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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments are presented on pages 9-10 and 13 that Gaben teaches a separate heat treatment step to decrease porosity. These arguments are not found persuasive due to the fact that Gaben would not teach separate heat treatment steps due to only teaching one optional heat treatment step (heat treatment and/or mechanical compression) [0031]. This heat treatment step occurs at temperatures and pressures that overlap the claimed densifying step [0057] and is relied upon for teaching the claimed temperature and pressure ranges for the densifying step (d).
The arguments are presented on pages 11-13 that the electrophoretic deposition of Gaben would require an additional sintering step with reference to non-patent literature from Besra et al., Cheikh, and Ferrari et al. These arguments are not found persuasive due to the fact that these documents are not directed to the lithium metal oxides claimed and taught by Roumi [claim 33] and Gaben [0090-0092]. These different material systems may require higher temperature processing than lithium metal oxides. Furthermore, Gaben teaches mechanical compression or low temperature heat treatment may also be used to obtain dense and compact layers [0031, 0098] indicating that a separate high-temperature sintering step is not required.
The arguments are presented on page 14 regarding claim 47 that Gaben teaches away from binders with reference to electrophoretic deposition. These arguments are not found persuasive due to the fact that the electrophoretic deposition is not required in the rejection of claims 30 or claim 47. The self-sintering due electrophoretic deposition is cited as an option for densification but not a requirement. Gaben also teaches mechanical compression or low temperature heat treatment may also be used to obtain dense and compact layers [0031, 0057].
The arguments are presented on pages 15-16 regarding dependent claims 57-58 that the prior art would teach away from using electrophoretic deposition in the cited temperature ranges. These arguments are not found persuasive due to the fact that these documents are not directed to the lithium metal oxides claimed and taught by Roumi [claim 33] and Gaben [0090-0092]. These different material systems may require different temperatures during processing than lithium metal oxides. Furthermore, electrophoretic deposition is not required in the rejection of claims 30 or claim 57. The self-sintering due electrophoretic deposition is cited as an option for densification but not a requirement. Gaben also teaches mechanical compression or low temperature heat treatment may also be used to obtain dense and compact layers [0031, 0057].
The arguments are presented on page 17 with regard to claim 59 that Gaben would not teach the new limitation of using a doctor blade. Yi is relied upon for teaching this limitation as detailed in the claim rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 30, 31, 33, 35-36, 38, 42-47, 49-58 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/172793 (Yi) in view of US Patent 4091191 (Gaines), in view of Roumi et al. (US 2012/0077095 A1, hereafter Roumi), in view of Coors et al. (US 2010/0297537 A1, hereafter Coors), and further in view of Gaben (US 2017/0162860 A1, hereafter Gaben).
With respect to claims 30 and 33, the thin film is made by a method of milling (depositing) a suspension including a nanopowder, additive, and a solvent to generate a suspension (slurry). The suspension is disposed onto a substrate (forming a layer), and densifying the thin film [0015, 0017]. Yi further teaches the thin film (cathode) is porous [0155].
Yi fails to teach aluminum. Gaines teaches that aluminum fibers or alloys may be mixed with a cathode-active material to impart greater structural stability to a cathode structure [column 4, lines 29-34]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use an aluminum in the method of Yi to impart greater structural stability, as taught by Gaines.
Yi teaches oxide materials [0020, 0097] but does not explicitly teach the claimed lithium host materials. However, in the same field of endeavor, Roumi teaches the use of LiFePO4 (claim 33) as a cathode (lithium host) material [0267]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the LiFePO4 of Roumi as the nanopowder lithium host material of Yi since it is known as a useful electrode material [Roumi 0013].
Yi does not explicitly teach interconnected/open porosity. However, in the same field of endeavor, Coors teaches a cermet cathode with interconnected porosity that allows for electrolyte flow (infiltration) [0040-0041]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the interconnected porosity of Coors with the method of Yi for the benefit of allowing for electrolyte flow and for the deposition of solid products without stressing the electrode [Coors 0040].
Yi teaches densifying but does not explicitly teach the claimed temperature or pressure range. However, in the same field of endeavor, Gaben teaches the use of temperatures between 200 and 1000 degrees C and a pressure between 10 and 400 MPA (which overlap and obviate the claimed ranges) to heat treat and compress (densify) electrode particles and does not teach a separate heat treatment step to increase porosity (material may be compressed, heat treated, and may be self-sintered during deposition if electrophoresis is used, but a separate high temperature sintering step to reduce porosity is not used) [0016-0031, 0057, 0098]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to try the pressure and temperature of Gaben as the densification step of modified Yi since they are known to be preferred to form electrode materials that prevent lithium precipitates [Gaben abstract, 0057].
With respect to claim 31, the thin film may be a cathode [0137].
With respect to claim 35, the composite film may comprise yttrium in an amount of 1 to 3% [0182].
With respect to claim 36, the composite film may comprise yttrium in an amount of 1 to 3% [0182].
With respect to claim 38, the metals may be in the forms of nanopowders [0183].
With respect to claim 42, the film is sintered and debindered [0017], and therefore the final product would be free of binder other than the metallic material.
With respect to claim 43, the film does not require a carbon [0163].
With respect to claims 44-46, Yi and Gaines teach the thin film as discussed above, but fails to teach the peak flexural strength. However, because the layer is made by the same materials in the same manufacturing method, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the unmeasured properties, including peak flexural strength, to be substantially similar. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02.
With respect to claim 47, the suspension step comprises a binder [0017] which is debindered by subjecting the film to a temperature of about 300oC to about 700 oC [0111].
With respect to claim 49, the battery comprises an intermediate layer which bonds the electrolyte to the cathode layer [0138]. The electrolyte is lithium ion conductive [0206] and would infiltrate the interconnected porosity taught by modified Yi as detailed in the rejection claim 30 above.
With respect to claim 50, the battery comprises an intermediate layer which bonds the electrolyte to the cathode layer [0138]. The electrolyte is lithium ion conductive [0206].
With respect to claim 51, the film is pressed at 80-100oC with a pressure of 50-70 MPa [0213].
With respect to claim 52, the disposing step may be performed by spray coating [0026].
With respect to claim 53, the layer is formed by drying [0017], calendared [0147], and formed into a battery [0136].
With respect to claim 54, the binder is an optional component [0017], and therefore would allow for a slurry without a binder.
With respect to claim 55, the slurry is not disclosed to include a conductive carbon [0163-0165].
With respect to claim 56, the substrate may be a thin metal foil [0107], which is a current collector.
With respect to claim 57, the film is pressed at 80-100oC with a pressure of 50-70 MPa [0015, 0017, 0213].
With regard to claim 58, Yi teaches sintering but does not explicitly teach the claimed temperature or pressure range. However, in the same field of endeavor, Gaben teaches the use of temperatures between 200 and 1000 degrees C and a pressure between 10 and 400 MPA (which overlap and obviate the claimed ranges) to heat treat and compress (densify) electrode particles [0057]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to try the pressure and temperature of Gaben with the method of modified Yi since they are known to be preferred to form electrode materials that prevent lithium precipitates [Gaben abstract, 0057].
With regard to claim 59, Yi teaches casting using a doctor blade [0146].
Claim(s) 40-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/172793 (Yi) in view of US Patent 4091191 (Gaines), in view of Roumi et al. (US 2012/0077095, hereafter Roumi), and Coors et al. (US 2010/0297537 A1, hereafter Coors), and Gaben (US 2017/0162860 A1, hereafter Gaben) as applied to claims 30, 31, 33, 35-36, 38, 42-47, 49-59 above, and further in view of US 2016/0126558 A1 (Lewis).
With regard to claims 40-41, Yi teaches porosity and teaches appropriate porosity can provide strength and surface area for catalytic reactions [0155] but does not explicitly teach the claimed ranges. However, in the same field of endeavor, Lewis teaches the use of cathode porosity between 20-30 volume percent (which falls within the claimed range) [0033]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to try the porosity percentage of Lewis with the method of modified Yi for the benefit of balancing energy density and space for electrolyte penetration [Lewis 0033].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT C THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7737. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible schedule, typical hours 11-7 M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/BRENT C THOMAS/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights