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 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.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al. (Effects of the nanostructured SiO2 coating on the performance of LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 cathode materials for high-voltage Li-ion batteries), in view of Ooyama et al. (US 20070224506 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Fan teaches a cathode containing a mass comprising: (1) a lithium-containing cathode active material comprising manganese (page 2, left column, lines 8-11),
(2) SiO₂ in particulate form (page 2, right column, last 4 lines),
(3) carbon in electrically conductive form (page 2, left column, last 7 lines), and
(4) binder polymer (PVDF) (page 2, left column, last 7 lines), wherein said mass is coated on a current collector/(aluminum foil) (page 2, left column, last 7 lines).
Fan fails to teach wherein the molar manganese content is in a range of from 50 mol-% to 85 mol-% referring to metals other than lithium contained in said cathode active material. Ooyama teaches a cathode active material comprising a coating layer made of a compound including Li, at least one selected from Ni and Mg, and O is arranged on complex oxide particles represented by Li.sub.1+xCo.sub.1-yM.sub.yO.sub.2-z, where M is at least one kind selected from the group consisting of Mg, Al, B, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Ni, Cu, Zn, Mo, Sn, W, Zr, Y, Nb, Ca and Sr (Abstract & para. [0021]-[0023]), wherein the molar manganese content is in a range of 0-70% (para. [0027]), which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 50 mol-% to 85 mol-% referring to metals other than lithium contained in said cathode active material, in order to provide a cathode active material that possesses a maximum amount of lithium insertion and maximum capacity (para. [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to have the cathode active material of Fan et al. comprise a molar manganese content in a range of from 0 mol-% to 70 mol-%, as taught by Ooyama, in order to provide a cathode active material that possesses a maximum amount of lithium insertion and maximum capacity.
Fan fails to teach wherein SiO₂ has an average particle diameter (D50) in a range of from 5 nm to 100 nm. Ooyama further teaches wherein the cathode active material comprises SiO₂ having an average particle diameter (D50) in a range of 5-20 nm (para. [0083]), which falls within the instantly claimed range of from 5 nm to 100 nm, in order to provide an appropriate precursor layer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to have the SiO₂ in Fan et al. comprise an average particle diameter (D50) in a range of from 5 nm to 20 nm, as taught by Ooyama, in order to provide an appropriate precursor layer.
With respect to claim 3, Fan teaches wherein the cathode according to claim 1 comprising:
(1) 80% by weight cathode active material (page 2, left column, last 12 lines), which touches the instantly claimed range of from 80 % to 95%,
(2) 1% by weight SiO₂ in particulate form (page 2, left column, last 12 lines), which touches the instantly claimed range of from 1 % to 10%,
(3) 13 wt. % carbon in electrically conductive form (page 2, left column, last 12 lines), which almost touches the instantly claimed range of from 1% to 10% by weight,
(4) 7% by weight of binder polymer (page 2, left column, last 12 lines), which almost touches the instantly claimed range of from 1% to 5%, percentages referring to a sum of (1), (2), (3), and (4).
Though the ranges in sections (3) and (4) above are outside the instantly claimed ranged, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to try optimizing the percentages of the prior art in order to determine optimal values that balance cost of material for constructing the cathode and optimal performance of the same; therefore, one skilled in the art would have been able to arrive at the instantly claimed ranges by routine experimentation for optimization purposes.
With respect to claim 4, Fan teaches wherein said SiO₂ is selected from the group consisting of spray-dried silica and fumed silica (page 2, left column, Experiment 2, 2nd paragraph).
With respect to claim 5, Fan teaches wherein the cathode active material has a composition LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 (page 2, left column, 4th paragraph).
With respect to claim 6, Fan teaches wherein the cathode active material has a composition Li₁+xTM₁-xO₂₂ wherein X is in a range of from 0.1 to 0.35, and TM is a combination of elements of a general formula (NiaCobMnc)1-d M¹d (I)
wherein
a is in a range of from 0.20 to 0.40,
b being in a range of from zero to 0.20,
c being in a range of from 0.60 to 0.70, and
d being in a range of from zero to 0.02, M¹ is selected from the group consisting of Al, Ti, Zr, W, Mo, Mg, and Nb, and a+b+c=1 – Fan teaches (NiaCobMnc)1-d M¹d wherein b and d are equal to zero (i.e. Ni0.5Co0Mn1.5 – see page 2, left column, 4th paragraph).
With respect to claim 7, Fan teaches wherein a >b (i.e. Ni0.5Co0Mn1.5 (0.5 > 0) - page 2, left column, 4th paragraph).
With respect to claim 8, Fan teaches wherein an electrochemical cell containing: (A) a cathode according to claim 1 (page 2, left column, lines 8-11 and last paragraph).
With respect to claim 9, Ooyama further teaches wherein the electrochemical cell further comprising: (B) a separator (23) which is impregnated with a liquid electrolyte (para. [0044]), and teaches wherein the electrolyte can comprise glass fibers instead of a liquid electrolyte (para. [0094]); therefore, the glass electrolyte layer would function as both the electrolyte and the separator. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to replace the liquid electrolyte in Fan et al. with a glass electrolyte, which would function as a separator, in order to provide a simpler structure.
With respect to claim 10, Fan in view of Ooyama teaches a process for manufacturing a cathode according to claim 1, as set forth above, wherein said process comprises the following steps:
(a) combining material of sections (1)-(4) of claim 1 above
in the presence of an organic solvent (EC/DMC – page 2, left column, last paragraph) or of water,
(b) applying the mixture from step (a) to a current collector (page 2, left column, last paragraph), and
(c) removing the water or the organic solvent from step (a) (during the drying step - page 2, left column, last 3 paragraphs).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITY V CHANDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8520. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-6:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KAITY V CHANDLER/ 6/23/2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights