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 § 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 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2018/0047977A1(Furuichi) in view of "Functionally Gradient Silicon/Graphite Composite Electrodes Enabling Stable Cycling and High Capacity for Lithium-lon Batteries," ZHANG, Wen et al. , APPLIED MATERIALS & INTERFACES, Vol. 14, No. 46, 9 November 2022, pages 51954-51964 (Zhang), which is listed in Applicant’s information disclosure statement.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Furuichi teaches a lithium ion secondary battery comprises a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a nonaqueous electrolyte and a separator( [0126] and [0140])), wherein the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode active material composed of primary particles and secondary particles formed by aggregation of the primary particles of a lithium metal composite oxide and a compound containing lithium and tungsten formed on the surface of the primary particles of the lithium metal composite oxide ([0031]), wherein the lithium metal composite oxide has a layered structure with a formula of LibNi1-x-yCoxMyO2 ([0004], [0011], [0044], [0057], [0121] and [0177]), wherein 0≦x≦0.35, 0≦y≦0.35, 0.95≦b≦1.20, and M can be Mn ([0044]), which has a ratio of Ni to the total amount of Ni, Co and Mn atoms of 30 to 100 mol%, calculated by the examiner, which encompasses the claimed nickel ratio of 75mol% or more.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found it obvious to select the amount of Ni at the instantly claimed ratio range since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside range 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.
Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. See MPEP 2144.05, In re Boesch, 617 F2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Aller, 220 F2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Hoeschele, 406 F2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Furuichi teaches the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode active material such as natural graphite, artificial graphite, and a carbon material, etc. ([0138]).
Furuichi does not teach the presence of a Si containing material , neither its amount in the negative electrode active material.
Zhang teaches a negative electrode for lithium ion batteries comprises functionally gradient Si/graphite (Si/Gr) composite electrodes can not only effectively improve the stability of the electrode structure but also efficiently enable high capacity and stable electrochemical reactions (Abstract), and exemplified a composite Si/Gr electrode comprising a gradient distribution a Si content of 5:20:5 wt. % across the thickness direction of the electrode (p51955,2.1), consequently a graphite content of 95:80:95 wt.%, thus the content ratio of Si is about 10 wt. % in the negative electrode material , estimated by the examiner, i.e., (5+20+5)/((5+20+5)+(95+80+95)), which meets the claimed Si content ratio.
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the Si/Gr composite electrode in the lithium ion battery of Furuichi. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teachings of Zhang that to do so would improve the stability of the electrode structure but also efficiently enable high capacity and stable electrochemical reactions (Abstract).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Furuichi teaches the lithium-metal composite oxide with a formula of
LibNi1-x-yCoxMyO2 ([0044]), wherein M can be Mn ([0044]), 0≦x≦0.35, which encompasses the claimed z when the claimed M is Co; 0≦y≦0.35, which encompasses the claimed y; thus a ratio of 0≦Co/Mn≦1, which encompasses the claimed Co/Mn ratio; 0.95≦b≦1.20, which meets the claimed α; thus 0.3≦1-x-y ≦1, which encompasses the claimed x; which renders the claimed formula and Co/Mn ratio obvious since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside range 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.
Regarding claim 4, Furuichi teaches that the compound containing lithium and tungsten is a mixture of Li4WO5 and Li2WO4([0050] and [0196]), which meets the claimed tungsten compound.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the combined teachings of Furuichi and Zhang are set forth above. Zhang further teaches negative electrode comprises three layer of equal thickness of Si/Gr active material(p51955,2.1), thus the ratio of the combined thickness of the upper two layers to the whole thickness of the negative electrode is about 0.67, which meets the claimed ratio.
Zhang teaches that a composite Si/Gr electrode comprising a gradient distribution a Si content of 5:20:5 wt. % across the thickness direction of the electrode (p51955,2.1), thus the Si element in the upper two layer is about 83%, estimated by the examiner, i.e., (5+20)/(5+20+5), which abuts the claimed ratio of 90 %.
It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 Titanium Metals Corp of Am v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed Cir 1985).
Additionally, Zhang further discloses that the spatial distributions of Si and Gr particles in the electrode can be regulated to optimize performance (abstract), thus Zhang recognize that the amount of Si in each layer is a result effective variable, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the amount of Si in each layer in order to obtain a workable product.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuichi in view of Zhang as applied to claims 1-4 and 7-9 above, and further in view of US 2020/0259208A1 (Yamamoto).
The combined teachings of Furuichi and Zhang are set forth above.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, while Furuichi teaches that lithium tungstate has high lithium ion conductivity thereby reduce the positive electrode resistance ([0023] and [0047]), neither Furuichi nor Zhang teaches lithium phosphate coating or aluminum oxide coating.
Yamamoto teaches that lithium phosphate can function as a lithium ion conductor and can be coated on the surface of lithium transition metal oxide based positive electrode active material in addition to lithium tungstate to reduce internal resistance ([0006], [0008] and [0024]).
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to replace the lithium tungstate of Furuichi nor Zhang with the lithium phosphate of Yamamoto since Yamamoto teaches that they are functionally equivalent as a high lithium ion conductor ([0008]). See MPEP 2144.06(II) and 2144.07; In re Fout, 675 F2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); Sinclair & Carroll Co v Interchemical Corp, 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 227 F2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Ryco, Inc v Ag-Bag Corp, 857 F2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed Cir 1988).
Yamamoto further teaches a metal oxide layer such as aluminum oxide can be further included to form a coating layer on the surface the positive electrode active material to further reduce the internal resistance ([0006] and [0007]).
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add aluminum oxide coating layer of Yamamoto in the positive electrode active material of Furuichi nor Zhang. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teachings of Yamamoto that to do so would predictably reduce the internal resistance ([0006]), which is desirable by Furuichi ([0023]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIQUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-7736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am -4:00 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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-2721302. 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.
/AIQUN LI/Ph.D., Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights