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
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yura et al. (US 2012/0258358).
Regarding Claims 1-3, Yura et al. (US’358) teaches a cathode active material comprising a plurality of secondary particles (also “grains”), wherein each of the secondary particles includes primary particles, the primary particles contain a lithium metal composite oxide, a structure of the lithium metal composite oxide is a layered-rocksalt structure, widely known at the time of invention [0002]. A particle size of the primary particles can range between 0.01 and 5 micron, preferably 0.01-3 micron, more preferably 0.01-1.5 micron (Abstract; [0074]), and the size of secondary particles can range between 1 and 100 micron, preferably 2-70 micron, and more preferably 3-50 micron [0077], reported as a number-based distribution [0034]. From the most preferable ranges of both primary and secondary particles, one can infer a range of numbers of primary particles to secondary particles by dividing the highest endpoint of the range of secondary particles by the lowest endpoint of the range of primary particles and the lowest endpoint of the range of secondary particles by the highest endpoint of primary particles, which results in a range of 2 to 5,000 primary particles per secondary particle range (e.g. 3 micron/ 1.5 micron, 50 micron/0.01 micron. Further teachings suggest that a primary particle size of less than 0.1 micron can result in reductions in rate and output characteristics, while a primary particle size of greater than 5 micron can result in a crack in a cathode active material particle [0074-0076], which also provides evidence that primary particle size is an effective-variable, known in the prior art to affect these characteristics and mechanical properties. A particle size range using 0.1 micron and 5 micron as a basis of primary particle size would further narrow the ratio of primary to secondary particle numbers to between about 1 to 500 (50/0.1 and 3/5). Table 5 presents specific particle size data, including a primary particle size of 0.8 micron and a secondary particle size of 14 micron (Example 12), which implies 20 primary particles per secondary particle; a primary particle size of 1.2 micron and a secondary particle size of 13 micron, or almost 11 primary particles per secondary particle (Comparative example 5); and a primary particle size of 1.2 micron and a secondary particle size of 12 micron, or 10 primary particles per secondary particle (comparative Example 6).
US’358 fails to teach a Dmin of no less than 0.3 micron or a DFWHM of no less than 0.10 micron. US’358 provides evidence that the breadth of distribution is a result-effective variable, known at the time of invention to affect the filling density, adhesive force between cathode active material layer and cathode collector, and charge-discharge characteristics [0079], with a broader distribution (i.e. not sharp) increasing filling density and adhesive force. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the particle size distribution of the claimed cathode active material to have the recited particle size distribution reflected in the “full width half maximum” statistical measure through routine optimization, once particle size is determined for optimal properties, wherein Dmin is a function of optimized particle size and DFWHM.
Regarding Claim 4, US’358 teaches LiCoO2 and other formulas, including Lip(Ni, Co, Al,Mn)O2,, 0.9<=p<=1 (i.e. Li1-aMO2, 0 <=a<=0.1) [0018,0021-0022,0087,0139,0148].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yura et al. (US 2012/0258358) in view of Kumeuchi et al. (US 2006/0035151).
Regarding Claim 5, US’358 teaches a production method of a cathode active material with a secondary grain size of 1 to 100 microns (Abstract), the production method comprising: (a) preparing a metal hydroxide to make a raw material [0088,0090,0100], calcining the raw material particles before or after crushing [0101], adding the calcined hydroxide raw materials to a lithium compound (lithium hydroxide or lithium carbonate) [0107], and synthesizing a lithium metal composite oxide by subjecting the mixture to a heat treatment under an oxygen atmosphere [0111], then forming secondary particles by disintegration (crushing) of the lithium metal composite oxide [0111]. US’358 fails to teach mixing the hydroxide and a lithium compound, since calcination would have been expected to convert the hydroxide to an oxide. Kumeuchi et al. (US'151) is analogous art in the field of production of analogous lithium composite oxides [0081], and teaches a production method of a cathode active material, the production method comprising: (a) preparing a metal hydroxide [0079-0080,0114]; (b) forming a mixture by mixing the metal hydroxide and a lithium compound (Li2CO3) [0080,0114] and (c) synthesizing a lithium metal composite oxide by subjecting the mixture to a heat treatment (calcining) under an oxygen atmosphere (calcining in air) [0114]. Additionally, US’151 teaches pulverizing the lithium compound to a D50 particle size of 2 micron or 10 micron [0096], wherein D50 indicates a particle size at which an integrated value is 50% in a mass-based particle size distribution. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of US’358 by calcining a mixture of the metal hydroxide and the lithium compound, because US’151 suggests that the metal hydroxide can be calcined after mixing with the lithium compound rather than before.
The combination of US’358 in view of US’151 fails to teach that lithium compound is no less than 20 micron. However, US’358 suggests a secondary particle size up to 100 micron. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of US’358 in view of US’151 by starting with a lithium compound of an adequately large size (e.g. with D50 within the recited range) in order to achieve a desired final particle size once the resulting lithium composite oxide is pulverized into particles of a desired size.
The combination of US’358 in view of US’151 fails to teach washing secondary particles with water. However, rinsing/ washing are conventional laboratory procedures to rinse excess reactants, by-products, and/ or contaminants. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the process of the combination of US’358 in view of US’151 with a conventional step of washing the secondary particles with water.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Numata et al. (US 2003/0082453) (method for making lithium oxide active materials from metal hydroxides and lithium source) for a cathode
Lee, S. “Revisiting Primary Particles in Layered Lithium Transition-Metal Oxides and Their Impact on Structural Degradation.” Adv. Sci. 2019, 6, 1800843-180051. (particle size data for rock salt layered lithium metal oxides)
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER M WEDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5346. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
ALEXANDER M WEDDLE
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/ALEXANDER M WEDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712