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
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1 - 18, drawn to a lithium battery, classified in H01M4/366.
II. Claims 19-20, drawn to a method of preparing a composite cathode active material, classified in H01M2004/028.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the product of invention I includes a lithium fluoride compound, wherein process of making requires LiPF6, and requires a milling process for the metal oxide, composite, and LiPF6 which is not found in the product of invention I. This indicates the process can be used to make another and materially different product, in that it may comprise a different lithium fluoride compound, and the product can be made by another and materially different process, as milling is not required for the product.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
There is a serious search and/or examination burden because of the two inventions require a different field of search. Invention II requires terms like mechanical, milling, and LiPF6, which are not required for the search for Invention I.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Katherine Quigley on 07/06/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-18. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-9,11, 14-15, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son, et. al. (EP 3923379 A1), in view of Yushin, et. al. (US2020235420A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 teaches a composite cathode active material (“[0001] a cathode including the composite cathode active material”) comprising: a core comprising a lithium transition metal oxide (“[0011] One or more embodiments of the present disclosure provide a composite cathode active material including: a core including a lithium transition metal oxide; and a shell disposed on and conformal to a surface of the core, wherein the shell includes at least one first metal oxide represented by Formula Ma Ob (0<a≤3, 0<b<4, when a is 1, 2, or 3, b is not an integer), and a carbonaceous material, and the first metal oxide is placed in (e.g., disposed within) a matrix of the carbonaceous material, and M is at least one metal selected from Groups 2 to 13, Group 15, and Group 16 of the Periodic Table of Elements”); and a shell on a surface of the core (see [0011]), wherein the shell comprises: a conductive carbon-based composite comprising: a first metal oxide represented by formula MaOb (0<a≤3, 0<b<4, wherein a is 1, 2, or 3, and b is not an integer) (see [0011]), and a carbonaceous material(see [0011]), wherein the first metal oxide is within a matrix of the carbonaceous material(see [0011]), and wherein M is one or more metals selected from among, Group 2 to Group 13, Group 15, and Group 16, of the Periodic Table (see [0011]). Son at [0011].
However, while Son teaches a lithium salt within the electrolyte of its nonaqueous electrolyte, and this lithium salt may comprise a lithium fluoride, Son is silent as to a lithium-fluoride based compound within the shell. Son at [0076].
Yushin teaches a cathode composite having a core-shell structure ([0015]), wherein “[0091] In some designs, the shell may exhibit a gradient in composition or be composed of two or more distinct layers.” Yushin at [0015, 91]. Further, Yushin teaches wherein, “[0145] In some designs, embedding metal fluoride material into a suitable skeleton matrix material or otherwise forming metal fluoride-matrix composites may be advantageous for the formation of fluoride-based cathode materials in terms of improved stability, improved capacity utilization, improved processability and/or improved rate performance in cells, among other benefits.” Id. at [0145]. Further, Yushin elaborates, “[0175] In some designs, the shell material may be deposited onto a composite comprising matrix material and a suitable metal oxide . . .The fluorination reaction may also introduce F into the shell material, in some designs. In some designs, subsequent (e.g., chemical) lithiation may induce formation of M-LiF in the composite. In some designs, the lithiation may also introduce Li into the shell material.” Id. at [0175].
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify the composite cathode active material of Son, such that it comprises a lithium-fluoride based compound within the shell as in Yushin, as this presents a benefit to stability and rate performance.
Claim 1 is obvious over Son, in view of Yushin.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Son.
Yushin teaches the lithium fluoride-based compound in the shell comprises LiF. Yushin at [0145, 175].
Claim 3 is obvious over Son, in view of Yushin.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Son.
Son teaches “[0025] The first metal oxide may be, for example, at least one selected from Al2 Oz (0<z<3), NbOx (0<x<2.5), MgOx (0<x<1), Sc2 Oz (0<z<3), TiOy (0<y<2), ZrOy (0<y<2), V2 Oz (0<z<3), WOy (0<y<2), MnOy (0<y<2), Fe2 Oz (0<z<3), Co3 Ow (0<w<4), PdOx (0<x<1), CuOx (0<x<1), AgOx (0<x<1), ZnOx (0<x<1), Sb2 Oz (0<z<3), and SeOy (0<y<2). Because such a first metal oxide is placed in a carbonaceous material matrix, the uniformity of the shell placed on the core may be improved, and voltage resistance of the composite cathode active material may be further improved.” This meets “wherein a metal in the first metal oxide is one or more selected from among Al, Nb, Mg, Sc, Ti, Zr, V, W, Mn, Fe, Co, Pd, Cu, Ag, Zn, Sb, and Se.”
Claim 6 is obvious over Son, in view of Yushin.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Son.
Son teaches “[0025] The first metal oxide may be, for example, at least one selected from Al2 Oz (0<z<3), NbOx (0<x<2.5), MgOx (0<x<1), Sc2 Oz (0<z<3), TiOy (0<y<2), ZrOy (0<y<2), V2 Oz (0<z<3), WOy (0<y<2), MnOy (0<y<2), Fe2 Oz (0<z<3), Co3 Ow (0<w<4), PdOx (0<x<1), CuOx (0<x<1), AgOx (0<x<1), ZnOx (0<x<1), Sb2 Oz (0<z<3), and SeOy (0<y<2).” This meets “wherein the first metal oxide is one or more selected from among Al2Oz (0<z<3), NbOx (0<x<2. 5), MgOx(0<x<1), Sc2Oz(0<z<3), TiOy(0<y<2), ZrOy(0<y<2), V2Oz(0<z<3), WOy(0<y<2), MnOy(0<y<2), Fe2Oz(0<z<3), Co3Ow(0<w<4), PdOx(0<x<1), CuOx (0<x<1), AgOx (0<x<1), ZnOx (0<x<1), Sb2Oz (0<z<3), and SeOy (0<y<2).”
Claim 7 is obvious over Son, in view of Yushin.
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Son.
Son teaches “[0029] The thickness of the shell may be, for example, about 1 nm to about 5 µm, about 1 nm to about 1 µm, about 1 nm to about 500 nm, about 1 nm to about 200 nm, about 1 nm to about 100 nm, about 1 nm to about 90 nm, about 1 nm to about 80 nm, about 1 nm to about 70 nm, about 1 nm to about 60 nm, about 1 nm to about 50 nm, about 1 nm to about 40 nm, about 1 nm to about 30 nm, about 1 nm to about 20 nm, or about 1 nm to about 10 nm.” This meets “wherein the shell has a thickness of about 1 nm to about 5 μm.”
Claim 8 is obvious over Son, in view of Yushin.
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Son.
Son teaches “[0031] The shell included in the composite cathode active material may include at least one selected from a composite including the first metal oxide and the carbonaceous material (for example, graphene) and a resulting product of milling of the composite, and the first metal oxide may be placed in a matrix of the carbonaceous material (for example, a graphene matrix).” This meets “wherein the carbonaceous material is graphene.”
Claim 9 is obvious over Son, in view of Yushin.
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 relies upon Claim 9. Claim 9 is obvious over modified Son.
Son teaches “[0036] The carbonaceous material included in the composite may be or have a branched structure (e.g., a structure including one or more branching connections), and at least one selected from the first metal oxide and the second metal oxide may be distributed in the branched structure of the carbonaceous material. For example, the branched structure of the graphene includes a plurality of graphene particles contacting each other. Because the graphene has a branched structure, various suitable conductive paths may be provided (e.g., for electron transfer).” Son teaches at [0036]. This teaches “wherein the carbonaceous material has a branched structure, Wherein the first metal oxide is distributed within the branched structure, and wherein the branched structure comprises a plurality of particles of the carbonaceous material in contact with each other.”
Claim 11 is obvious over Son, in view of Yushin.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Son.
Son teaches a composite cathode active material and a cathode containing it; thereby, modified Son teaches a cathode comprising the composite cathode active material according to claim 1. Son at [0001].
Claim 14 is obvious over Son, in view of Yushin.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 relies upon Claim 14. Claim 14 is obvious over modified Son.
Son teaches “[0068] Next, a separator [containing electrolyte] to be inserted between the cathode and the anode is prepared”; thereby, modified Son teaches a lithium battery, comprising: the cathode of claim 14; an anode; and an electrolyte between the cathode and the anode. Son at [0068].
Claim 15 is obvious over Son, in view of Yushin.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 relies upon Claim 15. Claim 15 is obvious over modified Son.
Son teaches the electrolyte comprises a liquid electrolyte or a solid electrolyte. Son at [0074, 77].
Claim 17 is obvious over Son, in view of Yushin.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 relies upon Claim 17. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Son.
Son teaches the electrolyte comprises a liquid electrolyte or a solid electrolyte. Son at [0074, 77]. Son teaches “[0077] In some embodiments, the electrolyte may be a solid electrolyte. The solid electrolyte may be or include, for example, boron oxide or lithium oxynitride, but is not limited thereto. Any suitable solid electrolyte in the art may be utilized. The solid electrolyte may be formed on the anode by a method such as sputtering, or a separate solid electrolyte sheet may be laminated on the anode.” This meets “wherein the electrolyte comprises the solid electrolyte and/or the gel electrolyte, and wherein the solid electrolyte is an oxide-based solid electrolyte, a sulfide-based solid electrolyte, a polymer solid electrolyte or a combination thereof.”
Claim 18 is obvious over Son, in view of Yushin.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son, in view of Yushin, as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Paulsen, et. al. (US2012261610A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Son.
Modified Son is silent as to an amount of the lithium fluoride-based compound in the shell is 3 wt% or less based on 100 wt% of the composite cathode active material.
Paulsen teaches a LiF coating for a core-shell cathode material, wherein “[0026] Viewed from a second aspect, the invention can provide a process for covering a lithium transition metal (M) oxide powder with a LiF coating. [0034] In an example process embodiment, the amount of fluorine-containing polymer in the powder-polymer mixture is between 0.1 and 2 wt %. In another embodiment it is between 0.2 and 0.5 wt %. In another example embodiment the LiF film has a thickness of at least 0.5 nm, or at least 0.8 nm, and even at least 1 nm.” Paulsen teaches a LiF layer within this range may protect the lithium of the particle against reaction with carbon to form Li2CO3. This presents an overlapping range with “3 wt% or less.”
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to modify the LiF content of the shell of modified Son, such that an amount of the lithium fluoride based compound is 0.1 – 2 wt%, because Paulsen teaches such a range contributes to protecting the lithium of the particle against reaction with carbon to form Li2CO3, and because an overlapping range presents a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claim 2 is obvious over Son, in view of Yushin, further in view of Paulsen.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Son.
Son teaches the shell comprises the lithium fluoride-based compound or a milling product of the conductive carbon-based composite and the lithium fluoride-based compound, but Son is silent as to “an amount of the conductive carbon-based composite and the lithium fluoride-based compound or the milling product of the conductive carbon-based composite and the lithium fluoride-based compound is 3 wt% or less by weight with respect to a total weight of the composite cathode active material.”
Paulsen teaches a LiF coating for a core-shell cathode material, wherein “[0026] Viewed from a second aspect, the invention can provide a process for covering a lithium transition metal (M) oxide powder with a LiF coating. [0034] In an example process embodiment, the amount of fluorine-containing polymer in the powder-polymer mixture is between 0.1 and 2 wt %. In another embodiment it is between 0.2 and 0.5 wt %. In another example embodiment the LiF film has a thickness of at least 0.5 nm, or at least 0.8 nm, and even at least 1 nm.” Paulsen teaches a LiF layer within this range may protect the lithium of the particle against reaction with carbon to form Li2CO3. This presents an overlapping range with “3 wt% or less.”
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to modify the LiF content of the shell of modified Son, such that n amount of the conductive carbon-based composite and the lithium fluoride-based compound or the milling product of the conductive carbon-based composite and the lithium fluoride-based compound is 3 wt% or less by weight with respect to a total weight of the composite cathode active material, because Paulsen teaches such a range contributes to protecting the lithium of the particle against reaction with carbon to form Li2CO3, and because an overlapping range presents a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claim 10 is obvious over Son, in view of Yushin, further in view of Paulsen.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 relies upon Claim 10. Claim 10 is obvious over modified Son.
Son teaches “[0037] The carbonaceous material included in the composite may be or have a spherical structure, and at least one selected from the first metal oxide and the second metal oxide may be distributed in (e.g., throughout) the spherical structure. The spherical structure of the carbonaceous material may have a size of about 50 nm to 300 nm. A plurality of carbonaceous materials having a spherical structure may be provided. Since the carbonaceous material has a spherical structure, the composite may have a robust structure. For example, the carbonaceous material included in the composite may be or include a graphene. For example, the spherical structure of the graphene may have a size of about 50 nm to 300 nm. A plurality of graphenes (e.g., graphene particles) having a spherical structure may be provided. Because the graphene has a spherical structure, the composite structure may have a robust structure (e.g., may be physically stable).” Further, Son teaches “[0040] The composite may be or have a crumpled faceted-ball structure (e.g., a generally spherical or ball-like structure with a plurality of flat and/or crumpled faces or surfaces), and at least one selected from the first metal oxide and the second metal oxide may be distributed inside the structure and/or on the surface of the structure. Because the composite is such a faceted-ball structure, the composite may be easily applied on the irregular surface irregularities of the core. [0041] The composite may be or have a planar structure, and at least one selected from the first metal oxide and the second metal oxide may be distributed inside the structure and/or on the surface of the structure. Because the composite has a two-dimensional planar structure, the composite may be easily applied on the irregular surface irregularities of the core. [0042] The carbonaceous material included in the composite may extend from the first metal oxide by (over) a distance of 10 nm or less, and may include at least 1 to 20 carbonaceous material layers. For example, since a plurality of carbonaceous material layers are laminated, carbonaceous material having a total thickness of 12 nm or less may be placed on the first metal oxide. For example, the total thickness of the carbonaceous material may be about 0.6 nm to about 12 nm. The carbonaceous material included in the composite may be or include a graphene. For example, because a plurality of graphene layers are laminated, graphene having a total thickness of 12 nm or less may be placed on the first metal oxide. For example, the total thickness of the graphene may be about 0.6 nm to about 12 nm.” This meets “the carbonaceous material has one or more structures selected from among one or more spherical structures, a spiral structure in which the spherical structures are connected, and a cluster structure in which the spherical structures are aggregated, wherein the first metal oxide is distributed within the spherical structure and the spherical structure has a size of about 50 nm to about 300 nm, wherein the spiral structure has a size of about 500 nm to about 100 μm, wherein the cluster structure has a size of about 0.5 mm to about 10 cm, wherein the conductive carbon-based composite has structure comprising a crumpled faceted-ball structure or a planar structure, and wherein one or more selected from among the first metal oxide and a second metal oxide is distributed within or on a surface of the structure, wherein the carbonaceous material extends a distance of 10 nm or less from the first metal oxide and comprises at least 1 to 20 layers of the carbonaceous material, and wherein the carbonaceous material has a total thickness of about 0.6 nm to about 12 nm.”
Claim 12 is obvious over Son, in view of Yushin, further in view of Paulsen.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son, in view of Yushin, as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Zha, et. al. (CN109599551A).
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Son.
Son is silent as to an amount of a first metal in the shell is 1 at% to 10 at% with respect to a total number of atoms in the shell, an amount of oxygen in the shell is 1 at% to 20 at% with respect to the total number of atoms in the shell, an amount of nitrogen in the shell is 1 at% to 12 at% with respect to the total number of atoms in the shell, and an amount of boron in the shell is greater than 0 at% and at most 5 at% relative to the total number of atoms in the shell.
Zha teaches “[p.3] [t]he object of the present invention is to provide a technical short plate for the first time that a silicon-based negative electrode material is used in a lithium ion battery, such as low efficiency, low rate performance, short cycle life, etc., and provides a doping type for a lithium ion battery . . the multilayer composite film is a carbon film layer And a doped composite film layer composed of a carbon film layer and other element components; the doping element is selected from the group consisting of N, S, P, B, Mg, Al, Cu, Mn, Ca, Zn Or a plurality of metal doping elements are present in the outer shell film layer . . . the doping amount of the element in the doped composite film layer is between 0.01-5%.” Zha at [p.3]. Zha further confirms that the “doping metal element may be “one or a combination of” this list, and that the precursor Zha teaches that this is, strictly speaking, a wt % range. A wt% range differs slightly from that of an atomic% range, because of the differing weights of the relative molecules to the total weight. However, Zha teaches heteroatom doping may be utilized to respond to the low energy density and cycle retention of the base material; further, these dopant values are expressed in part as a ratio. This indicates Zha is directly teaching a ratio of 0.01 – 5% doping elements to the overall carbon film material; despite minor variance between weight and atomic%, this ratio at least suggests, for example, 1 at% of Nitrogen, Boron, and a first metal dopant such as Cu or Mn. Further, “4.In order to further alleviate the volume expansion effect of the conventional silicon oxide material while effectively improving the first coulombic efficiency of the obtained material, the present invention is doped with a large amount of lithium atoms on the basis of constructing the multi-layered core-shell structure. . . the formation of lithium silicate or lithium oxide and other compounds greatly reduces the irreversible loss of lithium ions during the first charge and discharge of the obtained material, and effectively improves the first coulombic efficiency of the material in the lithium ion battery.” For this reason, the relative ratio of dopants (N, B, metal such as Cu or Mn) and oxygen (for the purposes of Li oxide formation) act as a result effective variable that would have been obvious to modify from a weight ratio as taught by Zha to a corresponding atomic ratio which meets the claimed atomic% range as claimed.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify the shell material of modified Son, such that an amount of a first metal in the shell is 1 at% to 10 at% with respect to a total number of atoms in the shell, an amount of oxygen in the shell is 1 at% to 20 at% with respect to the total number of atoms in the shell, an amount of nitrogen in the shell is 1 at% to 12 at% with respect to the total number of atoms in the shell, and an amount of boron in the shell is greater than 0 at% and at most 5 at% relative to the total number of atoms in the shell, because Zha teaches the relative concentration of dopant and oxygen within the carbonaceous shell for an active material is a result effective variable for cycle retention and columbic efficiency respectively, and therefore it would have been obvious to arrive at the claimed range as a matter of routine optimization.
Claim 4 is obvious over Son, in view of Yushin, and further in view of Zha.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son, in view of Yushin, as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Obravac, et. al. (US2018183061A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Son.
Son is silent as to the atomic percent of carbon in the shell.
Obavac teaches that “[0028] high performance graphites [graphites are carbon materials]” are “are dense, have high gravimetric (˜350 mAh/g) and volumetric (˜720 Ah/L) capacities, low average voltage (˜125 mV vs Li/Li+), low surface area, good rate capability, and pack well during electrode calendering. However, high temperature processing adds to the cost of such artificial graphites.” Obravac teaches a method of forming graphite based shells for electrode materials, such that these performance materials feature “[0071] graphite is present in the graphitic carbon material in an amount of greater than 80 atomic%.”
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify the shell material of modified Son, such that wherein an amount of carbon in the shell is 80 at% to 99 at% relative to a total number of atoms in the shell, because Obravac teaches a benefit to rate capability.
Claim 5 is obvious over Son, in view of Yushin, and further in view of Obravac.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son, in view of Yushin, as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Shen, et. al. (US 20180323421 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Son.
Son is silent as to a lithium transition metal oxide represented by Formula 1 to Formula 5:
Formula 1
LiaNixCoyMzO2-bAb wherein, in Formula 1, 1.0≤a≤1.2, 0≤b≤0.2, 0.8≤x<1, 0<y≤0.3, 0<z≤0.3, 0≤b<2, and x+y+z=1, M is manganese (Mn), niobium (Nb), vanadium (V), magnesium (Mg), gallium (Ga), silicon (Si), tungsten (W), molybdenum (Mo), iron (Fe), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), titanium (Ti), aluminum (Al), or a combination thereof, and A is F, S, Cl, Br, or a combination thereof,
Formula 2
LiNixCoyMnzO2
Formula 3
LiNixCoyAlzO2
wherein, in Formula 2 to Formula 3, 0.8≤x≤0.95, 0<y≤0.2, 0<z≤0.2, and x+y+z=1, Formula 4
LiNixCoyMnvAlwO2
wherein, in Formula 4, 0.8≤x≤0.95, 0<y≤0.2, 0<v≤0.2, 0<w≤0.2, and x+y+v+w=1, Formula 5
LiaCoxMyO2-bAb
wherein, in Formula 5, 1.0≤a≤1.2, 0≤b≤0.2, 0.9≤x≤1, 0≤y≤0.1, and x+y=1, M is manganese (Mn), niobium (Nb), vanadium (V), magnesium (Mg), gallium (Ga), silicon (Si), tungsten (W), molybdenum (Mo), iron (Fe), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), titanium (Ti), aluminum (Al), or a combination thereof, and A is F, S, Cl, Br, or a combination thereof.
Shen teaches “[0101] In some embodiments, the cathode material comprises or is a core-shell composite comprising a core comprising a lithium transition metal oxide and a shell formed by coating the surface of the core with a transition metal oxide. In certain embodiments, the lithium transition metal oxide is selected from the group consisting of LiCoO2 , LiNiO2 , LiNix Mny O2 , Li1+z Nix Mny Co1-x-y O2 , LiNix Coy Alz O2 , LiV2 O5 , LiTiS2 , LiMoS2 , LiMnO2 , LiCrO2 , LiMn2 O4 , LiFeO2 , LiFePO4 , and combinations thereof, wherein each x is independently from 0.3 to 0.8, from 0.5 to 0.8, from 0.6 to 0.8, or from 0.7 to 0.8; each y is independently from 0.1 to 0.5, from 0.1 to 0.45, from 0.1 to 0.4, from 0.1 to 0.3, from 0.1 to 0.2, or from 0.2 to 0.4; and each z is independently from 0 to 0.2. In some embodiments, the transition metal oxide is selected from the group consisting of Fe2 O3 , MnO2 , Al2 O3 , MgO, ZnO, TiO2 , La2 O3 , CeO2 , SnO2 , ZrO2 , RuO2 , and combinations thereof.” Shen describes its method as “[0010] simple, inexpensive, and environmentally friendly.” Son at [0101]. The formula LiNix Coy Alz O2, x = 0.3 – 0.8, y = 0.1-0.45, z = 0 – 0.2, discloses materials which meet the claimed formula 3, such as LiNi0.8Co0.1Al0.1, because 0.8+0.1+0.1 = 1.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify Son to comprise the lithium transition metal oxide of Shen, such that it comprises LiNi0.8Co0.1Al0.1, which meets Formula 3, because Shen teaches a benefit to inexpensive and environmentally friendly design.
Claim 13 is obvious over Son, in view of Yushin, further in view of Shen.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son, in view of Yushin, as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Mikhaylik, et. al. (US2012070746A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 relies upon Claim 15. Claim 15 is obvious over modified Son.
Son teaches the cathode comprises a cathode current collector and the anode comprises an anode current collector, but is silent as to “wherein at least one of the cathode current collector or anode current collector comprises a base film and a metal layer on at least one side of the base film, wherein the base film comprises a polymer, wherein the polymer comprises polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polyimide (PI), or a combination thereof, and wherein the metal layer comprises indium (In), copper (Cu), magnesium (Mg), stainless steel, titanium (Ti), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), zinc (Zn), aluminum (Al), germanium (Ge), lithium (Li), or an alloy thereof.”
Mikhaylik teaches “[0113] The electrodes and cells described herein may further comprise a substrate, as is known in the art, on or adjacent the surface of a base electrode material layer opposite that of a multi-layer structure (if present). Substrates are useful as a support on which to deposit the base electrode material, and may provide additional stability for handling of thin (e.g., lithium) film anodes during cell fabrication. Further, in the case of conductive substrates, a substrate may also function as a current collector useful in efficiently collecting the electrical current generated throughout the anode and in providing an efficient surface for attachment of electrical contacts leading to an external circuit. A wide range of substrates are known in the art of electrodes. Suitable substrates include, but are not limited to, those selected from the group consisting of metal foils, polymer films, metallized polymer films, electrically conductive polymer films, polymer films having an electrically conductive coating, electrically conductive polymer films having an electrically conductive metal coating, and polymer films having conductive particles dispersed therein. In one embodiment, the substrate is a metallized polymer film. In other embodiments, the substrate may be selected from non-electrically-conductive materials.” Mikhaylik further elaborates “[0060] An anode, such as that shown in FIG. 2 and in other embodiments described herein, may include a single-ion conductive material layer 150 as part of a multi-layered structure 122 . In some embodiments, the single-ion conductive material is non-polymeric. In certain embodiments, the single-ion conductive material layer is defined in part or in whole by a metal layer that is highly conductive toward lithium and minimally conductive toward electrons. In other words, the single-ion conductive material may be one selected to allow lithium ions, but to impede electrons or other ions, from passing across the layer. The metal layer may comprise a metal alloy layer, e.g., a lithiated metal layer especially in the case where a lithium anode is employed. The lithium content of the metal alloy layer may vary from about 0.5% by weight to about 20% by weight, depending, for example, on the specific choice of metal, the desired lithium ion conductivity, and the desired flexibility of the metal alloy layer. Suitable metals for use in the single-ion conductive material include, but are not limited to, Al, Zn, Mg, Ag, Pb, Cd, Bi, Ga, In, Ge, Sb, As, and Sn. Sometimes, a combination of metals, such as the ones listed above, may be used in a single-ion conductive material.” Finally, a known polymer layer is presented as “[0175] In some embodiments, a primer layer described herein (e.g., as part of a multi-layered primer assembly or a single-layer primer) comprises hydroxyl functional groups. Hydroxyl groups may provide good adhesion to a conductive support such as an aluminum foil and/or an aluminized polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film.” Put together, this meets the claim terms of Claim 16, because this presents, for example, a multilayer electrode structure including the active material layer, an aluminum layer as the conductive layer, upon a PET film as a substrate. Id. at [0175].
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify Son, to comprise the substrate structure of “wherein at least one of the cathode current collector or anode current collector comprises a base film and a metal layer on at least one side of the base film, wherein the base film comprises a polymer, wherein the polymer comprises polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and wherein the metal layer comprises aluminum (Al).”
Claim 10 is obvious over Son, in view of Yushin, further in view of Mikhaylik.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Park, et. al. (KR20160032776A), discloses “[0026] The anode 2 is made of a porous carbon material. This anode 2 provides a place where the oxidation-reduction reaction of the sulfur dioxide-based inorganic electrolyte takes place. The carbon material constituting the positive electrode 2 may optionally include one or two or more heteroatoms. Heterogeneous elements refer to nitrogen (N), oxygen (O), boron (B), fluorine (F), phosphorus (P), sulfur (S), and silicon (Si). The content of hetero elements is 0 to 20 at%, preferably 5 to 15 at%. When the content of hetero elements is less than 5 at%, the effect of increasing capacity according to the addition of hetero elements is insignificant, and when the content of more than 15 at% is reduced, the electrical conductivity of the carbon material and the ease of forming the electrode are reduced.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNA RAJAN HAMMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-9997. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:30 PM M-F.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.R.H./ Examiner , Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights