DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This is the first action on the merits for application 18/693601, filed April 15, 2024.
This is a 371 national stage filing for PCT/KR2021/016026, filed November 5, 2021.
Claims 1-12 are pending.
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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 refers to the structure-stabilizing element having a “relatively higher” diffusion power than the resistance-reducing element. The term “relatively higher” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively higher” 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 specification does not address values or characteristics which would make clear the diffusion power is relatively high enough to fulfill the claimed relationship. The diffusion power of the pair of elements and their ensuing relationship to each other is rendered indefinite as the scope of what is considered “relatively higher” lacks clear metes and bounds.
Claims 2-12 are rejected as depending on rejected base claim 1.
Claims 3 and 4 also detail the concentrations of the elements to be “relatively high” but this is unclear for the same reasons as those articulated above, and also including a lack of clarity as to what the concentrations are high relative to.
Claim 11 details the concentration of the resistance-reducing and structure-stabilizing elements but fails to detail what the proportions are compared to, as in concentration relative to the entire cathode active material or a different portion of the material like the core/surface bulk portion/surface portion.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOO et al (US PG PUB 2016/0149210).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 9, YOO et al teaches a cathode active material (abstract) comprising:
a particle core (“core part”, paragraphs [0012] and [0056]);
a surface bulk portion formed in an outer direction of the particle core (“continuous concentration gradient”, paragraph [0012]); and
a surface portion (“surface part”, paragraph [0012]) formed in an outer direction of the surface bulk portion to constitute an outermost layer of the active material (paragraph [0035]),
wherein the surface portion contains a resistance-reducing element capable of reducing a resistance increase rate of the active material (paragraphs [0050]-[0052] and examples 21-25 teach the use of at least Zr, consistent with the requirement of claim 8 detailing Zr functions as a resistance-reducing element, wherein the dopant is mixed with the precursor (paragraph [0058]) indicating its presence anywhere in the particle including the surface), and the surface bulk portion contains a structure-stabilizing element capable of improving structural stability of the active material (paragraphs [0050]-[0052] and examples 21-25 teach the use of at least Ti, consistent with the requirement of claim 8 detailing Ti functions as a structure-stabilizing element and present in the bulk or gradient portion since the dopant is mixed with the precursor (paragraph [0058]) indicating its presence anywhere in the particle), and
the structure-stabilizing element has relatively higher diffusion power than that of the resistance-reducing element under calcination conditions for producing the active material (The instant specification teaches the use of the elements Ti and Zr, wherein Ti will have a higher diffusion power relationship at bottom paragraph of page 15 (wherein the specification does not specifically say any other components are necessary to achieve this relationship). The presence of these materials in the device of YOO et al reasonably renders obvious this diffusion relationship as well.).
Regarding claim 2, YOO et al teaches the cathode active material is a cathode active material with a high Ni content of 60 mol% or more, based on a total content of the transition metal (paragraphs [0046] and table 1 teach use of Ni of greater than .7 mol or about 70%, overlapping the instant range of Ni, rendering obvious the claimed range).
Regarding claim 3, KANG et al teaches the resistance-reducing element and the structure-stabilizing element are contained in both the surface bulk portion and the surface portion (selection of Ti and Zr as dopants in examples 21-25 and their mixing within the precursor as defined in paragraph [0058] renders obvious their presence in the bulk and surface portions), and a concentration of the structure-stabilizing element is relatively high in the surface bulk portion and a concentration of the resistance-reducing element is relatively high in the surface portion (The concentration of Ti and Zr would reasonably be high relative to the use of an element with zero concentration or not selected from the list, fulfilling the claim as written. The claim is not clear as to what the components are supposed to be relative to, as addressed in the 35 USC 112 (b) rejection above and is therefore reasonably addressed with this interpretation.).
Regarding claim 4, YOO et al teaches the resistance-reducing element and the structure-stabilizing element are each contained in the particle core (paragraphs [0050]-[0052] and examples 21-25 teach the presence of Ti and Zr, with paragraph [0058] detailing the presence of these materials over the layers of the particle based on mixing with the precursor), and the concentration of the structure-stabilizing element in the particle core is relatively high (The concentration of Ti would reasonably be high relative to the use of an element with zero concentration or not selected from the list such as Mg, fulfilling the claim as written. The claim is not clear as to what the components are supposed to be relative to, as addressed in the 35 USC 112 (b) rejection above and is therefore reasonably addressed with this interpretation.).
Regarding claim 6, the instant application correlates the element selection with the diffusion power sought in the paragraph at the bottom of page 15 of the instant application. Therefore, it is the position of the Examiner that when the diffusion power comprises at least one of a diffusion rate or diffusivity, the same relationship of elements detailed in the rejection of claim 1 utilizing YOO et al will still be present.
Regarding claim 7, YOO et al teaches a size of the surface bulk portion ranges from 5% to 30%) based on a radius of the active material particle on a vertical cross section, and a size of the surface portion ranges from 1% to 20% based on a radius of the active material particle on a vertical cross section (It is the position of the Examiner the allocation of the regions (including the surface bulk portion) in the context of the claim is arbitrary and would be well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill to manipulate based on the selection of a different particle within the non-particular size of YOO et al. Interpreting example 1 in this vein, the selection of section 7 (5/7 micron from the surface, per paragraph [0078] and table 1,) would render a total surface section of 10%. Moreover, the selection of sections 5-6, 2*5/7 micron of the 7 micron particle would render a size of the bulk area of 20%. This would fulfill the claimed allocation and render obvious the claimed ranges, but these ranges lack criticality in terms of their lack of dependency on a substantive compositions or characteristics to define the regions.).
Regarding claim 11, YOO et al teaches the concentration of the resistance-reducing element (Zr) ranges from 500 to 3,500 ppm or from 0.0005 to 0.0035 mol (table 2, example 21-23, examples 6-8, paragraph [0052]), and the concentration of the structure-stabilizing element (Ti) ranges from 1,500 to 7,000 ppm or from 0.003 to 0.014 mol (table 2, examples 23-25, examples 3-5, paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 12, YOO et al teaches a secondary battery [paragraph [0003]) comprising the cathode active material according to claim 1 (see above rejection of claim 1 in view of YOO et al).
Claim(s) 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOO et al, in view of CHO et al (KR20200136347A, wherein a machine English translation is included with the action and herein referred to as CHO ‘347) and CHO et al (US PG PUB 2017/0077514A1, herein referred to as CHO ‘514).
Regarding claim 5, YOO et al the use of a resistant-reducing element (Zr of YOO et al) and the structure-stabilizing element (Ti of YOO et al) within a lithium metal oxide but fails to disclosure a ratio of a concentration per unit volume of the resistance-reducing element (CM1)to a concentration per unit volume of the structure-stabilizing element (CM2) within the claimed ranges.
CHO ‘347 teaches a lithium metal oxide comprising Li, Co, Ni, Mn and Zr, just as in YOO et al, in the abstract. CHO ‘347 further details coating the particle surface with Zr, then heating, causing the Zr component concentration to decrease from the particle surface to the core (abstract, top of page 4), wherein the use of the doping shows greater capacity at increased cycle numbers (see figure 3).
CHO ‘514 teaches a lithium metal oxide comprising Li, Co, Mn, Ni and Ti, just as in YOO et al, in the abstract. Moreover, CHO ‘514 teaches doping the oxide with titanium (dissimilar metal, paragraph [0015]) in the same method as CHO ‘347 (paragraph [0016]). Figures 6 and 7/tables 2 and 3 show doping with a Ti coating renders a composition of weight % Ti which increases from the particle surface to the core (inverse of CHO ‘347). The use of this gradient of titanium doping which increased closer to the core, renders a clear increase in capacity long term (see table 4) (just as in the benefit of the doping strategy of Zr in CHO ‘347).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to utilize the doping schemes of Zr concentration decreasing from surface to core and Ti concentration increasing from surface to core within the composition of YOO et al to increase capacity of the lithium metal oxide over time. While the combination does not specifically enumerate the claimed ranges, the examples of CHO ‘347 and ‘514 clearly render the ranges obvious. As shown in the table calculations below, a comparison of the Zr values of CHO ‘347 and the Ti values of ‘514 is made consistent with the locations and ratios claimed. The Examiner selected values of Figure 2 of CHO ‘347 indicative of the core (line 5), bulk (line 2) and surface (line 1) concentrations, present as atomic or mol% and converted to weight%, as shown in the tables.
PNG
media_image1.png
400
691
media_image1.png
Greyscale
These values were then compared to the weight% of Ti at the core (line 5), bulk (line 2) and surface (line 1) locations in figure 7.
PNG
media_image2.png
185
384
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The comparison of these examples renders a core concentration ratio of [Zr]/[Ti] of .474, within .1-.5 per the claim, a bulk portion ratio of [Zr]/[Ti] of .507, between .5 and 1 per the claim, and a surface portion ratio of [Zr]/[Ti] of 1.36, between 1 and 10 per the claim. For this reason, the optimization of the Zr and Ti distribution over the particle of YOO et al as shown in CHO ‘347 and CHO ‘514, clearly renders obvious the claimed ranges, enabling the greatest long-term capacity for the active material of the combination.
Regarding claim 10, YOO et al teaches the cathode active material
Lia[NibMncCoaM1fM2g]O2+h (1) (paragraph [0039] of YOO et al teaches 0<x≦1.1, overlapping with the instant range of a, wherein all the metals M1/M2/M3 (Ni, Mn, Co, paragraph [0040], plus doping for Ti and Zr, examples) equal more than 0 and less than and including 1, when including doping is within .9-1.5 as claimed as b+c+d+e+f+g and a value of 2 within the range of y of YOO et al = h =0 of the instant application.).
YOO et al teaches the use of ppm of Zr as M1 and Ti as M2 in the examples, but fails to disclose the content conditions for each portion including [Core portion] 0.5 f<0.02, 0<g<0.05, g>f [Surface bulk portion] 0 f<0.02, 0<g<0.05, g>f [Surface portion] 0 d<1, 0<f<0. g<0.05, f>g.
CHO ‘347 teaches a lithium metal oxide comprising Li, Co, Ni, Mn and Zr, just as in YOO et al, in the abstract. CHO ‘347 further details coating the particle surface with Zr, then heating, causing the Zr component concentration to decrease from the particle surface to the core (abstract, top of page 4), wherein the use of the doping shows greater capacity at increased cycle numbers (see figure 3).
CHO ‘514 teaches a lithium metal oxide comprising Li, Co, Mn, Ni and Ti, just as in YOO et al, in the abstract. Moreover, CHO ‘514 teaches doping the oxide with titanium (dissimilar metal, paragraph [0015]) in the same method as CHO ‘347 (paragraph [0016]). Figures 6 and 7/tables 2 and 3 show doping with a Ti coating renders a composition of weight % Ti which increases from the particle surface to the core (inverse of CHO ‘347). The use of this gradient of titanium doping which increased closer to the core, renders a clear increase in capacity long term (see table 4) (just as in the benefit of the doping strategy of Zr in CHO ‘347).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to utilize the doping schemes of Zr concentration decreasing from surface to core and Ti concentration increasing from surface to core within the composition of YOO et al to increase capacity of the lithium metal oxide over time. While the combination does not specifically enumerate the claimed ranges, the examples of CHO ‘347 and ‘514 clearly render the ranges obvious. As shown in the table calculations below, a comparison of the Zr values of CHO ‘347 and the Ti values of ‘514 is made consistent with the locations and ratios claimed. Regarding the amount of Zr (M1) present and indicative of subscript f: Figure 2 of CHO ‘347 teaches the mole or mol% present at the core (line 5) is 0.0055, in the bulk (line 2) is 0.0049 and at the surface (line 1) is 0.0122, within the claimed range for subscript f.
Regarding the amount of Ti (M2), indicative of subscript g: The Examiner selected values of Figure 7 of CHO ‘514 indicative of the core (line 5), bulk (line 2) and surface (line 1) concentrations, present as weight% and converted to mole or mol%, as shown in the tables.
PNG
media_image3.png
406
725
media_image3.png
Greyscale
These values indicate use of 0.022 mol at the core, 0.020 mol in the bulk and 0.017 mol at the surface, the g values are within the claimed range. Comparatively, the content of Ti is greater at the core and bulk portions with Zr being greater at the surface, fulfilling the claimed ranges and relationships. For this reason, the optimization of the Zr and Ti distribution over the particle of YOO et al as shown in CHO ‘347 and CHO ‘514, clearly renders obvious the claimed ranges, enabling the greatest long-term capacity for the active material of the combination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KANG et al (US PG PUB 2022/0020984) reads on claims 1, 8 and 9, teaching a cathode active material (abstract) comprising: a particle core (“core region” or “central portion”, paragraphs [0052] and [0056]); a surface bulk portion formed in an outer direction of the particle core (“concentration gradient region”, paragraph [0052] and [0055]); and a surface portion (“surface” or “surface portion”, paragraph [0052], [0057] and [0099]) formed in an outer direction of the surface bulk portion to constitute an outermost layer of the active material (paragraph [0057]), wherein the surface portion contains a resistance-reducing element capable of reducing a resistance increase rate of the active material (paragraphs [0015], [0045] or [0049] teach the use of at least Zr and a gradient of the metal species over the radius of the particle, consistent with the requirement of claim 8 detailing Zr functions as a resistance-reducing element), and the surface bulk portion contains a structure-stabilizing element capable of improving structural stability of the active material (paragraph [0015], [0045] and [0049] teaches the use of at least Ti within the concentration gradient, consistent with the requirement of claim 8 detailing Ti functions as a structure-stabilizing element), and the structure-stabilizing element has relatively higher diffusion power than that of the resistance-reducing element under calcination conditions for producing the active material (The instant specification teaches the use of the element Ti and Zr to render a higher diffusion power relationship at bottom paragraph of page 15 (wherein the specification does not specifically say any other components are necessary to achieve this relationship). The presence of these materials in the device of KANG et al reasonably renders obvious this diffusion relationship as well.).
The teachings of both CHO et al references can also be used to teach the above claims independent of using YOO et al, as the express teachings of Ti and Zr doping within the particles are motivated, obvious and read on the inventive concept the Applicant is seeking to patent, including the diffusion capabilities of the Ti and Zr components themselves after coating the LMO particle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KOURTNEY SALZMAN CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5117. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-3PM EST M-F.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303)297-4684. 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.
/KOURTNEY R S CARLSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 9/28/2026
Prosecution Insights