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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11-07-2024, 01-16-2025, and 06-16-2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2006/0275667 hereinafter Watanabe.
Regarding Claim 1, Watanabe teaches a cathode (positive electrode) active material for a lithium secondary battery (paragraph 34), the cathode (positive electrode) active material comprising: a lithium cobalt-based complex oxide (paragraphs 35-40, 58-62); and a coating layer formed on a surface of the complex oxide (paragraphs 41-43), wherein the lithium cobalt-based complex oxide comprises aluminum (i.e., M in the complex oxide is aluminum having a value of 0≤y≤0.5) (paragraphs 59, 61), and the coating layer is a zirconium-based oxide having zirconium in an amount of 40 mol % or less (paragraph 67).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a lithium cobalt-based complex oxide that comprises aluminum (i.e., M in the complex oxide is aluminum having a value of 0≤y≤0.5) and a coating layer that is a zirconium-based oxide (i.e., zirconium in an amount of 40 mol % or less) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Watanabe discloses that such configuration can form a cathode (positive electrode) active material capable of increasing a capacity and improving high temperature characteristics and cycle characteristics (paragraph 10).
In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 15, Watanabe teaches a method for preparing a cathode (positive electrode) active material for a lithium secondary battery, the method comprising: forming a lithium cobalt-based complex oxide that comprises aluminum (i.e., M in the complex oxide is aluminum having a value of 0≤y≤0.5) (paragraphs 59, 61); mixing the lithium cobalt-based complex oxide with a zirconium precursor (i.e., coating layer precursor) to obtain a mixture (paragraph 57); and performing a heat treatment on the mixture to prepare the cathode active material (paragraphs 57, 70).
Regarding Claim 16, Watanabe teaches that the precursor layer (i.e., coating layer precursor) comprises zirconium oxide (paragraph 57).
Regarding Claim 17, Watanabe teaches that the heat treatment is performed at a temperature of about 300 degree C. to about 1000 degree C (paragraph 57).
Regarding Claim 18, Watanabe teaches that the lithium cobalt-based complex oxide further includes aluminum and magnesium (paragraph 59).
Regarding Claim 19, Watanabe teaches that the lithium cobalt-based complex oxide comprises magnesium (i.e., M in the complex oxide is magnesium having a value of 0≤y≤0.5) (paragraphs 59, 61).
Regarding Claim 20, Watanabe teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising: a cathode (positive electrode) comprising the cathode active material as described above; an anode (negative electrode); and an electrolyte formed between the cathode and the anode (paragraph 72).
Claim(s) 2-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2006/0275667 hereinafter Watanabe in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0231322 hereinafter Chu and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2006/0144610 hereinafter Hong.
Regarding Claims 2-3, Watanabe teaches that the coating layer is a zirconium-based oxide (paragraph 67), and Chu further teaches that the positive electrode (cathode) active material is coated with a metal oxide (paragraph 49), wherein the metal oxide is a magnesium-based oxide including zirconium [Zr] and cobalt [co] (paragraph 52). Chu teaches the same metal oxide, and it is expected to have similar formula as claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form such positive electrode (cathode) active material coated with a metal oxide before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Chu discloses that such configuration can form a positive active material that is less reactive with an electrolyte, thereby improving cycle-life characteristics of the rechargeable battery (paragraph 49).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 (see MPEP § 2143, E).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination teaches that the zirconium-based oxide is crystalline (i.e., has a cubic structure belonging to a space group Fd-3m) (paragraph 52 of Chu).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination teaches that the metal oxide (coating layer) is a zirconium-based oxide (paragraph 52 of Chu [i.e., contains at least one element]).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination teaches that the metal oxide (coating layer) is in the form of island arrangement on the surface of the positive electrode active material (paragraph 41 of Chu). Hong further teaches small particle size with an average particle size of about 2 µm (paragraph 47) can be used in the positive electrode active material and it would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art to form such particle size before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Hong discloses that such configuration can form a battery having improved high temperature cycle-life characteristics and/or charge and discharge efficiency (paragraph 49).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination teaches that the lithium cobalt-based complex oxide comprises aluminum (i.e., M in the complex oxide is aluminum having a value of 0≤y≤0.5) (paragraphs 59, 61 of Watanabe).
Regarding Claims 8-11, the combination teaches that the metal oxide is a magnesium-based oxide including zirconium [Zr] and cobalt [co] (paragraph 52 of Chu). The amount of coating layer to the complex oxide is 0.5 to 50% (paragraph 44 of Watanabe). With regards to the amount of the elements in the metal oxide, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 (see MPEP § 2143, E).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination teaches that the lithium cobalt-based complex oxide comprises aluminum (i.e., M in the complex oxide is aluminum, magnesium, and nickel having a value of 0≤y≤0.5) (paragraphs 59, 61).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination teaches that the lithium complex oxide comprises a mixture of the small particles and the large particles, the large particles have an average size of about 15 µm to about 20 µm, and the small particles have an average size of about 2 µm to about 5 µm (paragraph 47 of Hong). It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art to form such mixed particle sizes before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Hong discloses that such configuration can form a battery having improved high temperature cycle-life characteristics and/or charge and discharge efficiency (paragraph 49).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination teaches the lithium complex oxide comprises the mixture of the small particles and the large particles and a mixing weight ratio of the large particles to the small particles is in a range of about 7:3 to about 9:1 (paragraph 48 of Hong).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSEI K AMPONSAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NICHOLAS A SMITH can be reached at (571)272-8760. 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.
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights