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 .
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claims 1 and 8,
The examiner interprets the phrase “shape of a single particle” as “primary particles.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-3, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (US-20200350581-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Kim’
Regarding Claim 1,
Kim teaches a cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery comprising a lithium-transition metal oxide particle (Kim, “Disclosed is a positive active material for a rechargeable lithium battery including secondary particles of a nickel-based transition metal oxide composed of an inner portion and an outer portion”, see Abstract) having a shape of a single particle (Kim, “In an embodiment, the inner end portion of the vertically oriented primary particles constituting the protruding portion may mean the inner end portion closest to the center of the inner end portions of the plurality of primary particles disposed at the outermost side of the secondary particles.”, see [0073]) and having a Mn oxidation number ratio of 0.23 or less defined by Equation 1 (Kim, “When XPS analyzing the surface of the positive active material, a ratio (AMn3+/AMn4+) of a peak area (AMn3+) of Mn3+ relative to a peak area (AMn4+) of Mn4+ may be less than or equal to 0.10.”, see [0024]): [Equation 1] Mn oxidation number ratio = (A+B)/(A+B+C+D+E) wherein, in Equation 1, A is an area of a peak in a region from 639 eV to 643 eV obtained by a deconvolution of a Mn2p spectrum of the lithium-transition metal oxide particle from an X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) analysis, B is an area of a peak in a region from 651 eV to 655 eV obtained by the deconvolution of the Mn2p spectrum of the lithium-transition metal oxide particle from the XPS analysis, C is an area of a peak in a region from 639 eV to 647 eV obtained by the deconvolution of the Mn2p spectrum of the lithium-transition metal oxide particle from the XPS analysis, D is an area of a peak in a region from 651 eV to 658 eV obtained by the deconvolution of the Mn2p spectrum of the lithium-transition metal oxide particle from the XPS analysis, and E is an area of a peak in a region from 641 eV to 643 eV obtained by the deconvolution of the Mn2p spectrum of the lithium-transition metal oxide particle from the XPS analysis (Kim, see Figs. 9A-9F).
Regarding Claim 2,
Kim teaches the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein A, B, C, D and E are areas of different peaks obtained by the deconvolution of the Mn2p spectrum obtained by the XPS analysis (Kim, see Figs. 9A-9F).
Regarding Claim 3,
Kim teaches the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 2, wherein each of A and B is an area of a peak representing Mn3+ of the lithium-transition metal oxide particle obtained by the XPS analysis, and each of C, D and E is an area of a peak representing Mn4+ of the lithium-transition metal oxide particle obtained by the XPS analysis (Kim, “When XPS analyzing the surface of the positive active material, a ratio (AMn3+/AMn4+) of a peak area (AMn3+) of Mn3+ relative to a peak area (AMn4+) of Mn4+ may be less than or equal to 0.10.”, see [0024]).
Regarding Claim 8,
Kim teaches wherein a content of the lithium-transition metal oxide particle having the shape of the single particle relative to a total weight of the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery is in a range from 5 wt% to 100 wt% (Kim, “In the positive active material layer, an amount of the positive active material may be 90 wt % to 98 wt % based on a total weight of the positive active material layer.”, see [0122]).
Regarding Claim 12,
Kim teaches a lithium secondary battery, comprising: a cathode comprising the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1; and an anode facing the cathode (see Fig. 2).
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.
Claim 4-6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20200350581-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Kim’
Regarding Claim 4,
Kim teaches the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the Mn oxidation number ratio is in a range from 0.06 to 0.23 (Kim, “When XPS analyzing the surface of the positive active material, a ratio (AMn3+/AMn4+) of a peak area (AMn3+) of Mn3+ relative to a peak area (AMn4+) of Mn4+ may be less than or equal to 0.10.”, see [0024]).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of less than or equal to 0.10 broadly overlaps the claimed range of 0.06 to 0.23. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 5,
Kim teaches the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein a ratio of the number of moles of cobalt relative to the total number of moles of a transition metal contained in the lithium-transition metal oxide particle is 0.15 or less (Kim, “The secondary particles of the nickel-based transition metal oxide may be a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1. LiaNixCoyM1-x-yO2 [Chemical Formula 1]”, see [0088])(Kim, “0.9≤a≤1.05, 0.55≤x≤0.95, 0.05≤y≤0.35, and M is at least one metal element selected from Mn, Al, Cr, Fe, V, Mg, Ti, Zr, Nb, Mo, W, Cu, Zn, Ga, In, Sn, La, and Ce”, see [0090])(The examiner notes that 0.05 to 0.34 divided by 0.55 to 0.95 is 0.09 to 2.79, which overlaps the claimed ranged)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.09 to 2.79 broadly overlaps the claimed range of 0.15 or less. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 6,
Kim teaches the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the lithium-transition metal oxide particle is represented by Chemical Formula 1: [Chemical Formula 1] LiaNixMn1-x-yMyO2+z wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, 0.9≤a≤1.2, 0.45≤x≤0.85, 0≤y≤0.15, -0.1≤z≤0.1, and M includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Co, Al, Na, Ca, Nb, Ta, Mo, Zr, Ti, Cr, Cu, Zn, Sn, Ge, Ga, B, Mg, Ba, Si, Y, W, V and Sr (Kim, “The secondary particles of the nickel-based transition metal oxide may be a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1. LiaNixCoyM1-x-yO2 [Chemical Formula 1]”, see [0088])(Kim, “0.9≤a≤1.05, 0.55≤x≤0.95, 0.05≤y≤0.35, and M is at least one metal element selected from Mn, Al, Cr, Fe, V, Mg, Ti, Zr, Nb, Mo, W, Cu, Zn, Ga, In, Sn, La, and Ce”, see [0090]).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of Mn, Al, Cr, Fe, V, Mg, Ti, Zr, Nb, Mo, W, Cu, Zn, Ga, In, Sn, La, and Ce, broadly overlaps the claimed range of Co, Al, Na, Ca, Nb, Ta, Mo, Zr, Ti, Cr, Cu, Zn, Sn, Ge, Ga, B, Mg, Ba, Si, Y, W, V and Sr . Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.55≤x≤0.95, 0.05≤y≤0.35, broadly overlaps the claimed range of 0.45≤x≤0.85, 0≤y≤0.15. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20200350581-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Kim’, in further view of (US-20180040882-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Kim II’
Regarding Claim 7,
Kim does not teach the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein a cation mixing ratio of the lithium-transition metal oxide particle is in a range from 2.4% to 7.5%, and the cation mixing ratio is defined as a nickel occupancy of lithium sites in the lithium-transition metal oxide particle measured by an X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis.
Kim II teaches wherein a cation mixing ratio of the lithium-transition metal oxide particle is in a range from 2.4% to 7.5%, and the cation mixing ratio is defined as a nickel occupancy of lithium sites in the lithium-transition metal oxide particle measured by an X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis (Kim II, “In some embodiments, in the composite positive active material, a cation mixing ratio may be about 10 percent (%) or lower, or about 8% or lower, or about 7.5% or lower, or, for example, in a range of about 1% to about 10%, or from about 5% to about 10%, or from about 5% to about 7.5%, based on the total amount of lithium sites in the lithium layer.”,see [0089]).
Kim II teaches that this can improve cycling capacity (Kim II, “When the composite positive active material has a cation mixing ratio within these ranges, a crystalline structure of the active material may be stabilized even under high-voltage conditions, which prevents the crystalline structure from being destroyed by intercalation and deintercalation of lithium, and thus a lithium battery including the composite positive active material may have good capacity characteristics and improved stability”, see [0089]).
Kim I and Kim II are analogous as they both of the same field of battery materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery as taught in Kim to have the cation mixing ratios as taught in Kim II to improve the cycling of the electrode.
19. Claim 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by (US-20200350581-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Kim’, (US-20200343553-A1) hereinafter referred to ‘Kim III’
Regarding Claim 9,
Kim does not teach the cathode active material a metal coating formed on at least a portion of a surface of the lithium-transition metal oxide particle.
Kim III teaches the cathode active material a metal coating formed on at least a portion of a surface of the lithium-transition metal oxide particle (Kim III, “a composite coating portion which is formed on a surface of the lithium complex transition metal oxide, wherein the lithium complex transition metal oxide has a nickel (Ni) content of 65 mol % or more with respect to a total transition metal content, and the composite coating portion includes cobalt (Co), boron (B), and at least one selected from the group consisting of lanthanum (La), titanium (Ti), and aluminum (Al), wherein the at least one selected from the group consisting of lanthanum (La), titanium (Ti), and aluminum (Al) included in the composite coating portion is in an amount of 2,000-8,000 ppm with respect to a total weight of the positive electrode active material, wherein the boron”, see Clm 1.)
Kim III teaches that the coating allows for better thermal stability (Kim III, “Accordingly, excellent thermal stability may be ensured, and resistance increase and output decrease depending on a coating material may also be suppressed. Particularly, excellent thermal stability and excellent electrochemical characteristics may be achieved even at a high voltage of 4.3 V or higher.”, see [0013]).
Kim I and Kim III are analogous as they both of the same field of battery materials.It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery as taught in Kim to have the coating as taught in Kim III to improve the stability of the electrode.
Regarding Claim 10,
Modified Kim teach the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 9, wherein the metal coating includes at least one selected from the group consisting of W, Mo, Cr, Nb, V, Ta and Co (Kim III, “a composite coating portion which is formed on a surface of the lithium complex transition metal oxide, wherein the lithium complex transition metal oxide has a nickel (Ni) content of 65 mol % or more with respect to a total transition metal content, and the composite coating portion includes cobalt (Co), boron (B), and at least one selected from the group consisting of lanthanum (La), titanium (Ti), and aluminum (Al), wherein the at least one selected from the group consisting of lanthanum (La), titanium (Ti), and aluminum (Al) included in the composite coating portion is in an amount of 2,000-8,000 ppm with respect to a total weight of the positive electrode active material, wherein the boron”, see Clm 1.).
Regarding Claim 11,
Modified Kim teach the cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 9, wherein a content of a metal element contained in the metal coating relative to a total weight of a transition metal contained in the lithium-transition metal oxide particle is in a range from 500 ppm to 15000 ppm (Kim III, “a composite coating portion which is formed on a surface of the lithium complex transition metal oxide, wherein the lithium complex transition metal oxide has a nickel (Ni) content of 65 mol % or more with respect to a total transition metal content, and the composite coating portion includes cobalt (Co), boron (B), and at least one selected from the group consisting of lanthanum (La), titanium (Ti), and aluminum (Al), wherein the at least one selected from the group consisting of lanthanum (La), titanium (Ti), and aluminum (Al) included in the composite coating portion is in an amount of 2,000-8,000 ppm with respect to a total weight of the positive electrode active material, wherein the boron”, see Clm 1.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am to 5pm.
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.
/S.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights