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.
The following terms table is used for claim interpretation.
Instant application
Li et al.
(CN-112382737-A)
Hagiwara et al.
(JP-2009026599-A)
Matsushita et al.
(US 2018/0287202 A1)
First positive electrode active material (L)
Middle-sized particle
Second positive electrode active material (R)
Large-diameter active material particles
Large-sized particle
Third positive electrode active material (r)
Third material
Small-diameter active material particles
Small-sized particle
Second layer
Surface or top layer
Current collector
Aluminum foil
Claims 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN-112382737-A), further in view of Hagiwara et al. (JP-2009026599-A).
Regarding Claim 1, Li teaches a lithium-ion battery cathode, the cathode comprising a current collector and an active material layer on the current collector (Paragraph [0006]).
Li does not teach the current collector material. Hagiwara teaches specifically aluminum as one example for a metal foil material (Paragraph [0010]) which functions as the current collector. It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Hagiwara to the endeavors of Li since aluminum is a well-known cathode current collector material used in the industry.
Li teaches an active material layer on the current collector, wherein the active material layer comprises bottom, middle, and top layers (Paragraph [0008]).
Li teaches a lithium transition metal composite oxide with a ratio of Co in the metal element atoms other than lithium having a ratio over 2 atom % (Paragraph [0014]), correlated to an active material with particle diameter L based on shared properties with respect to the instant application.
Li teaches a lithium transition metal composite oxide with no Co or a ratio of Co in the metal element atoms other than lithium having a ratio less than 2 atom % (Paragraph [0013]), correlated to an active material with particle diameter R based on shared properties with respect to the instant application.
Li teaches a lithium transition metal composite oxide with no Co or a ratio of Co in the metal element atoms other than lithium having a ratio less than 2 atom % (Paragraph [0015]) which is included at an interface of the first and second materials in their respective layers (Paragraph [0022]), correlated to an active material with particle diameter r based on shared properties with respect to the instant application.
Li teaches average particle sizes of L, R, and r as designated above as 1.6-1.8 micrometers, 2.2-2.4 micrometers, and 1.0-1.2 micrometers respectively (Paragraph [0008]), which satisfies R > L > r.
Regarding Claim 2, Li teaches average particle sizes of L, R, and r as designated above for Claim 1 as 1.6-1.8 micrometers, 2.2-2.4 micrometers, and 1.0-1.2 micrometers respectively (Paragraph [0008]), which satisfies r > 0.155L.
Regarding Claim 5, Li teaches third active material particles present in the surface active material (Paragraph [0022]), wherein the surface or top layer of Li is equivalent to the second layer, away from the current collector, of the instant application.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagiwara et al. (JP-2009026599-A), further in view of Li et al. (CN-112382737-A) and Matsushita et al. (US 2018/0287202 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hagiwara teaches a positive electrode plate for a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising a metal foil having active material layers (Paragraph [0006]).
Hagiwara teaches specifically aluminum as one example for a metal foil material (Paragraph [0010]) which functions as the current collector.
Hagiwara does not teach the placement of a third active material particles at at least an interface between the first and second layer of particles. Li teaches a third material at an interface of the first and second materials in their respective layers (Paragraph [0022]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hagiwara and Li to optimize the placement of small particles at at least an interface between the middle and large particles to arrive at the claimed configuration since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed placement of small particles at at least an interface between middle and large particles is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the placement of small particles at at least an interface between the middle and large particles motivated by the desire to improve performance as taught by Li (Paragraph [0022]).
Hagiwara does not teach a ratio of Co in metal element atoms other than Li in a first lithium transition metal composite oxide to be 2 atom % or more, but teaches positive electrode active material as any solid lithium compound that can freely exchange lithium ions electrochemically (Paragraph [0009]).
Matsushita teaches a middle-sized particle having a composition represented by the formula Liv2Niw2M2’x2Oz2 wherein 0<v2<2, w2+x2≤1, 0.65≤w2≤1, 0≤x2≤0.35, 0<z2<3, and M2’ includes one or more elements of transition metals selected from the group consisting of Co, Fe, Mn, Cu, Zn, Al, Cr, V, Ti, Mg, and Zr (Paragraph [0044], Formula 2) which can be arranged and optimized such that the ratio of Co is greater than 2 atom %. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hagiwara and Matsushita to further optimize the atom % of Co with the active material composition to arrive at the claimed configuration since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed atom % of Co with the active material composition is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the atom % of Co with the active material composition as motivated by the desire to increase energy and volume density of the positive electrode as taught in Matsushita (Paragraph [0042]). The contents of the formula as taught by Matsushita correlate it to an active material with particle diameter L for the middle-sized particles with respect to the instant application.
Hagiwara does not teach a ratio of Co in metal element atoms other than Li in a second and third lithium transition metal composite oxide to each be 2 atom % or less, but teaches positive electrode active material as any solid lithium compound that can freely exchange lithium ions electrochemically (Paragraph [0009]).
Matsushita teaches a large-sized particle and small-sized particle each having a composition represented by the formula Liv1Niw1M1’x1Oz1 wherein 0<v1<2, w1+x1≤1, 0.2≤w1≤1, 0≤x1≤0.7, 0<z1<3, and M1’ includes one or more elements of transition metals selected from the group consisting of Co, Fe, Mn, Cu, Zn, Al, Cr, V, Ti, Mg, and Zr (Paragraph [0043], Formula 1) which can be arranged and optimized such that the ratio of Co is less than 2 atom %. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hagiwara and Matsushita to further optimize the atom % of Co with the active material composition to arrive at the claimed configuration since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed atom % of Co with the active material composition is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the atom % of Co with the active material composition as motivated by the desire to increase energy and volume density of the positive electrode as taught in Matsushita (Paragraph [0042]). The contents of the formula as taught by Matsushita correlate it to an active material with particle diameter R for the large-sized particles and particle diameter r for the small-sized particles with respect to the instant application.
Hagiwara teaches average particle sizes of L, R, and r as designated above as 7 µm, 10 µm, and 4 µm respectively (Paragraph [0031]), which satisfies R > L > r.
Regarding Claim 3, Hagiwara teaches large-diameter active material particles with an average particle size R, as designated above for Claim 1, of 10 µm and small-diameter active material particles with an average particle size r, as designated above for Claim 1, of 4 µm (Paragraph [0031]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claim 4, Hagiwara teaches the small-diameter active material particles are located in the upper layer away from the aluminum foil (Paragraph [0034]) or otherwise positioned higher up (Paragraph [0007]) from the interface between the current collector and adjacent layer.
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, Hagiwara does not teach a first lithium transition metal composite oxide including Ni, Co, and Al, further as a lithium-nickel-cobalt-aluminum composite oxide represented by LiαNi1-x-yCoxAlyO2 where 0.95≤α≤1.05, 0.02≤x≤0.1, and 0.02<x+y<1, but teaches positive electrode active material as any solid lithium compound that can freely exchange lithium ions electrochemically (Paragraph [0009]).
Matsushita teaches a middle-sized particle, correlated to the first lithium transition metal composite oxide of the instant application, having a composition represented by the formula Liv2Niw2M2’x2Oz2 wherein 0<v2<2, w2+x2≤1, 0.65≤w2≤1, 0≤x2≤0.35, 0<z2<3, and M2’ includes one or more elements of transition metals selected from the group consisting of Co, Fe, Mn, Cu, Zn, Al, Cr, V, Ti, Mg, and Zr (Paragraph [0044], Formula 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hagiwara and Matsushita to optimize the composition of the first lithium transition metal composite oxide active material to arrive at the claimed configuration since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed composition of the first lithium transition metal composite oxide active material is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the composition of the first lithium transition metal composite oxide active material as motivated by the desire to increase energy and volume density of the positive electrode as taught in Matsushita (Paragraph [0042]).
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, Hagiwara does not teach a second and third lithium transition metal composite oxide each including Ni and Mn in a total ratio in metal element atoms other than Li as 98% or more, further as a lithium-nickel-manganese composite oxide represented by LiαNi1-xMnxO2 where 0.95≤α≤1.05, 0<x≤0.2, but teaches positive electrode active material as any solid lithium compound that can freely exchange lithium ions electrochemically (Paragraph [0009]). Matsushita teaches a large-sized particle and small-sized particle, correlated respectively to the second lithium transition metal composite oxide and third lithium transition metal composite oxide of the instant application, each having a composition represented by the formula Liv1Niw1M1’x1Oz1 wherein 0<v1<2, w1+x1≤1, 0.2≤w1≤1, 0≤x1≤0.7, 0<z1<3, and M1’ includes one or more elements of transition metals selected from the group consisting of Co, Fe, Mn, Cu, Zn, Al, Cr, V, Ti, Mg, and Zr (Paragraph [0043], Formula 1) which can be arranged and optimized such that the ratio of Ni and Mn is 98% or more. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hagiwara and Matsushita to optimize the compositions of the second and third lithium transition metal composite oxide active materials to arrive at the claimed configuration since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed compositions of the second and third lithium transition metal composite oxide active materials are critical and have unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the compositions of the second and third lithium transition metal composite oxide active materials as motivated by the desire to increase energy and volume density of the positive electrode as taught in Matsushita (Paragraph [0042]).
Regarding Claim 10, Hagiwara teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery with a power generation element, which includes a positive electrode plate, a negative electrode plate, a separator, and an electrolyte (Paragraph [0027]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vivian Cheng whose telephone number is (571)270-1930. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:30am-5pm ET, Fri 7:30am-12pm ET.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/V.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights