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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 20210288314 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a cathode active material composite for a battery, comprising: a core portion that includes a cathode active material; and a shell portion formed to surround the core portion (paragraph 0013), wherein the shell portion includes one or more layers of reduced graphene oxide (rGO) (paragraphs 0013, 0016, 0140).
Regarding claim 4, Liu discloses the limitations of claim1. Liu further discloses wherein the reduced graphene oxide contains 2 to 12% by weight of oxygen (O) relative to the reduced graphene oxide (paragraphs 0097, 0123, 0.001%-5% or 0.001%-50%, overlapping the claimed 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Liu discloses the limitations of claim 1. Liu further discloses wherein the reduced graphene oxide is dry-coated to form one or more layers and is contained in the shell portion (paragraphs 0013, 0016, 0031-0034).
Claims 7-9 are considered product-by-process claims. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). In this case, Liu teaches the claimed reduced graphene oxide coated active material with one or more layers, and therefore discloses all of the positively recited structure of the claimed product.
Regarding claim 10, Liu discloses the limitations of claim 1. Liu further discloses a secondary battery electrode comprising the cathode active material composite (paragraphs 0013, 0025).
Regarding claim 11, Liu discloses the limitations of claim 10. Liu further discloses a secondary battery comprising the secondary battery electrode (paragraphs 0013, 0025).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20210288314 A1) in view of Lee et al. (KR 20150060467 A).
Regarding claim 2, Liu discloses the limitations of claim 1. Liu is silent regarding wherein the shell portion has an average thickness of 3 nm to 31 nm.
Lee discloses a cathode active material comprising metal oxide particles with a graphene layer coated on the surface (Lee paragraphs 0008-0009). Lee further discloses that the thickness of the graphene layer ranges from 0.3 nm to 15 nm, and discloses an example where the layer is 5 nm (Lee paragraphs 0025, 0116, within the claimed range). The references teaches that the thickness is selected to preserve conductivity of the active material and prevent degradation in the performance (Lee paragraph 0025). Lee and Liu are analogous because they both disclose graphene coated cathode active materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the graphene shell disclosed by Liu to have the thickness disclosed by Lee. Doing so would preserve conductivity of the active material and prevent degradation in the performance.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20210288314 A1) in view of Sun et al. (US 20170200945 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Liu discloses the limitations of claim 1. Liu is silent regarding wherein a thickness deviation of the shell portion is equal to or less than 55% of the average thickness of the shell portion.
Sun discloses a positive electrode active material for a lithium ion battery that has a coating layer composed of amorphous carbon on the surface of a positive electrode active material (Sun paragraph 0016). Sun further discloses that the variation of the coating layer is 10% or less to provide a uniform layer, allowing for desired functions to be imparted (Sun paragraphs 0049-0052). Sun and Liu are analogous because they both disclose carbon encapsulated positive electrode active materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the active material disclosed by Liu to include the thickness deviation of the shell disclosed by Sun. Doing so would provide a uniform layer, allowing for desired functions to be imparted.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20210288314 A1) in view of Chai et al. (US 20190103231 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Liu discloses the limitations of claim 1. Liu is silent regarding wherein the reduced graphene oxide has an aspect ratio of 500 to 20,000.
Chai discloses a cathode active material comprising graphene sheets which may be reduced graphene oxide and an inorganic material such as a transition metal oxide (Chai paragraph 0015, 0022). Chai further discloses that the graphene sheets have an ultra-high aspect ratio in order to increase contact area and enable improved charge transfer (Chai paragraph 0020). Chai is clearly teaching that the aspect ratio is a results-effective variable that controls the contact area with the active material and charge transfer. Chai and Liu are analogous because they both disclose cathode active materials containing graphene sheets.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the active material disclosed by Liu to have the graphene oxide aspect ratio disclosed by Chai because it has been held by the courts that optimization of a results effective variable is not novel. In re Boesch, 617 F2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20210288314 A1) in view of Kwak et al. (US 20220344643 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Liu discloses the limitations of claim 1. Liu is silent regarding wherein the cathode active material composite has a BET specific surface area of 0.3 m2/g to 5 m2/g.
Kwak discloses a positive electrode active material in which a lithium transition metal oxide is provided with a carbon coating layer (Kwak paragraph 0009). Kwak further discloses that the positive electrode active material preferably has a BET specific surface area of 1 m2/g to 3 m2/g in order to suppress side reactions with an electrolyte solution (Kwak paragraph 0045). Kwak and Liu are analogous because they both disclose positive electrode active materials with carbon coating layers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the active material disclosed by Liu to have the BET specific surface area disclosed by Kwak to suppress side reactions with an electrolyte solution.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20210288314 A1) in view of Kazama et al. (US 20210167396 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Liu discloses the limitations of claim 1. Liu is silent regarding wherein a compressive strength of the cathode active material composite is equal to or greater than 68 MPa.
Kazama discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a non-aqueous electrolyte, wherein the positive electrode active material contains a lithium/nickel complex oxide (Kazama paragraph 0008). Kazama further discloses that the compressive strength of the active material is 130 MPa or greater for the purpose of suppressing deterioration in capacity and improving life cycle-characteristics (Kazama paragraph 0033, within the claimed range). Kazama and Liu are analogous because they both disclose active materials comprising transition metal oxides.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the active material disclosed by Liu to have the compressive strength taught by Kazama for the purpose of suppressing deterioration in capacity and improving life cycle-characteristics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN T LUSTGRAAF whose telephone number is (571)272-0165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
/B.T.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights