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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 23 November 2023 was considered by the examiner.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 non-obviousness.
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 – 6, 8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (US11127944B2, cited in IDS, hereafter Yoon).
Regarding Claim 1, Yoon teaches a positive electrode active material composition (C2/L10-11). The active material composition includes an ingredient A as a first active substance, and an ingredient B as a second active substance (C2/L11-17). The lithium iron manganese phosphate is a first ingredient (ingredient A), and the lithium metal oxide is a second ingredient (ingredient B). Both the instant application and the reference utilize two ingredients to create the positive electrode active material composition (col. 7, line 23-col. 8, line 26). The reference uses the same types of particles for the first and second ingredient, which are a lithium manganese iron phosphate and a lithium metal oxide, respectively, and the positive electrode active material is described in both the instant application and the reference are said to be used in lithium-ion batteries. Yoon teaches a positive electrode active material composition wherein a general formula of the first active material substance is LiaMnxFe1-x-yGyPO4 (LFMP, col. 4, lines 15-25, Abstract, “LiaFe1-x-yMnxDy(PO4)z”). Yoon also teaches for formula I, 1.0≤a≤1.10, 0≤x≤0.5, 0≤y≤0.10, 1.0≤z≤1.10, and D is selected from a group consisting of Co, Ni, V and Nb. Yoon teaches a positive electrode active material composition the second active substance is a lithium metal oxide and teaches examples of exemplary lithium transition metal oxides to be used as a second active substance. One example is a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide, which contains any one or more of the elements M in the claimed invention’s generic formula, Li1+(b/(2+b))Mn2b/(2+b)M(6/(2+b))-2O2; the dopant atoms, in this case nickel and cobalt, are the same as dopant atoms for the second active ingredient in the instant application. Yoon teaches the desirability of uniform particle sizes (col. 12, lines 50-end; col. 13, lines 4-15, col. 15, line 40) and the ratio of the specific surface areas between LFMP and lithium metal oxide range from about 0.5 to about 500, which include an amount of 1:1. (col. 7, line 23-col. 8, line 26).
Yoon does not expressly teach the particle size distributions of the first active substance and the second active substance satisfy: a ratio DAmin/DBmin of Dmin is 0.25 to 1.5, a ratio DA10/DB10 of D10 is 0.1 to 0.6, a ratio DA50/DB50 of D50 is 0.1 to 0.35, a ratio DA90/DB90 of D90 is 0.12 to 0.67, and 0.2≤[(DA90-DA10)/DA50]/[(DB90-DB10)/DB50]≤13.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the active material composition of Yoon to have ingredients A and B of a uniform size in order to form a uniform surface for the assembly of battery electrode assembly components and optimize the packing density and surface area of the electrode active material in order to achieve high energy density (col. 5, lines 17-2; col. 7, line 23-col. 8, line 26; col. 12, lines 50-end; col. 13, lines 4-15, col. 15, line 40, col. 20, lines 35+, ). Adjusting particle sizes, particle size distributions and particle surface areas are well-known in the art and it has been held that when general teaching of the art are known, such as the combination of materials, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the parameters such particle size and surface area. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Regarding Claim 2, Yoon teaches a positive electrode active material composition wherein a mass ratio of the first active material substance to the second active material substance is 50:50 to 90:10 (C7/L23-28). In this instance, the mass ratios disclosed in the reference can be identical to the claimed range of mass ratios, which is also 50:50 to 90:10. In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 3, Yoon teaches a positive electrode active material composition wherein a general formula of the first active material substance is LiaMnxFe1-x-yGyPO4 (Abstract, “LiaFe1-x-yMnxDy(PO4)z”). Yoon also teaches for formula I, 1.0≤a≤1.10, 0≤x≤0.5, 0≤y≤0.10, 1.0≤z≤1.10, and D is selected from a group consisting of Co, Ni, V and Nb. The molecular subscripts overlap with the claimed invention, and the list of possible dopants contain the same atoms. The reference also teaches certain embodiments that include specific examples of the formula I (C6/L5-20).
Regarding Claim 4, Yoon teaches a positive electrode active material composition wherein a doping amount of the element D may be greater than 1000 ppm and/or greater than 10000 ppm (C7/L6-8). The element D in the reference corresponds to the element G of the claimed invention, and the range between 1000 and 10000 ppm encompasses the entirety of the claimed range of 2000 to 5000 ppm. In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 5, Yoon teaches a positive electrode active material composition as previously noted including a generic formula of the second active substance being a lithium metal oxide (Abstract) and teaches examples of exemplary lithium transition metal oxides to be used as a second active substance. One example is a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide, which contains any one or more of the list of elements M in the claimed invention’s generic formula, Li1+(b/(2+b))Mn2b/(2+b)M(6/(2+b))-2O2; the dopant atoms, in this case nickel and cobalt, are listed as dopant atoms for the second active ingredient in the instant application. Yoon teaches this formula Li1 ± δNi-pCoqMn(1-p-q)O2, where 0<δ<0.1, p≥0.3, q≤0.5, C13/L54. The ranges for manganese, cobalt, nickel and oxygen overlap with the ranges of subscripts for this second active ingredient in the instant application. In the case, where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Depending on the relative amounts of components, the amount of lithium taught in this formula is close but may not overlap with the claimed range for lithium. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (see MPEP 2144.05). It is well known in the art that adjusting the dopant material, or amounts therein, of molecules is a routine procedure done to stabilize material structure during charging and discharging (C4/L47-C5/L35). Regarding the subscripts, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In any event where ranges are merely close, it has also been held that ranges which are merely close to each other are unpatentable unless they produce a new or unexpected result (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding Claim 6, Yoon teaches a positive electrode active material with a second ingredient that is doped but does not expressly teach the doping element M to be within a range of 2000 to 5000 ppm.
However, Yoon teaches the first active ingredient material being doped in a range that overlaps the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to dope the second active ingredient material within the same range as the first. One would have been motivated to modify the dopant level of the second active ingredient to be within a range of 2000 to 5000 ppm because the first dopant material could be doped within this range. It would stand to reason that the if the first active ingredient was doped within a certain range that the second active ingredient would also be doped in this range to exhibit the same benefit that resulted from doping the first active ingredient, which is to dope the dopant metals to a level so the dopant metals do not precipitate out of the LFMP olivinic structure to form secondary precipitates that limit ion paths and cause structural stress (C7/L10-13).
Regarding Claim 8, Yoon teaches a positive electrode pole piece that comprise the positive electrode active material composition according to Claim 1 (C15/L25-30).
Regarding Claim 10, Yoon teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery that comprises the positive electrode pole piece according to Claim 8 (C3/L30-33).
Regarding Claim 11, Yoon teaches an electrochemical device that comprises the lithium-ion secondary battery according to Claim 10 (C1/L38-49).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (US11127944B2) in further view of You et al. (CN106935850A, Machine Translation via EPO, hereafter You).
Regarding Claim 7, Yoon teaches all of the limitations of the positive electrode active material composition of Claim 1. However, Yoon does not teach the surface of the first active substance coated with a carbon layer, and the amount of the carbon coating is 1% to 3% of a mass of the first active substance.
You teaches a positive electrode active material [0008] where the active material is made by forming a lithium iron phosphate compound material layer with an outer carbon coating on the outer surface of the active component [0025]. Lithium-ion single cell batteries were prepared using positive electrodes with a positive electrode active material [0167]. You also teaches that the preferred carbon content in the active components with the LiMn--xFe1-xPO4C is 1.5 to 3 wt% based on the total weight of the active carbon components (¶[0028]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the positive electrode active material layer of Yoon to include a carbon layer as described in You. One would have been motivated to modify the positive electrode active material in this way because You asserts that “reducing the content of magnetic materials in the prepared lithium manganese iron phosphate materials is beneficial to improving the battery’s cycle performance” (¶[0023]), and the positive electrode active material that contains a carbon layer can “effectively reduce the content of magnetic materials in the positive electrode active material” (¶[0024-0025]). One would have been motivated to modify the carbon coating layer because it is taught that the carbon content is within the 1.5 to 3 wt%, according to You [0028].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (US11127944B2, cited in IDS) in further view of Xiao et al. (CN108336297A, Machine Translation via EPO, hereafter Xiao).
Regarding Claim 9, Yoon teaches a positive pole piece according to Claim 8 but does not teach the compaction density of the pole piece to be between 2.47 and 2.79 g/cm3.
However, Xiao teaches a method for preparing lithium-ion battery electrodes [0010] where the electrode active material could be a lithium iron phosphate [0015] or a lithium manganese oxide [0015], and the compaction density of the positive electrode pole piece can be between 2.00 and 4.20 g/cm3 (¶[0015]). The instant application and the reference material both disclose an electrode active material that is to be used in a lithium-ion battery, and the active material ingredients disclosed in the reference are identical to the active ingredients claimed in the instant application.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electrode of Yoon to have a compaction density of 2.00 to 4.20 g/cm3 as taught in Xiao in order to have a dense electrode to optimize the capacity of the battery. The compaction density of the positive electrode is selected based on the added electrode active material to achieve a better compaction density [0015], and the compaction density is closely related to the specific capacity, internal resistance, rate performance and cycle performance of the battery [0019], according to Xiao. In Xiao, the compaction density of the positive electrode pole piece can be between 2.00 and 4.20 g/cm3 ([0015]). This claim encompasses the entire claimed range for a compaction density of the positive electrode pole piece. In the case where claimed ranges “lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAXIMILIAN D BAGILEO whose telephone number is (571)270-5460. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/M.D.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights