DETAILED ACTION
This is the final office action for 18/472,030, filed 9/21/2023, which is a continuation of PCT/CN2022/099191, filed 6/16/2022.
Claims 1-4, 6-14, 16-17, 19-23 are pending; Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 20-23 are considered herein.
In light of the claim amendments filed 9/3/2026, the rejections of record are withdrawn, and new grounds of rejection are presented.
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 .
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 2020/0259208 A1: This reference teaches core-shell active materials with ion conductive lithium tungstate coating layers (paragraph [0090]).
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 1-4, 6-7, 9, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan, et al. (Chemical Engineering Journal 439 (2022) 135677), in view of Ren, et al. (CN447256457 A1, provided in the IDS, and with reference made to the provided machine translation), and Bao, et al. (Journal of Energy Chemistry 66 (2022) 123-132).
In reference to Claims 1 and 21, Yuan teaches a positive electrode material (Scheme 1, with details given in section 2.1, pages 2-3).
The positive electrode material of Yuan comprises a core containing a lithium-rich manganese-based positive electrode material (i.e. Li1.2Ni0.13Co0.13Mn0.54O2, Scheme 1).
The positive electrode material of Yuan comprises a coating layer enveloping outer surface of the core and comprising a transition metal oxoacid salt (i.e. LiWO4, Scheme 1).
Yuan does not teach that the coating layer is a composite layer that further comprises carbon.
To solve the same problem of providing a lithium-rich manganese-based positive electrode material core-shell material active material for a positive electrode for a lithium battery, Ren teaches a positive electrode material comprising 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) and 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).
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 further teaches that incorporating both a transition metal oxoacid salt and a carbon mesh provides the benefit that the oxoacid salt is uniformly loaded within the carbon mesh to form a homogeneous coating (paragraph 4, page 2 of the provided machine translation).
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 modified the material of Yuan to include a carbon mesh material in the LiWO4 coating layer, based on Ren’s disclosure of the benefits of this material.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the coating layer comprises a composite material of a transition metal oxoacid salt (i.e. LiWO4) and carbon, wherein the composite material has a mesh structure.
Yuan teaches that the transition metal in the oxoacid salt is W.
Yuan is silent regarding the oxygen vacancies of the LiWO4 of his invention. Therefore, he does not teach that the transition metal oxoacid salt (i.e. LiWO4) satisfies the XPS conditions recited in Claim 1.
However, he recognizes that the materials of his invention comprise oxygen vacancies (see Fig. 7), and that the materials of his invention are designed to optimize lattice oxygen activity (paragraph 1, column 2, page 9).
To solve the same problem of providing a lithium-rich layered oxide cathode material for a lithium battery, Bao teaches that pre-generating oxygen vacancies in the surface of a lithium rich layered manganese oxide cathode material inhibits the loss of oxygen atoms from the active material (column 1, paragraph 3, page 124).
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 LiWO4 material of Yuan, based on Bao’s disclosure that pre-generating oxygen vacancies in the surface of a lithium rich layered manganese oxide cathode material inhibits the loss of oxygen atoms from the active material (column 1, paragraph 3, page 124), particularly given Yuan’s disclosure that the materials of his invention are designed to optimize lattice oxygen activity (paragraph 1, column 2, page 9).
It is further 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 optimize the amount of oxygen vacancies in the LiWO4 material of Yuan, in order to balance the oxygen activity of the active material, while maintaining the structural stability of the material (which is a feature valued by Yuan, paragraph 1, column 2, page 9).
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 Claim 2, Yuan teaches that the transition metal in the transition metal oxoacid salt is W.
In reference to Claims 3 and 20, Yuan teaches that the transition metal oxoacid salt is a Li salt, i.e. LiWO4.
In reference to Claim 4, Yuan teaches that the material of his invention has the composition of Li1.2Ni0.13Co0.13Mn0.54O2 (Scheme 1), and further comprises a Li2MnO3 phase (column 2, page 4).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 4, wherein the 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. 0 < x < 1, in which r is 2 and 1 = y + z + a).
In reference to Claim 6, modified Yuan 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 Yuan 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 7, Yuan teaches that the particle type of the positive electrode active material is a secondary particle with a diameter of 1-20 microns (Fig. 2). This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 7.
In reference to Claim 9, Yuan teaches a secondary battery, comprising the positive electrode material according to claim 1 (Yuan, section 2.3, page 3).
In reference to Claim 22, Yuan teaches a positive electrode material (Scheme 1, with details given in section 2.1, pages 2-3).
The positive electrode material of Yuan comprises a core containing a lithium-rich manganese-based positive electrode material (i.e. Li1.2Ni0.13Co0.13Mn0.54O2, Scheme 1).
The positive electrode material of Yuan comprises a coating layer enveloping outer surface of the core and comprising a transition metal oxoacid salt (i.e. LiWO4, Scheme 1).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 22, wherein, when the transition metal in the transition metal oxoacid salt is W, the transition metal oxoacid salt comprises Li.
Yuan does not teach that the coating layer is a composite layer that further comprises carbon.
To solve the same problem of providing a lithium-rich manganese-based positive electrode material core-shell material active material for a positive electrode for a lithium battery, Ren teaches a positive electrode material comprising 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) and 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).
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 further teaches that incorporating both a transition metal oxoacid salt and a carbon mesh provides the benefit that the oxoacid salt is uniformly loaded within the carbon mesh to form a homogeneous coating (paragraph 4, page 2 of the provided machine translation).
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 modified the material of Yuan to include a carbon mesh material in the LiWO4 coating layer, based on Ren’s disclosure of the benefits of this material.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 22, wherein the coating layer comprises a composite material of a transition metal oxoacid salt (i.e. LiWO4) and carbon, wherein the composite material has a mesh structure.
Yuan is silent regarding the oxygen vacancies of the LiWO4 of his invention. Therefore, he does not teach that the transition metal oxoacid salt (i.e. LiWO4) satisfies the XPS conditions recited in Claim 22.
However, he recognizes that the materials of his invention comprise oxygen vacancies (see Fig. 7), and that the materials of his invention are designed to optimize lattice oxygen activity (paragraph 1, column 2, page 9).
To solve the same problem of providing a lithium-rich layered oxide cathode material for a lithium battery, Bao teaches that pre-generating oxygen vacancies in the surface of a lithium rich layered manganese oxide cathode material inhibits the loss of oxygen atoms from the active material (column 1, paragraph 3, page 124).
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 LiWO4 material of Yuan, based on Bao’s disclosure that pre-generating oxygen vacancies in the surface of a lithium rich layered manganese oxide cathode material inhibits the loss of oxygen atoms from the active material (column 1, paragraph 3, page 124), particularly given Yuan’s disclosure that the materials of his invention are designed to optimize lattice oxygen activity (paragraph 1, column 2, page 9).
It is further 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 optimize the amount of oxygen vacancies in the LiWO4 material of Yuan, in order to balance the oxygen activity of the active material, while maintaining the structural stability of the material (which is a feature valued by Yuan, paragraph 1, column 2, page 9).
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 Claim 22, without undue experimentation.
In reference to Claim 23, Yuan teaches a positive electrode material (Scheme 1, with details given in section 2.1, pages 2-3).
The positive electrode material of Yuan comprises a core containing a lithium-rich manganese-based positive electrode material (i.e. Li1.2Ni0.13Co0.13Mn0.54O2, Scheme 1).
The positive electrode material of Yuan comprises a coating layer enveloping outer surface of the core and comprising a transition metal oxoacid salt (i.e. LiWO4, Scheme 1).
Yuan does not teach that the coating layer is a composite layer that further comprises carbon.
To solve the same problem of providing a lithium-rich manganese-based positive electrode material core-shell material active material for a positive electrode for a lithium battery, Ren teaches a positive electrode material comprising 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) and 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).
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 further teaches that incorporating both a transition metal oxoacid salt and a carbon mesh provides the benefit that the oxoacid salt is uniformly loaded within the carbon mesh to form a homogeneous coating (paragraph 4, page 2 of the provided machine translation).
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 modified the material of Yuan to include a carbon mesh material in the LiWO4 coating layer, based on Ren’s disclosure of the benefits of this material.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 23, wherein the coating layer comprises a composite material of a transition metal oxoacid salt (i.e. LiWO4) and carbon, wherein the composite material has a mesh structure.
Yuan teaches that the transition metal in the oxoacid salt is W.
Yuan is silent regarding the oxygen vacancies of the LiWO4 of his invention. Therefore, he does not teach that the transition metal oxoacid salt (i.e. LiWO4) satisfies the XPS conditions recited in Claim 23.
However, he recognizes that the materials of his invention comprise oxygen vacancies (see Fig. 7), and that the materials of his invention are designed to optimize lattice oxygen activity (paragraph 1, column 2, page 9).
To solve the same problem of providing a lithium-rich layered oxide cathode material for a lithium battery, Bao teaches that pre-generating oxygen vacancies in the surface of a lithium rich layered manganese oxide cathode material inhibits the loss of oxygen atoms from the active material (column 1, paragraph 3, page 124).
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 LiWO4 material of Yuan, based on Bao’s disclosure that pre-generating oxygen vacancies in the surface of a lithium rich layered manganese oxide cathode material inhibits the loss of oxygen atoms from the active material (column 1, paragraph 3, page 124), particularly given Yuan’s disclosure that the materials of his invention are designed to optimize lattice oxygen activity (paragraph 1, column 2, page 9).
It is further 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 optimize the amount of oxygen vacancies in the LiWO4 material of Yuan, in order to balance the oxygen activity of the active material, while maintaining the structural stability of the material (which is a feature valued by Yuan, paragraph 1, column 2, page 9).
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 Claim 23, without undue experimentation.
Yuan teaches that the material of his invention has the composition of Li1.2Ni0.13Co0.13Mn0.54O2 (Scheme 1), and further comprises a Li2MnO3 phase (column 2, page 4).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 23, wherein the 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. 0 < x < 1, in which r is 2 and 1 = y + z + a).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan, et al. (Chemical Engineering Journal 439 (2022) 135677), in view of Ren, et al. (CN447256457 A1, provided in the IDS, and with reference made to the provided machine translation), and Bao, et al. (Journal of Energy Chemistry 66 (2022) 123-132), and further in view of Sakai, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0218358 A1).
In reference to Claim 8, modified Yuan 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 Yuan 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 Yuan 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 Yuan, et al. (Chemical Engineering Journal 439 (2022) 135677), in view of Ren, et al. (CN447256457 A1, provided in the IDS, and with reference made to the provided machine translation), and Bao, et al. (Journal of Energy Chemistry 66 (2022) 123-132), and further in view of Takami, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0083279 A1).
In reference to Claim 10, modified Yuan 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 Yuan) 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 Yuan into the module of Takami, to achieve the benefits of this arrangement, taught by Takami.
Incorporating the battery of Yuan 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 Yuan 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 Yuan 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 Yuan) can be suitably incorporated into a battery module, which is then incorporated into a battery pack (Fig. 7, paragraphs [0118]-[0121]), which can suitably 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 Yuan 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.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of record presented in the non-final office action have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of modified Yuan.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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