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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 7, 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US 2017/0352880) in view of Nishida et al. (US 2006/0115733) and Matsumoto (JP 2016/139569).
Regarding claim 1, 15-16 Son discloses the overlithiated oxide represented by the above Chemical Formula 3 may be a lithium manganese oxide (para 0079). The lithium transition metal composite oxide may be a positive electrode active material for a rechargeable lithium battery (para 0088). The lithium metal composite oxide comprises lithium, nickel and manganese (abstract).
However, Son fails to disclose lithium manganese-based oxide comprises a doping metal and when the number of moles of all metal elements in the lithium oxide is M1 and the number of moles of a doping metal is M and M3/M1 are different.
Whereas, Nishida discloses the positive electrode active material has: lithium cobalt compound oxide having added therein at least zirconium and magnesium; and lithium-nickel-manganese compound oxide having a layered structure. The positive electrode active material has a potential of from 4.4 to 4.6 V with respect to lithium (abstract). The non-aqueous electrolyte secondary cell according to claim 1, wherein the mole number of the nickel in the layered lithium nickel manganese compound oxide is from 0.1 to 0.5, and the mole number of the manganese in the layered lithium nickel manganese compound oxide is from 0.1 to 0.5, when the total mole number of all the metal elements excluding the lithium in the layered lithium nickel manganese compound oxide is assumed to be 1 (claim 7).
Whereas, Matsumoto discloses a positive electrode active material including a lithium excessive transition metal composite oxide particle comprising a mono-disperse primary particle that is low both in a specific surface area and internal resistance (abstract). The composition of the positive electrode active material of the present invention is adjusted as represented by the general formula (A). In such a positive electrode active material, the ratio (Li / Me) of the total number of lithium atoms (Li) to the total number of atoms (Me) of metal elements other than lithium (nickel, cobalt, manganese, and additive element M) However, it has a great influence on the charge / discharge capacity of the secondary battery, and Li .sub.2 MnO .sub.3 that contributes to increasing the capacity of the secondary battery is synthesized by adjusting the composition as represented by the general formula (A). Can increase the rate (page 4). Nickel, cobalt, manganese and the additive element M are changed to Ni: Co: Mn: M = x: y: z: t (where x + y + z + t = 1, 0.05 ≦ x ≦ 0.3, 0.1 ≦ y ≦ 0). .4, 0.6 ≦ z ≦ 0.8, 0 ≦ t ≦ 0.1, M is one or more selected from Mg, Ca, Al, Ti, V, Cr, Zr, Nb, Mo, W And a lithium compound containing a precursor composed of secondary particles formed by agglomeration of a plurality of primary particles having an average particle size of 2.0 μm to 7.0 μm (claims). It is necessary to adjust the value of t indicating the content of the additive element M to 0.1 or less. When the value of t exceeds 0.1, the metal element contributing to the Redox reaction is reduced, so that the charge / discharge capacity is lowered (page 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges of M3 and M1 through process optimization motivated by the desire to avoid charge / discharge capacity being lowered, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 7, Son discloses the overlithiated oxide represented by the above Chemical Formula 3 may be a lithium manganese oxide (para 0079). The lithium transition metal composite oxide may be a positive electrode active material for a rechargeable lithium battery (para 0088). The lithium metal composite oxide comprises lithium, nickel and manganese (abstract). Son fails to disclose lithium manganese-based oxide having number of moles of all metal elements in the lithium oxide and number of moles of nickel is different.
Whereas, Nishida discloses the positive electrode active material has: lithium cobalt compound oxide having added therein at least zirconium and magnesium; and lithium-nickel-manganese compound oxide having a layered structure. The positive electrode active material has a potential of from 4.4 to 4.6 V with respect to lithium (abstract). The non-aqueous electrolyte secondary cell according to claim 1, wherein the mole number of the nickel in the layered lithium nickel manganese compound oxide is from 0.1 to 0.5, and the mole number of the manganese in the layered lithium nickel manganese compound oxide is from 0.1 to 0.5, when the total mole number of all the metal elements excluding the lithium in the layered lithium nickel manganese compound oxide is assumed to be 1. (claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to form lithium manganese based oxide of Son having mole number of nickel in 0.1-0.3 and mole number of manganese to be from 0.4-0.5 and rest of the metal elements at 1 as taught by Nishida motivated by the desire to have high cell capacity and contributing to charging and discharging sufficiently increased.
Regarding claim 13, Son fails to disclose that the lithium manganese-based oxide is represented by Formula 1.
Whereas, Matsumoto discloses a positive electrode active material including a lithium excessive transition metal composite oxide particle comprising a mono-disperse primary particle that is low both in a specific surface area and internal resistance (abstract). The composition of the positive electrode active material of the present invention is adjusted as represented by the general formula (A). In such a positive electrode active material, the ratio (Li / Me) of the total number of lithium atoms (Li) to the total number of atoms (Me) of metal elements other than lithium (nickel, cobalt, manganese, and additive element M) However, it has a great influence on the charge / discharge capacity of the secondary battery, and Li .sub.2 MnO .sub.3 that contributes to increasing the capacity of the secondary battery is synthesized by adjusting the composition as represented by the general formula (A). Can increase the rate (page 4). Nickel, cobalt, manganese and the additive element M are changed to Ni: Co: Mn: M = x: y: z: t (where x + y + z + t = 1, 0.05 ≦ x ≦ 0.3, 0.1 ≦ y ≦ 0). .4, 0.6 ≦ z ≦ 0.8, 0 ≦ t ≦ 0.1, M is one or more selected from Mg, Ca, Al, Ti, V, Cr, Zr, Nb, Mo, W And a lithium compound containing a precursor composed of secondary particles formed by agglomeration of a plurality of primary particles having an average particle size of 2.0 μm to 7.0 μm (claims).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include lithium manganese-based oxide of formula as taught by Matsumoto in the lithium manganese-based oxide of Son motivated by the desire to increase the capacity of the battery.
Claim(s) 2-6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US 2017/0352880) in view of Nishida et al. (US 2006/0115733) and Matsumoto (JP 2016/139569) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Taek et al. (EP 2621004).
Regarding claims 2-5, Son in view of Nishida fails to disclose lithium manganese based oxide is a secondary particle comprising at least one particle and wherein the secondary particle comprises at least one primary particle in which M3/M1 calculated from the average composition of all metal elements in the core and M3/M1 calculated from the average composition of all metal elements in a shell are different and the primary particle comprising at least one of crystallite.
Whereas, Taek discloses a cathode active material comprising a complex of a lithium manganese-based oxide, a first carbonaceous material, and a second carbonaceous material, wherein the lithium manganese-based oxide is a secondary particle formed by aggregation of a plurality of spinel structured-primary particles, and exhibits a partial phase transition that occurs during discharging to a 3V region, wherein the phase transition initiates a crystal structure transition at the outer circumference of the secondary particle from a cubic structure to a tetragonal structure and proceeds into the center of the secondary particle so that when the partial phase transition occurs, the primary particles disposed at the core region remain in the cubic structure and the primary particles disposed at the shell region have a tetragonal structure by phase transition, wherein the secondary particle has a structure in which the second carbonaceous material is disposed between the primary particles at the shell region of the secondary particle and the first carbonaceous material is disposed at the outer surface of the secondary particle (abstract, claims).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to form lithium manganese based oxide of Son to be secondary particle comprising at least one primary particle having M3/M1 in the core and M2/M1 in the shell are different as taught by Taek motivated by the desire to improve electrical conductivity of the battery comprising cathode active material.
Regarding claim 6, As Son in view of Nishida, Matsumoto and Taek discloses positive electrode material as presently claimed, it therefore would be obvious that a gradient would intrinsically be formed.
Regarding claims 8-11, Son in view of Nishida fails to disclose lithium manganese based oxide is a secondary particle comprising at least one particle and wherein the secondary particle comprises at least one primary particle in which M2/M1 calculated from the average composition of all metal elements in the core and M2/M1 calculated from the average composition of all metal elements in a shell are different.
Whereas, Taek discloses a cathode active material comprising a complex of a lithium manganese-based oxide, a first carbonaceous material, and a second carbonaceous material, wherein the lithium manganese-based oxide is a secondary particle formed by aggregation of a plurality of spinel structured-primary particles, and exhibits a partial phase transition that occurs during discharging to a 3V region, wherein the phase transition initiates a crystal structure transition at the outer circumference of the secondary particle from a cubic structure to a tetragonal structure and proceeds into the center of the secondary particle so that when the partial phase transition occurs, the primary particles disposed at the core region remain in the cubic structure and the primary particles disposed at the shell region have a tetragonal structure by phase transition, wherein the secondary particle has a structure in which the second carbonaceous material is disposed between the primary particles at the shell region of the secondary particle and the first carbonaceous material is disposed at the outer surface of the secondary particle (abstract, claims).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to form lithium manganese based oxide of Son to be secondary particle comprising at least one primary particle having M2/M1 in the core and M2/M1 in the shell are different as taught by Taek motivated by the desire to improve electrical conductivity of the battery comprising cathode active material.
Regarding claim 12, As Son in view of Nishida and Taek discloses positive electrode material as presently claimed, it therefore would be obvious that a gradient would intrinsically be formed.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US 2017/0352880) in view of Nishida et al. (US 2006/0115733) and Matsumoto (JP 2016/139569) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Kaneda et al. (JP 2019/114327).
Regarding claim 14, Son in view of Nishida fails to disclose that the metal oxide selected from lithium molybdenum oxide of formula 2 is present on at least part of the surface of the lithium manganese-based oxide.
Whereas, Kaneda discloses the lithium-nickel composite oxide contained in the lithium-nickel composite oxide particles can contain Li (lithium), Ni (nickel), Co (cobalt), and the additive element M. The additive element M is at least one element selected from Mn (manganese), V (vanadium), Mg (magnesium), Mo (molybdenum), Nb (niobium), Ti (titanium) and Al (aluminum). The lithium-molybdenum-containing oxide particles can include an oxide containing Li and Mo. The lithium-molybdenum-containing oxide particles can be disposed on the surface of secondary particles of lithium-nickel composite oxide particles and on the surface of primary particles (page 4). The lithium-molybdenum-containing oxide contained in the lithium-molybdenum-containing oxide particle contained in the positive electrode active material of the present embodiment contains one or more selected from Li .sub.2 MoO .sub.4 and Li .sub.4 MoO .sub.5 And more preferably at least one selected from Li .sub.2 MoO .sub.4 and Li .sub.4 MoO .sub.5 (page 7). The lithium-molybdenum-containing oxide particles are not particularly limited, but for example, lithium molybdate represented by the general formula Li .sub.a Mo .sub.b O .sub.c (0 <a ≦ 4, 0 <b ≦ 5, 0 <c ≦ 17) [page 10].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to coat lithium molybdenum oxide of Kaneda on to the surface of lithium manganese-based oxide of Son motivated by the desire to suppress load on specific particles, thereby enhancing cycle characteristics and, in particular, suppressing positive electrode resistance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/30/2025 has been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Son and Matsumoto are related to overlithiated layered oxide (OLO). In contrast, Nishida is related to a general R3-m type NCM, and Taek is related to a spinel type (Fd-3m) LMO. That is, they disclose different materials having different compositions and different crystal structures. Applicant submits that combining Son, Nishida, Matsumoto and Taek, each directed to different types of cathode active materials, contradicts the common general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art.
However, Nishida and Matsumoto are only used as teaching reference in order to teach M3 and M1. It is noted that the "test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art", In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,208 USPQ 871,881 (CCPA 1981) and that "combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures", In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USP 224, 226 (CCPA).
Applicant argues that Nishida does not teach or suggest the feature "M³/M¹ calculated from the average composition of all transition metal elements in a core of the lithium manganese-based oxide and M³/M¹ calculated from the average composition of all transition metal elements in a shell of the lithium manganese-based oxide are different" recited in independent claim 1.
However, it is agreed that Nishida does not disclose M3/M1 limitation, that is the reason Matsumoto is used as a teaching reference to teach M3 and together in combination with Nishida discloses M3/M1 from average composition of all transition metal elements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges of M3 and M1 through process optimization motivated by the desire to avoid charge / discharge capacity being lowered, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP 2144.05).
Applicant argues that it appears that the Office Action may have overlooked that Nishida does not teach or suggest an OLO as a solid solution of a C2/m phase and a R3-m phase while also comprising a doping metal. Furthermore, that Nishida does not disclose or teach that M³/M¹ in the core and M³/M¹ in the shell are different, as recited in independent claim 1. Matsumoto merely discloses that additional elements (M) such as magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), aluminum (Al), titanium (Ti), vanadium (V), chromium (Cr), zirconium (Zr), niobium (Nb), molybdenum (Mo), and tungsten (W) can be used, but Matsumoto does not disclose or suggest a difference in the concentration of doping metals between the core and the shell.
However, note that while Nishida and Matsumoto do not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Nishida and Matsumoto are used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, namely to teach M3 and M1, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONAK C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-6:30PM (FLEX).
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, ALICIA CHEVALIER can be reached on 5712721490. 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.
/RONAK C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights