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 .
Summary
This is a non-final office action for application 18/654,440 filed on 05/03/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for domestic priority as a continuation of application PCT/CN2021/128772 filed on 11/04/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS)s submitted on 05/03/2024, 09/23/2025 and 07/08/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
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 3-4, 10-11 and 18-20 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.
Regarding Claims 3, 10 and 18, characteristic (iii) within the claims defines the A element as including at least one of Co, Mn, and Ni, while defining the M element as including at least one of Al, Ti, Ni, Nb, Mg, Ca, Zr, Zn, La, Y, and Na. Therefore, Ni may qualify simultaneously as both the A element and the M element. It is unclear whether, when Ni is present, the Ni is counted as part of the A element, as the M element, or as both when calculating the molar percent of M based on the number of moles of A. Because different classifications of the same Ni content can produce different calculated percentages the claimed 0.1% to 10% range is unclear. Claims 4, 11 and 19-20 are rejected due to dependency on claims 3, 10 and 18.
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, 3-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama (US-20210119207-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Sugiyama discloses a positive active material (see e.g. "cathode active material" in paragraph [0025] and FIG. 1), comprising: a first region and a second region (see e.g. "The cathode active material is a layered cathode active material having a multi-phase of the O2 structure (crystal structure is P63 mc) and the O3 structure (crystal structure is R-3m) in a single particle thereof" in paragraph [0048] and FIG. 1); the first region has a first structure belonging to a P63mc crystalline phase structure (see e.g. "O2 structure (crystal structure is P63 mc)" in paragraph [0048]); the second region has a second structure belonging to R3m (see e.g. "O3 structure (crystal structure is R3m)' in paragraph [0048]).
Sugiyama is silent as to the area of the positive active material and thus does explicitly disclose in a cross-section of the positive active material, an area ratio of the first region to the second region is 1.8 to 5.4.
Sugiyama, however, discloses that the O2 and O3 structures coexist within a single particle, including along the layered direction, and expressly teaches controlling the relative proportion of the O2 and O3 structures (see e.g. paragraphs [0047]–[0050] and FIG. 1). In particular, Sugiyama teaches that an O2/O3 abundance ratio of 0.1 to 3.0 provides a positive active material having both a high average discharge potential and a high degree of stability at high potential (see e.g. paragraphs [0050]–[0052]). Sugiyama therefore recognizes the relative amount of the O2 and O3 phases as a result effective variable.
Although Sugiyama determines the O2/O3 abundance using an XRD peak intensity ratio, Sugiyama also teaches that the O2 and O3 phases may be identified using selected area diffraction patterns, high resolution TEM images, or STEM images (see e.g. paragraph [0049]). Therefore, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to quantify the relative amounts of the O2 and O3 phases in a representative particle cross section using the disclosed TEM or STEM techniques and to adjust the disclosed synthesis or ion exchange conditions to obtain a desired balance between the phases. Selecting a cross-sectional area ratio within the claimed range, including 1.8 to 3.0, to achieve Sugiyama’s desired balance between discharge potential and high potential stability would have amounted to no more than routine optimization of a recognized result effective variable. Further, as the material described by Sugiyama has a composition and structure which is substantially identical to that of the claimed material, the material of the prior art is taken to have the claimed properties absent evidence to the contrary (see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding Claim 3, Sugiyama discloses the positive active material according to claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Sugiyama further discloses characteristic (iii). Specifically, Sugiyama discloses a positive electrode active material represented by the formula LibNacMn1-sNim-tCon-uM2s+t+uO2 where 0<b+c≤1, 1+m+n=1, 3≤4l+2m+3n≤3.5, and 0.05≤s+t+u<0.25, M2 is Al or Mo, when M2 is Al, 1 is not equal to m, and any one of 1 and m is not 0 (see e.g. paragraph [0053]). Thus Sugiyama discloses a positive electrode comprising Mn, Ni, and Co as the A element and Al as the M element, wherein the Al content, denoted as s+t+u, is 0.05 to less than 0.25. When s+t+u is 0.05 to approximately 0.0909, the molar percentage of Al based on the total number of moles of Mn, Ni, and Co is approximately 5.3% to 10%, which falls within the claimed range of 0.1% to 10%.
Sugiyama discloses a range that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 4, Sugiyama discloses the positive active material according to claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Sugiyama further discloses that the P63mc O2 region and the R3m O3 region coexist within the same particle and are formed from the same transition metal oxide precursor, with the ion exchange process substituting lithium for sodium without changing the Mn, Ni, and Co composition (see e.g. paragraphs [0048], and [0053]–[0054]). Therefore, the molar percentage of Co is the same in the first and second regions, such that C1=C2 and |C1-C2|=0%.
Sugiyama discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 6, Sugiyama discloses the positive active material according to claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Sugiyama further discloses that in an XRD pattern of the positive active material, an intensity of a diffraction peak exhibited in a diffraction angle range of 16.5° to 18.5° is I1 (see e.g. "O3 structure 003 exists within the range of 2θ at 16.5° to 18.5°" in paragraph [0051] and FIG. 3), an intensity of a diffraction peak exhibited in a diffraction angle range of 43° to 46° is I2 (see e.g. "O3 structure 104 within the range of 2θ at 43° to 46°" in paragraph [0049] and FIG. 3), an intensity of a diffraction peak exhibited in a diffraction angle range of 17° to 19° is I3 (see e.g. "the O2 structure 002 exists within the range of 2θ at 17.0° to 19.0°" in paragraph [0051] and FIG. 3).
Sugiyama discloses ranges that overlap with the ranges claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses ranges that overlap with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Sugiyama does not explicitly disclose that an intensity of a diffraction peak exhibited in a diffraction angle range of 49.5° to 50.5° is I4, and I1+I2>I3+I4.
Sugiyama, however, teaches controlling the relative abundance of the O2 and O3 structures within a range of 0.1 to 3.0 and recognizes that the relative phase abundance affects average discharge potential and stability at high potential (see e.g. paragraphs [0050]–[0052]). Sugiyama therefore recognizes the relative O2/O3 phase proportion as a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select an O2 dominant phase proportion within Sugiyama’s disclosed range and routinely adjust the composition and ion exchange conditions until the intensities of the O2 related peaks exceeded those of the O3 related peaks, thereby satisfying an intensity of a diffraction peak exhibited in a diffraction angle range of 49.5° to 50.5° is I4 and I1+I2>I3+I4. Determining the resulting peak positions and intensities within the claimed ranges would have required only routine XRD measurement. Further, as the material described by Sugiyama has a composition and structure which is substantially identical to that of the claimed material, the material of the prior art is taken to have the claimed properties when observed by XRD absent evidence to the contrary (see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding Claim 7, Sugiyama discloses the positive active material according to claim 6 (see e.g. claim 6 rejection above).
Sugiyama further discloses an XRD pattern in which the diffraction peak near 45° (I2) is greater in intensity than the diffraction peak near 50° (I4) (see e.g. FIG. 3).
Regarding Claim 8, Sugiyama discloses a positive electrode plate (see e.g. "cathode active material layer 10" in paragraph [0097] and part number 10 in FIG. 2) comprising a positive active material (see e.g. "containing the cathode active material of the present disclosure" in paragraph [0097]), wherein the positive active material comprises a first region and a second region (see e.g. "The cathode active material is a layered cathode active material having a multi-phase of the O2 structure (crystal structure is P63mc) and the O3 structure (crystal structure is R-3m) in a single particle thereof" in paragraph [0048] and FIG. 1); the first region has a first structure belonging to a P63mc crystalline phase structure (see e.g. "O2 structure (crystal structure is P63 mc)" in paragraph [0048]); the second region has a second structure belonging to R3m (see e.g. "O3 structure (crystal structure is R3m)” in paragraph [0048]).
Sugiyama is silent as to the area of the positive active material and thus does explicitly disclose in a cross-section of the positive active material, an area ratio of the first region to the second region is 1.8 to 5.4.
Sugiyama, however, discloses that the O2 and O3 structures coexist within a single particle, including along the layered direction, and expressly teaches controlling the relative proportion of the O2 and O3 structures (see e.g. paragraphs [0047]–[0050] and FIG. 1). In particular, Sugiyama teaches that an O2/O3 abundance ratio of 0.1 to 3.0 provides a positive active material having both a high average discharge potential and a high degree of stability at high potential (see e.g. paragraphs [0050]–[0052]). Sugiyama therefore recognizes the relative amount of the O2 and O3 phases as a result effective variable.
Although Sugiyama determines the O2/O3 abundance using an XRD peak intensity ratio, Sugiyama also teaches that the O2 and O3 phases may be identified using selected area diffraction patterns, high resolution TEM images, or STEM images (see e.g. paragraph [0049]). Therefore, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to quantify the relative amounts of the O2 and O3 phases in a representative particle cross section using the disclosed TEM or STEM techniques and to adjust the disclosed synthesis or ion exchange conditions to obtain a desired balance between the phases. Selecting a cross sectional area ratio within the claimed range, including 1.8 to 3.0, to achieve Sugiyama’s desired balance between discharge potential and high potential stability would have amounted to no more than routine optimization of a recognized result effective variable.
Regarding Claim 10, Sugiyama discloses the positive active material according to claim 8 (see e.g. claim 8 rejection above).
Sugiyama further discloses characteristic (iii). Specifically, Sugiyama discloses a positive electrode active material represented by the formula LibNacMn1-sNim-tCon-uM2s+t+uO2 where 0<b+c≤1, 1+m+n=1, 3≤4l+2m+3n≤3.5, and 0.05≤s+t+u<0.25, M2 is Al or Mo, when M2 is Al, 1 is not equal to m, and any one of 1 and m is not 0 (see e.g. paragraph [0053]). Thus Sugiyama discloses a positive electrode comprising Mn, Ni, and Co as the A element and Al as the M element, wherein the Al content, denoted as s+t+u, is 0.05 to less than 0.25. When s+t+u is 0.05 to approximately 0.0909, the molar percentage of Al based on the total number of moles of Mn, Ni, and Co is approximately 5.3% to 10%, which falls within the claimed range of 0.1% to 10%.
Sugiyama discloses a range that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 11, Sugiyama discloses the positive active material according to claim 10 (see e.g. claim 10 rejection above).
Sugiyama further discloses that the P6₃mc O2 region and the R3m O3 region coexist within the same particle and are formed from the same transition metal oxide precursor, with the ion exchange process substituting lithium for sodium without changing the Mn, Ni, and Co composition (see e.g. paragraphs [0048], and [0053]–[0054]). Therefore, the molar percentage of Co is the same in the first and second regions, such that C1=C2 and |C1-C2|=0%.
Sugiyama discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 13, Sugiyama discloses the positive active material according to claim 8 (see e.g. claim 8 rejection above).
Sugiyama further discloses that in an XRD pattern of the positive active material, an intensity of a diffraction peak exhibited in a diffraction angle range of 16.5° to 18.5° is I1 (see e.g. "O3 structure 003 exists within the range of 2θ at 16.5° to 18.5°" in paragraph [0051] and FIG. 3), an intensity of a diffraction peak exhibited in a diffraction angle range of 43° to 46° is I2 (see e.g. "O3 structure 104 within the range of 2θ at 43° to 46°" in paragraph [0049] and FIG. 3), an intensity of a diffraction peak exhibited in a diffraction angle range of 17° to 19° is I3 (see e.g. "the O2 structure 002 exists within the range of 2θ at 17.0° to 19.0°" in paragraph [0051] and FIG. 3).
Sugiyama discloses ranges that overlap with the ranges claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses ranges that overlap with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Sugiyama does not explicitly disclose that an intensity of a diffraction peak exhibited in a diffraction angle range of 49.5° to 50.5° is I4, and I1+I2>I3+I4.
Sugiyama, however, teaches controlling the relative abundance of the O2 and O3 structures within a range of 0.1 to 3.0 and recognizes that the relative phase abundance affects average discharge potential and stability at high potential (see e.g. paragraphs [0050]–[0052]). Sugiyama therefore recognizes the relative O2/O3 phase proportion as a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select an O2 dominant phase proportion within Sugiyama’s disclosed range and routinely adjust the composition and ion exchange conditions until the intensities of the O2 related peaks exceeded those of the O3 related peaks, thereby satisfying an intensity of a diffraction peak exhibited in a diffraction angle range of 49.5° to 50.5° is I4 and I1+I2>I3+I4. Determining the resulting peak positions and intensities within the claimed ranges would have required only routine XRD measurement.
Regarding Claim 14, Sugiyama discloses the positive active material according to claim 13 (see e.g. claim 13 rejection above).
Sugiyama further discloses an XRD pattern in which the diffraction peak near 45° (I2) is greater in intensity than the diffraction peak near 50° (I4) (see e.g. FIG. 3).
Regarding Claim 17, Sugiyama discloses an electrochemical device (see e.g. "lithium ion battery " in paragraph [0098] and part number 100 in FIG. 2), the electrochemical device comprises a positive active material (see e.g. "cathode active material" in paragraph [0097] and part number 10 in FIG. 2) wherein the positive active material comprises: a first region and a second region (see e.g. "The cathode active material is a layered cathode active material having a multi-phase of the O2 structure (crystal structure is P63 mc) and the O3 structure (crystal structure is R-3m) in a single particle thereof" in paragraph [0048] and FIG. 1); the first region has a first structure belonging to a P63mc crystalline phase structure (see e.g. "O2 structure (crystal structure is P63 mc)" in paragraph [0048]); the second region has a second structure belonging to R3m (see e.g. "O3 structure (crystal structure is R-3m)' in paragraph [0048]).
Sugiyama is silent as to the area of the positive active material and thus does explicitly disclose in a cross-section of the positive active material, an area ratio of the first region to the second region is 1.8 to 5.4.
Sugiyama, however, discloses that the O2 and O3 structures coexist within a single particle, including along the layered direction, and expressly teaches controlling the relative proportion of the O2 and O3 structures (see e.g. paragraphs [0047]–[0050] and FIG. 1). In particular, Sugiyama teaches that an O2/O3 abundance ratio of 0.1 to 3.0 provides a positive active material having both a high average discharge potential and a high degree of stability at high potential (see e.g. paragraphs [0050]–[0052]). Sugiyama therefore recognizes the relative amount of the O2 and O3 phases as a result effective variable.
Although Sugiyama determines the O2/O3 abundance using an XRD peak intensity ratio, Sugiyama also teaches that the O2 and O3 phases may be identified using selected area diffraction patterns, high resolution TEM images, or STEM images (see e.g. paragraph [0049]). Therefore, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to quantify the relative amounts of the O2 and O3 phases in a representative particle cross section using the disclosed TEM or STEM techniques and to adjust the disclosed synthesis or ion exchange conditions to obtain a desired balance between the phases. Selecting a cross sectional area ratio within the claimed range, including 1.8 to 3.0, to achieve Sugiyama’s desired balance between discharge potential and high potential stability would have amounted to no more than routine optimization of a recognized result effective variable.
Sugiyama does not expressly disclose an electronic device comprising the electrochemical device. Sugiyama, however, teaches that its lithium ion secondary battery is useful as an automotive battery (see e.g. paragraph [0099]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Sugiyama’s lithium ion battery into an electronic device, such as an electrically powered vehicle, to provide electrical power to the device, suggested by Sugiyama.
Regarding Claim 18, Sugiyama discloses the positive active material according to claim 17 (see e.g. claim 17 rejection above).
Sugiyama further discloses characteristic (iii). Specifically, Sugiyama discloses a positive electrode active material represented by the formula LibNacMn1-sNim-tCon-uM2s+t+uO2 s+t+u+O2 where 0<b+c≤1, 1+m+n=1, 3≤4l+2m+3n≤3.5, and 0.05≤s+t+u<0.25, M2 is Al or Mo, when M2 is Al, 1 is not equal to m, and any one of 1 and m is not 0 (see e.g. paragraph [0053]). Thus Sugiyama discloses a positive electrode comprising Mn, Ni, and Co as the A element and Al as the M element, wherein the Al content, denoted as s+t+u, is 0.05 to less than 0.25. When s+t+u is 0.05 to approximately 0.0909, the molar percentage of Al based on the total number of moles of Mn, Ni, and Co is approximately 5.3% to 10%, which falls within the claimed range of 0.1% to 10%.
Sugiyama discloses a range that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 19, Sugiyama discloses the positive active material according to claim 18 (see e.g. claim 18 rejection above).
Sugiyama further discloses that the P63mc O2 region and the R3m O3 region coexist within the same particle and are formed from the same transition metal oxide precursor, with the ion exchange process substituting lithium for sodium without changing the Mn, Ni, and Co composition (see e.g. paragraphs [0048], and [0053]–[0054]). Therefore, the molar percentage of Co is the same in the first and second regions, such that C1=C2 and |C1-C2|=0%.
Sugiyama discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 20, Sugiyama discloses the positive active material according to claim 18 (see e.g. claim 18 rejection above).
Sugiyama further discloses an XRD pattern in which the diffraction peak near 45° (I2) is greater in intensity than the diffraction peak near 50° (I4) (see e.g. FIG. 3).
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama (US-20210119207-A1) as applied to claim 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Sun et al. (WO-2021133119-A1), US-20230047820-A1 is being used as an equivalent translation and referenced below.
Regarding Claim 2, Sugiyama discloses the positive active material according to claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Sugiyama does not disclose that the second region comprises an F element, and an atom number ratio of the F element to an O element in the second region is 0.5% to 5%.
Sun, however, in the same field of endeavor, positive electrode active materials with different regions, discloses a fluorine containing layered positive electrode active material comprising lithium, transition metal, fluorine, and oxygen represented by the formula Li₁₋ₓM₁₋ᵧ[LiₓMᵧ]O₂₋zFz, wherein 0.005≤z≤0.02 (see e.g. paragraphs [0019] of Sun). This formula provides an F/O atom number ratio of z/(2-z), or approximately 0.25% to 1.01% when the bounds of z are plugged in, which overlaps the claimed range of 0.5% to 5%.
Sun discloses a rang that overlaps with the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Sun also teaches that by adding fluorine the oxidation number of nickel can be controlled which shows a low capacity decrease even after long term cycling (see e.g. paragraph [0006] of Sun). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the second region of Sugiyama et al. such that it comprises an F element, and an atom number ratio of the F element to an O element in the second region is 0.5% to 5% as taught by Sun in order to control the oxidation number of nickel and demonstrate low capacity decrease as suggested by Sun.
Regarding Claim 9, Sugiyama discloses the positive active material according to claim 8 (see e.g. claim 8 rejection above).
Sugiyama does not disclose that the second region comprises an F element, and an atom number ratio of the F element to an O element in the second region is 0.5% to 5%.
Sun, however, in the same field of endeavor, positive electrode active materials with different regions, discloses a fluorine containing layered positive electrode active material comprising lithium, transition metal, fluorine, and oxygen represented by the formula Li₁₋ₓM₁₋ᵧ[LiₓMᵧ]O₂₋zFz, wherein 0.005≤z≤0.02 (see e.g. paragraphs [0019] of Sun). This formula provides an F/O atom number ratio of z/(2-z), or approximately 0.25% to 1.01% when the bounds of z are plugged in, which overlaps the claimed range of 0.5% to 5%.
Sun discloses a rang that overlaps with the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Sun also teaches that by adding fluorine the oxidation number of nickel can be controlled which shows a low capacity decrease even after long term cycling (see e.g. paragraph [0006] of Sun). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the second region of Sugiyama et al. such that it comprises an F element, and an atom number ratio of the F element to an O element in the second region is 0.5% to 5% as taught by Sun in order to control the oxidation number of nickel and demonstrate low capacity decrease as suggested by Sun.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama (US-20210119207-A1) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Zhu et al. (US-20210320354-A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Sugiyama discloses the positive active material according to claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Sugiyama does not disclose that the positive active material satisfies at least one of the following characteristics: (v) the first region comprises a region A1 and a region A2, the second region comprises a region B1, and the region B1 is located between the region A1 and the region A2; (vi) the second region comprises a region B2, a distance D between the region B2 and a surface of the positive active material satisfies: D≤200 nm; (vii) an interfacial layer exists between the first region and the second region, and, along a direction perpendicular to the interfacial layer, a transition metal layer in a region at a distance of 3 nm from the interfacial layer in the first region is arranged parallel to a transition metal layer in a region at a distance of 3 nm from the interfacial layer in the second region; or (viii) Dv50 of the positive active material is 5 μm to 20 μm.
Zhu, however, in the same field of endeavor, positive electrode active materials, discloses a positive active material with a D50 of 10 to 15 μm (see e.g. " positive electrode active material has a particle size distribution with a D50 between 10 to 15 μm" in paragraph [0019] of Zhu).
Zhu also teaches that positive electrode active materials of this size have a high tap density, a high energy density, and a good particle strength (see e.g. paragraph [0019] of Zhu). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the positive active martial of Sugiyama such that the Dv50 of the positive active material is 5 μm to 20 μm as taught by Zhu et al. in order to have a positive electrode active material with a high tap density, a high energy density, and a good particle strength as suggested by Zhu.
Regarding Claim 12, Sugiyama discloses the positive active material according to claim 8 (see e.g. claim 8 rejection above).
Sugiyama does not disclose that the positive active material satisfies at least one of the following characteristics: (v) the first region comprises a region A1 and a region A2, the second region comprises a region B1, and the region B1 is located between the region A1 and the region A2; (vi) the second region comprises a region B2, a distance D between the region B2 and a surface of the positive active material satisfies: D≤200 nm; (vii) an interfacial layer exists between the first region and the second region, and, along a direction perpendicular to the interfacial layer, a transition metal layer in a region at a distance of 3 nm from the interfacial layer in the first region is arranged parallel to a transition metal layer in a region at a distance of 3 nm from the interfacial layer in the second region; or (viii) Dv50 of the positive active material is 5 μm to 20 μm.
Zhu, however, in the same field of endeavor, positive electrode active materials, discloses a positive active material with a D50 of 10 to 15 μm (see e.g. " positive electrode active material has a particle size distribution with a D50 between 10 to 15 μm" in paragraph [0019] of Zhu).
Zhu also teaches that positive electrode active materials of this size have a high tap density, a high energy density, and a good particle strength (see e.g. paragraph [0019] of Zhu). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the positive active martial of Sugiyama such that the Dv50 of the positive active material is 5 μm to 20 μm as taught by Zhu et al. in order to have a positive electrode active material with a high tap density, a high energy density, and a good particle strength as suggested by Zhu.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama (US-20210119207-A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Endo et al. (US-20200006778-A1) in view of Ho et al. (WO-2021184436-A1), US-20230095117-A1 is being used as an equivalent translation and referenced below.
Regarding Claim 15, Sugiyama discloses the positive active material according to claim 8 (see e.g. claim 8 rejection above).
Sugiyama further discloses that the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode material layer (see e.g. "cathode active material layer 10" in paragraph [0098] and part number 10 in FIG. 2), a positive current collector (see e.g. " the cathode current collector " in paragraph [0098] and part number 40 in FIG. 2) and the positive electrode material layer comprises the positive active material (see e.g. "the cathode current collector 40 may be arranged on a face of the cathode active material layer 10" in paragraph [0098]).
Sugiyama does not disclose that there is an intermediate layer located between the positive electrode material layer and the positive current collector, a peel force between the intermediate layer and the positive current collector is F1, and a peel force between the positive electrode material layer and the intermediate layer is F2, satisfying: the lesser of F1 and F2 is greater than or equal to 20 N/m.
Endo, however, in the same field of endeavor, multi layered positive electrode plates, discloses a positive electrode plate comprising an intermediate layer (see e.g. "protective layer 23" in paragraph [0031] of Endo) located between a positive electrode material layer and a positive current collector (see e.g. "a protective layer 23 interposed between the positive electrode current collector 21 and the positive electrode mixture layer 22" in paragraph [0022] and part number 23 in FIG. 4 of Endo), a peel force between the intermediate layer and the positive current collector is F1, and a peel force between the positive electrode material layer and the intermediate layer is F2 (see e.g. "the peel strength between the positive electrode current collector and the protective layer is higher than the peel strength between the protective layer and the positive electrode mixture layer" in paragraph [0006] of Endo).
Endo also teaches that the intermediate layer can highly suppress the occurrence of a low-resistance internal Short-circuit between the positive electrode current collector and the negative electrode without deteriorating the battery characteristics (see e.g. paragraph [0008] of Endo). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the positive electrode plate of Sugiyama such that it comprises an intermediate layer located between the positive electrode material layer and the positive current collector, the positive electrode material layer comprises the positive active material, a peel force between the intermediate layer and the positive current collector is F1, and a peel force between the positive electrode material layer and the intermediate layer is F2 as taught by Endo et al. in order to highly suppress the occurrence of a low-resistance internal Short-circuit between the positive electrode current collector and the negative electrode without deteriorating the battery characteristics as suggested by Endo.
Sugiyama in view of Endo is silent as to the peel force and thus does not disclose that the lesser of F1 and F2 is greater than or equal to 20 N/m.
Ho, however, in the same field of endeavor, positive electrode plates, discloses a peel strength between positive electrode plate layers in a range from about 1.0 N/cm to about 8.0 N/cm (equivalent to 100-800 N/m) (see e.g. paragraph [0125 of Ho).
Ho discloses a range that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).]
Ho also teaches it is important for the electrode layer to have good peeling strength to the current collector as this prevents delamination or separation of the electrode, which would greatly influence the mechanical stability of the electrodes and the cyclability of the battery (see e.g. paragraph [0123] of Ho). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the peel force between the layers of Sugiyama in view of Endo et al. such that it is layers in a range from about 1.0 N/cm to about 8.0 N/cm as taught by Ho et al. in order to prevent delamination and separation of layers as suggested by Ho.
Regarding Claim 16, Sugiyama in view of Endo and further in view of Ho discloses the positive electrode plate of claim 15 (see e.g. claim 15 rejection above).
Sugiyama in view of Endo does not disclose that the positive electrode plate satisfies at least one of the following characteristics: (xi) the intermediate layer comprises a binder and a conductive agent, and, based on a mass of the intermediate layer, a mass percent of the binder is 20% to 80%; or (xii) a thickness of the positive electrode material layer is T1, and a thickness of the intermediate layer is T2, satisfying: 10≤T1/T2≤60.
Ho, however, discloses a cathode electrode layer formed on a carbon coated aluminum current collector, wherein the carbon coating has a thickness of 1 μm (T2) and the cathode electrode layer has a thickness of 35 μm (T1) (see e.g. paragraph [00199] of Ho). Thus T1/T2 = 35.
Ho discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Ho also teaches that a positive electrode material of this type allows for low drying temperatures of layers and decreased drying times of the coated film significantly improve performance of the batteries (see e.g. paragraph [0148] of Ho). Therefore, it would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode plate of Sugiyama in view of Endo et al. such that a thickness of the positive electrode material layer is T1, and a thickness of the intermediate layer is T2, satisfying: 10≤T1/T2≤60 as taught by Ho et al. in order to improve battery performance as suggested by Ho.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure:
Sugiyama (US-20210119199-A1)
Inoue et al. (US-20220149365-A1)
Nakamura (US-20200083527-A1)
Wang et al., Preparation of intergrown P/O-type biphasic layered oxides as high-performance cathodes for sodium ion batteries, 05 May 2021
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSE EFYMOW whose telephone number is (571)270-0795. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10:30 am - 8:30 pm EST.
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, TONG GUO can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/J.J.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights