DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-5 are pending examination as discussed below.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites an average size and then cites a squared microns unit. A particle is three dimensional and so the dimension that is being claimed for the size is unclear.
Regarding claim 4, the average particles size is claimed to be a micron unit. A particle is three dimensional and so the dimension that is being claimed for the size is unclear.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170324091 (Hasegawa).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Hasegawa teaches a lithium composite oxide as claimed, composed of secondary particles formed by aggregation of primary particles (Abstract; [0010, 0025-0027]). The coefficient of variation of one of Nb, Mo, Ta and W is less than 0.7 (Tables 1-6).
Hasegawa is silent to the primary particle having a size standard deviation of less than 0.05. However, Hasegawa teaches wanting uniform particle distribution in the cathode active material ([0032]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to minimize the size variations to a standard deviation less than 0.05 in the particles to improve the distribution within the active material.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the average primary particle size can be less than 0.07 mu2 ([0074] and the secondary particles between 3-25 microns ([0072]).
Regarding claim 5, Hasegawa is silent to the crystallite size of the composite oxide is 300 – 600 angstroms. However, particles with this crystallite size are known in the art and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170324091 (Hasegawa) in view of US 20040197658 (Kase).
The teachings of Hasegawa as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Hasegawa is silent to the crystallite size of the composite oxide is 300 – 600 angstroms.
Kase teaches a lithium composite oxide active material where the crystallite size of the particles is 40nm or more (400 angstroms) (Abstract; [0044]). This can reduce the irreversible capacity of the active material and is also correlated to the particle size.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the crystallite size of Kase to understand what the crystallite size in Hasegawa is and to use this size to reduce the irreversible capacity of the active material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-3458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 4pm.
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.
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.
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights