DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits for 18/472,030, filed 9/21/2023, which is a continuation of PCT/CN2022/099191, filed 6/16/2022.
Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are pending; Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 20-21 are considered herein.
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 the invention of Group I, Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 20-21 in the reply filed on 5/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following reference, which is not currently applied in a rejection.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0330616 A1: This reference teaches a cathode active material with an “oxygen-loss” shell material (paragraph [0007]).
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.
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, 3-4, 6, 9, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren, et al. (CN447256457 A1, provided in the IDS, and with reference made to the provided machine translation), in view of Sanad, et al. (Surfaces and Interfaces 24 (2021) 101550).
In reference to Claim 1, Ren teaches a positive electrode material (Fig. 1, with details given in Example 1, pages 4-5 of the provided machine translation).
The positive electrode material of Ren comprises a core containing a lithium-rich manganese-based positive electrode material (i.e. Li1.2Mn0.52Ni0.13Co0.13O2, Example 1, page 4 of the provided machine translation).
The positive electrode material of Ren comprises a coating layer enveloping outer surface of the core and comprising a composite material of a transition metal oxoacid salt (i.e. lithium niobate) and carbon (Example 1, page 4 of the provided machine translation).
Ren teaches that the transition metal in the transition metal oxoacid salt is Nb (Example 1, page 4 of the provided machine translation).
Fig. 1 of Ren teaches that the composite material has a mesh structure (i.e. a three-dimensional carbon grid, paragraph 4, page 2 of the provided machine translation).
Ren is silent regarding the oxygen vacancies of the lithium niobate of his invention. Therefore he does not teach that the transition metal oxoacid salt (i.e. lithium niobate) satisfies the XPS conditions recited in Claim 1.
To solve the same problem of providing lithium niobate for use in a lithium ion battery, Sanad teaches a lithium niobate electrode material that is chemically treated to introduce oxygen vacancies (section 2.1, page 2).
Sanad further teaches that this introduction of oxygen vacancies improves Li ion transport through the lithium niobate material (Conclusion section, page 9) and improves the conductivity of the lithium niobate (section 3.5, column 1, page 6).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed oxygen vacancies in the lithium niobate material of Ren, as taught by Sanad, in order to achieve the taught benefit of improving Li transport and conductivity of the lithium niobate.
Forming oxygen vacancies in the lithium niobate material of Ren, as taught by Sanad, teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the transition metal oxoacid salt contains oxygen vacancies.
Sanad further teaches that the method of his invention produces a structure with an XPS peak intensity corresponding to an oxygen vacancy of (which Sanad reports is at 530.5 eV, Table 2) of ~9750 and an XPS peak intensity corresponding to lattice oxygen (which Sanad reports is at 529.97 eV, Table 2) of ~10250.
Therefore, Sanad teaches that the XPS peak ratio of the peak corresponding to the oxygen vacancy in the lithium niobate to the peak corresponding to the lattice oxygen is ~0.95.
Therefore, it appears that forming oxygen vacancies in the lithium niobate material of Ren, as taught by Sanad, teaches the structural limitations required by Claim 1, i.e. that a peak intensity ratio of I022-/102- is 0.5 to 1.2, where I022- represents a peak intensity value of oxygen vacancy at 531 eV in an X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) test, and I02- represents a peak intensity value of lattice oxygen at 529eV in the X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) test.
If this is not found to be the case, then it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have optimized the amount of oxygen vacancies in the lithium niobate material of modified Ren, as follows.
Sanad teaches that introducing oxygen vacancies into lithium niobate material improves Li ion transport through the lithium niobate material (Conclusion section, page 9) and improves the conductivity of the lithium niobate (section 3.5, column 1, page 6). Sanad further teaches that the introduction of the oxygen vacancies into the lithium niobate further alters the lattice parameters of the lithium niobate (column 2, page 4).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have been motivated to have balanced the amount of oxygen vacancies in the material while considering the crystal structure, lithium ion transport, and conductivity of the material, all of which factors are taught by Sanad to depend on the oxygen vacancy concentration.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at a structure meeting the limitations of Claims 1 and 21, without undue experimentation.
In reference to Claims 3 and 20, Ren teaches that the transition metal oxoacid salt is a Li salt, i.e. lithium niobate.
In reference to Claim 4, Ren teaches that a molecular formula of the lithium-rich manganese-based positive electrode material is xLi2MnO3*(1-x)LiNiyCozMnaM1-y-z-aOrA2-r, wherein 0 < x < 1, 0 ≤ y ≤ 1, 0 ≤ z ≤ 1, 0 ≤ a ≤ 1, 0 ≤ r ≤ 2, and 0 < y+z+a ≤ 1 (i.e. xLi2MnO3*(1-x)LiMO2, paragraph 5, page 2).
In the specific material of Ren, Example 1, he teaches that the material is Li1.2Mn0.52Ni0.13Co0.13O2, which corresponds to xLi2MnO3*(1-x)LiNiyCozMnaM1-y-z-aOrA2-r, in which r is 2 and 1 = y + z + a.
In reference to Claim 6, modified Ren is silent regarding the powder resistivity of the material of his invention. Therefore, he does not explicitly teach the limitations of Claim 6.
However, it is the Examiner’s position that, because modified Ren teaches the structural limitations of Claim 6, there is reasonable basis to conclude that the properties of the positive electrode material meet the limitations of Claim 6.
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
In reference to Claim 9, Ren teaches a secondary battery, comprising the positive electrode material according to claim 1 (Ren, Example 1, paragraphs 1-2, page 5 of the provided machine translation).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren, et al. (CN447256457 A1, provided in the IDS, and with reference made to the provided machine translation), in view of Sanad, et al. (Surfaces and Interfaces 24 (2021) 101550), and further in view of Tenzer, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0155547 A1).
In reference to Claim 2, modified Ren as applied to Claim 1 does not teach that the transition metal in the transition metal oxoacid salt is selected from at least one of Ti, Mo, W, or V.
To solve the same problem of providing a lithium battery Tenzer teaches that lithium titanate comprising oxygen vacancies is a material suitable for incorporation into a cathode in a lithium ion battery, and has good electrical and ionic conductivity (paragraphs [0013] and [0016]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have used the lithium titanate material comprising oxygen vacancies taught by Tenzer in the cathode of modified Ren, because Tenzer teaches that lithium titanate comprising oxygen vacancies is a material suitable for incorporation into a cathode in a lithium ion battery, and has good electrical and ionic conductivity (paragraphs [0013] and [0016]).
Using the lithium titanate material comprising oxygen vacancies taught by Tenzer in the cathode of modified Ren teaches the limitations of Claim 2, wherein the transition metal in the transition metal oxoacid salt is Ti.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren, et al. (CN447256457 A1, provided in the IDS, and with reference made to the provided machine translation), in view of Sanad, et al. (Surfaces and Interfaces 24 (2021) 101550), and further in view of Sakai, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0218358 A1).
In reference to Claim 7, modified Ren does not explicitly teach the limitations of Claim 7.
To solve the same problem of providing a lithium-rich cathode material, Sakai teaches that a suitable form for a lithium-rich cathode material includes secondary particles (paragraph [0063]) with a D50 of 3-10 microns (paragraph [0064]).
Sakai teaches that secondary particles with this average diameter range provide the benefit of high discharge capacity (paragraph [0064]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the positive active material of modified Ren to be secondary particles with a D50 of 3-10 microns, based on the disclosure of Sakai.
Forming the positive active material of modified Ren to be secondary particles with a D50 of 3-10 microns, as taught by Sakai, teaches the limitations of Claim 7, wherein a particle type of the positive electrode material is a secondary particle, and the particle size Dv50 of the particles is between 1-20 microns.
In reference to Claim 8, modified Ren is silent regarding the specific surface area of the positive electrode material. Therefore, he does not teach the limitations of Claim 8.
To solve the same problem of providing a lithium-rich cathode material, Sakai teaches that the specific surface area of such a cathode material should be between 0.5-4 m2/g (paragraph [0064]). He further teaches that cathode active materials within this range have the benefit of improved discharge capacity and good cycle characteristics (paragraph [0064]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the positive electrode material of modified Ren to have a specific surface of 0.5-4 m2/g, based on the disclosed merits of this range, taught by Sakai.
Forming the positive electrode material of modified Ren to have a specific surface of 0.5-4 m2/g, as taught by Sakai, teaches the limitations of Claim 8, wherein a specific surface area of the positive electrode material is less than 2.0 m2/g.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I. In the instant case, the claimed range of “less than 2.0 m2/g” overlaps with the taught range of 0.5-4 m2/g.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren, et al. (CN447256457 A1, provided in the IDS, and with reference made to the provided machine translation), in view of Sanad, et al. (Surfaces and Interfaces 24 (2021) 101550), and further in view of Takami, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0083279 A1).
In reference to Claim 10, modified Ren does not explicitly teach the battery module of Claim 10.
To solve the same problem of providing a cathode material comprising lithium-rich manganese composite oxide (Takami, paragraph [0033]), Takami teaches that batteries including lithium-rich manganese composite oxide cathode active materials (like those of modified Ren) can be suitably incorporated into a battery module, which is then incorporated into a battery pack (Fig. 7, paragraphs [0118]-[0121]).
Takami teaches that this modification provides the benefit of suppressing over-charging and over-discharging of each battery, and enhancing the life cycle performance (paragraph [0121]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have incorporated the battery of modified Ren into the module of Takami, to achieve the benefits of this arrangement, taught by Takami.
Incorporating the battery of Ren into a battery module like that of Takami teaches the limitations of Claim 10, of a battery module comprising the secondary battery according to claim 9.
Incorporating the module of modified Ren into a battery pack like that of Takami teaches the limitations of Claim 11, of a battery pack comprising he battery module according to claim 10.
In reference to Claim 12, modified Ren as applied to Claim 9 does not teach that the secondary battery is necessarily incorporated into an electric apparatus.
To solve the same problem of providing a cathode material comprising lithium-rich manganese composite oxide (Takami, paragraph [0033]), Takami teaches that batteries including lithium-rich manganese composite oxide cathode active materials (like those of modified Ren) can be suitably incorporated into a battery module, which is then incorporated into a battery pack (Fig. 7, paragraphs [0118]-[0121]), which can b suitable be incorporated into an electric vehicle (paragraph [0143]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have incorporated the battery of modified Ren into the module into a battery module, a battery pack, and an electric vehicle to achieve the benefits of using the battery to power an electric vehicle, as taught by Takami.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6am-2:30pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke, can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights