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 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 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.
Claim 1 recites, “An electrochemical storage device sintered electrode, comprising: a doped or undoped LiMn204, wherein the doped or undoped LiMn204 comprises at least 95 wt% of the sintered electrode; a coated LiMn2O4 substrate; or both.” It is unclear if the LiMn2O4 serves as the substrate or is coated on a substrate and is therefore indefinite. For the purpose of examination LiMn2O4 serving as the substrate with a coating will be applied.
Claim 1 recites, “An electrochemical storage device sintered electrode, comprising: a doped or undoped LiMn204, wherein the doped or undoped LiMn204 comprises at least 95 wt% of the sintered electrode; a coated LiMn2O4 substrate; or both.” It is unclear if “both” is applied to the doped or undoped LiMn2O4, or “in combination with the coated LiMn2O4 substrate,” or “a coated LiMn2O4 substrate and a substrate formed of LiMn2O4,” and is therefore indefinite.
Claims 6 and 7 recites the limitation "the coated LiMn2O4" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “about” in claims 10 and 11 are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “about” 10% does not suggest a degree of limitation on percentages close to 10% and is therefore indefinite.
It is unclear how to apply the limitation of claims 13, and 14 with regard to the range of claim x, depending from claim 6. For the purpose of examination claims 13 and 14 will be examined as depending from claim 12.
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) 1, 4-5, 10-14, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy et al. (US2013/0323597A1).
As to claim 1, Levy discloses an electrochemical storage device sintered electrode [0003], comprising: a doped or undoped LiMn204 (the structure Li.sub.(1+x)Mn.sub.(2-y)B'.sub.yO.sub.4 of the lithium-manganese spinel, optionally doped, of the product according to the invention. [0017], where -0.20 ≤ X ≤ 0.4, and 0 ≤ y ≤ 1 [Abstract], and x=0, y=0 provides the undoped LiMn2O4 as claimed), wherein the doped or undoped LiMn204 comprises at least 95 wt% of the sintered electrode (The invention can in particular comprise more than 50%, more than 60%, more than 70%, more than 80%, more than 90%, indeed even substantially 100%, by weight, of fused product [0032], ; a coated LiMn2O4 substrate [0141]; or both [0017], [0141]. It is noted 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 4, Levy discloses aluminum-doped lithium-manganese spinel [0183] as taught by the instant specification paragraph [0087] which provides the at least one dopant has a 1*, 2*, or 3* oxidation state.
As to claim 5, Levy discloses the at least one dopant comprises copper, aluminum, sulfur, potassium, or a mixture thereof. [Abstract]
As to claim 10 and 11, Levy discloses the fused LMO particles and/or the aggregates of said particles and/or the agglomerates of said particles can also be coated at the surface, at least partially, indeed even completely [0141] Where coated completely would provide about 10% to about 100% of a total surface area of the LiMn204 substrate as applied to claim 10, and at least partially coated would apply to about 10% of a total surface area of the LiMn204 substrate as applied to claims 10 and 11.
It is noted 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 12, Levy discloses the doped LiMn2O4 comprises Formula I:
LiMn2-xMx04 (I), wherein M = Cu, Al, or a mixture thereof and x is in a range of from 0 to 0.16. (Li.sub.(1+x)Mn.sub.(2-y)B'.sub.yO.sub.4 [0017] where -0.20 ≤ X ≤ 0.4, and 0 ≤ y ≤ 1 [Abstract], and in the case of x=0 yields LiMn.sub.(2-y)B'.sub.yO.sub.4 with 0 ≤ y ≤ 1 which overlaps the range of 0 to 0.16, and B’ is a dopant chosen from a group consisting of Aluminum and copper [0019].
It is noted 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 13, Levy discloses x is in a range of from 0 to 0.15.( 0 ≤ y ≤ 1 [Abstract] which overlaps the range of 0 to 0.15). It is noted 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 14, Levy discloses x is in a range of from 0 to 0.15.( 0 ≤ y ≤ 1 [Abstract] which overlaps the range of 0 to 0.10). It is noted 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 18, Levy discloses the sintered electrode is a battery cathode. [0081].
As to claim 19, Levy discloses the sintered electrode is free of a binder, an inactive solid additive, or a mixture thereof. [0103]
As to claim 20, Levy discloses the sintered electrode comprises a spinel crystal structure. [Abstract]
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy et al. (US2013/0323597A1), in further view of Shang et al. (CN105932261A).
As to claims 2, Levy discloses the element B' is a dopant for the manganese chosen from the group consisting of aluminum, cobalt, nickel, chromium, iron, magnesium, titanium, vanadium, copper, zinc, gallium and their mixtures [0022], but does not explicitly disclose comprises one dopant. In the same field of endeavor Shang discloses positive electrode material for a lithium battery [Shang, 0044-0046] which is sintered [Shang, 0115] and teaches comprises one kind of the doped element [Shang, 0110-0111]
Shang further teaches the present invention provides a method for effectively preventing electrolyte corrosion and reduce surface polarization, lithium manganate positive electrode material with good high-temperature performance, good storage performance and long service life and preparation method thereof. [0080-0083]
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Levy with the dopants as taught by Shang to achieve high-temperature performance and long service life.
As to claim 3, Shang discloses more than two doped elements [0110-0111].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy et al. (US2013/0323597A1), in further view of Yang et al. (CN101847715A).
As to claim 7, Levy discloses a coating but does not explicitly teach the coated LiMn204 comprises at least two metal coatings. In the same field Yang discloses a lithium ion battery electrode material [0001] and teaches LiMn2O4 coated two times [0011], and further teaches the coating provides a uniform coating and the LiMn2O4 positive material has better electrical chemical cyclical stability [0011].
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Levy with the coatings as taught by Yang to achieve better electrical chemical cyclical stability.
Claim(s) 6, 8-9, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy et al. (US2013/0323597A1), in further view of Li et al. (CN103794751A).
As to claim 6, Levy discloses the coating materials for the LiMn204 comprises MgO, ZnO, CeO.sub.2, ZrO.sub.2, Al.sub.2O.sub.3, Co.sub.3O.sub.4-Al.sub.2O.sub.3 [0142], but does not explicitly disclose a one metal coating. In the same field of endeavor Li discloses lithium manganese-based lithium ion battery positive electrode material [Abstract] and teaches the coated lithium manganate to sinter [0008]…coated with N material [0012]…where N is element F of the metal compound. [0013], meeting the limitation of one metal coating. Li further teaches coating surface treatment to realize structural stability of the lithium-based material, to improve the cycle performance and high-temperature performance of the material. [0014]
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Levy with the metal coating as taught by Li to improve cycle performance and high-temperature performance of the material.
As to claims 8 and 9, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated, Levy discloses the metal coating comprises at least one metal having a 1+ , 2+, or 3+ oxidation state. (Al.sub.2O.sub.3, [0142]) and Aluminum as applied to claim 9.
As to claim 15, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated, Levy discloses the doped LiMn204 comprises Formula II: LiMn2-x-yAlxCuyO4 (II), wherein x and y are independently in a range of from about 0.01 to about 0.15.
(Li.sub.(1+x)Mn.sub.(2-y)B'.sub.yO.sub.4 [0017] where -0.20 ≤ X ≤ 0.4, and 0 ≤ y ≤ 1 [Abstract], and in the case of x=0 yields LiMn.sub.(2-y)B'.sub.yO.sub.4 with 0 ≤ y ≤ 1 which overlaps the range of 0.01 to 0.15, and B’ is a dopant chosen from a group consisting of aluminum and copper and their mixtures [Abstract] As such, Levy teaches that the Mn sites of the composition may be doped with a mixture of elements including Cu and Al.
Therefore, absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to dope the composition of Levy with both Al and Cu in the amount of at least 95 wt% providing x and y within the range claimed when about 0.01 to about 0.095, as suggested by Levy itself, in order to provide a product to be manufactured at reduced cost and in industrial amounts [0011]
It is noted 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 16, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated, Levy discloses x (y) and y(y’) are independently in a range of from about 0.01 to about 0.13. (0 ≤ y, y’ ≤ 1 which overlaps the range of 0.01 to 0.13. It is noted 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 17, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated, Levy discloses x (y) and y(y’) are independently in a range of from about 0.01 to about 0.13. (0 ≤ y, y’ ≤ 1 which overlaps the range of 0.01 to 0.095. It is noted 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
Madhusudan et al. (US2022/0384912A1) Lithium Manganate sintered onto a collector.
Wang et al. (Improved electrochemical properties and kinetics
of an LiMn2O4-based cathode co-modified via Cu doping with truncated octahedron morphology May 29, 2020)
Cai et al. (High electrochemical stability Al-doped spinel LiMn2O4 cathode material for Li-ion batteries October 23, 2019)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BART A HORNSBY whose telephone number is (313)446-6637. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
BART HORNSBY
Examiner
Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights