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
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 § 102
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.
Claims 1, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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).
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).
Furthermore, given the absence of what structurally constitutes the claimed “surface portion” and claimed “central portion” (e.g. the thickness of each given portion relative to the total particle radius or diameter, a particle depth defining a boundary between each given portion, etc.), and because (1) the vanadium-doped LiFePO4 particle of Ma contains vanadium therein, (2) the VO2(B) surface coating of Ma contains vanadium therein, and (3) the VO2(B) surface coating of Ma forms a uniform surface coating layer on the vanadium-doped LiFePO4 particle, the cathode active material of Ma may readily be interpreted as comprising a “surface portion” including a first weight amount of vanadium (and being formed of a portion of the VO2(B) surface coating, the entire VO2(B) surface coating, or a combination of at least a portion of the VO2(B) surface coating and at least a portion of the vanadium-doped LiFePO4 particle) and a “central portion” over which said surface portion is formed and including a second weight amount of vanadium (and being formed of the entire vanadium-doped LiFePO4 particle or a combination of at least a portion of the VO2(B) surface coating and at least a portion of the vanadium-doped LiFePO4 particle), wherein said surface portion and said central portion may be defined based on a thickness/depth at which said first weight amount is greater than said second weight amount.
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).
Furthermore, given the absence of what structurally constitutes the claimed “surface portion” and claimed “central portion” (e.g. the thickness of each given portion relative to the total particle radius or diameter, a particle depth defining a boundary between each given portion, etc.), and because (1) the vanadium-doped LiFePO4 particle of Ma contains vanadium therein, (2) the VO2(B) surface coating of Ma contains vanadium therein, and (3) the VO2(B) surface coating of Ma forms a uniform surface coating layer on the vanadium-doped LiFePO4 particle, the cathode active material of Ma may readily be interpreted as comprising a “surface portion” including a first weight amount of vanadium (and being formed of a portion of the VO2(B) surface coating, the entire VO2(B) surface coating, or a combination of at least a portion of the VO2(B) surface coating and at least a portion of the vanadium-doped LiFePO4 particle) and a “central portion” over which said surface portion is formed and including a second weight amount of vanadium (and being formed of the entire vanadium-doped LiFePO4 particle or a combination of at least a portion of the VO2(B) surface coating and at least a portion of the vanadium-doped LiFePO4 particle), wherein said surface portion and said central portion may be defined based on a thickness/depth at which said first weight amount is greater than said second weight amount.
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 2-8, 14-20 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 2, Ma teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1 as previously described.
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.
Regarding Claim 3, Ma, as modified by Nakane, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 2, 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 4, Ma, as modified by Nakane, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 2, 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 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 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 14, Ma teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 13 as previously described.
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.
Regarding Claim 15, Ma, as modified by Nakane, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 14, 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 16, Ma, as modified by Nakane, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 14, 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 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 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.
Claims 9, 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 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 teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Ma 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 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 12, Ma teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Ma 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 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 10 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 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) and Nakane et al. (US 6,730,435).
Regarding Claim 10, Ma, as modified by Lv, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 9, as previously described.
Ma, as modified by 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, 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.
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 Kim et al. (US 2012/0231341).
Regarding Claim 11, Ma teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Ma 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 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
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