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 .
Response to Amendment
Currently, the pending Claims are 1, 4-13, 16-24.
The examined Claims are 1, 4-13, 16-24, with Claims 1, 4, 13, 16 being amended, and Claims 21-24 being newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has mainly (1) amended independent Claims 1 and 13 to include the subject matter of now-cancelled Claims 2-3 (in the case of Claim 1) and now-cancelled Claims 14-15 (in the case of Claim 13), and (2) newly added Claims 21-24.
Applicant presents arguments versus the prior art rejections of record (Pages 7-13 of Remarks).
With respect to Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejections in view of Ma (Pages 7-10 of Remarks), said arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented below as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. Furthermore, it is noted that while Applicant argues that the Examples and Comparative Examples illustrate the benefits associated with the limitations of Claims 1 and 13, the Examples and Comparative Examples deal only with an LiFe0.99Ti0.01V0.01PO4 active material, wherein the instant Claims do not explicitly require said active material, and wherein Applicant has provided no evidence that the behavior of said material is representative to all active materials described by the more general limitations of Claims 1 and 13.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections in view of Ma, as modified by Nakane (Pages 10-13 of Remarks), Applicant arguments are not persuasive. Regarding Applicants 1(1)-(5) arguments (Pages 10-12 of Remarks), it is noted that the “<Nakane, column 3-4>” excerpt cited by Applicant merely lists examples of applicable materials, which is noted the said as an exhaustive list and/or a “restrictive” list which excludes classes of active materials not listed (e.g. lithium iron phosphate particles with an olivine structure). Therefore, while Ma discloses a lithium iron phosphate material with an olive structure, such a characteristic does not necessarily mean that one of ordinary skill in the art would not modify Ma with Nakane in the suggested manner especially when Nakane neither explicitly teaches nor suggests that the benefits associated with a vanadium gradient cannot be applied to the material of Ma. Regarding Applicants 2(1)-(4) arguments (Pages 12-13 of Remarks), it is noted that while Applicant cites the “<Nakane, col. 3 line 37-48>” excerpt as the sole descriptive basis for modifying Ma with Nakane, Nakane also teaches that the concentration gradient of element A (i.e. vanadium) helps prevent deterioration of cycle characteristics, and further that the depth to which said gradient is formed affects the consequent capacity fade characteristics (see col. 2 lines 51-64 of Nakane). Therefore, the mass fraction characteristics of the instant Claims could readily be derived by one of ordinary skill in the art based on the concentration gradient disclosed by Nakane.
However, new grounds of rejection are presented below as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the Claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In particular, Claim 22 recites in the preamble “The cathode active material of claim 22, wherein…” Therefore, Claim 22 as written further limits the subject matter of itself such that it is in improper dependent form. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
For purposes of examination (and based on the manner in which Claim 24 depends from Claim 23), Claim 22 will be interpreted as depending from Claim 21 instead of “claim 22.”
Claim Interpretation
Claims 8 and 19 use the term “uniform concentration.” The term uniform concentration is interpreted in accordance with the description set forth in Applicant’s Specification (See at least [0055]-[0056] of Applicant’s own PG Pub.). Specifically, “unform concentration” is interpreted to include a “slight” concentration gradient in which a concentration of an element is maintained within +/- 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.
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.
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, 4-8, 13, 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (“Improved electrochemical performances of nanocrystalline LiFePO4/C composite cathode via V-doping and VO2(B) coating,” as provided by Applicant in the 05/15/24 IDS), and further in view of Nakane et al. (US 6,730,435).
Regarding Claim 1, Ma teaches a cathode active material and a lithium secondary battery comprising a cathode comprising the cathode active material, wherein the cathode active material comprises a vanadium-doped LiFePO4 particle with a VO2(B) surface coating (“lithium iron phosphate-based particle”) (Abstract, Pages 1464-1465 of Results and Discussion). Ma teaches that the VO2(B) surface coating is formed such that VO2(B) particles having a particle size of less than 5 nm form a uniform surface coating layer on the vanadium-doped LiFePO4 particle having a particle size of about 53 nm (Pages 1464-1465 of Results and Discussion).
