state of +3, and F having and oxidation state of -1. Since these charges must be balanced in the prior art as well, there must be an overlap of ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to take a combination of known elements for a secondary coating from modified Iwasaki and balance the equation give the most common oxidation states of each species.
Regarding claim 7, modified Iwasaki teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Modified Iwasaki is silent however on the following elements of claim 7:
The coated positive electrode active material according to claim 1, wherein the oxide solid electrolyte contains at least one selected from the group consisting of lithium niobate, lithium titanate, lithium aluminate, lithium silicate, lithium borate, lithium borate, lithium zirconate, and lithium tungstate.
Iwasaki teaches that’s its solid electrolyte is not specifically limited as long as the electrolyte contains an oxygen element and has chemoaffinity for the active material particles and may be, specifically, LiNbO3 (lithium niobate) (Iwasaki, [0046]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Iwasaki teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Modified Iwasaki additionally teaches the following elements of claim 8:
The coated positive electrode active material according to claim 1, wherein the oxide solid electrolyte contains lithium niobate. (Iwasaki, [0046])
Regarding claim 9, modified Iwasaki teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Modified Iwasaki is silent however on the following elements of claim 9:
The coated positive electrode active material according to claim 1, wherein the first coating layer has an average thickness of greater than or equal to 1nm and less than or equal to 50nm.
Iwasaki teaches that its first layer may have a thickness desirably of 1nm to 100nm (Iwasaki, [0047]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Therefore, it would have to been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to take the first layer of modified Iwasaki and modify it to a thickness within the range of Iwasaki.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over Iwasaki et al (US 2015372344A1, hereinafter Iwasaki) in view of Shin et al (KR 20200073552A, hereinafter Shin) and if further view of Suzuki (US 20100123096A1) and in further view of Esaka et al (DOI: 10.1016/0167-2738(89)90040-4, hereinafter Esaka) in view of Zhang et al (CN 107946579A, hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 10, Shin teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Shin is silent however on the following elements of claim 10:
The coated positive active material according to claim 1, wherein the positive electrode active material contains lithium nickel cobalt aluminate.
Zhang teaches nickel-rich cathode materials, particularly lithium nickel cobalt aluminates. (Zhang, Page 1, Top) And that such materials are useful due to their high capacity and low cost in lithium-ion batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the lithium nickel cobalt aluminates from Zhang in the positive electrode active material of Shin to increase battery capacity and decrease battery cost.
Claim(s) 11 - 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over Iwasaki et al (US 2015372344A1, hereinafter Iwasaki) in view of Shin et al (KR 20200073552A, hereinafter Shin) and if further view of Suzuki (US 20100123096A1) and in further view of Esaka et al (DOI: 10.1016/0167-2738(89)90040-4, hereinafter Esaka) in view of Sugimoto et al (US 20200350627A1, hereinafter Sugimoto).
Regarding claim 11, Shin teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Shin is silent however on the following elements of claim 11:
A positive electrode material comprising the coated positive electrode active material according to claim 1;
and a first solid electrolyte.
Sugimoto teaches that a positive electrode can consist of both solid electrolyte particles and positive electrode active material particles (Sugimoto, [0198]). And that such solid electrolytes might be included to increase ion conductivity (Sugimoto, [0181]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the coated positive electrode active material of Shin with the solid electrolyte of Sugimoto to increase ion conductivity.
Regarding claim 12, modified Shin teaches all of the elements of claim 11, as shown above. Modified Shin is silent however on the following elements of claim 12:
The positive electrode material according to claim 11, wherein the first solid electrolyte includes a halide solid electrolyte.
Sugimoto teaches that a positive electrode can consist of both halide solid electrolyte particles and positive electrode active material particles (Sugimoto, [0198]). And that such solid electrolytes might be included to increase ion conductivity (Sugimoto, [0181]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the coated positive electrode active material of Shin with the halide solid electrolyte of Sugimoto to increase ion conductivity.
Regarding claim 13, modified Shin teaches all of the elements of claim 11, as shown above. Modified Shin is silent however on the following elements of claim 13:
The positive electrode material according to claim 11, wherein the first solid electrolyte includes a sulfide solid electrolyte.
Sugimoto teaches that a positive electrode can consist of both sulfide solid electrolyte particles and positive electrode active material particles (Sugimoto, [0198]). And that such solid electrolytes might be included to increase ion conductivity (Sugimoto, [0181]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the coated positive electrode active material of Shin with the sulfide solid electrolyte of Sugimoto to increase ion conductivity.
Regarding claim 14, modified Shin teaches all of the elements of claim 11, as shown above. Modified Shin is silent however on the following elements of claim 14:
A battery comprising:
a positive electrode including the positive electrode active material according to claim 11;
a negative electrode;
an electrolyte layer disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode.
