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
Claims 3-9 and 11 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 3 is rejected because unclear in (1), what precursor is formed. Claim 3 is rejected because unclear in (2), what is the material of the single-crystal material that is formed because of the phrase “a 1st doping agent”. Claim 3 is rejected because unclear in (3), what is the material of the single-crystal cathode material that is formed because of the phrase “a 2nd doping agent”. Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8 and 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 is objected to because the claim should cite “M is at least one selected from the group consisting of Zr,… and W; and N is at least one selected from the group consisting of Zr, … and W” because of the use of “and”. Claim 4 is objected to because the claim should cite “salt is at least one selected from the group consisting of …” because of the use of and. Claim 5 is objected to because the claim should cite “the lithium source is at least one selected from the group consisting of …” because of the use of and. Claim 7 is objected to because the claim should cite “the 1st doping agent is an oxide of at least one selected from the group consisting of Zr … and W”. Claim 8 is objected to because the claim should cite “the 2nd doping agent is an oxide of at least one selected from the group consisting of …” because of the use of and. Claim 11-12 are objected to because the claim should cite “M is at least one selected from the group consisting of Zr,… and W; and N is at least one selected from the group consisting of Zr, … and W” because of the use of “and”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shin et al. (EP 3 282 506). Shin et al. teaches in claim 1, a positive electrode active material comprising a core comprising a lithium composite metal oxide of Formula 1, where Co0<x<0.5 and Mn0<x<0.5 in LiaNi1-x-yCoxM1yM3zM2wO2 [teaching the possibility of LiNix<0.6Mnz<0.35Coy<0.15O2] with a 1st surface treated layer positioned on the surface of the core comprising a lithium oxide of formula 2, LimM4O(m+n)/2. Shin et al. teaches in claim 3, wherein the lithium oxide of formula 2 can comprise Li2WO4 [teaching @Lia=2Nd=1O4, claims 1-2]. Shin et al. teaches in Comparative Example 1-2, a positive electrode active material comprising a core comprising LiNi0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2 having a first coated layer comprising Li2WO4 [teaching @Lia=2Nd=1O4, claims 1-2].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Shin et al. (EP 3 282 506). Shin et al. teaches in claim 1, a positive electrode active material comprising a core comprising a lithium composite metal oxide of Formula 1, where Co0<x<0.5 and Mn0<x<0.5 in LiaNi1-x-yCoxM1yM3zM2wO2 [teaching the possibility of LiNix<0.6Mnz<0.35Coy<0.15O2] with a 1st surface treated layer positioned on the surface of the core comprising a lithium oxide of formula 2, LimM4O(m+n)/2. Shin et al. teaches in claim 3, wherein the lithium oxide of formula 2 can comprise Li2WO4 [teaching @Lia=2Nd=1O4, claims 1-2]. Shin et al. teaches in Comparative Example 1-2, a positive electrode active material comprising a core comprising LiNi0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2 having a first coated layer comprising Li2WO4 [teaching @Lia=2Nd=1O4, claims 1-2].
In the event any differences can be shown for the product of the product by process claims 3-9, as opposed to the product taught by Shin et al., such differences would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a routine modification of the product in the absence of a showing of unexpected results. In re Thrope 227 USPQ 964; (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With respect to the product by process claims 3-9, the determination of patentability is based upon the product itself not upon the method of its production. In re Thrope 227 USPQ 964; In re Brown 173 USPQ 685; In re Bridgeford 149 USPQ 55; In re Wertheim 191 USPQ 90. Any difference imparted by the product by process limitations would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because where the Examiner has found a substantially similar product as in the applied prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to the Applicants to establish that their product is patentably distinct. In re Brown 173 USPQ 685 and In re Fessmann 180 USPQ 324.
Claim(s) 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (EP 3 282 506). Shin et al. teaches in claim 1, a positive electrode active material comprising a core comprising a lithium composite metal oxide of Formula 1, where Co0<x<0.5 and Mn0<x<0.5 in LiaNi1-x-yCoxM1yM3zM2wO2 with a 1st surface treated layer positioned on the surface of the core comprising a lithium oxide of formula 2, LimM4O(m+n)/2. Shin et al. teaches in claim 3, wherein the lithium oxide of formula 2 can comprise Li2WO4 [teaching @Lia=2Nd=1O4, claims 1-2]. Shin et al. teaches in Comparative Example 1-2, a positive electrode active material comprising a core comprising LiNi0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2 having a first coated layer comprising Li2WO4 [teaching @Lia=2Nd=1O4, claims 1-2].
Shin et al. teaches the claimed positive electrode active material comprising a core comprising LiNi0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2 having a first coated layer comprising Li2WO4but teaches that the core comprises LiNix=0.6Mnz=0.2Coy=0.2O2 in the example instead of LiNix=0.6Mnz=0.2Coy<0.15O2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use less of Co in the core material comprising LiNix=0.6Mnz=0.2+0.05Coy<0.15O2 or LiNix=0.6+0.05Mnz=0.2Coy<0.15O2, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum value or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 11-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura Weiner whose telephone number is (571)272-1294. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm EST M, Th and 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, 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.
/LAURA S. WEINER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/Laura Weiner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights