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 Interpretation
Claims 1 and 4 recite “number-based median diameter” and “volume-based particle diameter distribution”. While the specification gives guidance on how applicants measure the values, the method of measurement is immaterial. These terms simply state a cumulative volume percent and have been construed as such.
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 1-9are 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 is indefinite with the recitation of “a proportion constituted by carbon atoms at surfaces of the composite particles is not less than 20 mass% and not more than 70 mass%”. MPEP 2173.02(II) states “If the language of the claim is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement, a rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate.” The claim limitation requires one of ordinary skill in the art to understand the composition of the composite particle, what “surfaces” are being measured, and what the mass ratio of carbon is in relation to.
The composite particle is defined as a composition of electrode active material particles, conductive material, and a binder. The composition of the composite particle is defined throughout the specification with selected compounds and weight percents for the electrode active material particles, conductive material, and binder. Of the materials listed only the conductive material and binder contain carbon, each of which are added between 0.5% to 5% total mass of the blend to make the composite particles. Therefore, if one measured the total carbon mass percent of the entire composite particles the maximum mass percent of carbon would be 10%. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine the metes and bounds of the composite particle composition as claimed.
The claimed range of 20% to 70% mass of carbon is measured at the “surfaces of the composite particles”. To measure the amount of carbon at the surfaces, applicant uses a scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy with an accelerating voltage of 15 kV and a lower electron detector as stated in paragraph 62 of the specification. As evident by Size Analysis and Identification of Particles in chapter 2.2.1. titled Energy Dispersive X-ray Analysis (EDXA) (page 204), this is a known technique to provide elemental analysis of a particle’s surface. Size Analysis and Identification of Particles further states that the accelerating voltage affects the measurement depth on the surface and if the accelerating voltage is too high, it is possible to measure through the entire particle. Additionally, the depth of measurement is also dependent on the elemental composition of the surface of the particle to be measured. Namely, a particle with 20% mass of carbon at the surface would have different depth measurement than a particle with 70% mass carbon at the surface with the same accelerating voltage. With a carbon range at the surfaces being between 20% to 70% mass and only a maximum of 10% mass carbon added to the entire composite particle, there must be a distance into the composite particle applicant is measuring. Otherwise, if the entire particle was measured the mass percentage of carbon would be 10%. While the accelerating voltage sets a standard for testing, it does not set a standard for the depth measured, and the depth is a necessary limitation of the claim as it defines a portion of the “surfaces” recited in the claim. Furthermore, the distance the applicant is measuring into the composite particle could affect the mass percentage of carbon at the surfaces. For example, if the composite particle was a uniform sphere with a gradient of carbon starting at 100% mass carbon at the immediate surface of the sphere and decreasing towards the center of the particle, different measurement depth would produce different mass percents of carbon. Reversely, if the composite particle was a uniform sphere with a gradient of carbon starting at 100% mass carbon at the center and decreasing towards the immediate surface of the particle, different measurement depth would produce different mass percents of carbon.
As discussed above, the depth of the surfaces measured is undefined. Furthermore, the claim recites “surfaces”, but it is unclear what multiple surfaces are being measured. The surfaces could refer to different areas of the electrode mixed material layer comprising the composite particle or multiple surfaces on the composite particle itself. Furthermore, if the composite particle had a porous structure there could be a plurality of surfaces on the particle itself. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the claimed “surfaces” of the composite particle as it is required to know the depth measured and where the measurements must be performed.
Paragraph 62 sets forth the method for calculating the mass percentage of carbon at the surfaces. The mass ratio is defined as “a mass ratio (mass%) of carbon atoms was calculated for composite particles in 10 observation fields with an observation magnification of ×50,000 by taking all constituent components in the entirety of these composite particles to be 100 mass%”. The ratio could refer to the sum of mass for all 10 observation fields or the sum of all particles within an observation field. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the claimed ratio of carbon, as what the ratio is in relation to is undefined.
Claim 1 does not comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine the metes and bounds of the claim’s limitations regarding the surfaces of the composite particle and ratio of carbon. For purposes of examination any particle, which has carbon containing compounds in a mass percent between 1% to 10% total mass, is said to meet the claimed limitation of “a proportion constituted by carbon atoms at surfaces of the composite particles is not less than 20 mass% and not more than 70 mass%”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "primary particles" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "primary particles" in lines 4 - 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-9 are rejected as including without solving the indefinite issues noted above.
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 and 3 - 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Feng et al., U.S. 2017/0155139 A1, herein referred to as “Feng”.
Regarding claim 1, Feng discloses a cathode mixture layer for a secondary lithium-ion battery comprising a layered oxide, conductive material, and binding agent [0032 - 0033]. The layered oxide is the cathode active substance capable of performing intercalation/de-intercalation of lithium ions [0036]. The layered oxide is a primary particle which is further aggregated to produce secondary particles [0032]. The primary layered oxide has a mean particle size of 0.1 µm to 2.0 µm [0096]. Feng’s ratio range overlaps the claimed range, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Feng additionally discloses a 10% and 90% volume-based cumulative particle size distribution range, D10 and D90 respectively, for the cathode material of the lithium-ion battery [0102]. The D10 ranges from 0.5 μm to 10 μm, and the D90 ranges from 10 μm to 50 μm [0102]. Therefore, Feng discloses a D90/D10 range of 1 to 100. Notably, the range is further narrowed in table one which has a D10 range from 2 µm to 10 µm and a D90 range of 20 µm to 48 µm making the inherently disclosed D90/D10 range 2 to 24 [0151, Table 1]. Furthermore, the D10 and D90 must encompass the D50 range. Simply, the D50 must lie between the range of 0.5 μm to 50 μm. Feng’s median cumulative particle size distribution range overlaps the claimed range, and therefore renders obvious the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1 under 112(b) any particle, which has carbon containing compounds in a mass percent between 1% to 10% total mass, is said to meet the claimed limitation of “a proportion constituted by carbon atoms at surfaces of the composite particles is not less than 20 mass% and not more than 70 mass%”.
Feng additionally discloses the cathode mixture layer can be made of 94% mass lithium nickel oxide with zirconium [0034, 0144], 3% mass carbon black [0106], and 3% mass styrene-butadiene rubber [0107]. The range of carbon black and styrene-butadiene rubber, the only carbon containing components, are in the required range of 1% to 10% mass percent carbon. Therefore, Feng discloses the carbon mass percent at the surfaces.
Regarding claim 3, Feng discloses the composite particle as described above in the rejection of claim 1. For the sake of brevity, the rejection of the claim is included here, but not repeated. Feng additionally discloses the layered oxide can have the composition of Li1+xM11-x-yM2yO2 wherein, x is a number satisfying a relationship of −0.1≦x≦0.3; y is a number satisfying a relationship of 0≦y≦0.1; M1 is at least one kind of an element selected from Ni, Co, Mn; and M2 is at least one kind of an element selected from Al, Ti, Zr, Mo, Nb, Fe, B [0034, 0035]. One embodiment of the layered oxide is Li1Ni0.95Zr0.05O2, which has an atomic (mol) percent of 0.05% zirconium [0035] which is within applicant claimed range of 0.05 mol% to 2.0 mol%.
Regarding claim 4, Feng discloses the composite particle as described above in the rejection of claim 1 and its method of production. In particular, Feng discloses the primary layered oxide has a mean particle size of 0.1 µm to 2.0 µm [0096] and is a primary particle which is further aggregated to produce secondary particles [0032]. The primary and secondary particles of layered oxide are the active material [0036]. The secondary particles, in the form of a powder, are then subjected to granulation using methods including a stirring step (e.g. rolling granulation, dry granulation, etc.) to produce a final product in a stirred state (preliminary stirring) [0098]. After granulation, the secondary particles powder is mixed with a binder in a medium (stirring granulation) to produce a cathode mixture material [0110]. The resulting cathode material has a 10% and 90% volume-based cumulative particle size distribution, D10 and D90 respectively [0102]. The D10 ranges from 0.5 μm to 10 μm, and the D90 ranges from 10 μm and equal to 50 μm [0102]. Therefore, Feng discloses a D90/D10 range of 1 to 100. Notably, the range is further narrowed in table one which has a D10 range from 2 µm to 10 µm and a D90 range of 20 µm to 48 µm making the inherently disclosed D90/D10 range 2 to 24 [0151, Table 1]. Furthermore, the D10 and D90 must encompass the D50 range. Simply, the D50 must lie between the range of 0.5 μm to 50 μm. Feng’s median cumulative particle size distribution range encompasses the claimed range, and therefore renders obvious the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 5, Feng discloses the method as described above in the rejection of claim 4. For the sake of brevity, the rejection of the claim is included here, but not repeated. Feng further teaches that a conductive material can be included when granulating secondary particles [0106]. Feng does not explicitly disclose “aggregates of the electrode active material particles are caused to disintegrate in the presence of a conductive material in the preliminary stirring”. Feng does disclose the preliminary stirring method and the same electrode active material particles and conductive material as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 and thus disintegration is expected as claimed. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01(II).
Regarding claim 6, Feng discloses the method as described above in the rejection of claim 5. For the sake of brevity, the rejection of the claim is included here, but not repeated. Feng further teaches the granulation (preliminary stirring) of the second particles can be a dry-granulation [0098].
Regarding claim 7, Feng discloses the method as described above in the rejection of claim 4. For the sake of brevity, the rejection of the claim is included here, but not repeated. Feng further teaches after granulation (preliminary stirring), the secondary particles powder is mixed with a conductive material and binder in a medium (solvent) to produce a cathode mixture material [0110]. Feng does not disclose what order the medium must be added to the secondary particle powder, conductive material, and binder. Therefore, the medium and conductive material could be mixed first and then added to the secondary particle powder.
Regarding claim 8, Feng discloses the cathode mixture layer, binding agent, and conductive material (composite particles) described above in the rejection of claim 1. Feng additionally discloses a cathode (electrode) made of the cathode mixture layer, binding agent, and conductive material [0105].
Regarding claim 9, Feng discloses the cathode described above in the rejection of claim 8. Feng additionally discloses the cathode is to be used in a lithium-ion battery [0105].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Feng et al., U.S. 2017/0155139 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, as further evidenced by Jiang et al. “A novel microwave dielectric ceramic Li2NiZrO4 with rock salt structure”, herein referred to as “Jiang” as further evidenced by United States Geological Survey article titled “Water Density”.
Regarding claim 2, Feng discloses the composite particle as described above. Feng additionally discloses the layered oxide active material primary particle could be LiNi0.5Zr0.5O2. The density of LiNi0.5Zr0.5O2 crystal is 4.9 g/cm^3 as evidenced by Jiang on page 2 under the section titled Results and Discussion. The true specific gravity of LiNi0.5Zr0.5O2 is equal to 4.9 g/cm^3 divided by the density of water (1.0 g/cm^3) [United States Geological Survey]. The specific gravity of LiNi0.5Zr0.5O2 is 4.9 which lays inside the claimed range, and therefore, anticipates the claimed range. See MPEP 2131.03(I).
Pertinent Prior Art
The following constitutes a list of prior art which are not relied upon herein, but are considered pertinent to the claimed invention and/or written description thereof. The prior art are purposely made of record hereinafter to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, and consideration thereof is respectfully suggested.
WO 2021/213846 A1, Feng et al. discloses a powder for use in a negative electrode of a battery, comprising a mixture of a first number-based fraction of particles comprising a carbonaceous matrix material and silicon-based particles dispersed therein, and a second number-based fraction of particles, comprising Si-free carbonaceous particles comprising graphitic domains having a mean size of at least 10 nm and at most 45 nm, as determined by the Scherrer equation applied to the powder's X-ray diffraction peak assigned to C(002) having an intensity IC with its maximum at 2θCu between 26° and 27°.
US 2013/0108928 A1, Ito et al. discloses a lithium-titanium complex oxide manufactured by the solid phase method is suitable as an active material for a lithium ion secondary battery. The lithium-titanium complex oxide is characterized in that (a) the average particle size D50 based on granularity distribution measurement by the laser diffraction method is 0.5 to 1.0 µm; (b) the maximum particle size D100 based on granularity distribution measurement by the laser diffraction method and maximum primary particle size d100 measured by observation using a scanning electron microscope have a ratio D100/d100 of 1.5 to 15; and (c) the equivalent sphere size DBET calculated from the specific surface area measured by the BET method and above D50 have a ratio D50/DBET of 3 to 7, and preferably the angle of repose is 35 to 50.degree.
US 10,199,646 B2, Burshtain et al. discloses an anode material for a lithium ion device includes an active material including silicon nanoparticles and boron carbide nanoparticles. The boron carbide nanoparticles are at least one order of magnitude smaller than the silicon nanoparticles. The weight percentage of the silicon is between about 4 to 35 weight % of the total weight of the anode material and the weight percentage of the boron carbide is between about 2.5 to about 25.6% of the total weight of the anode material. The active material may include carbon at a weight percentage of between 5 to about 60 weight % of the total weight of the anode material. Additional materials, methods of making and devices are taught.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB R STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5447. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571) 272-8935. 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.R.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/AARON AUSTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights