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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/10/2024 and 06/25/2025 are compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 3 and 10 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.
Claims 3 and 10 are indefinite for requiring the active material particles require zirconium contained at a concentration of 5,400 ppm to 8,600 ppm. Zirconium is not required in claim 1 as being an optional component that can instead be vanadium as required in claim 1.
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 1-5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 2018/0323435 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2014/0072874 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lim teaches a method of manufacturing a cathode active material for an all solid state battery, the method comprising:
Preparing a mixture compromising an active material particle precursor (Figure 1; [0071-0072] cathode active material particles 10), a lithium precursor, a niobium precursor, and at least one element selected from the group consisting of a vanadium precursor, a zirconium precursor and combinations thereof ([0077] mixture; [0079-0092] method of forming including precursors Examples B1 and B3; [0057-0059]; [0066-0070]; the coating layer 20 comprises a general formula Li(M1xM21-x)O3 wherein M1 consists of elements such as Al, Si, Nb, Ti and combinations thereof, and M2 is an element selected from Ta, V and combinations therefore wherein 0.4<X<1.0 ([0066-0070]);
Stirring the mixture ([0124] stirring; [0079-0092] mixture is mixed and stirred);
Wherein the cathode active material comprises active material particles (Figure 1; [0071-0072] cathode active material particles 10) and a coating layer covering at least a portion of a surface of the active material particles and comprising lithium, niobium, and at least one element selected from a group consisting of vanadium, zirconium and combinations thereof (Examples B1 and B3; [0057-0059]; [0066-0070]; the coating layer 20 comprises a general formula Li(M1xM21-x)O3 wherein M1 consists of elements such as Al, Si, Nb, Ti and combinations thereof, and M2 is an element selected from Ta, V and combinations therefore wherein 0.4<X<1.0 ([0066-0070]). A material selection for M1 of Nb and a material selection of M2 of V, teaches a coating layer having the formula LiNbxV1-xO3). Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of the materials disclosed by Lim to select niobium and vanadium as the materials for M1 and M2. See MPEP 2144.
Lim discloses wherein drying of the materials is done at temperatures between 60-120 C ([0023], however is explicitly silent with respect to wherein calcining the mixture after the stirring.
Kim discloses a composite cathode active material and method of preparing the composite cathode active material and thus is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Kim discloses wherein after a mixture of particles and precursor materials are mixed to calcinate the mixture under atmospheric conditions for form a crystalline coating layer ([0015,0087-0088]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to calcinate the mixture of Lim as taught by Kim after the mixing and stirring step in order to remove impurities and volatile compounds from the active material. The resulting modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 1 as calcination is a known thermal treatment process to remove volatile components from materials such as the active material.
Regarding claim 2, modified Lim discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Lim further discloses wherein preparing the mixture comprises:
Adding a solvent with lithium precursor and at least one substance selected from the group consisting of a vanadium precursor, a zirconium precursor and combinations thereof and performing mixing ([0020] preparing a precursor solution by dissolving Li precursor, M1 and M2 precursor in a solvent and mixing with an active material; [0014] precursor can be vanadium);
Adding a result of the mixing with a niobium precursor and performing mixing ([0020,0014] M1 can be niobium and can be added to the mixture); and
Adding a result of the mixing with an active material particle precursor ([0014,0020] active material can be added).
While Lim discloses they can all be included does not necessarily discloses in different mixing steps, although it is the examiner’s opinion absent unexpected results or criticality that the mixing steps can be done in any order and thus would read on the claimed invention. It has been held that “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results” (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 3, modified Lim discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Lim further discloses wherein the active material particle precursor and lithium precursor are in a powder phase ([0020] cathode active material is in a powder phase and then discloses wherein an Li precursor can be in dissolved in an alcohol based solvent and thus can be read as a solid phase before being dissolved; [0037]; [0040] forming a coating powder; [0090] powders of cathode, Li, Mi and M2 precursor) and the niobium and vanadium are in a liquid phase ([0020] M1 and M2 are dissolved in an alcohol solvent and thus can be considered to be in a liquid phase, [0125] precursor solution mixed with NCM in a liquid pump).
