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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0008, line 2, “all the metal elements” should read “all metal elements”.
In paragraph 0013, line 2, “all the metal elements” should read “all metal elements”.
In paragraph 0014, line 1, “all the metal elements” should read “all metal elements”.
In paragraph 0015, line 3, “all the metal elements” should read “all metal elements”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 – 5 is/are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as being indefinite because line 4 of claim 1 recites “…total content of all the metal elements is 60% by mole or more…” As written, the claim implies that the content is based on the entirety of every and ALL metal elements; however, it does not appear that this is what applicant intends. Turning to the applicant’s specification, [paragraph 0016], “the precursor hydroxide typically has a composition represented by NiaMeb(OH)2 in which Me is a metal element or a semimetal element other than Ni (e.g., Co, Mn, Mg, Ca, Al, Ti, V, Cr, Y, Zr, Nb, Mo, Hf, Ta, W, Na, Fe, Zn, Sn, B, Si, and the like), a + b = 1, a satisfies 0.60 ≤ a ≤ 1.00 … and b satisfies 0 ≤ b ≤ 0.40”. This example shows a nickel content of 60% by mol or more. Examiner contends the nickel content is based on the precursor hydroxide composition.
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(s) 1—5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda, et al. (JP 2020/123494 A)
Regarding claim 1, Kaneda, et al. teaches a method for producing a positive electrode active material (0001), the method comprising: performing a heat treatment on a hydroxide in which a ratio of a nickel content to a total content of all the metal elements is 60% by mole or more (paragraph 0016, 0028—0029, and 0073; examiner notes Kaneda, et al. hydroxide precursor species is found in paragraph 0107), in an air atmosphere to thereby obtain an oxide having primarily a spinel structure (Figure 1, paragraph 0054 and 0073); mixing the oxide with a Li-containing compound to thereby obtain a mixture (paragraph 0025—0026); and firing the mixture in an air atmosphere to thereby convert the mixture to a lithium composite oxide with a layered rock salt structure (paragraph 0016, 0061 and 0073; examiner notes Kaneda, at el. States firing temperature range in paragraph 0074 and firing times in paragraph 0063), wherein in the oxide having primarily a spinel structure (paragraph 0016, 0025—0026, and 0054).
However, Kaneda, et al. a teaches confirming structure with a X-ray diffraction analysis using CuKα rays (paragraph 0073, 0096) but does not specifically teach peak integrated intensity ratio of a (003) plane to a (440) plane is 1.5 or less, and a peak integrated intensity ratio of the (440) plane to a (311) plane is 4.5 or more, the peak integrated intensity ratios being obtained by a powder X-ray diffraction analysis using CuKα rays (paragraph 0073, 0096). Species in Kaneda, et al. are nickel-manganese-cobalt composite hydroxide particles, represented as Ni0.60 Mn0.20Co0.20(OH)2+α (0≦α≦0.4) and having a volume-average particle size of 11 μm (paragraph 0107). Furthermore, Kaneda, et al. teaches a firing temperature from 750°C—950°C (paragraph 0074) and firing time from 3 hours—24 hours (paragraph 0063). Turning to applicant’s specification the precursor hydroxide typically has a composition represented by NixCoyMnzMα(OH)2 x, y, z, and α respectively satisfy 0.60 ≤ x < 1.00, 0 < y < 0.40, 0 < z < 0.40, 0 ≤ α ≤ 0.10, and x + y + z = 1 wherein M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Zr, Mo, W, Mg, Ca, Na, Fe, Cr, Zn, Sn, B, and Al (paragraph 0016—0017). The applicant’s specification further recites average particle size of the precursor hydroxide from 0.05 μm—20 μm (paragraph 0018), a firing temperature from 700°C—1000°C (paragraph 0039), and firing time from 3 hours—72 hours (paragraph 0039). Because Kaneda, et al. teaches the same species, overlapping particle size, overlapping firing temperature, and overlapping firing temperature time as the applicant, thus the examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to arrive to equivalent X-ray diffraction analysis using CuKα rays of the positive electrode active material as claimed.
Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range does not substantially deviate from the claimed range. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (anticipation found even where prior art range was not identical to claimed ranges); see also MPEP 2144.05 and MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 2, Kaneda, et al. further teaches the hydroxide wherein the ratio of the nickel content to the total content of all the metal elements has an overlapping range of 80% by mole or more (paragraph 0010; examiner note Kaneda, et al. teaches nickel ratio of 60% or more raises concerns about reduced thermal stability).
Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range does not substantially deviate from the claimed range. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (anticipation found even where prior art range was not identical to claimed ranges); see also MPEP 2144.05 and MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 3, Kaneda, et al. further teaches the hydroxide is a nickel cobalt manganese composite hydroxide (paragraph 0107), and the lithium composite oxide with the layered rock salt structure is a lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide (Figure 1, paragraph 0013, 0016, and 0054).
Regarding claim 4, Kaneda, et al. teaches the same species, firing temperature and firing time as applicant. Species in Kaneda, et al. are nickel-manganese-cobalt composite hydroxide particles, represented as Ni0.60 Mn0.20Co0.20(OH)2+α (0≦α≦0.4) and having a volume-average particle size of 11 μm (paragraph 0107). Furthermore, Kaneda, et al. teaches a firing temperature from 750°C—950°C (paragraph 0074) and firing time from 3 hours—24 hours (paragraph 0063). Turning to applicant’s specification the precursor hydroxide typically has a composition represented by NixCoyMnzMα(OH)2 x, y, z, and α respectively satisfy 0.60 ≤ x < 1.00, 0 < y < 0.40, 0 < z < 0.40, 0 ≤ α ≤ 0.10, and x + y + z = 1 wherein M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Zr, Mo, W, Mg, Ca, Na, Fe, Cr, Zn, Sn, B, and Al (paragraph 0016—0017). The applicant’s specification further recites average particle size of the precursor hydroxide from 0.05 μm—20 μm (paragraph 0018), a firing temperature from 700°C—1000°C (paragraph 0039), and firing time from 3 hours—72 hours (paragraph 0039). Because Kaneda, et al. teaches the same species, overlapping particle size, overlapping firing temperature, and overlapping firing temperature time as the applicant, thus the examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to arrive to equivalent peak integrated intensity ratio of the (440) plane to the (311) plane X-ray diffraction analysis using CuKα rays of the positive electrode active material as claimed.
Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range does not substantially deviate from the claimed range. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (anticipation found even where prior art range was not identical to claimed ranges); see also MPEP 2144.05 and MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 5, Kaneda, et al. teaches the lithium composite oxide with the layered rock salt structure, an overlapping crystallite size of the (003) plane obtained by a powder X-ray diffraction analysis using CuKα rays is 600Å to 1000Å (paragraph 0043; examiner notes Kaneda, et al. teaches particle size less than less than 0.3 μm make them more susceptible to reaction with moisture in the atmosphere and size was determine with scanning electron microscope).
Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range does not substantially deviate from the claimed range. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (anticipation found even where prior art range was not identical to claimed ranges); see also MPEP 2144.05 and MPEP 2131.03.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mori, et al. (JP 2010/192424 A) teaches a positive electrode for a secondary battery (paragraph 0001). Specifically, Mori, et al. teaches a method for producing a positive active material wherein the method comprises: performing a heat treatment on a hydroxide in which a ratio of a nickel content to a total content of all the metal elements is 60% by mole or more (paragraph 0016, 0031, 0036, 0042); mixing the oxide with a Li-containing compound to thereby obtain a mixture (paragraph 0036); and firing the mixture in an air atmosphere to thereby convert the mixture to a lithium composite oxide with a layered structure (paragraph 0017) wherein an analysis of the obtained positive electrode active material by powder X-ray diffraction using Cu-Kα radiation confirmed that it was a single phase of hexagonal layered crystalline lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide (paragraph 0113) which meet claims 1—3 dimensions.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Toma, et al. (JP 2022/037814 A) teaches a positive electrode for a secondary battery (paragraph 0001). Specifically, Toma, et al. teaches a method for producing a positive active material wherein the method comprises: performing a heat treatment on a nickel cobalt manganese composite hydroxide in which a ratio of a nickel content to a total content of all the metal elements is 80% by mole (paragraph 0022, 0049, 0051, and 0042), in an air atmosphere to thereby obtain an oxide having primarily a spinel structure (0068, 0085); mixing the oxide with a Li-containing compound to thereby obtain a mixture (paragraph 0037 and 0120); and firing the mixture in an air atmosphere to thereby convert the mixture to a lithium composite oxide with a layered structure (paragraph 0022, 0042 and 0104). Additionally, an analysis of the obtained positive electrode active material by powder X-ray diffraction using Cu-Kα radiation (paragraph 0103) confirmed that a crystallite size of the positive electrode active material is preferably 800 Å or more, obtained from the X-ray diffraction peak of the (003) plane (paragraph 0081) which meet claims 1—3 and 5 dimensions.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hayashi, et al. (US 2022/0376243 A1) teaches a positive electrode for a secondary battery (paragraph 0001). Specifically, Hayashi, et al. teaches a method for producing a positive active material wherein the method comprises: performing a heat treatment on a hydroxide in which a ratio of a nickel content to a total content of all the metal elements is 60% by mole or more and 80% by mole or more (paragraph 0136, 0152, and 0193—0194); mixing the oxide with a Li-containing compound to thereby obtain a mixture (paragraph 0152—0155); and firing the mixture in an air atmosphere to thereby convert the mixture to a lithium composite oxide with a layered rock salt structure (paragraph 0053,0158—0164,) wherein an analysis of the obtained positive electrode active material by powder X-ray diffraction confirmed that it was a layered rock salt type hexagonal crystalline lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide structure(paragraph 0051—0053) with a crystallite diameter is preferably 300 Å or more determined from a peak of a (003) plane (paragraph 0132) which meet claims 1—3 and 5 dimensions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELVIN MITCHELL FRAZIER whose telephone number is (571)270-5955. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Maria Veronica D Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/K.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights