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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "compositional formula (1)." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (it is noted that Claim 1 initially refers only to “formula (1)”).
Claim 1 recites that a peak identified as a “102-plane” and a peak identified as a “101-plane.” Claim 1 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear how said peaks are identified, or otherwise what measurement(s) is/are used to identify said peaks (it is noted that unlike the aforementioned planes, the claimed “006-plane” is specifically identified via the claimed X-ray diffraction measurement).
Claims 2, 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites that a sum of a “half-value width of a peak identified as a 104-plane” and the R value is in accordance with the claimed range. However, Claim 2 does not explicitly specify at which height of the claimed peak that the claimed width is measured (as opposed to FWHM measurement which defines the full width being measured at half the maximum of the peak). Accordingly, Claim 2 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear how the instantly claimed sum is calculated when it is unclear how all parts of said sum are determined in the first place.
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 1-2, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (“Enhanced electrochemical performances of LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2,” provided by Applicant in the 03/27/25 IDS).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhou teaches a cathode active material (“positive electrode active material”) for a lithium ion battery (“lithium ion secondary battery”) (Abstract, “Experimental procedures” Section 2.1, “Experimental procedures” Section 2.2). As illustrated in Figure 6, Zhou teaches that the cathode active material comprises secondary particles formed of aggregated primary particles of LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 (“lithium composite oxide” which is represented by “formula (1)”) (“Results and discussion” Section 3.2). As illustrated in Figure 6, Zhou teaches that the primary particles exhibit a particle diameter of 500-700 nm (with respect to the claimed “average value of particle diameters of the primary particles,” 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)) (“Results and discussion” Section 3.2). As illustrated in Table 3, Zhou teaches an embodiment of the cathode active material (i.e. Sample S4) which exhibits an “R value” (i.e. a vaIue of (I006 + I102)/I101 based on X-ray powder diffraction measurement) of 0.4282 (“Results and discussion” Section 3.2).
Regarding Claim 2, Zhou teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), Zhou discloses an R value of 0.4282. As illustrated in Figure 5, Zhou also illustrates, based on x-ray diffraction measurement, a 104-plane peak of the material, wherein said 104-plane peak comprises a varying width based on peak height.
Furthermore, it is noted that the height of the claimed peak that the claimed width is measured is not specified (as detailed previously in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of Claim 2).
Therefore, and based on the R value of Zhou as well as the varied width of the 104-plane peak, Zhou exhibits a sum as instantly claimed which is in accordance with the instantly claimed range, or to at least some degree, overlaps with the instantly claimed range. 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)).
Regarding Claim 8, Zhou teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Furthermore, Zhou teaches a lithium ion battery (“lithium ion secondary battery”) comprising a cathode (“positive electrode”) containing the cathode active material therein (“Experimental procedures” Section 2.3).
Claims 3, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (“Enhanced electrochemical performances of LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2,” provided by Applicant in the 03/27/25 IDS), and further in view of Kanada et al. (US 2018/0309124).
Regarding Claim 3, Zhou teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Zhou does not explicitly teach a specific surface area in accordance with the claimed range.
However, Kanada teaches lithium nickel containing composite oxide as a cathode active material (Abstract, [0001]). Kanada teaches that the composite oxide exhibits a BET specific surface area in the range of 0.2-0.35 m2/g ([0056]). Kanada teaches that such a specific surface area helps suppress deterioration of surface properties due to repeated charging and discharging, thereby improving cycling characteristics ([0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure that the cathode active material of Zhou exhibits a BET specific surface area in the range of 0.2-0.35 m2/g, as taught by Kaneda, given that such a specific surface area helps suppress deterioration of surface properties due to repeated charging and discharging, thereby improving cycling characteristics. 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)).
Regarding Claim 9, Zhou teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 2, as previously described.
Zhou does not explicitly teach a specific surface area in accordance with the claimed range.
However, Kanada teaches lithium nickel containing composite oxide as a cathode active material (Abstract, [0001]). Kanada teaches that the composite oxide exhibits a BET specific surface area in the range of 0.2-0.35 m2/g ([0056]). Kanada teaches that such a specific surface area helps suppress deterioration of surface properties due to repeated charging and discharging, thereby improving cycling characteristics ([0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure that the cathode active material of Zhou exhibits a BET specific surface area in the range of 0.2-0.35 m2/g, as taught by Kaneda, given that such a specific surface area would help suppress deterioration of surface properties due to repeated charging and discharging, thereby improving cycling characteristics. 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)).
Claims 4, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (“Enhanced electrochemical performances of LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2,” provided by Applicant in the 03/27/25 IDS), and further in view of Nagase (US 2011/0065002).
Regarding Claim 4, Zhou teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Zhou does not explicitly teach an NMP oil absorption amount, based on the claimed test method, in accordance with the claimed range.
However, Nagase teaches a lithium nickel containing composite oxide as a positive electrode active material (Abstract, [0001]). Nagase teaches that the composite oxide exhibits an NMP oil absorption amount, based on JIS K5101-13-1, in the range of 30-50 mL/100g ([0020]). Nagase teaches that such an NMP oil absorption amount helps provide for superior coating properties, low resistance, high cycle life, and high capacity ([0020], [0026]-[0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure that the cathode active material of Zhou exhibits an NMP oil absorption amount, based on JIS K5101-13-1, in the range of 30-50 mL/100g, as taught by Nagase, given that such an NMP oil absorption amount would help provide for superior coating properties, low resistance, high cycle life, and high capacity. 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)).
Regarding Claim 10, Zhou teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 2, as previously described.
Zhou does not explicitly teach an NMP oil absorption amount, based on the claimed test method, in accordance with the claimed range.
However, Nagase teaches a lithium nickel containing composite oxide as a positive electrode active material (Abstract, [0001]). Nagase teaches that the composite oxide exhibits an NMP oil absorption amount, based on JIS K5101-13-1, in the range of 30-50 mL/100g ([0020]). Nagase teaches that such an NMP oil absorption amount helps provide for superior coating properties, low resistance, high cycle life, and high capacity ([0020], [0026]-[0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure that the cathode active material of Zhou exhibits an NMP oil absorption amount, based on JIS K5101-13-1, in the range of 30-50 mL/100g, as taught by Nagase, given that such an NMP oil absorption amount would help provide for superior coating properties, low resistance, high cycle life, and high capacity. 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)).
Claims 5, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (“Enhanced electrochemical performances of LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2,” provided by Applicant in the 03/27/25 IDS), and further in view of Toyama et al. (US 2016/0099460).
Regarding Claim 5, Zhou teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Zhou does not explicitly teach a porosity in accordance with the claimed range.
However, Toyama teaches a lithium nickel containing composite oxide as a positive electrode active material (Abstract, [0003]). Toyama teaches that the composite oxide exhibits an open pore volume ratio (i.e. a porosity), measured by mercury porosimetry, of 8% or more and 16% or less ([0038], [0042). Toyama teaches that such a ratio helps attain compatibility between high charge-discharge capacity properties and high charge-discharge cyclability ([0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure that the cathode active material of Zhou exhibits an open pore volume ratio (“porosity”), measured by mercury porosimetry, of 8% or more and 16% or less, as taught by Toyama, given that such a ratio would help attain compatibility between high charge-discharge capacity properties and high charge-discharge cyclability.
Regarding Claim 11, Zhou teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 2, as previously described.
Zhou does not explicitly teach a porosity in accordance with the claimed range.
However, Toyama teaches a lithium nickel containing composite oxide as a positive electrode active material (Abstract, [0003]). Toyama teaches that the composite oxide exhibits an open pore volume ratio (i.e. a porosity), measured by mercury porosimetry, of 8% or more and 16% or less ([0038], [0042). Toyama teaches that such a ratio helps attain compatibility between high charge-discharge capacity properties and high charge-discharge cyclability ([0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure that the cathode active material of Zhou exhibits an open pore volume ratio (“porosity”), measured by mercury porosimetry, of 8% or more and 16% or less, as taught by Toyama, given that such a ratio would help attain compatibility between high charge-discharge capacity properties and high charge-discharge cyclability.
Claims 6, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (“Enhanced electrochemical performances of LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2,” provided by Applicant in the 03/27/25 IDS), and further in view of Isozaki et al. (US 2012/0270093).