Regarding claim 4, modified Lim discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Lim further discloses performing drying after stirring the mixture ([0020], [0023] drying after mixing).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lim discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Lim further discloses drying in a temperature of 500 to 700 C for 3-5 hours under an air atmosphere ([0025]). Lim is explicitly silent with respect to calcinating at a temperature of 300 to 800 C for 1 hr to 5 hr in an oxygen atmosphere. Kim further discloses wherein calcination can be performed at temperatures around 700 C or higher such as 800 C for 5 hours and up to 20 hours ([0088-0089]) and can be performed in an oxygen atmosphere or atmospheric conditions ([0083]; [0094]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to adjust the temperature and duration of calcination as provided in modified claim 1 such that the calcination step can be performed at 800 C for 5 hours in an oxygen atmosphere as taught by Kim. Thus the resulting modification would overlap with that of the claimed range and thus calcination can be performed and would read on the temperature, duration and in an oxygen atmosphere as claimed. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 7, modified Lim discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Lim further discloses wherein the coating layer comprises lithium oxide represented by chemical formula 2 below Chemical Formula 2: LiNbcAdO3 wherein c and d are 0.8 ≥c >0 and 0.01 ≥d>0 respectively and wherein A is selected from the group consisting of vanadium, zirconium and combinations thereof (Lim [0066-0070]; the coating layer 20 comprises a general formula Li(M1xM21-x)O3 wherein M1 consists of elements such as Al, Si, Nb, Ti and combinations thereof, and M2 is an element selected from Ta, V and combinations therefore wherein 0.4<X<1.0 ([0066-0070]). A material selection for M1 of Nb and a material selection of M2 of V, teaches a coating layer having the formula LiNbxV1-xO3).
Regarding claim 8, modified Lim teaches all the claim limitations of claim 1. Lim teaches wherein niobium is provided in the cathode active material but is silent with respect to the concentration. Therefore, a skilled artisan can adjust the amount of niobium provided within the active material as an optimization to get the desired cathode active material. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, modified Lim teaches all the claim limitations of claim 1. Lim teaches wherein the coating layer comprises vanadium (Lim abstract, [0066-0070], [0151] wherein M1 and M2 in the coating layer has subscript of 0.4 < X < 1.0 which causes excellent charge/ discharge performance when compared to values outside the range), however, is silent with respect to the concentration. A skilled artisan can adjust the amount of vanadium provided within the active material as an optimization to get the desired cathode active material having a desired charge/discharge performance. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 2018/0323435 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2014/0072874 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zheng et al. (US 2016/0049645 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lim discloses all the claim limitation of claim 1. Lim further teaches wherein the active material particles comprises a basic formula of LiNiCoO2 (Lim teaches wherein LiNi1-yCoyO2 wherein 0≤y<1 [0069]). Lim is silent with respect to the active material particles containing niobium and vanadium according to the chemical formula 1 as Lim does not particularly limit the cathode active material.
Zheng discloses a cathode material for a lithium ion secondary battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being related to cathode core materials having a coating layer applied to the core material. Zheng discloses cathode material particles containing the formula Li1+δ [Ni1−x−y CoxMy]O2, wherein M is selected from at least one metal element such as V and Nb as well as other elements wherein 0≦δ≦0.2, 0≦x≦0.5, 0≦x+y≦0.55 resulting in a possible formula of Li1+δ [Ni1−x−y CoxVyNby]O2 (Zheng [0018]; [0035] cathode active material can be produced in the form of powder particles and wherein a coating portion is coated on the outer surface of the bulk portion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to substitute the cathode material particles of Lim for the cathode material particles having the formula, Li1+δ [Ni1−x−y CoxMy]O2, wherein M is selected from at least one metal element such as V and Nb as well as other elements wherein 0≦δ≦0.2, 0≦x≦0.5, 0≦x+y≦0.5, taught by Zheng as a simple substitution of one cathode active material particle for another. The cathode material particles of Zheng and Lim are analogous to one another as they overlap in similar materials and both contain a coating layer applied to the core material particles, therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute one cathode material particles for another. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
The subscripts taught by Zheng are very similar to the subscripts of the claim, however, can be slightly different in view of the different ranges disclosed. The stoichiometry of the claimed active material particle can be optimized to get the desired battery performance properties resulting in an overlap of the stoichiometry of the active material particles. See MPEP 2144.05. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 2018/0323435 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2014/0072874 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kashimura (EP 3522268 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Lim teaches all the claim limitations of claim 1. Lim is silent with respect to the active material particles comprising zirconium and in a concentration of 5,400 ppm to 8,600 ppm.
Kashimura discloses a cathode active material for a lithium ion battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being in the same field of endeavor. Kashimura discloses wherein the active material particles are represented by the formula in Examples B1 and B3 (see Kashimura [0065] and table 2), Example B1: Li1.02Ni0.82Co0.15Mn0.03Nb0.004Zr0.004O2.024; Example B3: Li1.02Ni0.82Co0.15Mn0.03Nb0.004Zr0.002 W0.002 O2.024.
Kashimura teaches wherein zirconium is provided in the cathode active material and teaches wherein zirconate is used to suppress the reaction resistance and to improve a discharge capacity and cycle characteristics ([0035]).
Therefore, a skilled artisan can modify the active material particles of Lim to comprise zirconium in the active material particles in order to suppress the reaction resistance and to improve a discharge capacity and cycle characteristics as taught by Kashimura. Additionally, a skilled artisan can adjust the amount of zirconate provided within the active material as an optimization to get the desired cathode active material having a desired level of resistance, discharge capacity and cycle characteristics. See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ise (US 2017/0077504 A1)- discloses an active material for a battery having a shell layer 202 surrounding a core particle 201 and is analogous with that of the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 pm EST.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/ADAM J FRANCIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights