DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-8 are pending and are examined herein. This is the first action on the merits.
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.
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 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takanishi (US Patent No. 5,679,481 to Takanishi et al.) in view of Azami (US Patent No. 10,320,026 to Azami) and Park (US 2022/0037658 to Park et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Takanishi teaches:
a cathode material comprising a layered, rock-salt crystal phase (abstract, column 6)
a cathode comprising a current collector and active material slurry with a conductive agent (columns 7-8)
the cathode active material comprising a nickel-rich lithium transition metal oxide, also comprising, e.g., cobalt (column 5), with dopants including strontium and calcium at a molar ratio of 1% each relative to the total transition metal content (Table 1, Example 10)
wherein the at least two dopants, such as Ca and Sr, are provided in an amount of less than or equal to 2% (claim 9)
wherein the conductive additive can include carbon fibers of micron size (column 8 lines 10-15)
Takanishi does not explicitly teach examples wherein the summed content of the Ca and Sr is between 0.05 and 1 mol%, but does teach an overlapping range. Park, from the same field of invention, regarding a layered nickel-rich cathode active material teaches at least two dopants chosen from Ti/Y/Sr/Nb/Ba/Ca, wherein the dopant amount varies from 500-3,000 ppm—or on the order of 0.04 – 0.35 mol% for calcium (¶ 0015-0019). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]). It would have been obvious to use Ca and Sr in amounts of less than 1 wt% total, as suggested by Takanishi and confirmed by Park, in order to maximize the energy density of the cathode material while still preserving the doping benefits for cycling.
Takanishi also does not explicitly teach an aspect ratio of 40 or greater, although carbon fibers less than 100 microns would be expected to meet the claim limitation. The Office also cites to Azami, which teaches a layered cathode active material with carbon nanotube conductive additives, with aspect ratios of 100 or more, and lengths over half a micron (Table 1). Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, Takanishi does not explicitly teach:
a carbon fiber content of 0.01 – 1 wt% (instant claim 2)
an amorphous carbon of 0.25 – 3 wt% (instant claim 3)
Azami, however, teaches a CNT content of 0.5 wt% and an amorphous carbon black additive in an amount of 2 wt% (Table 3, ex. 24). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]). Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 4, Takanishi teaches:
nickel content of over 80 mol% (see examples, Table 1)
Regarding Claims 5-6, Takanishi teaches:
wherein the at least two dopants, such as Ca and Sr, are provided in an amount of less than or equal to 2% (claim 9)
Takanishi does not explicitly teach examples wherein the Ca content is less than 0.8 mol% and the Sr content is less than 0.2 mol%, but does teach an overlapping range. Park, from the same field of invention, regarding a layered nickel-rich cathode active material teaches at least two dopants chosen from Ti/Y/Sr/Nb/Ba/Ca, wherein the dopant amount varies from 500-3,000 ppm—or on the order of 0.04 – 0.35 mol% for calcium, less for Sr (¶ 0015-0019). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]). It would have been obvious to use Ca and Sr in amounts of less than 1 wt% total, as suggested by Takanishi and confirmed by Park, in order to maximize the energy density of the cathode material while still preserving the doping benefits for cycling.
Regarding Claim 8, Takanishi teaches:
a battery comprising an anode and electrolyte (Table 2, etc.)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takanishi (US Patent No. 5,679,481 to Takanishi et al.) in view of Azami (US Patent No. 10,320,026 to Azami) and Park (US 2022/0037658 to Park et al.), in further view of Li (US 2002/0052338 to Li et al.)
Regarding Claim 7, Takanishi does not explicitly teach:
the ratio of primary particle diameters to seconary particle diameters
Li, however, from the same filed of invention, regarding a nickel-rich layered cathode, teaches primary to second diameter ratios of 0.06 – 0.5 (¶ 0064). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select any portion of Li’s range, including values between 0.06 and 0.12, since Takanishi is silent as to the ratio.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Four Panasonic disclosures teach various claimed limitations, and are considered prior art until Applicant states on the record that they are excluded under § 102 (b)(1)(A) or (B)—WO2021/106324, WO2021/152996, WO2021/200397, and WO2021/241077
Mostev et al. “Sr doped Co substituted Li nickelate cathode materials for Li cells with improved cycling and thermal stability.” Journal of Applied Electrochemistry (2006) 36:783-787
Wang et al. “Effects of Ca doping on the electrochemical properties of LiNi0.8Co0.2O2 cathode material.” Solid State Ionics 177 (2006) 1027-1031
US 2011/0260099 to Paulsen et al. — teaches Ca doping within the claimed range
US 2016/0293951 to Lim et al. — teaches Sr doping of ~0.2 wt% (¶ 0088-0091)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights