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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 9 and 16 recite a b/a ratio of 1.5 to 1.67; however the reaction steps of chemical formula 4 (Paragraph 0055) in the specification use a hydroxyapatite with a b/a ratio opposite to that recited in the claims.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 9 and 16 recite a b/a ratio of 1.5 to 1.67; however, the reaction steps of chemical formula 4 (Paragraph 0055) in the specification use a hydroxyapatite with a b/a ratio opposite to that recited in the claims. Hydroxyapatite is known to have a Ca/P ratio in this range and it is believed that the ratio recited should be a/b rather than b/a.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 9, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Myung (KR Publication 102274784).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Myung discloses a positive electrode material for a secondary battery comprising: positive electrode active material particles and a surface coating layer located on the surface of the particles and containing a substance represented by the chemical formula Ca5(PO4)3X1-xLix, wherein X is OH, F or Cl, and x can be 0 to 1, and wherein the positive electrode active material comprises lithium (Paragraphs 0006-0009).
As to claim 5, Myung teaches that the surface coating layer may be formed in a layered structure on the surface of the positive active material particles, or it may be attached in the form of islands (Paragraph 0038).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Myung teaches that the secondary battery comprises a positive electrode containing the positive electrode material described above, a negative electrode, a separator between the electrodes, and an electrolyte (Paragraph 0027).
Myung teaches every limitation of claims 1, 5, 9, 16 and 17 of the present invention and thus anticipates the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myung (KR Publication 102274784) in view of He (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0246987).
The teachings of Myung have been discussed in paragraph 7 above.
Myung fails to disclose that the positive electrode active material has the formula Li(MxFe1-x)PO4, wherein 0.1≤x≤0.9 and M is manganese.
He discloses a lithium ion battery comprising: a negative electrode, a positive electrode, a separator and electrolyte, wherein the positive electrode comprises an electroactive material, such as LiMnxFe1-xPO4 where 0<x<1 (Paragraphs 0052, 0081).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the active material of Myung could have the formula LiMnxFe1-xPO4 where 0<x<1 because He teaches that this is an alternative to a lithium metal oxide, as in Myung, that allows for the battery to work efficiently.
Claim(s) 3, 8, 11, 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myung (KR Publication 102274784) in view of Je (U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0156028).
The teachings of Myung have been discussed in paragraph 7 above.
Myung fails to disclose that the hydroxyapatite is added in a content of 1 to 3 wt% based on 100 wt% of a total of the positive electrode material, and that the hydroxyapatite is a particle having a particle size of greater than 0 and 3 µm or less.
Je discloses a positive electrode active material including a lithium-containing core, and a coating layer including an inorganic material adhered to a portion of the surface of the core, wherein the inorganic material can be calcium hydroxyapatite adhered in a layered form or an island form (Paragraphs 0003-0007). As to claims 3, 11 and 19, Je teaches that the positive electrode active material comprises 0.1 to 10 wt% of the inorganic material (Paragraph 0009). Regarding claims 8, 15 and 19, Je discloses that the core has an average particle diameter of 10 to 20 µm and that the inorganic material has an average particle diameter of one fifth that of the core (Paragraphs 0036 and 0046), which would be 2 to 4 µm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the hydroxyapatite of Myung could be applied in in an amount of 1 to 3 wt% and have a particle size of less than 3 µm because Je teaches that this suppresses side reactions in high temperatures and voltages and improves performance of the battery.
Claim(s) 4 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myung (KR Publication 102274784) in view of Ito (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0296305).
The teachings of Myung have been discussed in paragraph 7 above.
Myung fails to disclose that the hydroxyapatite has a peak at about 32 to 33 degrees in an analysis using an X-ray diffraction angle using Cu Kα ray.
Ito discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte battery comprising inorganic particles having a hydroxyapatite structure, wherein the inorganic particles have a diffraction angle of from 32.5 to 33.5° (Paragraphs 0017-0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the coating of Myung could have a diffraction peak at 32 to 33 degrees because Ito teaches that hydroxyapatite has a peak at this angle.
Claim(s) 6, 7 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myung (KR Publication 102274784) in view of Ryu (KR Publication 20230111725).
The teachings of Myung have been discussed in paragraph 7 above.
Myung fails to disclose that the positive electrode active material and the hydroxyapatite are milled at 100 to 300 mph in a powder state for 20 to 40 minutes.
Ryu discloses a process of forming a positive electrode active material comprising mixing a powder containing a first heterogeneous element with a primary pre-particle using a ball mill for 0.5 to 3 hours at 80 to 180 rpm (Paragraph 0042).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the positive electrode active material and the hydroxyapatite of Myung could be milled at 100 to 300 mph in a powder state for 20 to 40 minutes because Ryu teaches that this technique allows for a coating of one component to form on the other component efficiently.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY L RAYMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-6545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am-6 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, 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.
BRITTANY L. RAYMOND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1722
/BRITTANY L RAYMOND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights