DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2023-0103669, filed on 08/08/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by published application Cho et al. Par. [KR 20030033912 A, dated May 01, 2003, machine translation by EPO].
Considering claim 1, Cho et al. discloses a cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery (see e.g. cathode active material for a lithium secondary battery in Par. [0026]), the cathode active material (see e.g. cathode active material in Par. [0026]) comprising:
a core part (Cho et al. discloses the active materials is formed of particle with coating (see e.g. the coating layer of cathode active material particle in par. [0047] and [0048]) wherein the coating thickness is 0.01 to 2㎛ (see e.g. coating layer in Par. [0051]). Thus, it is expected that active materials particle has a core, and coating. Accordingly, the core of the cathode active material is the lithium-containing compound) comprising a lithium metal oxide (see e.g. lithium metal oxide in Par. [0029];
and a coating layer covering at least a portion of a surface of the core part (see e.g. a coating layer formed of a coating element-containing oxide formed on a surface of a lithium-containing compound in Par. [0026]); and comprising an inorganic compound (see e.g. the lithium-coating layer present on the surface of the element containing compound comprises an oxide in Par. [0045]. An oxide is an inorganic compound).
Considering claim 9, Cho et al. further discloses wherein the cathode active material comprises 90% to 99% by weight of the core part and 1% to 10% by weight of the coating layer (see e.g. the coating element-containing oxide may be present in an amount of 1 to 10% by weight in Par. [0049], which is identical to the claimed range). It is also expected that the coating weight % range and conclude that the core of the cathode active material is preferably 90% to 99% by weight.
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 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.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over published application Cho et al. [KR 20030033912 A, dated May 01, 2003, machine translation by EPO].
Considering claim 7, Cho et al. further discloses wherein the lithium metal oxide (see e.g. lithium metal oxide in Par. [0029]) is represented by Lia(NixMlyM2z)O2 (see e.g. LixNi1-y-zCoyM'zAα (Formula 11) in Par. [0039] and A is Oxygen in Par. [0043]]
wherein M1 comprises Co, Mn, Ni, Al, Mg, or Ti, (see e.g. M1 is Co in Par. [0039])
wherein M2 comprises Ca, Mg, Al, Ti, Sr, Fe, Ca, Mn, Ni, Cu, Zn, Y, Zr, Nb, or B (see e.g. M' is Al, Ni, Co, Mn, Cr, Fe, Mg, Sr, V and rare earth in Par. [0043]), and
wherein 0≤a≤1, 0.7≤x≤1, 0≤y≤0.3, 0≤z≤0.3 (see e.g. wherein, 0.95 ≤x ≤1.1, 0 ≤y ≤0.5, 0 ≤z ≤0.5, 0 <α≤2 in Par. [0043]), and x+y+z=1 are satisfied (see e.g. (formula 11) in Par. [0039]. The equivalent of this equation is, (1-y-z)+y+z=1, which matches the claim limitation). The disclosed range of Cho et al. cathode active material overlaps the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, the claim limitation is met.
Claim(s) 2,3, and 5, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over published application Cho et al. [KR 20030033912 A, dated May 01, 2003, machine translation by EPO], in view of Miki et al. (US 2015/0287985 A1).
Claim 8 is addressed prior to addressing claim 2-3, 5 as claims 2-3, and 5 are properties of the cathode active materials that will be dependent on the cathode active materials composition.
Considering claim 8, Cho et al. discloses the coating can be lithium-coating layer present on the surface of the element containing compound comprises an oxide in Par. [0045].
Cho et al. does not explicitly teach that the coating layer comprises LiNbO3, Li2ZrO3, Li3PO4, Li2SiO3, or combinations thereof for a cathode active material.
However, Miki et al. teaches a positive electrode active material powder comprising lithium metal oxide LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3O2 as the core and an ion conducting oxide coating layer comprising LiNbO3 to attach to the core surface (see e.g. a positive electrode active material particle LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3O2 was prepared to attach a coating layer containing lithium niobate to a surface thereof. in Par. [0077]). Miki et al. further teaches that ion conducting oxides such as Li2ZrO3, Li3PO4, Li2SiO3 can be used as coating (see e.g. the ion-conducting oxide formed on the surface of the active material powder, Li-containing oxides such as LiNbO3, Li2SiO3, Li3PO4, Li2ZrO3 in Par. [0053]).
Cho et al. and Miki et al. are analogous in the field of cathode active material particle for lithium secondary battery. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating on the core of Cho et al. with the coating layer LiNbO3, Li2ZrO3, Li3PO4, Li2SiO3 as taught by Miki et al. as the coating layer of LiNbO3, Li2ZrO3, Li3PO4, Li2SiO3 on the particle core can provide would provide benefits such as reducing the resistance and the unevenness in the thickness of a coating layer (see Miki et al. in Par. [0009]).
Considering claims 2-3, and 5
In the instant application, the application discloses the flow angle is one of the parameters to evaluate the fluidity of powder. The fluidity refers to the ability of the powder to flow freely and uniformly in the form of individual particles. A relatively small flow angle means that the force of attraction between particles is relatively small and the fluidity of the powder is good in Par. 54
The instant application further discloses the cohesion index refers to an index of the cohesion between particles of the cathode active material 10 while the cathode active material 10 flows in par. 59.
The instant application further discloses the surface friction coefficient may refer to an interparticle friction index calculated from the flow angle in Par. 73.
So, the current office action will analyze the particle of Cho et al. and Miki et al., wherein the particle has overlapping particle size and similar manufacturing method of the particles to illustrate the cathode active materials of Cho et al. and Miki et al. will also have overlapping properties such as flow angle, cohesive index and calculated coefficient of surface friction as the cathode active materials in the instant application.
Regarding particle size, Cho et. al taught the thickness of the coating layer is preferably 0.01 to 2 μm, and more preferably 0.01 to 1 μm (see Cho et al. in Par. [0051]) which overlaps applicant’s range 10 nm to 300 nm (equivalent to 0.01 μm to 0.3 μm) (see Par. [0049] of instant application). Cho et. al did not explicitly disclose the total particle size but only disclose the core lithium-containing compound may have an average particle diameter of 1 to 20 μm, and more preferably 3 to 10 μm (see Cho et al. in Par. [0044]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to calculate the total particle size of modified Cho et al. to be 3.02 to 12 μm, which overlaps applicant’s range 1 μm to 10 μm (see Applicant’s Specification in Par. [0052]). Thus, the modified Cho et al. cathode material and the claimed invention are substantially fully encompassing particle size, as disclosed in the instant Specification.
Regarding the method of making the cathode active material particle, the claimed invention and modified Cho both mix a core compound and coating material(s) then heat treated. Cho et al. taught the heat treatment process may be performed at about 100°C to about 700° C (see Cho et al. in Par. [0060]), which overlaps applicant’s range 200°C to 800°C (see Applicant’s Specification in Par. [0050]). The applicant did not disclose a specific time requirement for the heating process. Thus, the modified Cho et al. cathode material and the claimed invention are substantially identical in the method of making.
Due to the substantially similar particle composition, materials, particle size and method, modified Cho cathode active material and the claimed invention cathode active material according to claim 1 have substantially similar structure, thus it would be expected for a person with ordinary skills in the art to achieve particles with similar properties.
Considering claim 2, modified Cho teaches the cathode active material according to claim 1 wherein the cathode active material would inherently possess a flow angle in a range of 200 to 550 made by the substantially similar method and materials of modified Cho cathode active material as cited in claim.
Considering claim 3 and 5, modified Cho teaches the cathode active material according to claim 1 wherein the cathode active material would inherently possess a cohesive index in a range of 10 to 20 and a coefficient of surface friction in a range of 0.8 to 1.2 made by the substantially similar method and materials of modified Cho as cited in claim.
Furthermore, applicant discloses that the cohesion index can be defined using the flow angle (see Applicant’s Specification in Par. [0060]), and the surface friction coefficient is calculated from the flow angle (see Applicant’s Specification in Par. [0073]). Modified Cho cathode active material discloses substantially overlapping materials, structure and method as discussed above. Therefore, a person with ordinary skills in the art would have reasonably expected the disclosed particles to exhibit substantially the same flow angle characteristic, and consequently the corresponding cohesion index and surface friction coefficient that derived from the flow angle.
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over published application Cho et al. [KR 20030033912 A , dated May 01, 2003, machine translation by EPO], in view of Miki et al. (US 2015/0287985 A1), and further in view of Hojberg et al. (US 2022/0013762 A1).
Considering Claim 4, modified Cho et al. discloses the cathode active material according to claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose the cathode active material has a roughness index in a range of 1.30 to 1.50.
Hojberg et al. teaches lithium positive electrode active material for a secondary battery (see Hojberg et al. in abstract). Hojberg et al. teaches the roughness of lithium positive electrode active material is below 1.35 (see Hojberg et al. in Par. [0051]), which overlaps applicant’s range 1.30 to 1.50 as claimed. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Hojberg’s roughness describes how rough the surface is, where a higher value means rougher surface, and lower value of roughness corresponds to lower degradation (see Hojberg et al. in Par. [0051]). Hojberg’s roughness is measured as the ratio between the perimeter and the perimeter of an ellipse fitted to the particle shape (see Hojberg in Par. [0101]).
Cho et al. and Hojberg et al. are analogous in the field of cathode active material particle for lithium secondary battery. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to modify the roughness index of the cathode active material of modified Cho et al. to be below 1.35 as taught by Hojberg et al. as roughness index of below 1.35 can provide benefit such as reduce the surface irregularity to improve the cathode active material capacity as suggested by Hojberg et al. (see Hojberg et al. in Par. [0001]). Though Hojberg does not explicitly disclose the roughness index as an index of the irregularity of the interface between the air and the cathode active material as defined in the instant Specification, it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art regarding the instantly defined roughness index that, an optimal cathode active material particle would have a roughness index closer to 1.0 and smoother surface. As the roughness index increases, the particle surface is rougher, thus the particle surface is more irregular as defined in the instant Specification. Therefore, the claim limitation is obvious.
Further, with the teaching of Hojberg et al., a person with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date would know that roughness index is a result effective variable as taught by Hojberg et al.. If the particle surface is too rough, the degradation of the battery is too high, thus capacity retention rate of the battery may be reduced (see Hojberg et al. in Par. [0101]). Determining the proper range of the surface roughness would merely require routine experimentation in order to balance and optimize the need for a good cycle performance, rate characteristics vs. cost/yield, and the ease of manufacturing, which would be obvious per MPEP 2144.05II. See MPEP 2143 (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Considering Claim 6, Cho et al. in view of Miki et al. and Holberg et al. discloses the cathode active material according to claim 1 wherein the cathode active material has a flow angle in a range of 200 to 550, a cohesive index of 10 to 20, a roughness index in a range of 1.30 to 1.50, and a coefficient of surface friction in a range of 0.8 to 1.2 (please see the discussion of claims 2-5 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THU T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5480. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/T.T.T./THU T TRANExaminer, Art Unit 1788
/TONG GUO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights