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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS’ filed 2/28/2024 and 7/29/2026 have been considered by examiner.
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, 4-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 2003/0180616, hereinafter "Johnson") in view of Shiozaki et al. (EP 1391950, hereinafter "Shiozaki").
Regarding claim 1, Johnson teaches a lithium metal oxide compound having a layered-type structure which may be used as positive electrodes (“cathode active material”) for lithium electrochemical cells (“lithium secondary battery”). Johnson teaches that the lithium metal oxide compound has a nominal formula Li2MO2, in which M represents two or more positively charged metal ions selected predominantly from the first row of transition metals [Abstract; entire disclosure relied upon], which includes Ni, Mn, and Ti. Johnson teaches that in the ideal Li2MO2 structures, the oxygen ions are arranged in a hexagonally-close-packed array, the M ions occupy all the octahedra in alternate layers of the structure, and the lithium ions reside in all the tetrahedral sites of the adjacent layers (“lithium layer”) [Johnson Fig. 1, 0028]. Johnson further discloses that the Li2MO2 compounds may not have the precise Li2MO2 stoichiometry nor the ideal layered configuration, and that some lithium ions may occupy the M layers (“transition metal-lithium layer”) [0029, 0031]. Johnson teaches that the Li2MO2 may be derived from a xLiMO2.(1-x)Li2M'O3 solid solution or composite structure which has the close-packed oxygen array described above [0031]. Examples 2 and 6 of Johnson teach a positive electrode having a positive electrode active material of Li(Li0.02Ti0.05Ni0.46Mn0.46)O2, or Li1.02Ti0.05Ni0.46Mn0.46O2, also written as 0.05Li2TiO3.0.95LiNi0.5Mn0.5O2, which satisfies the formula recited in instant claim 1 [0049, 0054]. Johnson teaches that the positive electrode active material is in the form of a powder (“particles”) [0054, “The electrode slurry was fabricated as described in Example 5”, 0053, “Electrode pellets contained approximately 6 to 11 mg of the Li1+δ(Mn0.5Ni0.5)O2 (δ≈1) powder”]. Johnson is silent regarding the lattice constants of the lithium metal oxide compound.
Shiozaki teaches analogous art of a positive active material (“cathode active material”) for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (“lithium secondary battery”) [0001]. Shiozaki teaches that the positive active material may have a composition represented by the composite formula LiaMn0.5-xNi0.5-yMx+yO2, wherein a, x, and y, satisfy the conditions 0.98≤a<1.1 and -0.1≤x-y≤0.1 [0079]. Shiozaki teaches that M may be an element other than Li, Mn, and Ni, such as Ti [0082]. Shiozaki also teaches that the lattice constant a and lattice constant c of the positive active materials may satisfy the conditions 2.860≤a≤2.890 and 14.20≤c≤14.33, wherein a is the a-axis length and c is the c-axis length in angstroms (Å) [0107], which overlap the recited ranges. At the lower limit of c and the upper limit of a, c/a is 4.91, and at the upper limit of c and the lower limit of a, c/a is 5.01, which overlaps the recited range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) [see MPEP 2144.05(I)].
Shiozaki teaches that when the lattice constants are within this range, poor charge/discharge cycle performance and temperature stability during charge may be avoided [0108-0109]. Shiozaki also teaches that when c satisfies c≤14.30, excellent high-rate discharge performance can be obtained [0110].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lithium metal oxide compound taught by Johnson to have the lattice constants a, c, and c/a within the ranges disclosed by Shiozaki, in order to avoid poor charge/discharge cycle performance and temperature stability during charge and obtain excellent high-rate discharge performance.
Regarding claim 4, modified Johnson teaches the cathode active material of claim 1 as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. Johnson is silent regarding a spectrum of the lithium transition metal composite oxide measured by solid lithium nuclear magnetic resonance analysis (6Li-MAS-NMR) using a magic angle sample rotation, wherein a peak intensity ratio of 1500 ppm/600 ppm is 0.15 or less.
However, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) [MPEP 2112.01(I)]. Furthermore, if the prior art teaches an identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present [MPEP 2112.01 (II)]. The lithium transition metal composite oxide taught by Johnson, as modified by Shiozaki, reads on the chemical formula, layered structure, and lattice constants recited in instant claim 1, as set forth above. Because the lithium transition metal composite oxide taught by modified Johnson is substantially similar in structure and composition to the lithium transition metal composite oxide of instant claim 1, it is prima facie obvious that the lithium transition metal composite oxide taught by modified Johnson would also have the claimed feature that in a spectrum of the lithium transition metal composite oxide measured by solid lithium nuclear magnetic resonance analysis (6Li-MAS-NMR) using a magic angle sample rotation, a peak intensity ratio of 1500 ppm/600 ppm is 0.15 or less.
Regarding claim 5, modified Johnson teaches the cathode active material of claim 1 as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. Johnson is silent regarding a spectrum of the lithium transition metal composite oxide measured by solid lithium nuclear magnetic resonance analysis (6Li-MAS-NMR) using a magic angle sample rotation, wherein a peak due to lithium contained in the transition metal-lithium layer is not present at 1500 ppm.
However, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) [MPEP 2112.01(I)]. Furthermore, if the prior art teaches an identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present [MPEP 2112.01 (II)]. The lithium transition metal composite oxide taught by Johnson, as modified by Shiozaki, reads on the chemical formula, layered structure, and lattice constants recited in instant claim 1, as set forth above. Because the lithium transition metal composite oxide taught by modified Johnson is substantially similar in structure and composition to the lithium transition metal composite oxide of instant claim 1, it is prima facie obvious that the lithium transition metal composite oxide taught by modified Johnson would also have the claimed feature that in a spectrum of the lithium transition metal composite oxide measured by solid lithium nuclear magnetic resonance analysis (6Li-MAS-NMR) using a magic angle sample rotation, a peak due to lithium contained in the transition metal-lithium layer is not present at 1500 ppm.
Regarding claim 6, modified Johnson teaches the cathode active material of claim 1 as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. Johnson teaches that the lithium-metal oxide compound may be used in a positive electrode (“cathode”) of a non-aqueous electrochemical lithium cell (“lithium secondary battery”), wherein the non-aqueous electrochemical lithium cel also comprises a negative electrode (“anode”) and an electrolyte [0061].
Regarding claim 8, modified Johnson teaches the cathode active material of claim 1 as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. Johnson teaches that the lithium-metal oxide compound is formed by heat-treating a mixture of Ni0.5Mn0.5(OH)2 (“nickel-manganese compound”), Ti[OCH(CH3)2]4 (“titanium compound”) and LiOH (“lithium compound”) for 20 hours or less, which overlaps the recited range [0049]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) [see MPEP 2144.05(I)]. Johnson does not specifically teach heat-treating the mixture in a range of 1000°C to 1200°C.
Shiozaki teaches that the Li-Mn-Ni-M composite oxide positive electrode material may be formed by calcining a Li-Mn-Ni-M composite oxide precursor at a temperature of 900°C or higher, which overlaps the recited range [0112].
Shiozaki teaches that by calcining the Li-Mn-Ni-M composite oxide precursor at a temperature of 900°C or higher, battery performance can be greatly improved [0113], and a battery having high energy density and excellent charge/discharge cycle performance can be produced [0117].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of manufacturing the lithium-metal oxide compound taught by Johnson to have the heat treatment occur at a temperature within the range disclosed by Shiozaki, in order to improve battery performance and produce a battery having high energy density and excellent charge/discharge cycle performance.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2003/0180616) in view of Shiozaki (EP 1391950) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yada et al. (JP 2008235148, referring to examiner-provided translation thereof, hereinafter "Yada").
Regarding claim 2, modified Johnson teaches the cathode active material of claim 1 as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. Johnson does not specifically teach the lithium-metal oxide compound having the general formula recited in claim 2.
Yada teaches analogous art of a positive electrode active material (“cathode active material”) for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (“lithium secondary battery”) containing a lithium-containing metal oxide (“lithium transition metal composite oxide”) [0001; entire disclosure relied upon]. Yada teaches that the lithium-containing metal oxide has the general formula LiaNibMncTidMe, wherein a, b, c, d satisfy the conditions 1 ≤ a < 1.3, 0 < b ≤ 0.5, 0 < c ≤ 0.5, 0 < d < 0.09, and 0.7 ≤ b + c + d + e ≤ 1.1) [0011]. When e=0, this general formula overlaps the recited formula. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) [see MPEP 2144.05(I)].
Yada teaches that in the lithium-containing metal oxide with the above-described general formula LiaNibMncTidMe, a portion of Ni is substituted with Ti, thereby suppressing the intrusion of Ni into Li sites, in turn suppressing an increase in resistance [0013]. Yada teaches that higher resistance during charging and discharging results in significantly inferior high-rate charge-discharge characteristics [0006].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lithium-metal oxide compound taught by modified Johnson to have a chemical formula satisfying the general formula taught by Yada, in order to suppress an increase in resistance and avoid inferior high-rate charge-discharge characteristics.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2003/0180616) in view of Shiozaki (EP 1391950) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gunji et al. (US 2016/0276664, hereinafter "Gunji").
Regarding claim 3, modified Johnson teaches the cathode active material of claim 1 as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. Johnson does not specifically teach a ratio of the atoms of Mn to the number of atoms of Ni on a surface of the particles of the lithium transition metal composite oxide.
Gunji teaches analogous art of a positive electrode active material (“cathode active material”) for lithium-ion secondary batteries comprising particles having a core part comprising a lithium metal composite oxide and a surface layer part comprising a lithium metal composite oxide having a composition differing from that in the core part [Abstract; entire disclosure relied upon]. Gunji teaches that the Ni/Mn mole ratio in the surface is less than 1, and preferably less than 0.95 [0013]. Therefore the Mn/Ni ratio in the surface is greater than 1, and preferably greater than 1.05, which overlaps the recited range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) [see MPEP 2144.05(I)].
Gunji teaches that when the Ni/Mn ratio is within the range disclosed, catalyst activity on the surface can be reduced, thereby inhibiting decomposition of an electrolytic solution in contact with the positive electrode active material [0031]. Gunji also teaches that when the Ni/Mn ratio is within the range disclosed, the surface is stable which prevents oxygen from being released on the surface of lithium metal composite oxide, and crystal structure destruction can be inhibited [0031].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lithium-metal oxide compound taught by modified Johnson to have a ratio of Mn/Ni on the surface of the particles of the lithium-metal oxide compound be within the range disclosed by Gunji, in order to inhibit decomposition of an electrolytic solution in contact with the positive electrode active material, as well as to prevent oxygen from being released on the surface of lithium metal composite oxide and inhibit crystal structure destruction.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2003/0180616) in view of Shiozaki (EP 1391950) as applied to claims 6 and 8 above, and further in view of Mitsumoto et al. (US 2021/0159496, hereinafter "Mitsumoto").
Regarding claim 7, modified Johnson teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 6 as described in the rejection of instant claim 6. Johnson does not specifically teach the electrolyte being a solid electrolyte.
Mitsumoto teaches analogous art of a positive electrode active substance (“cathode active material”) for an all solid-state lithium secondary battery [Abstract; entire disclosure relied upon]. Mitsumoto teaches that the positive electrode active substance comprises a lithium nickel metal composite oxide having a layered structure containing Li, M (wherein M includes at least one element or a combination of two or more elements selected from the group consisting of Ni, Co, Mn, and Al), and O [0028]. Mitsumoto teaches that this positive electrode active substance may be used in an all solid-state lithium secondary battery using a solid electrolyte [0028].
Both Johnson and Mitsumoto teach a lithium transition metal composite oxide having a layered structure for use as a cathode active material in a lithium secondary battery. Furthermore, the lithium transition metal composite oxides of both Johnson and Mitsumoto comprise Ni and Mn.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the lithium transition metal composite oxide taught by modified Johnson as a cathode active material in a cathode of the all solid-state lithium secondary battery comprising a solid electrolyte of Mitsumoto, and the results of that substitution (i.e., providing a lithium transition metal composite oxide which can be used as a cathode active material), would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 9, modified Johnson teaches the method for manufacturing the cathode active material according to claim 8 as described in the rejection of instant claim 8. Johnson does not specifically teach subsequently holding the obtained lithium transition metal composite oxide at 850°C to 950°C for 3 hours to 12 hours after the heat treating.
Mitsumoto teaches analogous art of a positive electrode active substance (“cathode active material”) for an all solid-state lithium secondary battery [Abstract; entire disclosure relied upon]. Mitsumoto teaches that the positive electrode active substance comprises a lithium metal composite oxide having a layered structure containing Li, M (wherein M includes at least one element or a combination of two or more elements selected from the group consisting of Ni, Co, Mn, and Al), and O [0028]. Mitsumoto teaches that the method of manufacturing the lithium metal composite oxide includes a step of calcining the raw materials at a temperature greater than 620°C and 1000°C or lower, which forms the lithium metal composite oxide [0167, “it is preferable to select calcining conditions in which transition metals are dissolved at an atomic level to form a single phase”, 0223, “The calcined aggregation obtained by the calcination was placed in a mortar and crushed with a pestle, and then classified using a sieve having an aperture of 53 μm to collect a lithium metal oxide powder”]. Mitsumoto teaches that subsequently, a heat treatment may be performed on the obtained positive electrode active substance (“obtained lithium transition metal composite oxide”) [0119, 0175-0177]. Mitsumoto teaches that the heat treatment occurs at a temperature lower than that in the previous calcining step, for 0.5 to 300 hours, which encompasses the recited range [0177]. Since the upper limit of the temperature of the calcining step is 1000°C, the heat treatment step may occur at a temperature less than 1000°C, which encompasses the recited range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) [see MPEP 2144.05(I)].
Mitsumoto teaches that by performing the heat treatment step after the calcination step, the strain of the positive electrode active substance may be adjusted to a range wherein the discharging-end characteristics and the cycle characteristics can be enhanced [0116-0119]. Mitsumoto also teaches that in addition to decreasing strain, the heat treatment step may also suppress oxygen deficiency [0175].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by modified Johnson to further include a subsequent heat treatment step wherein the lithium transition metal composite oxide is held at a temperature within the range and duration disclosed by Mitsumoto, in order to decrease strain and suppress oxygen deficiency in the lithium transition metal composite oxide.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA F OROZCO whose telephone number is (571)272-0172. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/M.F.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights