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:
Tables 1 and 2 are cut off, making part.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The term “length-diameter ratio” appears in claims 1, 6, 11, and 16. The examiner has interpreted this term as “a ratio of a long diameter and a short diameter of the first monocrystalline particle, the long diameter of the first monocrystalline particle is the longest diameter of the first monocrystalline particle in an electron microscope image, that is, a distance between two edge points farthest away from each other, and the short diameter of the first monocrystalline particle is a distance between two edge points on a perpendicular bisector of the long diameter in the electron microscope image”, based on [0046] of the instant specification.
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.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura (US 20170155135 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sugiura teaches a positive electrode material, wherein the positive electrode material comprises first monocrystalline particles [0008], and the first monocrystalline particles have a first length-diameter ratio L1, 1 ≤ L1 ≤ 2 [0045]. This overlaps with the claimed range of 2 to 5. 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, Sugiura teaches the positive electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the positive electrode material has an average particle size D1 of the first monocrystalline particles is 0.1 μm to 30 μm [0044]. This overlaps with the claimed range of 10 μm to 25 μm. 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 3, Sugiura teaches the positive electrode material according to claim 2, wherein the positive electrode material has a width h of the first crack is 0 μm or not a substantial width (Fig. 1). In the specification and in fig. 1 of Sugiura, there is no mention of cracks in the positive electrode material. Meaning that the width of the first crack is either 0 μm or not a substantial width. This falls within the claimed range of less than or equal to 0.1 μm.
Regarding claim 4, Sugiura teaches the positive electrode material according to claim 1, wherein each first monocrystalline particle comprises a first lithium nickel composite oxide; and the first lithium nickel composite oxide comprises element Ni, and element Na [0023].
Regarding claim 5, Sugiura teaches the positive electrode material according to claim 4, wherein the first lithium nickel composite oxide further comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of element Co, element Mn, element M, and element R; wherein element M comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of B, Mg, Al, Si, S, Ti, Cr, Fe, Cu, Zn, Ga, Y, Zr, Mo, Ag, W, In, Sn, Pb, Sb, V, Nb, La, Ge, Sr, Ca, Ba, Ta, Hf, and Ce; and element R comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of P, F, and N; and the first lithium nickel composite oxide comprises Li1+xNiyCozMn(1−y−z)MαO2−βAβ (I)
(Where 0≦x≦0.7, 0.1<y<0.9, 0.1<z<0.4, 0≦α≦0.1, 0≦β≦0.5, M and A may or may not be included. When 0<α, M is one or two or more elements among Zr, Mo, W, Mg, Ca, Na, Fe, Cr, Zn, Si, Sn, Al, and B. When 0<β, A is one or two or more elements among F, Cl, and Br.) [0023].
This overlaps with the claimed composition of Lix1Naw1Niy1Coz1Mnk1Mq1O2±aRa, wherein 0.2 ≤ x1 ≤ 1.2, 0.5 ≤ y1 ≤ 1, 0 ≤ z1 ≤ 0.5, 0 ≤ k1 ≤ 0.5, 0 ≤ q1 ≤ 0.2, 0.01 ≤ w1 ≤ 0.1, and 0 ≤ a ≤ 0.1. 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).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura in view of Yun et al. (US 20230307695 A1), hereinafter Yun.
Regarding claim 6, Sugiura teaches the positive electrode material according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the positive electrode material further comprises second monocrystalline particles, and the second monocrystalline particles have a second length-diameter ratio L2, 1 ≤ L2 < 2; and
a quantity of the first monocrystalline particles in the positive electrode material is N1, and a quantity of the second monocrystalline particles in the positive electrode material is N2, wherein N1/(N1 + N2) ranges from 20% to 50%, and N2/(N1 + N2) ranges from 50% to 80%.
Yun, however, teaches of a positive electrode material including a first and second particle (Abstract). Yun also teaches the positive electrode material further comprises second monocrystalline particles [0058], and the second monocrystalline particles have a second length-diameter ratio L2, 1 ≤ L2 < 2 [0059]. Since Yun states that the shape of the second monocrystalline particle can be spherical, this means the length-diameter ratio of the particle is around 1, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1 to 2.
Furthermore, Yun teaches a quantity of the first monocrystalline particles in the positive electrode material is N1, and a quantity of the second monocrystalline particles in the positive electrode material is N2, wherein N1/(N1 + N2) ranges from 20% to 50%, and N2/(N1 + N2) ranges from 50% to 80%. This is because Yun states the positive electrode active material may include about 50 wt % to about 90 wt % of the first positive electrode active material, and about 10 wt % to about 50 wt % of the second positive electrode active material [0064]. Converting the wt % to quantity leads to a value that falls within the claimed range. The work for this is shown below.
First particle volume
Average length d: 0.01 – 5 μm [0039]
Thickness t: ≥ 50 nm = 0.05 μm [0040]
Assuming that the shape of the particle is roughly a rectangular prism [0033] and the length and width are the same value [0035],
V
=
d
2
t
=
1
2
*
0.07
=
0.07
μ
m
3
Second particle volume
Average diameter d: 0.5 – 8 μm [0061]
V
=
4
3
π
(
1
2
d
)
3
=
4
3
π
(
1
2
0.5
)
3
=
0.065
μ
m
3
Particle quantity
The particles have the same density because their composition is the same, so
wt% = vol%
50
μ
m
3
t
o
t
a
l
v
o
l
u
m
e
o
f
f
i
r
s
t
p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
0.07
μ
m
3
v
o
l
u
m
e
o
f
o
n
e
f
i
r
s
t
p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
=
714
f
i
r
s
t
p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
50
μ
m
3
t
o
t
a
l
v
o
l
u
m
e
o
f
f
i
r
s
t
p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
0.065
μ
m
3
v
o
l
u
m
e
o
f
o
n
e
f
i
r
s
t
p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
=
769
s
e
c
o
n
d
p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
714
1483
≈
48.1
%
o
f
f
i
r
s
t
p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
769
1483
≈
51.9
%
o
f
s
e
c
o
n
d
p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
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).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the Sugiura positive electrode material to include the Yun second particles because the second particles can minimize or reduce an empty space among particle components in the positive electrode, so that a solid electrolyte may be effectively penetrated into the positive electrode active material, thereby, improving connectivity of the solid electrolytes and contact between the solid electrolyte and the positive electrode active material (Yun et al. [0060]).
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura in view of Yun as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Yoo et al. (US 11799066 B2), hereinafter Yoo.
Regarding claim 7, modified Sugiura teaches the positive electrode material according to claim 6, wherein each second monocrystalline particle comprises a second lithium nickel composite oxide, and the second lithium nickel composite oxide comprises the element Ni [0065], but does not specifically teach that it comprises the element Na.
However, Yoo teaches a positive electrode active material that includes Na (Col. 4, lines 38-45).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to further modify the modified Sugiura positive electrode material to dope it with Na because life characteristics, initial capacity, and rate capability may be improved by including the doping element M2 (Yoo Col. 4, lines 62-65).
Regarding claim 8, further modified Sugiura teaches the positive electrode material according to claim 7, wherein the second lithium nickel composite oxide further comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of element Co, element Mn, element M', and element R'; wherein the element M' comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of B, Mg, Al, Si, S, Ti, Cr, Fe, Cu, Zn, Ga, Y, Zr, Mo, Ag, W, In, Sn, Pb, Sb, V, Nb, La, Ge, Sr, Ca, Ba, Ta, Hf, and Ce; and the element R' comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of P, F, and N and the second lithium nickel composite oxide comprises Li1+a[NixCoyM1 zM2 w]1−aO2 [Formula 1]
in Formula 1, 0≤a≤0.2, 0.6≤x<1, 0<y≤0.4, 0<z≤0.4, 0<w≤0.1, M1 includes at least one selected from the group consisting of manganese (Mn) and Al, and M2 includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Al, Ti, Mg, Zr, W, Y, Sr, Co, F, Si, Na, Cu, Fe, Ca, S, and B (Yoo Col. 5, lines 4-16). This composition overlaps with the claimed composition.
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 9, further modified Sugiura teaches the positive electrode material according to claim 7, wherein the positive electrode material has an average particle size D2 of the second monocrystalline particles is 0.05 μm to 8 μm (Yun [0061]). This overlaps with the claimed range of 2 μm to 8 μm. 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).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura in view of Mo et al. (CN114759183A, machine translation attached), hereinafter Mo.
Regarding claim 10, Sugiura teaches the positive electrode material according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the positive electrode material satisfies at least one of the following conditions: (1) a full width at half maximum FWHM(003) of a peak (003) within a range of 18° to 19.2° in an XRD diffraction pattern of the positive electrode material satisfies 0.14° ≤ FWHM(003) ≤ 0.2°; (2) a lattice parameter a of the positive electrode material satisfies 2.87Å ≤ a ≤ 2.90Å, and a lattice parameter c of the positive electrode material satisfies 14.17Å ≤ c ≤ 14.21Å; or (3) the positive electrode material comprises a Li layer and an O layer, and an interlayer spacing between the Li layer and the O layer ranges from 2.65Å to 2.77Å.
However, Mo teaches of a positive electrode cathode material that has a full width at half maximum FWHM(003) of a peak (003) within a range of 18.40° to 18.60° in an XRD diffraction pattern of the positive electrode material satisfies 0.14° ≤ FWHM(003) ≤ 0.160° [0008]. This overlaps with the claimed range of 18° to 19.2° in an XRD diffraction pattern of the positive electrode material satisfies 0.14° ≤ FWHM(003) ≤ 0.2°. 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).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the Sugiura positive electrode active material in order to make sure it falls within the XRD parameter ranges because it will make sure the active material has optimal crystallinity and fluidity, thereby improving the charge-discharge specific capacity, coulombic efficiency and cycle capacity retention of the prepared electrochemical device (Mo et al. [0004]).
Claim(s) 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura (US 20170155135 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Sugiura teaches an electrochemical apparatus ([0008], lithium ion secondary cell), comprising a positive electrode material, wherein the positive electrode material comprises first monocrystalline particles [0008], and the first monocrystalline particles have a first length-diameter ratio L1, 1 ≤ L1 ≤ 2 [0045]. This overlaps with the claimed range of 2 to 5. 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 12, Sugiura teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the positive electrode material has an average particle size D1 of the first monocrystalline particles is 0.1 μm to 30 μm [0044]. This overlaps with the claimed range of 10 μm to 25 μm. 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 13, Sugiura teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the positive electrode material has a width h of the first crack is 0 μm or not a substantial width (Fig. 1). In the specification and in fig. 1 of Sugiura, there is no mention of cracks in the positive electrode material. Meaning that the width of the first crack is either 0 μm or not a substantial width. This falls within the claimed range of less than or equal to 0.1 μm.
Regarding claim 14, Sugiura teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 11, wherein each first monocrystalline particle comprises a first lithium nickel composite oxide; and the first lithium nickel composite oxide comprises element Ni, and element Na [0023].
Regarding claim 15, Sugiura teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the first lithium nickel composite oxide further comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of element Co, element Mn, element M, and element R; wherein element M comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of B, Mg, Al, Si, S, Ti, Cr, Fe, Cu, Zn, Ga, Y, Zr, Mo, Ag, W, In, Sn, Pb, Sb, V, Nb, La, Ge, Sr, Ca, Ba, Ta, Hf, and Ce; and element R comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of P, F, and N; and the first lithium nickel composite oxide comprises Li1+xNiyCozMn(1−y−z)MαO2−βAβ (I)
(Where 0≦x≦0.7, 0.1<y<0.9, 0.1<z<0.4, 0≦α≦0.1, 0≦β≦0.5, M and A may or may not be included. When 0<α, M is one or two or more elements among Zr, Mo, W, Mg, Ca, Na, Fe, Cr, Zn, Si, Sn, Al, and B. When 0<β, A is one or two or more elements among F, Cl, and Br.) [0023].
This overlaps with the claimed composition of Lix1Naw1Niy1Coz1Mnk1Mq1O2±aRa, wherein 0.2 ≤ x1 ≤ 1.2, 0.5 ≤ y1 ≤ 1, 0 ≤ z1 ≤ 0.5, 0 ≤ k1 ≤ 0.5, 0 ≤ q1 ≤ 0.2, 0.01 ≤ w1 ≤ 0.1, and 0 ≤ a ≤ 0.1. 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).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura in view of Yun et al. (US 20230307695 A1), hereinafter Yun.
Regarding claim 16, Sugiura teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 11, but does not specifically teach that the positive electrode material further comprises second monocrystalline particles, and the second monocrystalline particles have a second length-diameter ratio L2, 1 ≤ L2 < 2; and
a quantity of the first monocrystalline particles in the positive electrode material is N1, and a quantity of the second monocrystalline particles in the positive electrode material is N2, wherein N1/(N1 + N2) ranges from 20% to 50%, and N2/(N1 + N2) ranges from 50% to 80%.
Yun, however, teaches of a positive electrode material including a first and second particle (Abstract). Yun also teaches the positive electrode material further comprises second monocrystalline particles [0058], and the second monocrystalline particles have a second length-diameter ratio L2, 1 ≤ L2 < 2 [0059]. Since Yun states that the shape of the second monocrystalline particle can be spherical, this means the length-diameter ratio of the particle is around 1, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1 to 2.
Furthermore, Yun teaches a quantity of the first monocrystalline particles in the positive electrode material is N1, and a quantity of the second monocrystalline particles in the positive electrode material is N2, wherein N1/(N1 + N2) ranges from 20% to 50%, and N2/(N1 + N2) ranges from 50% to 80%. This is because Yun states the positive electrode active material may include about 50 wt % to about 90 wt % of the first positive electrode active material, and about 10 wt % to about 50 wt % of the second positive electrode active material [0064]. Converting the wt % to quantity leads to a value that falls within the claimed range. The work for this is shown below.
First particle volume
Average length d: 0.01 – 5 μm [0039]
Thickness t: ≥ 50 nm = 0.05 μm [0040]
Assuming that the shape of the particle is roughly a rectangular prism [0033] and the length and width are the same value [0035],
V
=
d
2
t
=
1
2
*
0.07
=
0.07
μ
m
3
Second particle volume
Average diameter d: 0.5 – 8 μm [0061]
V
=
4
3
π
(
1
2
d
)
3
=
4
3
π
(
1
2
0.5
)
3
=
0.065
μ
m
3
Particle quantity
The particles have the same density because their composition is the same, so
wt% = vol%
50
μ
m
3
t
o
t
a
l
v
o
l
u
m
e
o
f
f
i
r
s
t
p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
0.07
μ
m
3
v
o
l
u
m
e
o
f
o
n
e
f
i
r
s
t
p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
=
714
f
i
r
s
t
p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
50
μ
m
3
t
o
t
a
l
v
o
l
u
m
e
o
f
f
i
r
s
t
p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
0.065
μ
m
3
v
o
l
u
m
e
o
f
o
n
e
f
i
r
s
t
p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
=
769
s
e
c
o
n
d
p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
714
1483
≈
48.1
%
o
f
f
i
r
s
t
p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
769
1483
≈
51.9
%
o
f
s
e
c
o
n
d
p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
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).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the Sugiura positive electrode material to include the Yun second particles because the second particles can minimize or reduce an empty space among particle components in the positive electrode, so that a solid electrolyte may be effectively penetrated into the positive electrode active material, thereby, improving connectivity of the solid electrolytes and contact between the solid electrolyte and the positive electrode active material (Yun et al. [0060]).
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura in view of Yun as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Yoo et al. (US 11799066 B2), hereinafter Yoo.
Regarding claim 17, modified Sugiura teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 16, wherein each second monocrystalline particle comprises a second lithium nickel composite oxide, and the second lithium nickel composite oxide comprises the element Ni [0065], but does not specifically teach that it comprises the element Na.
However, Yoo teaches a positive electrode active material that includes Na (Col. 4, lines 38-45).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to further modify the modified Sugiura positive electrode material to dope it with Na because life characteristics, initial capacity, and rate capability may be improved by including the doping element M2 (Yoo Col. 4, lines 62-65).
Regarding claim 18, further modified Sugiura teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the second lithium nickel composite oxide further comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of element Co, element Mn, element M', and element R'; wherein the element M' comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of B, Mg, Al, Si, S, Ti, Cr, Fe, Cu, Zn, Ga, Y, Zr, Mo, Ag, W, In, Sn, Pb, Sb, V, Nb, La, Ge, Sr, Ca, Ba, Ta, Hf, and Ce; and the element R' comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of P, F, and N and the second lithium nickel composite oxide comprises Li1+a[NixCoyM1 zM2 w]1−aO2 [Formula 1]
in Formula 1, 0≤a≤0.2, 0.6≤x<1, 0<y≤0.4, 0<z≤0.4, 0<w≤0.1, M1 includes at least one selected from the group consisting of manganese (Mn) and Al, and M2 includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Al, Ti, Mg, Zr, W, Y, Sr, Co, F, Si, Na, Cu, Fe, Ca, S, and B (Yoo Col. 5, lines 4-16). This composition overlaps with the claimed composition.
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 19, further modified Sugiura teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the positive electrode material has an average particle size D2 of the second monocrystalline particles is 0.05 μm to 8 μm (Yun [0061]). This overlaps with the claimed range of 2 μm to 8 μm. 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).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura in view of Mo et al. (CN114759183A, machine translation attached), hereinafter Mo.
Regarding claim 20, Sugiura teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 11, but does not specifically teach that the positive electrode material satisfies at least one of the following conditions: (1) a full width at half maximum FWHM(003) of a peak (003) within a range of 18° to 19.2° in an XRD diffraction pattern of the positive electrode material satisfies 0.14° ≤ FWHM(003) ≤ 0.2°; (2) a lattice parameter a of the positive electrode material satisfies 2.87Å ≤ a ≤ 2.90Å, and a lattice parameter c of the positive electrode material satisfies 14.17Å ≤ c ≤ 14.21Å; or (3) the positive electrode material comprises a Li layer and an O layer, and an interlayer spacing between the Li layer and the O layer ranges from 2.65Å to 2.77Å.
However, Mo teaches of a positive electrode cathode material that has a full width at half maximum FWHM(003) of a peak (003) within a range of 18.40° to 18.60° in an XRD diffraction pattern of the positive electrode material satisfies 0.14° ≤ FWHM(003) ≤ 0.160° [0008]. This overlaps with the claimed range of 18° to 19.2° in an XRD diffraction pattern of the positive electrode material satisfies 0.14° ≤ FWHM(003) ≤ 0.2°. 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).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the Sugiura positive electrode active material in order to make sure it falls within the XRD parameter ranges because it will make sure the active material has optimal crystallinity and fluidity, thereby improving the charge-discharge specific capacity, coulombic efficiency and cycle capacity retention of the prepared electrochemical device (Mo et al. [0004]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yamazaki (US teaches a positive electrode material that comprises a crack, a wall surface of the crack comprising phosphorus [0248].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YVONNE WEI whose telephone number is (571)270-0870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5pm, Friday 7:30am-4pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/YVONNE WEI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights