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 . 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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on February 20, 2019. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP 2019-028488 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Receipt is acknowledged of JP 2020-011300.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a total volume percentage of particles having a particle diameter of 0.4 μm to 3.0 μm is greater than 50%,” rendering the claim indefinite. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the “particle” Applicant refers to is that of the “oxide containing lithium and aluminum” recited in line 2 of the claim or the “lithium transition metal composite oxide particle” recited in claims 2-3 of the claim.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Applicant recites “mol% in terms of” an element in the mixture, rendering the claims indefinite. Specifically, “mol%” is generally accepted to mean the fraction of moles for the specified element per 100 parts of the entire mixture, while comparative ratios of elements within a mixture are expressed as numbers. Applicant’s recitation of “in terms of” another element of the mixture makes it unclear as to how the claimed mole percentage is calculated. In other words, is Applicant claiming the fraction of moles of the recited element based on the whole mixture or a ratio of the recited element compared to another element within the mixture as in claims 3-5?
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. (US 2019/0165362 A1), hereinafter “Baek.”
Regarding claim 1, Baek discloses a method of manufacturing a positive electrode active material for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising:
providing a mixture containing a lithium transition metal composite oxide particle, in this case a lithium composite metal oxide containing nickel (¶ [0020]-[0030] & [0046]), having a layered structure (¶ [0021]), a lithium compound, in this case a lithium by-product such as LiOH or Li2CO3 (¶ [0036]), an aluminum compound, in this case an aluminum-containing material (¶ [0046]), and a boron compound, in this case a boron-containing raw material (¶ [0046]; and
heat treating the mixture (¶ [0046] & [0060]);
wherein:
the lithium transition metal composite oxide particle comprises a secondary particle formed by aggregation of primary particles, in this case the lithium composite metal oxide may be a secondary particle formed by an agglomeration of primary particles (¶ [0031]).
Baek does not specify that the aluminum compound has a volume-based diameter distribution where a total volume percentage of particles having a particle diameter of 0.4 μm to 3.0 μm is greater than 54%. However, Baek does teach that the average particle diameter of the aluminum-containing raw material is greater than 0 μm to less than 1 μm to yield uniform coating (¶ [0057]) which is desirable due to the material’s lower reactivity as compared to the boron-containing material (¶ [0058]). Furthermore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have realized making at least 54% of the aluminum compound particles average diameter to be 0.4 μm to 3.0 μm based on volume would have prevented undesirable agglomeration and reactions (see ¶ [0057]-[0058]), thereby facilitating improved active material formation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the total volume percentage of particles having a particle diameter of 0.4 μm to 3.0 μm greater than 54% in order to have facilitated improved active material formation.
Baek does not disclose that the lithium transition metal composite oxide has a layered structure
Regarding claim 2, Baek further discloses that the heat treatment temperature is 500° C to 800° C (¶ [0060]).
Regarding claim 3, Baek further teaches that the mole ratio of nickel to that of metal other than lithium is 0.33 to 0.95, in this case the lithium composite is represented by Lia(NixCoyM1z)bM2cO2 where 1 ≤ a ≤ 1.5, 0.9 ≤ b ≤ 1, 0 ≤ c ≤ 0.1, 0.6 ≤ x < 1, 0 < y < 0.4, 0 < z ≤ 0.4, and b + c = 1 (¶ [0022]-[0023]). Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. For example, x = 0.6 y = 0.4, z = 0, b = 0.5, which requires c = 0.5 which in turn results in
x
0.5
y
+
c
=0.33.
Regarding claim 4, Baek further teaches that the lithium transition metal includes cobalt, in this case the lithium composite is represented by Lia(NixCoyM1z)bM2cO2 (¶ [0022]), and that the ratio of moles of cobalt to ta total number of moles of metal other than lithium is 0.02 to 0.33, in this case 1 ≤ a ≤ 1.5, 0.9 ≤ b ≤ 1, 0 ≤ c ≤ 0.1, 0.6 ≤ x < 1, 0 < y < 0.4, 0 < z ≤ 0.4, and b + c = 1 (¶ [0023]). Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. For example x = 0.6 y = 0.2, z = 0.2, b = 0.5, which requires c = 0.5 which in turn results in
y
0.5
(
x
+
z
)
+
c
=0.11.
Regarding claim 5, Baek further teaches that the lithium transition metal includes manganese, in this case the lithium composite is represented by Lia(NixCoyM1z)bM2cO2 (¶ [0022]) where M1 may be manganese (¶ [0023]), and that the ratio of moles of cobalt to ta total number of moles of metal other than lithium is 0.02 to 0.33, in this case 1 ≤ a ≤ 1.5, 0.9 ≤ b ≤ 1, 0 ≤ c ≤ 0.1, 0.6 ≤ x < 1, 0 < y < 0.4, 0 < z ≤ 0.4, and b + c = 1 (¶ [0023]). Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. For example x = 0.6 y = 0.2, z = 0.2, b = 0.5, which requires c = 0.5 which in turn results in
z
0.5
(
x
+
y
)
+
c
=0.11.
Regarding claim 6, Baek further teaches that the volume-based particle diameter distribution of the oxide containing lithium and aluminum adhering to the surface of the lithium metal composite oxide particle is 0.4 μm to 3.0 μm, in this case the D50 of the primary particles is 50 nm to 1,000 nm (1.0 μm) (¶ [0032]). Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Regarding claims 7, Baek further teaches that the volume average particle diameter of the lithium transition metal composite oxide is 2 μm to 25 μm, in this case the average particle diameter (D50) is 1 μm to 20 μm (¶ [0032]). Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, Baek further teaches that the volume average particle diameter of the lithium transition metal composite oxide is 2 μm to 25 μm, in this case the average particle diameter (D50) is 1 μm to 20 μm (¶ [0032]). Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Baek further teaches that the ratio of the lithium compound to the lithium transition metal composite oxide particle in the mixture is 1.2 mol% to 7.4 mol% in terms of lithium, in this case the loading of the lithium by-product ranges from 0.481 wt% to 0.543 wt% (Table 2), which would result in a mixing ratio overlapping with 1.2 mol% to 7.4 mol%. Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Baek further teaches that the mixing ratio of the aluminum compound to the lithium transition metal composite oxide particles is 0.4 mol% to 1.2 mol% in terms of aluminum, in this case the aluminum-containing raw material is added in a n amount of 0.1 parts by weight to 1.0 parts by weight (¶ [0052]), which would result in an aluminum ratio of 0.4 mol% to 1.2 mole%. Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, Baek further teaches that the mixing ratio of the born compound to the lithium transition metal composite oxide particles is 0.4 mol% to 1.2 mol% in terms of boron, in this case the aluminum-containing raw material is added in a n amount of 0.1 parts by weight to 0.8 parts by weight (¶ [0052]), which would result in a boron ratio of 0.3 mol% to 2 mole%. Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights