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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments are presented on pages 12-14 that the amended process limitations of claim 1 would distinguish from the prior art including Yi. These arguments are not found persuasive due to the fact that the amended densifying conditions include a broad range of temperatures and pressures and do not include limitations on densifying time. Therefore, the claimed densifying conditions may result in a wide range of porosities and densities of the product material. Since the claim is drawn to a product it is evaluated based on the structure of the resulting product. No evidence has been shown that claimed densifying conditions in the material of modified Yi would result in a material distinct from the material taught by Yi.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 15-16, filed 7/11/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim(s) 30 under Yi, Gaines, Roumi, and Coors have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yi, Gaines, Roumi, Coors, and Gaben (US 2017/0162860 A1, hereafter Gaben). Gaben is relied upon for teaching the amended densifying conditions as necessitated by the claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 14-15, 17-18, 24-28 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), and further in view of Coors et al. (US 2010/0297537 A1, hereafter Coors).
With respect to claims 1, 4, and 5, Yi teaches a ceramic thin film [0009] which are layered ceramic thin films comprising metalloorganic precursors [0012]. The film comprises a nanopowder composition [0010] wherein the nanopowder is an oxide [0020, 0097], which is the lithium host material. The film is sintered (bound together) after forming to generate a thin film [0017] which would make the metal material serve as a binder. The thin film may be used as a cathode [0137] due to its electrical conductivity [0237]. 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 cathode 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 4) 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, claim 5) [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 cathode of Yi for the benefit of allowing for electrolyte flow and for the deposition of solid products without stressing the electrode [Coors 0040].
The limitations regarding the densifying temperature are and pressure considered product by process limitation that would result in a material bound together. Yi teaches sintering [0015, 0017] which would result in a material bound together and with increased density. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
"The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature" than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
With respect to claim 2, the thin film is a ceramic-metal (cermet) composite [ 0143].
With respect to claim 14, the composite film may comprise yttrium in an amount of 1 to 3% [0182].
With respect to claim 15, the composite film may comprise yttrium in an amount of 1 to 3% [0182].
With respect to claim 17, the metals may be in the forms of nanopowders [0183].
With regard to claim 18, the limitations regarding the densifying temperature are considered a product by process limitation that would result in a material bound together. Yi teaches sintering [0015, 0017] which would result in a material bound together and with increased density. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
"The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature" than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
With respect to claims 21-23, 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 24, 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 25, the film does not require a carbon [0163].
With respect to claim 26, the film may be used as cathode in a lithium battery [0137]. The lithium ion battery comprises an anode [0202] and an oxide electrolyte [0204].
With respect to claim 27, the electrolyte may have a LLZO [0130] which reads on the formula of claim 27 when Re is La, M is Zr, and x is 0.
With respect to claim 28, the anode may be a Li anode [0202].
With respect to claim 29, the anode may be a Li anode [0202].
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 sintering/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 is self-sintered during deposition) [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 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 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].
Claim(s) 6-8, 10 and 11 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) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 14-15, 17-18, 24-28 above, and further in view of US PGPub 2018/0006293 (Demaray).
With respect to claim 6, Yi and Gaines teach that oxide electrolytes function similar to liquid/separators [0204] but do not teach the claimed details of the electrolyte. Demaray teaches a thin-film energy storage device [0018] wherein a cathode is an NCM layer, wherein a liquid electrolyte fills the porosity of the NCM layer [0073] and teaches the electrolyte may be LiPF6 (a salt) in DC:DEC:DMC (a PC solvent) [0139]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the thin film cathode of modified Yi, in any known lithium battery, such as that of Demaray. If a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so, §103 likely bars its patentability.
With respect to claim 7, Demaray teaches the salt may be LiPF6 [0139].
With respect to claim 8, Demaray teaches the solvent may be DC:DEC:DMC (a PC solvent) [0139].
With respect to claim 10, Demaray teaches the electrolyte may be a polymeric electrolyte [0100].
With respect to claim 11, Demaray teaches the electrolyte may be a polymeric electrolyte [0100] comprising LiPF6 (a salt) [0139].
Claim(s) 9 is 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), as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 14-15, 17-18, 24-28 above, and further in view of US PGPub 2018/0114976 (Lee).
With regard to claim 9, modified Yi teaches the cathode as discussed above but fail to teach the gel network. However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches that a gel electrolyte may be prepared by gelling a liquid electrolyte and may include poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropene) [0005] which is the slid gel network of the instant claims. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the gel electrolyte of Demaray in any conventional technique, such as gelling a liquid electrolyte as taught by Lee. If a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so, §103 likely bars its patentability.
Claim(s) 12 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), Coors et al. (US 2010/0297537 A1, hereafter Coors), and US PGPub 2018/0006293 (Demaray) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US PGPub 2017/0298682 (Wang).
With regard to claim 12, modified Yi teaches the cathode as discussed above, wherein Demaray teaches that the electrolyte may be a polymer electrolyte [0100] having LiPF6 [0139], but fails to teach the polymer matrix. Wang teaches a polymer electrolyte may have a salt such as LiPF6 and a polymer matrix such as polyethylene oxide [0126]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the polymer electrolyte of Demaray with any conventional polymer matrix, such as polyethylene oxide. If a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable variation, and would see the benefit of doing so, §103 likely bars its patentability.
Claim(s) 19-20 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) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 14-15, 17-18, 24-28 above, and further in view of US 2016/0126558 A1 (Lewis).
With regard to claims 19-20, 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 cathode of modified Yi for the benefit of balancing energy density and space for electrolyte penetration [Lewis 0033].
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, 49-58 above, and further in view of US 2016/0126558 A1 (Lewis).
With regard to claims 19-20, 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 cathode of modified Yi for the benefit of balancing energy density and space for electrolyte penetration [Lewis 0033].
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
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 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
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724