Regarding Claim 6, Zhou teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Zhou does not explicitly teach a most frequent pore diameter in accordance with the claimed range.
However, Isozaki teaches a lithium nickel containing composite oxide as a positive electrode active material (Abstract, [0019]). Isozaki teaches that the material exhibits a modal pore diameter of 0.1-0.25 µm ([0055]-[0057]). Isozaki teaches that such a modal diameter helps suppress electrolyte decomposition, and also helps prevent reductions in energy density and electron conductivity ([0055]-[0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure that the cathode active material of Zhou exhibits a modal pore diameter (“most frequent pore diameter”), of 0.1-0.25 µm, as taught by Isoxaki, given that such a modal diameter would help suppress electrolyte decomposition, and also help prevent reductions in energy density and electron conductivity. 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)).
Regarding Claim 12, Zhou teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 2, as previously described.
Zhou does not explicitly teach a most frequent pore diameter in accordance with the claimed range.
However, Isozaki teaches a lithium nickel containing composite oxide as a positive electrode active material (Abstract, [0019]). Isozaki teaches that the material exhibits a modal pore diameter of 0.1-0.25 µm ([0055]-[0057]). Isozaki teaches that such a modal diameter helps suppress electrolyte decomposition, and also helps prevent reductions in energy density and electron conductivity ([0055]-[0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure that the cathode active material of Zhou exhibits a modal pore diameter (“most frequent pore diameter”), of 0.1-0.25 µm, as taught by Isoxaki, given that such a modal diameter would help suppress electrolyte decomposition, and also help prevent reductions in energy density and electron conductivity. 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)).
Claims 7, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (“Enhanced electrochemical performances of LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2,” provided by Applicant in the 03/27/25 IDS), and further in view of Bai et al. (WO 2021/121168, using the equivalent US 2022/0363562 for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 7, Zhou teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Zhou does not explicitly teach an “a” value in accordance with the claimed range.
However, Bai teaches a lithium nickel containing composite oxide as a cathode active material (Abstract, [0001]). Bai teaches that the molar content of Li in the material (i.e. the “x” value in the “Lix” portion of the structural formula of the material) is 1.02, 1.025, or 1.03 ([0027]-[0028]). Bai teaches that such a lithium content helps ensure for excellent performance and relatively high charge and discharge specific capacity characteristics ([0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure, with respect to the material formula of Zhou, that the molar content of lithium is Li1.02, Li1.025, or Li1.03 (i.e. “a” = 0.02, 0.025, 0.03), as taught by Bai, given that such a lithium content would help ensure for excellent performance and relatively high charge and discharge specific capacity characteristics.
Regarding Claim 13, Zhou teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 2, as previously described.
Zhou does not explicitly teach an “a” value in accordance with the claimed range.
However, Bai teaches a lithium nickel containing composite oxide as a cathode active material (Abstract, [0001]). Bai teaches that the molar content of Li in the material (i.e. the “x” value in the “Lix” portion of the structural formula of the material) is 1.02, 1.025, or 1.03 ([0027]-[0028]). Bai teaches that such a lithium content helps ensure for excellent performance and relatively high charge and discharge specific capacity characteristics ([0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure, with respect to the material formula of Zhou, that the molar content of lithium is Li1.02, Li1.025, or Li1.03 (i.e. “a” = 0.02, 0.025, 0.03), as taught by Bai, given that such a lithium content would help ensure for excellent performance and relatively high charge and discharge specific capacity characteristics.
Claims 1-2, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iqbal et al. (“Systematic study of the effect of calcination temperature and Li/M molar ratio on high performance Ni-rich layered LiNi0.9Co0.1O2,” provided by Applicant in the 03/27/25 IDS), and further in view of Kurita et al. (US 2017/0187031).
Regarding Claim 1, Iqbal teaches a cathode active material (“positive electrode active material”) for a lithium ion battery (“lithium ion secondary battery”) (Abstract, “Experimental” Sections 2.1-2.3). As illustrated in Figures 4 and 8, Iqbal teaches that the cathode active material comprises secondary particles formed of aggregated primary particles of LiNi0.9Co0.1O2 (“lithium composite oxide” which is represented by “formula (1)”) (“Results and discussion” Sections 3.1-3.2). As illustrated in Tables 1-2, Iqbal teaches an embodiment wherein the cathode active material exhibits an “R value” (i.e. a vaIue of (I006 + I102)/I101 based on X-ray powder diffraction measurement) of 0.44, and an embodiment wherein said “R value” is 0.43 (“Results and discussion” Section 3.1).
Iqbal does not explicitly teach that the primary particles exhibit an average particle diameter in accordance with the claimed range as measured by a scanning electron microscope.
However, Kurita teaches a lithium nickel containing composite oxide as a positive electrode active material (Abstract, [0022]). Kurita teaches that the material comprises secondary particles formed of aggregated primary particles, wherein an average particle diameter of the primary particles is 0.2-0.9 µm (i.e. 200-900 nm) ([0039]). Kurita teaches that such a particle diameter helps provide for high initial coulombic efficiency ([0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure that the primary particles of the cathode active material of Iqbal exhibit an average particle diameter of 200-900 nm, as taught by Kurita, given that such an average particle diameter would help provide for high initial coulombic efficiency.
Regarding Claim 2, Iqbal, as modified by Kurita, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), Iqbal discloses an R value of 0.43 and 0.44. As illustrated in Figure 2, Iqbal also illustrates, based on x-ray diffraction measurement, a 104-plane peak of the material, wherein said 104-plane peak comprises a varying width based on peak height.
Furthermore, it is noted that the height of the claimed peak that the claimed width is measured is not specified (as detailed previously in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of Claim 2).
Therefore, and based on the R value of Iqbal as well as the varied width of the 104-plane peak, Iqbal, as modified by Kurita, exhibits a sum as instantly claimed which is in accordance with the instantly claimed range, or to at least some degree, overlaps with the instantly claimed range. 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)).
Regarding Claim 8, Iqbal, as modified by Kurita, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Furthermore, Iqbal teaches a lithium ion battery (“lithium ion secondary battery”) comprising a cathode (“positive electrode”) containing the cathode active material therein (“Experimental” Section 2.3).
Claims 3, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iqbal et al. (“Systematic study of the effect of calcination temperature and Li/M molar ratio on high performance Ni-rich layered LiNi0.9Co0.1O2,” provided by Applicant in the 03/27/25 IDS), and further in view of Kurita et al. (US 2017/0187031) and Kanada et al. (US 2018/0309124).
Regarding Claim 3, Iqbal, as modified by Kurita, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Iqbal, as modified by Kurita, does not explicitly teach a specific surface area in accordance with the claimed range.
However, Kanada teaches lithium nickel containing composite oxide as a cathode active material (Abstract, [0001]). Kanada teaches that the composite oxide exhibits a BET specific surface area in the range of 0.2-0.35 m2/g ([0056]). Kanada teaches that such a specific surface area helps suppress deterioration of surface properties due to repeated charging and discharging, thereby improving cycling characteristics ([0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure that the cathode active material of Iqbal, as modified by Kurita, exhibits a BET specific surface area in the range of 0.2-0.35 m2/g, as taught by Kaneda, given that such a specific surface area helps suppress deterioration of surface properties due to repeated charging and discharging, thereby improving cycling characteristics. 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)).
Regarding Claim 9, Iqbal, as modified by Kurita, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 2, as previously described.
Iqbal, as modified by Kurita, does not explicitly teach a specific surface area in accordance with the claimed range.
However, Kanada teaches lithium nickel containing composite oxide as a cathode active material (Abstract, [0001]). Kanada teaches that the composite oxide exhibits a BET specific surface area in the range of 0.2-0.35 m2/g ([0056]). Kanada teaches that such a specific surface area helps suppress deterioration of surface properties due to repeated charging and discharging, thereby improving cycling characteristics ([0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure that the cathode active material of Iqbal, as modified by Kurita, exhibits a BET specific surface area in the range of 0.2-0.35 m2/g, as taught by Kaneda, given that such a specific surface area helps suppress deterioration of surface properties due to repeated charging and discharging, thereby improving cycling characteristics. 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)).
Claims 4, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iqbal et al. (“Systematic study of the effect of calcination temperature and Li/M molar ratio on high performance Ni-rich layered LiNi0.9Co0.1O2,” provided by Applicant in the 03/27/25 IDS), and further in view of Kurita et al. (US 2017/0187031) and Nagase (US 2011/0065002).
Regarding Claim 4, Iqbal, as modified by Kurita, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Iqbal, as modified by Kurita, does not explicitly teach an NMP oil absorption amount, based on the claimed test method, in accordance with the claimed range.
However, Nagase teaches a lithium nickel containing composite oxide as a positive electrode active material (Abstract, [0001]). Nagase teaches that the composite oxide exhibits an NMP oil absorption amount, based on JIS K5101-13-1, in the range of 30-50 mL/100g ([0020]). Nagase teaches that such an NMP oil absorption amount helps provide for superior coating properties, low resistance, high cycle life, and high capacity ([0020], [0026]-[0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure that the cathode active material of Iqbal, as modified by Kurita, exhibits an NMP oil absorption amount, based on JIS K5101-13-1, in the range of 30-50 mL/100g, as taught by Nagase, given that such an NMP oil absorption amount would help provide for superior coating properties, low resistance, high cycle life, and high capacity. 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)).
Regarding Claim 10, Iqbal, as modified by Kurita, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 2, as previously described.
Iqbal, as modified by Kurita, does not explicitly teach an NMP oil absorption amount, based on the claimed test method, in accordance with the claimed range.
However, Nagase teaches a lithium nickel containing composite oxide as a positive electrode active material (Abstract, [0001]). Nagase teaches that the composite oxide exhibits an NMP oil absorption amount, based on JIS K5101-13-1, in the range of 30-50 mL/100g ([0020]). Nagase teaches that such an NMP oil absorption amount helps provide for superior coating properties, low resistance, high cycle life, and high capacity ([0020], [0026]-[0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure that the cathode active material of Iqbal, as modified by Kurita, exhibits an NMP oil absorption amount, based on JIS K5101-13-1, in the range of 30-50 mL/100g, as taught by Nagase, given that such an NMP oil absorption amount would help provide for superior coating properties, low resistance, high cycle life, and high capacity. 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)).
Claims 5, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iqbal et al. (“Systematic study of the effect of calcination temperature and Li/M molar ratio on high performance Ni-rich layered LiNi0.9Co0.1O2,” provided by Applicant in the 03/27/25 IDS), and further in view of Kurita et al. (US 2017/0187031) and Toyama et al. (US 2016/0099460).
Regarding Claim 5, Iqbal, as modified by Kurita, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Iqbal, as modified by Kurita, does not explicitly teach a porosity in accordance with the claimed range.
However, Toyama teaches a lithium nickel containing composite oxide as a positive electrode active material (Abstract, [0003]). Toyama teaches that the composite oxide exhibits an open pore volume ratio (i.e. a porosity), measured by mercury porosimetry, of 8% or more and 16% or less ([0038], [0042). Toyama teaches that such a ratio helps attain compatibility between high charge-discharge capacity properties and high charge-discharge cyclability ([0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure that the cathode active material of Iqbal, as modified by Kurita, exhibits an open pore volume ratio (“porosity”), measured by mercury porosimetry, of 8% or more and 16% or less, as taught by Toyama, given that such a ratio would help attain compatibility between high charge-discharge capacity properties and high charge-discharge cyclability.
Regarding Claim 11, Iqbal, as modified by Kurita, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 2, as previously described.
Iqbal, as modified by Kurita, does not explicitly teach a porosity in accordance with the claimed range.
However, Toyama teaches a lithium nickel containing composite oxide as a positive electrode active material (Abstract, [0003]). Toyama teaches that the composite oxide exhibits an open pore volume ratio (i.e. a porosity), measured by mercury porosimetry, of 8% or more and 16% or less ([0038], [0042). Toyama teaches that such a ratio helps attain compatibility between high charge-discharge capacity properties and high charge-discharge cyclability ([0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure that the cathode active material of Iqbal, as modified by Kurita, exhibits an open pore volume ratio (“porosity”), measured by mercury porosimetry, of 8% or more and 16% or less, as taught by Toyama, given that such a ratio would help attain compatibility between high charge-discharge capacity properties and high charge-discharge cyclability.
Claims 6, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iqbal et al. (“Systematic study of the effect of calcination temperature and Li/M molar ratio on high performance Ni-rich layered LiNi0.9Co0.1O2,” provided by Applicant in the 03/27/25 IDS), and further in view of Kurita et al. (US 2017/0187031) and Isozaki et al. (US 2012/0270093).
Regarding Claim 6, Iqbal, as modified by Kurita, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Iqbal, as modified by Kurita, does not explicitly teach a most frequent pore diameter in accordance with the claimed range.
However, Isozaki teaches a lithium nickel containing composite oxide as a positive electrode active material (Abstract, [0019]). Isozaki teaches that the material exhibits a modal pore diameter of 0.1-0.25 µm ([0055]-[0057]). Isozaki teaches that such a modal diameter helps suppress electrolyte decomposition, and also helps prevent reductions in energy density and electron conductivity ([0055]-[0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure that the cathode active material of Iqbal, as modified by Kurita, exhibits a modal pore diameter (“most frequent pore diameter”), of 0.1-0.25 µm, as taught by Isoxaki, given that such a modal diameter would help suppress electrolyte decomposition, and also help prevent reductions in energy density and electron conductivity. 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)).
Regarding Claim 12, Iqbal, as modified by Kurita, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 2, as previously described.
Iqbal, as modified by Kurita, does not explicitly teach a most frequent pore diameter in accordance with the claimed range.
However, Isozaki teaches a lithium nickel containing composite oxide as a positive electrode active material (Abstract, [0019]). Isozaki teaches that the material exhibits a modal pore diameter of 0.1-0.25 µm ([0055]-[0057]). Isozaki teaches that such a modal diameter helps suppress electrolyte decomposition, and also helps prevent reductions in energy density and electron conductivity ([0055]-[0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure that the cathode active material of Iqbal, as modified by Kurita, exhibits a modal pore diameter (“most frequent pore diameter”), of 0.1-0.25 µm, as taught by Isoxaki, given that such a modal diameter would help suppress electrolyte decomposition, and also help prevent reductions in energy density and electron conductivity. 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)).
Claims 7, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iqbal et al. (“Systematic study of the effect of calcination temperature and Li/M molar ratio on high performance Ni-rich layered LiNi0.9Co0.1O2,” provided by Applicant in the 03/27/25 IDS), and further in view of Kurita et al. (US 2017/0187031) and Bai et al. (WO 2021/121168, using the equivalent US 2022/0363562 for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 7, Iqbal, as modified by Kurita, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Iqbal, as modified by Kurita, does not explicitly teach an “a” value in accordance with the claimed range.
However, Bai teaches a lithium nickel containing composite oxide as a cathode active material (Abstract, [0001]). Bai teaches that the molar content of Li in the material (i.e. the “x” value in the “Lix” portion of the structural formula of the material) is 1.02, 1.025, or 1.03 ([0027]-[0028]). Bai teaches that such a lithium content helps ensure for excellent performance and relatively high charge and discharge specific capacity characteristics ([0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure, with respect to the material formula of Iqbal, as modified by Kurita, that the molar content of lithium is Li1.02, Li1.025, or Li1.03 (i.e. “a” = 0.02, 0.025, 0.03), as taught by Bai, given that such a lithium content would help ensure for excellent performance and relatively high charge and discharge specific capacity characteristics.
Regarding Claim 13, Iqbal, as modified by Kurita, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 2, as previously described.
Iqbal, as modified by Kurita, does not explicitly teach an “a” value in accordance with the claimed range.
However, Bai teaches a lithium nickel containing composite oxide as a cathode active material (Abstract, [0001]). Bai teaches that the molar content of Li in the material (i.e. the “x” value in the “Lix” portion of the structural formula of the material) is 1.02, 1.025, or 1.03 ([0027]-[0028]). Bai teaches that such a lithium content helps ensure for excellent performance and relatively high charge and discharge specific capacity characteristics ([0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure, with respect to the material formula of Iqbal, as modified by Kurita, that the molar content of lithium is Li1.02, Li1.025, or Li1.03 (i.e. “a” = 0.02, 0.025, 0.03), as taught by Bai, given that such a lithium content would help ensure for excellent performance and relatively high charge and discharge specific capacity characteristics.
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