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 Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: The “M” in the formula with “Mx-y” should not be subscript, and should be “Mx-y”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-13, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US-20240047731-A1), and in further view of Kang (US-20040091779-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a positive electrode active material for lithium-ion batteries comprising an overlithiated manganese-based oxide represented by Formula 1: LiaNibCocMndMeO2 wherein, M is at least one selected from the group consisting of Al, B, Co, W, Mg, V, Ti, Zn, Ga, In, Ru, Nb, Sn, Sr, and Zr, and 1<a, 0≤b≤0.5, 0≤c≤0.1, 0.5≤d<1.0, and 0≤e≤0.2, and, wherein 1.1≤a≤1.5, 0.1≤b≤0.4, 0≤c≤0.05, 0.5≤d≤0.80, and 0≤e≤0.1 (see e.g., Park; abstract, [0011]-[0012]). When M is selected to be Co and V, the formula disclosed by Park overlaps with the claimed general formula 1: Li(1.1+a)Mn(0.51+c)Ni(0.38-x)Mx-yNyO(2-b)Fb (1) wherein: M is Co, Cr, or a combination thereof; N is W+6, Ta+5, V+5 or a combination thereof; 0≤a≤0.02; 0≤c≤0.01; 0≤x≤0.1; 0≤y≤0.04; and 0≤b≤0.1, except for the fluorine component Fb wherein 0≤b≤0.1.
However, Kang discloses a lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide with the composition Li1+xNiαMnβCoγM′δO2−zFz (M′=Mg,Zn,Al,Ga,B,Zr,Ti) for use with rechargeable batteries wherein x is between about 0 and 0.3, αis between about 0.2 and 0.6, β is between about 0.2 and 0.6, γ is between about 0 and 0.3, δ is between about 0 and 0.15, and z is between about 0 and 0.2 (see e.g., Kang; abstract, [0008]), which is a chemical composition similar to the lithium manganese oxide as disclosed by Park because the subscripts of the materials as disclosed by Kang overlap with that of Park. In the composition, Kang discloses fluorine doping Fz wherein z is between about 0 and 0.2, which corresponds with the claimed composition with Fb wherein 0≤b≤0.1. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lithium manganese-based oxide as disclosed by Park by fluorine doping such that the subscript of fluorine in the chemical composition is 0 to 0.2 as disclosed by Kang in order to reduce impedance and to improve cycling stability at high temperature as well as at room temperature (see e.g., Kang; [0024], abstract).
Regarding claim 2, modified Park teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein a=0 and c=0.01 (see above regarding claim 1 where in the modified general formula of Park provides Lia and 1<a which overlaps with the claimed Li1.1+a and a=0, and Mnd wherein 0.5≤d<1.0 which overlaps with the claimed Mn(0.51+c) and c=0.01).
Regarding claim 3, modified Park teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein a=0.1 and c=0 (see above regarding claim 1 where in the modified general formula of Park provides Lia and 1<a which overlaps with the claimed Li1.1+a and a=0.1, and Mnd wherein 0.5≤d<1.0 which overlaps with the claimed Mn(0.51+c) and c=0).
Regarding claim 4, modified Park teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 1, wherein the average oxidation state of Mn is controlled between 3.7 and 4.0 (see above regarding claim 1, wherein the general formula provided by Park of a lithium manages-based oxide is such that the average oxidation state of Mn is +4 which overlaps with the claimed range).
Regarding claim 5, Park discloses a positive electrode for a lithium-ion battery (see e.g., Park; abstract, [0011]-[0012]), the positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active comprising an overlithiated manganese-based oxide represented by Formula 1: LiaNibCocMndMeO2 wherein, M is at least one selected from the group consisting of Al, B, Co, W, Mg, V, Ti, Zn, Ga, In, Ru, Nb, Sn, Sr, and Zr, and 1<a, 0≤b≤0.5, 0≤c≤0.1, 0.5≤d<1.0, and 0≤e≤0.2, and, wherein 1.1≤a≤1.5, 0.1≤b≤0.4, 0≤c≤0.05, 0.5≤d≤0.80, and 0≤e≤0.1 (see e.g., Park; abstract, [0011]-[0012]). When M is selected to be Co and V, the formula disclosed by Park overlaps with the claimed general formula 1: Li(1.1+a)Mn(0.51+c)Ni(0.38-x)Mx-yNyO(2-b)Fb (1) wherein: M is Co, Cr, or a combination thereof; N is W+6, Ta+5, V+5 or a combination thereof; 0≤a≤0.02; 0≤c≤0.01; 0≤x≤0.1; 0≤y≤0.04; and 0≤b≤0.1, except for the fluorine component Fb wherein 0≤b≤0.1.
However, Kang discloses a lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide with the composition Li1+xNiαMnβCoγM′δO2−zFz (M′=Mg,Zn,Al,Ga,B,Zr,Ti) for use with rechargeable batteries wherein x is between about 0 and 0.3, αis between about 0.2 and 0.6, β is between about 0.2 and 0.6, γ is between about 0 and 0.3, δ is between about 0 and 0.15, and z is between about 0 and 0.2 (see e.g., Kang; abstract, [0008]), which is a chemical composition similar to the lithium manganese oxide as disclosed by Park because the subscripts of the materials as disclosed by Kang overlap with that of Park. In the composition, Kang discloses fluorine doping Fz wherein z is between about 0 and 0.2, which corresponds with the claimed composition with Fb wherein 0≤b≤0.1. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lithium manganese-based oxide as disclosed by Park by fluorine doping such that the subscript of fluorine in the chemical composition is 0 to 0.2 as disclosed by Kang in order to reduce impedance and to improve cycling stability at high temperature as well as at room temperature (see e.g., Kang; [0024], abstract).
Regarding claim 6, modified Park teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 5, wherein a=0 and c=0.01 (see above regarding claim 1 where in the modified general formula of Park provides Lia and 1<a which overlaps with the claimed Li1.1+a and a=0, and Mnd wherein 0.5≤d<1.0 which overlaps with the claimed Mn(0.51+c) and c=0.01).
Regarding claim 7, modified Park teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 5, wherein a=0.1 and c=0 (see above regarding claim 1 where in the modified general formula of Park provides Lia and 1<a which overlaps with the claimed Li1.1+a and a=0.1, and Mnd wherein 0.5≤d<1.0 which overlaps with the claimed Mn(0.51+c) and c=0).
Regarding claim 8, modified Park teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 5, wherein the average oxidation state of Mn is controlled between 3.7 and 4.0 (see above regarding claim 1, wherein the general formula provided by Park of a lithium manages-based oxide is such that the average oxidation state of Mn is +4 which overlaps with the claimed range).
Regarding claim 9, modified Park teaches a rechargeable lithium-ion battery comprising at least one lithium-ion battery cell (see e.g., Park; abstract, [0077]), each lithium-ion battery cell including a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material as represented by formula 1.
Regarding claim 10, Park discloses a rechargeable lithium-ion battery comprising at least one lithium-ion battery cell (see e.g., Park; abstract, [0077]), each lithium-ion battery cell including: a positive electrode active material for lithium-ion batteries comprising an overlithiated manganese-based oxide represented by Formula 1: LiaNibCocMndMeO2 wherein, M is at least one selected from the group consisting of Al, B, Co, W, Mg, V, Ti, Zn, Ga, In, Ru, Nb, Sn, Sr, and Zr, and 1<a, 0≤b≤0.5, 0≤c≤0.1, 0.5≤d<1.0, and 0≤e≤0.2, and, wherein 1.1≤a≤1.5, 0.1≤b≤0.4, 0≤c≤0.05, 0.5≤d≤0.80, and 0≤e≤0.1 (see e.g., Park; abstract, [0011]-[0012]). When M is selected to be Co and V, the formula disclosed by Park overlaps with the claimed general formula 1: Li(1.1+a)Mn(0.51+c)Ni(0.38-x)Mx-yNyO(2-b)Fb (1) wherein: M is Co, Cr, or a combination thereof; N is W+6, Ta+5, V+5 or a combination thereof; 0≤a≤0.02; 0≤c≤0.01; 0≤x≤0.1; 0≤y≤0.04; and 0≤b≤0.1, except for the fluorine component Fb wherein 0≤b≤0.1. Park further discloses a negative electrode including a negative active material and an electrolyte (see e.g., Park; abstract, [0011]).
However, Kang discloses a lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide with the composition Li1+xNiαMnβCoγM′δO2−zFz (M′=Mg,Zn,Al,Ga,B,Zr,Ti) for use with rechargeable batteries wherein x is between about 0 and 0.3, αis between about 0.2 and 0.6, β is between about 0.2 and 0.6, γ is between about 0 and 0.3, δ is between about 0 and 0.15, and z is between about 0 and 0.2 (see e.g., Kang; abstract, [0008]), which is a chemical composition similar to the lithium manganese oxide as disclosed by Park because the subscripts of the materials as disclosed by Kang overlap with that of Park. In the composition, Kang discloses fluorine doping Fz wherein z is between about 0 and 0.2, which corresponds with the claimed composition with Fb wherein 0≤b≤0.1. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lithium manganese-based oxide as disclosed by Park by fluorine doping such that the subscript of fluorine in the chemical composition is 0 to 0.2 as disclosed by Kang in order to reduce impedance and to improve cycling stability at high temperature as well as at room temperature (see e.g., Kang; [0024], abstract).
Regarding claim 11, modified Park teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 10, wherein a=0 and c=0.01 (see above regarding claim 1 where in the modified general formula of Park provides Lia and 1<a which overlaps with the claimed Li1.1+a and a=0, and Mnd wherein 0.5≤d<1.0 which overlaps with the claimed Mn(0.51+c) and c=0.01).
Regarding claim 12, modified Park teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 10, wherein a=0.1 and c=0 (see above regarding claim 1 where in the modified general formula of Park provides Lia and 1<a which overlaps with the claimed Li1.1+a and a=0.1, and Mnd wherein 0.5≤d<1.0 which overlaps with the claimed Mn(0.51+c) and c=0).
Regarding claim 13, modified Park teaches the positive electrode active material of claim 5, wherein the average oxidation state of Mn is controlled between 3.7 and 4.0 (see above regarding claim 1, wherein the general formula provided by Park of a lithium manages-based oxide is such that the average oxidation state of Mn is +4 which overlaps with the claimed range).
Regarding claim 15, modified Park teaches the rechargeable lithium-ion battery of claim 10, wherein each battery cell further includes a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (see e.g., Park; abstract, [0011]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Park teaches the rechargeable lithium-ion battery of claim 10. Park further discloses examples wherein the charge capacity are 284.9-291.4 mAh/g (see e.g., Park; table 3), which falls within the claimed range of the cells having a specific capacity greater than 150 mAh/g.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US-20240047731-A) and Kang (US-20040091779-A1), and in further view of Tyler (US-20220285768-A1).
Regarding claim 14, modified Park teaches the rechargeable lithium-ion battery of claim 10. Park does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one lithium-ion battery cell is a plurality of battery cells. However, Tyler discloses a battery comprising a plurality of lithium ion battery cells (see e.g., Tyler; claim 1). Tyler is analogous art because Tyler discloses that the cells are similarly a lithium transition metal oxide including manganese and nickel (see e.g., Tyler; claim 35). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the battery of Park provided in a plurality of cells as disclosed by Tyler in order to apply the battery in applications such as a vehicle having improved power sources (see e.g., Tyler; [0006]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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 (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KEVIN SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights