METHODS FOR COATING ELECTRODE MATERIALS WITH FLUORIDE COATING AND ELECTRODES FORMED THEREFROM
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 Nov. 7, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-7, 10, 15 and 23-29 are pending, wherein claim 1 is amended and claims 24-29 (two claim 28 and two claim 29) are newly added. Claims 1, 4-7, 10, 15 and 23-29 are being examined on the merits in this office action.
Remarks
Applicant' s amendments and arguments have been entered. A reply to the Applicant' s remarks/arguments is presented after addressing the claims.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office Action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendments or/and arguments.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. References cited in the current Office action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 26 and 28-29 are objected to because of the following:
There are TWO claim 28 and TWO claim 29 presented.
An article before “reacting” in “wherein reacting is performed …” in claims 1 and 26 is missing. The issue applies similarly to claims 28 and 29.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
According to the Applicant’s response filed on June 24, 2025 to the written-description 112(a) rejection (copied below), the claims will be considered to be satisfied if a precursor material contains fluorine element, a cathode material contains those metal recited in the claimed formulae, and the doping process is performed at a comparable temperature with that as claimed/disclosed.
Claim 10 recites “the fluoride coating comprises a mixture of LiF with CoxFy, CoxFy, NixFy, MnxFy, AlxFy or FexFy”. However, the specification does not appear to describe how any of CoxFy, NixFy, MnxFy, AlxFy and FexFy is formed, where they come from, and how the mixture(s) is formed. Thus, the claim is not sufficiently described, and therefore lacks written description support. The issue applies similarly to the LiaNibCocMndFe recited in claim 23.
Note that the written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002). For purposes of examination, the materials represented by the above formulae are interpreted as formed from reactions between the fluoride-based precursor material with surface reactive groups of the cathode material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 4-7, 10, 15 and 23-29 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.
Claim 1 recites “a vapor of a fluoride-based precursor” (line 5). It is unclear whether or not the recitation refers to the aforementioned “a vapor of a fluoride-based precursor material”, which renders the claims indefinite. If Applicant intends to refer them to be the same thing, the second bold “a” above should be “the”. For purposes of examination, they are treated as referring to the same precursor.
The “doping the surface carbonate with a vapor of a fluoride-based precursor” is ambiguous, since it can be understood that the fluoride-based precursor is included/added in the surface carbonate or that an element from the fluoride-based precursor is included/added in the surface carbonate. In the art, the term “doping” usually refers to a process to include/add a certain element (e.g., ion or atom) in a material/substance in the art. While “reacting a vapor … with the surface carbonate” is appropriate, the “doping the surface carbonate with a vapor …” is awkward. In addition, the recitation “so as to form forming …” has grammatical errors and should be revised. Should it be “… so as to form a layer of … and reduce …”?
Claims 24, 28 (the first claim 28) and 29 (the second claim 29) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claim 24 and 29 recite negative limitations, but do not appear to be supported by the instant specification as originally filed. See MPEP 2173.05(i), which is partially copied here (below).
PNG
media_image1.png
341
1452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 4-7, 10, 15 and 23-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weimer et al. (US 20220298633 A1, hereafter Weimer) in view of Elam et al. (US 20190044151 A1, hereafter Elam).
Regarding claim 1, Weimer teaches a method, comprising:
disposing a cathode material (e.g., a lithiated metal oxide having a general formula of LiMxOy, see [0029]) that is at least partially covered with a surface carbonate (e.g., lithium carbonate, see, at least, [0003]), in a reactor (See “a reaction chamber” in at least [0029]).
Weimer is silent as to “reacting a vapor of … on the cathode material (the third paragraph of claim 1 is incorporated here)”, but these limitations are taught by the prior arts, as explained below.
Weimer teaches an ALD (atomic layer deposition) gas phase deposition (at least: [0032]) of a fluoride-based precursor material on surface of a cathode material (at least: [0033]), and the deposited precursor material reacts with surface reactive functional groups (at least: [0032], [0036]). Although Weimer is silent as to the hydrogen fluoride pyridine (HFpy) precursor as instantly disclosed, depositing HFpy by ALD is known in the prior arts. For instance, Elam discloses that HFpy is used as a fluoride-based precursor for ALD deposition of a fluoride coating (e.g., [0029]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have selected HFpy vapor as an alternative fluoride-based precursor material of Weimer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP § 2144.07. Note that the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is prima facie obvious. See MPEP § 2143.
As a result, the deposited HFpy as a fluoride-based material would react with surface carbonate of Weimer (at least: [0032], [0036]), and a formation of LiF coating on the surface of the cathode material is expected, as evidenced by the instant specification (PgPub, [0020]-[0021], [0030]).
As addressed above, Weimer in Elam teaches a fluoride-based precursor material to be deposited by ALD gas phase deposition on the surface of a cathode material represented by Li-containing LiMxOy whose surface comprises lithium carbonate (See above), and the process of deposition and reaction is substantially the same as described in paragraphs (at least: [0020]-[0021], [0030]) of the instant PgPub. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the limitations presented in the third paragraph of claim 1, including forming a layer of a metal fluoride coating comprising lithium fluoride and on the cathode material and reducing an amount of the surface carbonate on the cathode material, are necessarily present in Weimer modified by Elam, because Weimer as modified teaches the same process steps as well as compositional and structural limitations as claimed. The same/similar process/method is expected to produce the same/similar results/effects.
Weimer in view of Elam further discloses that the reacting between the deposited HF-pyridine and the surface carbonate is performed at a temperature in a range of about 33 [Symbol font/0xB0]C to about 300 [Symbol font/0xB0]C during the ALD gas phase deposition process ([0035], Weimer). The claimed range overlaps the above range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 4, Weimer in view of Elam teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the metal fluoride coating may have a thickness of sub-2 nm ([0034], Weimer).
Regarding claims 5, 7 and 26-27, Weimer in view of Elam teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches doping the surface carbonate can be performed under various operating temperatures, pressures, and precursor dose times ([0032], [0035], Weimer). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily have arrived at the claimed values recited in claims 5, 7 and 26 through routine experimentation. In the absence of unexpected results or evidence that the claimed values are critical, a selection of the claimed values involves merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. Further, the reduction of the surface carbonate amount is due to the loss of surface carbonate resulted from the reaction between the surface carbonate and the vapor of a fluoride-based precursor material comprising HF-pyridine (see claim 1). Since the reaction is affected by various operating temperatures, pressures, precursor dose time, etc., one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily adjusted various parameters mentioned above to control reaction degree to arrive at the claimed reduced amount of the surface carbonate through routine experimentations. In the absence of unexpected results or evidence that the amount as claimed is critical, the amount as claimed is not patentably distinguishable.
Regarding claim 6, Weimer in view of Elam teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the doping the surface carbonate includes flowing the precursor material (including fluoride-based precursor materials) into the reactor sequentially for a number of cycles (e.g., “more than one and less than ten”, [0031], Weimer).
Regarding claim 10, Weimer in view of Elam teaches the method of claim 1, where the surface carbonate comprises lithium carbonate (e. g., [0027], Weimer). Since the cathode material contains lithium and the method contains fluoride in the fluoride-based precursor material, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the presence of a metal fluoride coating comprising lithium fluoride, for example, resulted from reactions between the fluoride-based precursor material and surface reactive functional groups of the cathode material.
Regarding claims 15, Weimer in view of Elam teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the cathode material comprises LiNixMnyCozO2, wherein x+y+z=1 ([0029], Weimer), which reads on the claimed LiNi0.5Mn0.3Co0.2O2, for example. Note that it is well settled that there is no invention in the discovery of a general formula if it covers a composition described in the prior art, In re Cooper and Foley 1943 C.D. 357 O.G. 177; 57 USPQ 117, Taklatwalla v. Marburg, 620 O.G. 685, 1949 C.D. 77, and In re Pilling, 403 O.G. 513, 44 F(2) 878, 1931 C.D. 75. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the selection of the proportions of elements would appear to require no more than routine investigation by those ordinary skilled in the art. In re Austin, et al., 149 USPQ 685, 688.
Regarding claims 23, Weimer in view of Elam teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the cathode material comprises LiNixMnyCozO2, wherein x+y+z=1 ([0029], Weimer), which reads on the claimed LiNi0.5Mn0.3Co0.2O2, for example. Note that it is well settled that there is no invention in the discovery of a general formula if it covers a composition described in the prior art, In re Cooper and Foley 1943 C.D. 357 O.G. 177; 57 USPQ 117, Taklatwalla v. Marburg, 620 O.G. 685, 1949 C.D. 77, and In re Pilling, 403 O.G. 513, 44 F(2) 878, 1931 C.D. 75. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the selection of the proportions of elements would appear to require no more than routine investigation by those ordinary skilled in the art. In re Austin, et al., 149 USPQ 685, 688. Since the cathode material contains lithium, nickel, manganese and colbat and the method contains fluoride in the fluoride-based precursor material, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the presence of a metal fluoride coating comprising LiaNibCocMndFe as claimed, resulted from reactions between the fluoride-based precursor material and surface reactive functional groups of the cathode material.
Regarding claims 25, Weimer in view of Elam teaches the method of claim 1, and “repeating reacting the vapor of the fluoride-based precursor material with the surface carbonate for 1 to 10 times” can be achieved by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation. In the absence of unexpected results of evidence that the repeating times is/are critical, the limitation as claimed is not patentable distinguishable.
Regarding claim 24 and the first claim 28, please see the rejection of claim 1 and 112(a) rejection. The rejections are incorporated here.
Regarding the second claims 28, Weimer in view of Elam teaches the method of claim 28, wherein the metal fluoride coating may have a thickness of sub-2 nm ([0034], Weimer).
Regarding the first claim 29, Weimer in view of Elam teaches the method of claim 28, and further teaches doping the surface carbonate can be performed under various operating temperatures, pressures, and precursor dose times ([0032], [0035], Weimer). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily have arrived at the claimed values recited in the instant claim through routine experimentation. In the absence of unexpected results or evidence that the claimed values are critical, a selection of the claimed value involves merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Regarding the second claims 29, please see the rejections of claims 1, 4-5 and 25, and the 112(a) rejection. The rejections are incorporated here.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on Nov. 7, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1) In response to the argument presented in the paragraph bridging pages 6-7, Weimer does teach depositing an ALD material on a cathode material ([0033]).
2) In response to the argument presented on page 7-9 regarding something related to “inherency”, it is noted that the office actions never used/uses the term “inherency” and thus the arguments are moot.
3) In response to the argument on page 9, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Thus, the alleged “surprising result” is not an unexpected result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-4809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ZHONGQING WEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727