Sugimoto teaches a battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte layer (Sugimoto, [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to construct a battery with the positive electrode including active material of Shin and solid electrolyte of Sugimoto.
Regarding claim 15, modified Shin teaches all of the elements of claim 14, as shown above. Modified Shin is silent however on the following elements of claim 15:
The battery according to claim 14, wherein the electrolyte layer contains a second solid electrolyte, and the second solid electrolyte includes a solid electrolyte having a same composition as a solid electrolyte that is present in the first solid electrolyte.
The instant claims describe a duplication of the solid electrolyte from the first solid electrolyte to the second solid electrolyte. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to duplicate the composition of the first solid electrolyte and use it for the second solid electrolyte.
Regarding claim 16, modified Shin teaches all of the elements of claim 14, as shown above. Modified Shin is silent however on the following elements of claim 16:
The battery according to claim 14, wherein the electrolyte layer contains a second solid electrolyte, and the second solid electrolyte includes a halide solid electrolyte having a different composition than a solid electrolyte that is present in the first solid electrolyte.
Sugimoto teaches a second solid electrolyte (Sugimoto, [0012]), that the second solid electrolyte can be a halide solid electrolyte (Sugimoto, [0113]), and that the second solid electrolyte material is different from the first solid electrolyte (Sugimoto, [0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary ski8ll in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to differ the composition of the first and second solid electrolyte to further change the ionic conductivity of the second electrolyte thereby also changing the charge/discharge efficiency of the battery.
Regarding claim 17, modified Shin teaches all of the elements of claim 14, as shown above. Modified Shin is silent however on the following elements of claim 17:
The battery according to claim 14, wherein the electrolyte layer contains a second solid electrolyte, and the second solid electrolyte includes a sulfide solid electrolyte.
Sugimoto teaches a second solid electrolyte that can be a sulfide solid electrolyte (Sugimoto, [0113]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to differ the composition of the second solid electrolyte to change the ionic conductivity of the second electrolyte thereby also changing the charge/discharge efficiency of the battery.
Regarding claim 18, modified Shin teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Modified Shin is silent however on the following elements of claim 18:
A method for producing the coated positive electrode active material according to claim 1
the method comprising processing a mixture with a dry particle-composing method, the mixture including a fundamental active material and a material that forms the second coating layer, the fundamental active material including the positive electrode active material and the first coating layer coating at least the portion of the surface of the positive electrode active material, wherein
the dry particle-composing method includes applying mechanical energy of impact, compression, and shear to the mixture.
Sugimoto teaches the mixing of a first solid electrolyte material and a positive electrode active material (Sugimoto, [0226]). These two are mixed in agate mortar, using a mortar implies imparting mechanical energy unto the mixture.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the mixing method of Sugimoto with the fundamental active material and second coating layer of Shin to improve the production of the coated positive electrode active material.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over Iwasaki et al (US 2015372344A1, hereinafter Iwasaki) in view of Shin et al (KR 20200073552A, hereinafter Shin) and if further view of Suzuki (US 20100123096A1) and in further view of Esaka et al (DOI: 10.1016/0167-2738(89)90040-4, hereinafter Esaka) in view of Sugimoto et al (US 20200350627A1, hereinafter Sugimoto).
Regarding claim 19, modified Shin teaches all of the elements of claim 18, as shown above. Modified Shin is silent however on the following elements of claim 19:
The method for producing the coated positive electrode active material according to claim 18, wherein a ratio Da/Dc, which is a ratio Da to Dc, is greater than or equal to 2, where Da is an average particle diameter of the fundamental active material, and Dc is an average particle diameter of the material that forms the second coating layer.
Iwasaki teaches a mean particle diameter of a composite particle of 4.5 μm and a mean particle diameter of an electrolyte layered on top of that composite particle of 0.8 μm. This gives a ratio of 4.5/0.8 or 5.625.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the method of producing the coated positive electrode active material of modified Shin and select for an average particle diameter ratio of 2 or greater so as to suppress reaction resistance of a lithium secondary battery.
Regarding claim 20, modified Shin teaches all of the elements of claim 19, as shown above. Modified Shin is silent however on the following elements of claim 20:
The method for producing the coated positive electrode active material according to claim 19, wherein a ratio Da/Dc, which the ratio Da to Dc is greater than or equal to 5.
Iwasaki teaches a mean particle diameter of a composite particle of 4.5 μm and a mean particle diameter of an electrolyte layered on top of that composite particle of 0.8 μm. This gives a ratio of 4.5/0.8 or 5.625.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the method of producing the coated positive electrode active material of modified Shin and select for an average particle diameter ratio of 5 or greater so as to suppress reaction resistance of a lithium secondary battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA P BISTANY-RIEBMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9591. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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, Nicholas A Smith can be reached at 5712728760. 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 BISTANY-RIEBMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights