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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kagei, et al. (US-20160218362-A1), hereafter referred to as Kagei.
Regarding Claim 1, Kagei teaches a positive electrode active material powder comprising overlithiated manganese-based oxide particles represented by Formula 1 [“positive electrode material for a lithium-ion cell, comprising a lithium metal composite oxide having a layer structure and being represented by the general formula Li1+xMa1−x−yMbyO2 (x=0.10 to 0.33, and y=0 to 0.3; Ma always contains Mn,” paragraph 15], wherein the overlithiated manganese-based oxide particle is in a form of a single particle composed of one nodule or a pseudo-single particle that is a composite of 2 to 30 nodules (“the primary particle contains single crystals and polycrystals,” paragraph 46):
Formula 1
LiaNibCocMndMeO2
wherein, 1<a, 0≤b≤0.5, 0≤c≤0.1, 0.5≤d<1.0, and 0≤e≤0.2, and M is at least one selected from the group consisting of aluminum (Al), boron (B), cobalt (Co), tungsten (W), magnesium (Mg), vanadium (V), titanium (Ti), zinc (Zn), gallium (Ga), indium (In), ruthenium (Ru), niobium (Nb), tin (Sn), strontium (Sr), and zirconium (Zr) [“As a result of a chemical analysis of the obtained lithium manganese nickel-containing oxide powder (sample), it was confirmed that the sample powder was Li1.06Mn0.56Ni0.38O2,” paragraph 106].
Finally, Kagei teaches that the positive electrode active material powder has an average particle diameter D50 of 2.5 µm or less (“The average particle diameter of the primary particle of the present positive electrode material is preferably 1.0 μm or larger, particularly 1.1 μm or larger and 5.0 μm or smaller, and especially preferably 1.2 μm or larger and 4.9 μm or smaller,” paragraph 33). Please see MPEP § 2144.05(I): In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding Claim 2, Kagei teaches the positive electrode active material powder of claim 1, wherein the positive electrode active material powder is composed of the overlithiated manganese-based oxide particles having at least one form of the single particle and the pseudo-single particle (“the primary particle contains single crystals and polycrystals,” paragraph 46).
Regarding Claim 3, Kagei teaches the positive electrode active material powder of claim 1, wherein the positive electrode active material powder has the average particle diameter D50 of 0.5 µm to 2.5 µm (“The average particle diameter of the primary particle of the present positive electrode material is preferably 1.0 μm or larger, particularly 1.1 μm or larger and 5.0 μm or smaller, and especially preferably 1.2 μm or larger and 4.9 μm or smaller,” paragraph 33). Please see MPEP § 2144.05(I): In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding Claim 4, Kagei teaches the positive electrode active material powder of claim 1, wherein, in Formula 1, 1.1≤a≤1.5, 0.1≤b≤0.4, 0≤c≤0.05, 0.5≤d≤0.80, and 0≤e≤0.1 [“As a result of a chemical analysis of the obtained lithium manganese nickel-containing oxide powder (sample), it was confirmed that the sample powder was Li1.16Mn0.50Ni0.34O2,” paragraph 108].
Regarding Claim 5, Kagei teaches the positive electrode active material powder of claim 1, wherein the overlithiated manganese-based oxide particle has a crystal structure of a layered phase and a rock salt phase (“a solid solution of a LiMO2 structure and a Li2MnO3 structure,” paragraph 7). This matches that described in the instant application: “a layered phase (LiMO2) and a rock salt phase (Li2MnO3),” paragraph 7.
Regarding Claim 6, Kagei teaches the positive electrode active material powder of claim 1, wherein the nodule has an average particle diameter of 0.5 μm to 3.5 μm (“The average particle diameter of the primary particle of the present positive electrode material is preferably 1.0 μm or larger, particularly 1.1 μm or larger and 5.0 μm or smaller, and especially preferably 1.2 μm or larger and 4.9 μm or smaller,” paragraph 33). Please see MPEP § 2144.05(I): In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding Claim 7, Kagei teaches the positive electrode active material powder of claim 1, wherein the overlithiated manganese-based oxide has a crystalline size of 30 nm to 200 nm [“the crystallite size determined by a measuring method (which will be described in detail in the Example paragraph) using a Rietveld method is preferably 50 nm or larger, particularly 50 nm or larger and 300 nm or smaller, and preferably 51 nm or larger and 290 nm or smaller,” paragraph 40]. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(I): In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding Claim 8, Kagei teaches a positive electrode comprising the positive electrode active material powder of claim 1 (“The present invention proposes a positive electrode material for a lithium-ion cell,” paragraph 15; “The positive electrode sheet obtained in the above was cut out into a size of φ13 mm to thereby make a positive electrode,” paragraph 165).
Regarding Claim 9, Kagei teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising: the positive electrode of claim 8 (“The present invention proposes a positive electrode material for a lithium-ion cell,” paragraph 15); a negative electrode including a negative electrode active material (“lithium or a material capable of intercalating and deintercalating lithium, such as carbon, for a negative electrode,” paragraph 82); a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode [“and a separator (porous polyethylene film),” paragraph 165]; and an electrolyte [“using, for a nonaqueous electrolyte, a solution in which a lithium salt such as lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) is dissolved in a mixed solvent of ethylene carbonate-dimethyl carbonate or the like,” paragraph 62].
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kagei in view of Johnson, et al. (US-20200313157-A1), hereafter referred to as Johnson.
Regarding Claim 10, Kagei teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 9, but not wherein the negative electrode comprises a silicon-based negative electrode active material. However, Johnson teaches an over-lithiated cathodes for lithium-ion batteries. Therein, Johnson teaches that the negative electrode active material can be silicon-based (“The lithium ion batteries of any embodiment disclosed herein may include an anode which includes, but is not limited to, layered structured materials of graphitic, carbonaceous, oxide or silicon, silicon-carbon composite, phosphorus-carbon composite, tin, tin alloys, silicon alloys,” paragraph 86).
It would have been obvious a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the lithium secondary battery taught by Kagei and modify the negative electrode to comprise a silicon-based negative electrode active material, as taught by Johnson. Please see MPEP § 2144.07: The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination.
Regarding Claim 11, Kagei teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 9, but not wherein the negative electrode comprises a mixture of a silicon-based negative electrode active material and a carbon-based negative electrode active material. However, Johnson teaches that the negative electrode active material can comprise a mix of silicon and carbon (“The lithium ion batteries of any embodiment disclosed herein may include an anode which includes, but is not limited to, layered structured materials of graphitic, carbonaceous, oxide or silicon, silicon-carbon composite, phosphorus-carbon composite, tin, tin alloys, silicon alloys,” paragraph 86).
It would have been obvious a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the lithium secondary battery taught by Kagei and modify the negative electrode to comprise a mix of silicon-based and carbon-based negative electrode active materials, as taught by Johnson. Please see MPEP § 2144.07: The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination.
Regarding Claim 12, Kagei teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 9, but not wherein the negative electrode active material is formed of silicon (Si), and the lithium secondary battery has an N/P ratio of 150% to 300%. However, Johnson teaches that the negative electrode active material can be silicon-based (“The lithium ion batteries of any embodiment disclosed herein may include an anode which includes, but is not limited to, layered structured materials of graphitic, carbonaceous, oxide or silicon, silicon-carbon composite, phosphorus-carbon composite, tin, tin alloys, silicon alloys,” paragraph 86). Johnson does not teach the n/p ratio specifically for batteries with silicon-based negative electrodes. However, Johnson discusses the n/p ratio for silicon-carbon composite negative electrodes and notes that “In balancing the electrodes in a full cell, care was taken to ensure that the n/p ratio never fell below 1.1,” paragraph 143. Furthermore, Johnson teaches that such an n/p ratio is necessary because of “the capacity fade attributed to Mn dissolution and the (de)lithiation of silicon during repeated cycling results in large volume expansion and contraction of the particles,” paragraph 147.
It would have been obvious a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the lithium secondary battery taught by Kagei and modify the negative electrode to comprise a mix of silicon-based and carbon-based negative electrode active materials, as taught by Johnson. Please see MPEP § 2144.07: The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination.
Furthermore, silicon, not carbon, is the reason a higher n/p ratio is needed for a battery with a silicon/carbon-based negative electrode, as taught by Johnson. Therefore, when using a negative electrode that is just silicon-based, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the n/p ratio needs to be optimized to a higher value than the 110% minimum threshold taught in Johnson’s example where the negative electrode is a mix of silicon and carbon. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding Claim 13, Kagei teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 9, but not wherein the negative electrode active material is a mixture of a silicon oxide and a carbon-based negative electrode active material, and the lithium secondary battery has an N/P ratio of 100% to 150%. However, Johnson teaches that the negative electrode active material can comprise a mix of silicon and carbon (“The lithium ion batteries of any embodiment disclosed herein may include an anode which includes, but is not limited to, layered structured materials of graphitic, carbonaceous, oxide or silicon, silicon-carbon composite, phosphorus-carbon composite, tin, tin alloys, silicon alloys,” paragraph 86). Furthermore, Johnson teaches that a lithium secondary battery with a Si-graphite anode has a N/P ratio of 100-150% (see n/p column of Table 2). Johnson teaches that such an n/p ratio is necessary because of “the capacity fade attributed to Mn dissolution and the (de)lithiation of silicon during repeated cycling results in large volume expansion and contraction of the particles,” paragraph 147.
It would have been obvious a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the lithium secondary battery taught by Kagei and modify the negative electrode to comprise a mix of silicon-based and carbon-based negative electrode active materials, as taught by Johnson. Please see MPEP § 2144.07: The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination.
It also would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the lithium secondary battery taught by Kagei and modify the battery’s negative electrode to comprise a mix of silicon-based and carbon-based active material with a N/P ratio between 100-150% in order to account for the capacity fade from the Mn and the Si, as taught by Johnson.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN P WILKERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/JORDAN P WILKERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights