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 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a positive electrode active material particle according to claim 1” should read “the positive electrode active material particle according to claim 1”. 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.
Claims 1-2, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. (US 20160211517 A1, “Beck”).
Regarding claim 1, Beck discloses a positive electrode active material particle: having an O2-type structure (see abstract “positive electrode active material compositions” & see [0007] “Li1+xNiyMnwCozO2+(x/2) wherein 0≤x≤0.25, 0.5≤y≤0.8, 0.1≤w≤0.6, 0.1≤z≤0.45, and y+w+z=1” & see [0133] describes particles; & see [0047] describes “octahedral” which reads on O2 type structure); having a chemical composition represented by LiaNabMnx-pNiy-qCoz-r Mp+q+rO2, wherein 1.0<a<1.30, 0≤b≤0.20, x+y+z=1, 0≤p+q+r≤0.15, and M is V, Fe (see [0007] & see [0047] “Li1+xNiyMnzCozO2+(x/2) wherein x>0” & describes “reduced chemical structure of MO2, where M = Mn, Co, Ni, Fe, V, or other suitable metals” & see [0081] describes “LihNa2FeV(PO4)3, wherein 0≤h≤1” which reads on Nab); and being spherical (see [0137] “spherical particles”).
Beck discloses a range of Na2, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0≤b≤0.20. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Regarding claim 2, Beck discloses the positive electrode active material particle of claim 1 and further discloses wherein a surface of the particle comprises a plurality of crystallites (see [0053] “crystallites”).
Regarding claim 8, Beck discloses the positive electrode active material particle of claim 1 and further discloses a lithium-ion battery comprising a positive electrode active material layer (see abstract “positive electrode active material compositions” & “lithium rechargeable batteries”; see [0055] “layered”), an electrolyte layer (see [0073] “electrolyte”), and a negative electrode active material layer (see [0045] “negative active material”).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. (US 20160211517 A1, “Beck”) in view of Sugiyama (US 20210119207 A1, “Sugiyama”) and evidenced by Carlier et al. (“On the metastable O2-type LiCoO2”…).
Regarding claim 3, Beck discloses a manufacturing method for a positive electrode active material particle (see [0181] “method of making a lithium rich manganese cobalt oxide”; see abstract “positive electrode active material compositions”), the method comprising: obtaining a Na-containing transition metal oxide particle (see [0081] describes “LihNa2FeV(PO4)3, wherein 0≤h≤1” which reads on Na-containing transition metal oxide particle). Beck discloses whereby at least a portion of Na in the Na-containing transition metal oxide particle is substituted with Li (see [0047] “become substituted by lithium atoms”). Beck discloses to obtain a Li-containing transition metal oxide particle having an O2-type structure (see [0047] describes “octahedral” which reads on O2 type structure). Beck discloses lithium hydroxide (see [0191] “LiOH”) and a lithium salt (see [0193] “lithium salt”). Beck does not explicitly disclose P2-type structure, however, P2-type structure is a property of the material, as evidenced by Carlier (see P1 par 3 describes P2 & see FIG. 1 & FIG. 2).
Regarding the limitation and brining an ion exchange material into contact with the Na-containing transition metal oxide particle, Beck does not explicitly disclose ion exchange.
Sugiyama teaches ion exchange method (see abstract “ion exchange step of substituting lithium for at least part of sodium”; see [0038] “lithium is substituted for at least part of sodium contained in the transition metal oxide, using the ion exchange method”). Sugiyama teaches ion exchange is used to synthesize the O2 structure (see [0003]).
Beck and Sugiyama are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely methods for producing cathode active materials (see Sugiyama title).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate ion exchange as suggested by Sugiyama (see abstract and [0038]) into the method of Beck because a skilled artisan would recognize doing so uses a method that is commonly used to synthesize the O2 structure, as suggested by Sugiyama (see [0003]).
Regarding claim 4, Beck discloses the manufacturing method of claim 3, and further discloses wherein the Na-containing transition metal oxide particle is spherical, and the Li-containing transition metal oxide particle is spherical (see [0137] “spherical particles”).
Regarding claim 5, Beck discloses the manufacturing method of claim 3, and further discloses Fe and V (see [0047] “MO2, where M= Mn, Co, Ni, Fe, V or other suitable metals”). Beck does not explicitly disclose wherein the Na-containing transition metal oxide particle has a chemical composition represented by NacMnx-pNiy-qCoz-rMp+q+rO2 (0 < c < 0.70; x + y + z = 1; 0 ≤ p + q + r ≤ 0.15.
Sugiyama teaches NaaMnx-pNiy-qCoz-rM1p+q+r O2, where 0.5≤a≤1, x+y+z=1, 3≤4x+2y+3z≤3.5, and 0.05≤p+q+r<0.25, M1 is Al or Mo” (see abstract) and teaches “cathode active material having a high average discharge potential, and a high degree of stability at high potential” (see abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate NaaMnx-pNiy-qCoz-rM1p+q+r O2, as suggested by Sugiyama (see abstract) into the method of Beck because doing so improves the discharge potential and stability at high potential of the cathode active material, as suggested by Sugiyama (see abstract).
Sugiyama teaches a range of 0.5≤a≤1, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0 < c < 0.70. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Sugiyama teaches a range of 0.05≤p+q+r<0.25, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0 ≤ p + q + r ≤ 0.15. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Regarding claim 6, Beck discloses the manufacturing method of claim 3 and further discloses the method comprising: obtaining a precursor particle (see [0181] “precursor”); coating a surface of the precursor particle with a Na salt to obtain a coated particle (see [0066] “surface coating” & see [0231] describes “other coatings can be used as well”; see [0191] “the pH is adjusted by adding NaOH”). Regarding the limitation and firing the coated particle to obtain the Na-containing transition metal oxide particle, Beck does not explicitly disclose firing.
Sugiyama teaches heating (see [0040]) & describes “the way of using heat is a way of adding the Li ion source to the transition metal oxide, and heating the resultant, to make the ion exchange reaction progress” (see [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate heating, as suggested by Sugiyama (see [0040]) into the method of Beck because doing so “make[s] the ion exchange reaction progress,” as suggested by Sugiyama (see [0041]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. (US 20160211517 A1, “Beck”) in view of Sugiyama (US 20210119207 A1, “Sugiyama”) and evidenced by Carlier et al. (“On the metastable O2-type LiCoO2”…) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Seo et al. (US 20220411284 A1, “Seo”).
Regarding claim 7, Beck discloses the manufacturing method of claim 6 and further discloses surface coating (see [0066] “surface coating”; see [0231] “other coatings can be used as well” & describes in [0191] “NaOH”) and spherical particles (see [0137]), but does not explicitly disclose the method comprising: coating 40% by area or greater of the surface of the precursor particle with the Na salt to obtain the coated particle.
Seo teaches coating Na (see [0093] “the coating layer may completely cover the surface of the lithium transition metal oxide” & see [0205] “Such data confirmed that the best lifespan characteristics were obtained when Na, W, Mg, Ti and S elements, a concentration gradient region, and a coating layer including a cobalt-containing compound were applied simultaneously”).
Beck and Seo are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely cathode active materials (see title).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate coating a surface of the particle with Na, as suggested by Seo (see [0093] & “coating layer may completely cover” which reads on over half which overlaps 40% as required by the claim) into the method of Beck because doing so improves the lifespan characteristics, as suggested by Seo (see [0205]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 07/21/2026
Prosecution Insights