Ma does not explicitly teach that the surface portion includes a region corresponding to 25% of the radius as instantly claimed.
However, Nakane teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery (Abstract, col. 3 line 65 to col. 4 line 16, col. 7 lines 66-67). Nakane teaches that the active material is a particle which comprises an element A therein, wherein element A may be vanadium, and wherein the particle has a region therein in which element A decreases continuously in concentration in a direction of from the particle surface to the particle core (col 2. Lines 38-50). Nakane teaches that such a concentration gradient of element A helps prevent deterioration of cycle characteristics, and further that the depth to which said gradient is formed affects the consequent capacity fade characteristics (col. 2 lines 38-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to Ma, optimize the content of vanadium in the surface portion such that it exhibits a concentration gradient which decreases continuously in a surface-to-core direction (and for example, such that the gradient formed satisfies the instantly claimed 25% of the radius characteristic), as taught by Nakane, dependent upon a desired and/or required result (i.e. a desired and/or required prevention level of cycle characteristics deterioration and capacity fade) as such an optimization would have been realized by a person of ordinary skill in the art without undie experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Ma, as modified by Nakane, does not explicitly teach that the first weight amount is in accordance with the claimed range.
However, Nakane teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery (Abstract, col. 3 line 65 to col. 4 line 16, col. 7 lines 66-67). Nakane teaches that the active material is a particle which comprises an element A therein, wherein element A may be vanadium, and wherein the particle has a region therein in which element A decreases continuously in concentration in a direction of from the particle surface to the particle core (col 2. Lines 38-50). Nakane teaches that such a concentration gradient of element A helps prevent deterioration of cycle characteristics, and further that the depth to which said gradient is formed affects the consequent capacity fade characteristics (col. 2 lines 38-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to Ma, as modified by Nakane, optimize the content of vanadium in the surface portion such that it exhibits a concentration gradient which decreases continuously in a surface-to-core direction (and for example, such that the instantly claimed weight amount is satisfied), as taught by Nakane, dependent upon a desired and/or required result (i.e. a desired and/or required prevention level of cycle characteristics deterioration and capacity fade) as such an optimization would have been realized by a person of ordinary skill in the art without undie experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 4, Ma, as modified by Nakane, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Ma, as modified by Nakane, does not explicitly teach that the first weight amount is in accordance with the claimed range.
However, Nakane teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery (Abstract, col. 3 line 65 to col. 4 line 16, col. 7 lines 66-67). Nakane teaches that the active material is a particle which comprises an element A therein, wherein element A may be vanadium, and wherein the particle has a region therein in which element A decreases continuously in concentration in a direction of from the particle surface to the particle core (col 2. Lines 38-50). Nakane teaches that such a concentration gradient of element A helps prevent deterioration of cycle characteristics, and further that the depth to which said gradient is formed affects the consequent capacity fade characteristics (col. 2 lines 38-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to Ma, as modified by Nakane, optimize the content of vanadium in the surface portion such that it exhibits a concentration gradient which decreases continuously in a surface-to-core direction (and for example, such that the instantly claimed weight amount is satisfied), as taught by Nakane, dependent upon a desired and/or required result (i.e. a desired and/or required prevention level of cycle characteristics deterioration and capacity fade) as such an optimization would have been realized by a person of ordinary skill in the art without undie experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 5, Ma, as modified by Nakane, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1 as previously described.
Ma does not explicitly teach that the surface portion includes a vanadium concentration gradient as instantly claimed
However, Nakane teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery (Abstract, col. 3 line 65 to col. 4 line 16, col. 7 lines 66-67). Nakane teaches that the active material is a particle which comprises an element A therein, wherein element A may be vanadium, and wherein the particle has a region therein in which element A decreases continuously in concentration in a direction of from the particle surface to the particle core (col 2. Lines 38-50). Nakane teaches that such a concentration gradient of element A helps prevent deterioration of cycle characteristics, and further that the depth to which said gradient is formed affects the consequent capacity fade characteristics (col. 2 lines 38-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to Ma, optimize the content of vanadium in the surface portion such that it exhibits a concentration gradient which decreases continuously in a surface-to-core direction, as taught by Nakane, given that such a concentration gradient would at least help prevent deterioration of cycle characteristics.
Regarding Claim 6, Ma, as modified by Nakane, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1 as previously described.
Ma does not explicitly teach that the surface portion includes a vanadium concentration gradient as instantly claimed
However, Nakane teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery (Abstract, col. 3 line 65 to col. 4 line 16, col. 7 lines 66-67). Nakane teaches that the active material is a particle which comprises an element A therein, wherein element A may be vanadium, and wherein the particle has a region therein in which element A decreases continuously in concentration in a direction of from the particle surface to the particle core (col 2. Lines 38-50). Nakane teaches that such a concentration gradient of element A helps prevent deterioration of cycle characteristics, and further that the depth to which said gradient is formed affects the consequent capacity fade characteristics (col. 2 lines 38-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to Ma, optimize the content of vanadium in the surface portion such that it exhibits a concentration gradient which decreases continuously in a surface-to-core direction, as taught by Nakane, given that such a concentration gradient would at least help prevent deterioration of cycle characteristics.
Regarding Claim 7, Ma, as modified by Nakane, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 5 as previously described.
Ma, as modified by Nakane, does not explicitly teach a ratio as claimed in accordance with the claimed range.
However, Nakane teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery (Abstract, col. 3 line 65 to col. 4 line 16, col. 7 lines 66-67). Nakane teaches that the active material is a particle which comprises an element A therein, wherein element A may be vanadium, and wherein the particle has a region therein in which element A decreases continuously in concentration in a direction of from the particle surface to the particle core (col 2. Lines 38-50). Nakane teaches that such a concentration gradient of element A helps prevent deterioration of cycle characteristics, and further that the depth to which said gradient is formed affects the consequent capacity fade characteristics (col. 2 lines 38-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to Ma, as modified by Nakane, optimize the content of vanadium in the surface portion such that it exhibits a concentration gradient which decreases continuously in a surface-to-core direction (and for example, such that a ratio as claimed is satisfied), as taught by Nakane, dependent upon a desired and/or required result (i.e. a desired and/or required prevention level of cycle characteristics deterioration and capacity fade) as such an optimization would have been realized by a person of ordinary skill in the art without undie experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 8, Ma, as modified by Nakane, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 5 as previously described.
Ma, as modified by Nakane, does not explicitly teach the instantly claimed uniform vanadium concentration.
However, Nakane teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery (Abstract, col. 3 line 65 to col. 4 line 16, col. 7 lines 66-67). Nakane teaches that the active material is a particle which comprises an element A therein, wherein element A may be vanadium, and wherein the particle has a region therein in which element A decreases continuously in concentration in a direction of from the particle surface to the particle core (col 2. Lines 38-50). Nakane teaches that such a concentration gradient of element A helps prevent deterioration of cycle characteristics, and further that the depth to which said gradient is formed affects the consequent capacity fade characteristics (col. 2 lines 38-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to Ma, as modified by Nakane, optimize the content of vanadium in the surface portion such that it exhibits a concentration gradient which decreases continuously in a surface-to-core direction (and for example, such the central portion has a uniform concentration as instantly claimed), as taught by Nakane, dependent upon a desired and/or required result (i.e. a desired and/or required prevention level of cycle characteristics deterioration and capacity fade) as such an optimization would have been realized by a person of ordinary skill in the art without undie experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 13, Ma teaches a cathode active material and a lithium secondary battery comprising a cathode comprising the cathode active material and comprising an anode facing the cathode, wherein the cathode active material comprises a vanadium-doped LiFePO4 particle with a VO2(B) surface coating (“lithium iron phosphate-based particle”) (Abstract, Pages 1464-1465 of Results and Discussion). Ma teaches that the VO2(B) surface coating is formed such that VO2(B) particles having a particle size of less than 5 nm form a uniform surface coating layer on the vanadium-doped LiFePO4 particle having a particle size of about 53 nm (Pages 1464-1465 of Results and Discussion).
Ma does not explicitly teach that the surface portion includes a region corresponding to 25% of the radius as instantly claimed.
However, Nakane teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery (Abstract, col. 3 line 65 to col. 4 line 16, col. 7 lines 66-67). Nakane teaches that the active material is a particle which comprises an element A therein, wherein element A may be vanadium, and wherein the particle has a region therein in which element A decreases continuously in concentration in a direction of from the particle surface to the particle core (col 2. Lines 38-50). Nakane teaches that such a concentration gradient of element A helps prevent deterioration of cycle characteristics, and further that the depth to which said gradient is formed affects the consequent capacity fade characteristics (col. 2 lines 38-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to Ma, optimize the content of vanadium in the surface portion such that it exhibits a concentration gradient which decreases continuously in a surface-to-core direction (and for example, such that the gradient formed satisfies the instantly claimed 25% of the radius characteristic), as taught by Nakane, dependent upon a desired and/or required result (i.e. a desired and/or required prevention level of cycle characteristics deterioration and capacity fade) as such an optimization would have been realized by a person of ordinary skill in the art without undie experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Ma as modified by Nakane, does not explicitly teach that the first weight amount is in accordance with the claimed range.
However, Nakane teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery (Abstract, col. 3 line 65 to col. 4 line 16, col. 7 lines 66-67). Nakane teaches that the active material is a particle which comprises an element A therein, wherein element A may be vanadium, and wherein the particle has a region therein in which element A decreases continuously in concentration in a direction of from the particle surface to the particle core (col 2. Lines 38-50). Nakane teaches that such a concentration gradient of element A helps prevent deterioration of cycle characteristics, and further that the depth to which said gradient is formed affects the consequent capacity fade characteristics (col. 2 lines 38-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to Ma, as modified by Nakane, optimize the content of vanadium in the surface portion such that it exhibits a concentration gradient which decreases continuously in a surface-to-core direction (and for example, such that the instantly claimed weight amount is satisfied), as taught by Nakane, dependent upon a desired and/or required result (i.e. a desired and/or required prevention level of cycle characteristics deterioration and capacity fade) as such an optimization would have been realized by a person of ordinary skill in the art without undie experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 16, Ma, as modified by Nakane, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 13, as previously described.
Ma, as modified by Nakane, does not explicitly teach that the first weight amount is in accordance with the claimed range.
However, Nakane teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery (Abstract, col. 3 line 65 to col. 4 line 16, col. 7 lines 66-67). Nakane teaches that the active material is a particle which comprises an element A therein, wherein element A may be vanadium, and wherein the particle has a region therein in which element A decreases continuously in concentration in a direction of from the particle surface to the particle core (col 2. Lines 38-50). Nakane teaches that such a concentration gradient of element A helps prevent deterioration of cycle characteristics, and further that the depth to which said gradient is formed affects the consequent capacity fade characteristics (col. 2 lines 38-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to Ma, as modified by Nakane, optimize the content of vanadium in the surface portion such that it exhibits a concentration gradient which decreases continuously in a surface-to-core direction (and for example, such that the instantly claimed weight amount is satisfied), as taught by Nakane, dependent upon a desired and/or required result (i.e. a desired and/or required prevention level of cycle characteristics deterioration and capacity fade) as such an optimization would have been realized by a person of ordinary skill in the art without undie experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 17, Ma, as modified by Nakane, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 13 as previously described.
Ma does not explicitly teach that the surface portion includes a vanadium concentration gradient as instantly claimed
However, Nakane teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery (Abstract, col. 3 line 65 to col. 4 line 16, col. 7 lines 66-67). Nakane teaches that the active material is a particle which comprises an element A therein, wherein element A may be vanadium, and wherein the particle has a region therein in which element A decreases continuously in concentration in a direction of from the particle surface to the particle core (col 2. Lines 38-50). Nakane teaches that such a concentration gradient of element A helps prevent deterioration of cycle characteristics, and further that the depth to which said gradient is formed affects the consequent capacity fade characteristics (col. 2 lines 38-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to Ma, optimize the content of vanadium in the surface portion such that it exhibits a concentration gradient which decreases continuously in a surface-to-core direction, as taught by Nakane, given that such a concentration gradient would at least help prevent deterioration of cycle characteristics.
Regarding Claim 18, Ma, as modified by Nakane, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 17 as previously described.
Ma, as modified by Nakane, does not explicitly teach a ratio as claimed in accordance with the claimed range.
However, Nakane teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery (Abstract, col. 3 line 65 to col. 4 line 16, col. 7 lines 66-67). Nakane teaches that the active material is a particle which comprises an element A therein, wherein element A may be vanadium, and wherein the particle has a region therein in which element A decreases continuously in concentration in a direction of from the particle surface to the particle core (col 2. Lines 38-50). Nakane teaches that such a concentration gradient of element A helps prevent deterioration of cycle characteristics, and further that the depth to which said gradient is formed affects the consequent capacity fade characteristics (col. 2 lines 38-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to Ma, as modified by Nakane, optimize the content of vanadium in the surface portion such that it exhibits a concentration gradient which decreases continuously in a surface-to-core direction (and for example, such that a ratio as claimed is satisfied), as taught by Nakane, dependent upon a desired and/or required result (i.e. a desired and/or required prevention level of cycle characteristics deterioration and capacity fade) as such an optimization would have been realized by a person of ordinary skill in the art without undie experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 19, Ma, as modified by Nakane, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 17 as previously described.
Ma, as modified by Nakane, does not explicitly teach the instantly claimed uniform vanadium concentration.
However, Nakane teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery (Abstract, col. 3 line 65 to col. 4 line 16, col. 7 lines 66-67). Nakane teaches that the active material is a particle which comprises an element A therein, wherein element A may be vanadium, and wherein the particle has a region therein in which element A decreases continuously in concentration in a direction of from the particle surface to the particle core (col 2. Lines 38-50). Nakane teaches that such a concentration gradient of element A helps prevent deterioration of cycle characteristics, and further that the depth to which said gradient is formed affects the consequent capacity fade characteristics (col. 2 lines 38-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to Ma, as modified by Nakane, optimize the content of vanadium in the surface portion such that it exhibits a concentration gradient which decreases continuously in a surface-to-core direction (and for example, such the central portion has a uniform concentration as instantly claimed), as taught by Nakane, dependent upon a desired and/or required result (i.e. a desired and/or required prevention level of cycle characteristics deterioration and capacity fade) as such an optimization would have been realized by a person of ordinary skill in the art without undie experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 20, Ma, as modified by Nakane, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 13 as previously described.
Ma, a modified by Nakane, does not explicitly teach that the surface portion includes a vanadium concentration gradient as instantly claimed
However, Nakane teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery (Abstract, col. 3 line 65 to col. 4 line 16, col. 7 lines 66-67). Nakane teaches that the active material is a particle which comprises an element A therein, wherein element A may be vanadium, and wherein the particle has a region therein in which element A decreases continuously in concentration in a direction of from the particle surface to the particle core (col 2. Lines 38-50). Nakane teaches that such a concentration gradient of element A helps prevent deterioration of cycle characteristics, and further that the depth to which said gradient is formed affects the consequent capacity fade characteristics (col. 2 lines 38-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to Ma, as modified by Nakane, optimize the content of vanadium in the surface portion such that it exhibits a concentration gradient which decreases continuously in a surface-to-core direction, as taught by Nakane, given that such a concentration gradient would at least help prevent deterioration of cycle characteristics.
Regarding Claim 21, Ma, as modified by Nakane, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), (1) the vanadium-doped LiFePO4 particle contains vanadium therein, (2) the VO2(B) surface coating contains vanadium therein, (3) the VO2(B) surface coating forms a uniform surface coating layer on the vanadium-doped LiFePO4 particle, and (4) the content of vanadium is such that is exhibits a concentration gradient which decreases continuously in a surface-to-core direction, then the surface portion of Ma, as modified by Nakane, is a region extending radially inward from the outermost surface of the particle toward a center thereof, and the central portion is a region of the particle located inward of said surface portion.
Regarding Claim 22, Ma, as modified by Nakane, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 21 as previously described.
Ma, as modified by Nakane, does not explicitly teach that the claimed weight characteristics of vanadium.
However, Nakane teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery (Abstract, col. 3 line 65 to col. 4 line 16, col. 7 lines 66-67). Nakane teaches that the active material is a particle which comprises an element A therein, wherein element A may be vanadium, and wherein the particle has a region therein in which element A decreases continuously in concentration in a direction of from the particle surface to the particle core (col 2. Lines 38-50). Nakane teaches that such a concentration gradient of element A helps prevent deterioration of cycle characteristics, and further that the depth to which said gradient is formed affects the consequent capacity fade characteristics (col. 2 lines 38-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to Ma, as modified by Nakane, optimize the content of vanadium in the surface portion such that it exhibits a concentration gradient which decreases continuously in a surface-to-core direction (and for example, such that the instantly claimed weight amount is satisfied), as taught by Nakane, dependent upon a desired and/or required result (i.e. a desired and/or required prevention level of cycle characteristics deterioration and capacity fade) as such an optimization would have been realized by a person of ordinary skill in the art without undie experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 23, Ma, as modified by Nakane, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 13, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 13), (1) the vanadium-doped LiFePO4 particle contains vanadium therein, (2) the VO2(B) surface coating contains vanadium therein, (3) the VO2(B) surface coating forms a uniform surface coating layer on the vanadium-doped LiFePO4 particle, and (4) the content of vanadium is such that is exhibits a concentration gradient which decreases continuously in a surface-to-core direction, then the surface portion of Ma, as modified by Nakane, is a region extending radially inward from the outermost surface of the particle toward a center thereof, and the central portion is a region of the particle located inward of said surface portion.
Regarding Claim 24, Ma, as modified by Nakane, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 23, as previously described.
Ma, as modified by Nakane, does not explicitly teach that the claimed weight characteristics of vanadium.
However, Nakane teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery (Abstract, col. 3 line 65 to col. 4 line 16, col. 7 lines 66-67). Nakane teaches that the active material is a particle which comprises an element A therein, wherein element A may be vanadium, and wherein the particle has a region therein in which element A decreases continuously in concentration in a direction of from the particle surface to the particle core (col 2. Lines 38-50). Nakane teaches that such a concentration gradient of element A helps prevent deterioration of cycle characteristics, and further that the depth to which said gradient is formed affects the consequent capacity fade characteristics (col. 2 lines 38-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to Ma, as modified by Nakane, optimize the content of vanadium in the surface portion such that it exhibits a concentration gradient which decreases continuously in a surface-to-core direction (and for example, such that the instantly claimed weight amount is satisfied), as taught by Nakane, dependent upon a desired and/or required result (i.e. a desired and/or required prevention level of cycle characteristics deterioration and capacity fade) as such an optimization would have been realized by a person of ordinary skill in the art without undie experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 9-10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (“Improved electrochemical performances of nanocrystalline LiFePO4/C composite cathode via V-doping and VO2(B) coating,” as provided by Applicant in the 05/15/24 IDS), and further in view of Nakane et al. (US 6,730,435) and Lv et al. (“Optimization of titanium and vanadium co-doping in LiFePO4/c using response surface methodology,” as provided by Applicant in the 05/15/24 IDS).
Regarding Claim 9, Ma, as modified by Nakane, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Ma, as modified by Nakane, does not explicitly teach that the vanadium-doped LiFePO4 particle with a VO2(B) surface coating further includes titanium.
However, Lv teaches a lithium iron phosphate cathode active material that is co-doped with titanium and vanadium (Abstract). In particular, Lv teaches an optimized embodiment of said cathode active material with a chemical composition represented by the chemical formula LiV0.07Ti0.03Fe0.9PO4, wherein Lv teaches that said material exhibits good rate performance and cycle stability because the vanadium and titanium co-dopants provide for enhanced electronic conductivity and reaction reversibility (Abstract, Page 2454 of “Confirmatory experiments,” Conclusion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the particle of Ma, as modified by Nakane, such that it is a LiV0.07Ti0.03Fe0.9PO4 particle with a VO2(B) surface coating, as taught by Lv, given that LiV0.07Ti0.03Fe0.9PO4 would help provide for good rate performance and cycle stability because the vanadium and titanium co-dopants provide for enhanced electronic conductivity and reaction reversibility.
Regarding Claim 10, Ma, as modified by Nakane and Lv, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 9, as previously described.
Ma, as modified by Nakane and Lv, does not explicitly teach a uniform concentration of titanium as instantly claimed.
However, Nakane teaches a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery (Abstract, col. 3 line 65 to col. 4 line 16, col. 7 lines 66-67). Nakane teaches that the active material is a particle which comprises an element A therein, wherein element A may be titanium, and wherein the particle has a region therein in which element A decreases continuously in concentration in a direction of from the particle surface to the particle core (col 2. Lines 38-50). Nakane teaches that such a concentration gradient of element A helps prevent deterioration of cycle characteristics, and further that the depth to which said gradient is formed affects the consequent capacity fade characteristics (col. 2 lines 38-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to Ma, as modified by Nakane and Lv, optimize the content of titanium in the surface portion such that it exhibits a concentration gradient which decreases continuously in a surface-to-core direction (and for example, such the titanium has a uniform concentration as instantly claimed), as taught by Nakane, dependent upon a desired and/or required result (i.e. a desired and/or required prevention level of cycle characteristics deterioration and capacity fade) as such an optimization would have been realized by a person of ordinary skill in the art without undie experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 12, Ma, as modified by Nakane, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Ma, as modified by Nakane, does not explicitly teach that the vanadium-doped LiFePO4 particle with a VO2(B) surface coating includes a chemical composition in accordance with the claimed chemical formula.
However, Lv teaches a lithium iron phosphate cathode active material that is co-doped with titanium and vanadium (Abstract). In particular, Lv teaches an optimized embodiment of said cathode active material with a chemical composition represented by the chemical formula LiV0.07Ti0.03Fe0.9PO4, wherein Lv teaches that said material exhibits good rate performance and cycle stability because the vanadium and titanium co-dopants provide for enhanced electronic conductivity and reaction reversibility (Abstract, Page 2454 of “Confirmatory experiments,” Conclusion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the particle of Ma, as modified by Nakane, such that it is a LiV0.07Ti0.03Fe0.9PO4 particle (i.e. a chemical composition in accordance with the claimed chemical formula) with a VO2(B) surface coating, as taught by Lv, given that LiV0.07Ti0.03Fe0.9PO4 would help provide for good rate performance and cycle stability because the vanadium and titanium co-dopants provide for enhanced electronic conductivity and reaction reversibility.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (“Improved electrochemical performances of nanocrystalline LiFePO4/C composite cathode via V-doping and VO2(B) coating,” as provided by Applicant in the 05/15/24 IDS), and further in view of Nakane et al. (US 6,730,435) and Kim et al. (US 2012/0231341).
Regarding Claim 11, Ma, as modified by Nakane, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Ma, as modified by Nakane, does not explicitly teach that the cathode active material comprises a plurality of the vanadium-doped LiFePO4 particle with a VO2(B) surface coating, wherein each particle has an average particle diameter in accordance with the claimed range.
However, Kim teaches a cathode active material (Abstract, [0001]). Kim teaches that the material is a LiMPO4 material, where M may be Fe and V ([0021]). Kim teaches that the active material may be used in the form of nano-sized particles having an average particle size of about 0.05-2 µm or secondary particles having an average particle size of about 1-30 µm to provide for efficient intercalation and deintercalation of lithium ions ([0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the cathode active material of Ma, as modified by Nakane, such that the particles are in the form of nano-sized particles having an average particle size of about 0.05-2 µm or secondary particles having an average particle size of about 1-30 µm, as taught by Kim, given that such particle sizes would help provide for efficient intercalation and deintercalation of lithium ions. In either of said alternatives, it is noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights