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 Amendment
This is a final Office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on 02/26/2026. Claims 1 and 15 – 16 are amended. Claim 21 is new. Claims 16 – 20 remain withdrawn. Claims 1 – 15 and 21 are pending in the current Office action.
In light of applicant’s amendment, the objection to claim 1 set forth in the previous Office action is maintained. The 35 U.S.C 103 rejections set forth in the previous Office action are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argus that (1) Yi does not teach/suggest the applicant’s temperatures, times, or grinding for the process of making an LLTO coated cathode and (2) Zhang only teaches crystalline LLTO; thus the solid state battery of claim 1 and the cathode of claim 5 would not be achievable to a person of ordinary skill in the art without the information disclosed in the present disclosure. Furthermore, applicant argues that there is not an expectation for LLSTO to be amorphous based on the teachings of Zhang and there is an additional requirement for multiple variables to be determined due to LLSTO being a different material from LLTO {i.e. based on the prior arts’ teachings there is no expectation that the materials would behave similarly in the process of the making the material to be applied in the manner described in amended claims 1 and 15}.
Examiner respectfully reminds the applicant 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; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Yi explicitly teaches an amorphous and uniform LLTO cathode coating and Zhang was relied upon by the examiner to teach including Sr in the LLTO coating taught Yi. More specifically, since Yi teaches a cathode material amorphously and uniformly coated with an LLTO material and indicates a desire to obtain a solid electrolyte coating with a high conductivity (Refer to Results and Discussion section, paragraph 1, pg. 204), and as established in the rejection below, Zhang teaches that LLTO materials obtain an increase in conductivity when doped with Sr, the benefit taught in Zhan appears to be applicable to the type of coating material in Yi, and thus seems to properly support a prima facie case of obviousness [See MPEP 2123(I)].
The examiner respectfully notes that the claims are directed to a product and not a method of making, as such the arguments regarding the prior art Yi failing to teach temperatures times, and a grinding step for the process of making an LLTO coated cathode and the applicant ‘s method of making are not fully commensurate in scope with the claim. Additionally, the examiner further respectfully notes that counsel’s arguments cannot take the place of factually supported evidence, especially on the argument that the combination of the prior art would not arrive at the claimed amorphous coating.
As such, in light of the above discussion, applicant’s arguments are rendered unpersuasive and the rejection made in view of Yi and Zhang is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 6, and 8 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi ("Manipulating interfacial stability of LiNi0.5Co0.3Mn0.2O2 cathode with sulfide electrolyte by nanosized LLTO coating to achieve high-performance all-solid-state lithium batteries." Journal of Energy Chemistry 52 (2020), pp. 202-209) in view of Zhang ("Characterization of Sr-doped lithium lanthanum titanate with improved transport properties." Solid State Ionics 336 (2019), pp. 39-46). {Examiner Note: All prior art was cited in previous Office action mailed 10/02/2025}
Regarding Claim 1, Yi discloses a solid-state battery (Fig. 1; Abstract) comprising: (a) an anode comprising lithium (Li) and indium (In) (Li/In foil; Fig. 1; Experimental section, Coating LLTO on NCM532 fourth paragraph on pg. 203); (b) an amorphously coated cathode wherein the cathode comprises a lithium (Li) compound (LLTO-coated NMC532; Experimental section, Coating LLTO on NCM532 paragraph 1 and 2.3 Coating LLTO on NCM532 paragraph 1 on pg. 203) and is uniformly coated with an amorphous cathode coating comprising lithium (Li), lanthanum (La), titanium (Ti), and oxygen (O), and wherein the coated cathode lacks organic residues (Li0.5La0.5TiO3 coating; Fig. 1; Experimental section, 2.2. Preparation of Li0.5La0.5TiO3 sol paragraph and 2.3 Coating LLTO on NCM532 paragraph 1 on pg. 203; Results and Discussion section, end of paragraph 2 on pg. 204 and left column paragraph on pg. 205); and (c) an electrolyte comprising phosphorus (P) and sulfur (S) (Li6Ps5Cl; Fig. 1; Experimental section, Synthesis of Li6Ps5Cl solid state electrolyte paragraph on pg. 203)
Yi does not disclose wherein the cathode coating comprises strontium (Sr), in addition to the above elements.
Zhang teaches doping LLTO material with Sr to increase Li+ conductivity, and the LLTO materials includes structures with the stoichiometry Li3xLa2/3-xTiO3 (Abstract). One with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the LTTO stoichiometry taught by Zhang includes Li0.5La0.5TiO3.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the LLTO coating of Yi by doping the material with strontium, as taught by Zhang, and thus obtain the claimed LLSTO material, to increase the Li+ ionic conductivity of the cathode with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Yi discloses all limitations as set forth above. In modified Yi, the cathode coating is an amorphous Sr-doped LLTO coating.
Modified Yi does not explicitly disclose wherein the cathode coating comprises Li0.35La0.5Sr0.05TiO3.
Zhang teaches doping LLTO materials with the stoichiometry Li3xLa2/3-xTiO3, which includes Li0.35La0.55TiO3 (Abstract). Zhang further teaches that the strontium is doped on the lanthanum sites (Abstract), and, if Li0.35La0.55TiO3 were doped with Sr in an amount of 0.05 mole relative to Ti, the resulting composition would be Li0.35La0.5Sr0.05TiO3. Based on Zhang’s teachings , which compares various doping amounts of Sr ranging from 0 – 0.12, one with ordinary skill in the art would understand that a variety of LLSTO stoichiometries would be useful, and that any of the stoichiometries could have Sr doped on the La site in an optimized amount (Fig. 9 and associated disclosure on pgs. 44 – 45). The samples reported to have the highest conductivities were the samples with Sr doping amounts of 0.03 and 0.06, with the 0.03 doping amount providing a conductivity higher than the 0.06 doping amount (Results and discussion section, second paragraph in left column on pg. 45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dope the LLSTO material of modified Yi with strontium according to Li0.35La0.5Sr0.05TiO3, in order to optimize the Li+ ionic conductivity of the coating [See MPEP 2143(I)(G)].
Regarding Claim 3, modified Yi discloses all limitations as set forth above. Yi further discloses wherein the cathode coating has a thickness of about 20 nm (Results and discussion section, second paragraph in right column on pg. 204), which is within the claimed range of 15 to 20 nm.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Yi discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Yi does not explicitly disclose wherein cathode coating has an ionic conductivity of 10-4 S cm-1 to 10-5 S cm-1 at 30°C (although Zhang teaches conductivities higher than these; Abstract and Fig. 5).
However, one with ordinary skill in the art would expect or find it obvious for modified Yi to have an ionic conductivity within the claimed range, because the battery composition and structure as claimed have been rendered obvious (including the active materials disclosed in instant [0043] to have the claimed property) and, thus, would be expected to have the same ionic conductivity.
Regarding Claims 6 and 8, modified Yi discloses all limitations as set forth above. Yi further discloses wherein the cathode further comprises LiNi0.5Co0.3Mn0.2O2 teaches (Abstract), which is within the claimed scope of wherein the cathode further comprises nickel (Ni), manganese (Mn), cobalt (Co), and oxygen (O) (Claim 6) and is within the claimed list of LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.102 (NMC 811), or LiNio.5Mno.3Coo.202 (NMC 532) (Claim 8).
Regarding Claims 9, modified Yi discloses all limitations as set forth above. Yi further discloses wherein the electrolyte comprises Li6PS5Cl (Fig. 1; Experimental section, Synthesis of Li6Ps5Cl solid state electrolyte paragraph on pg. 203).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Yi discloses all limitations as set forth above. Yi teaches a battery capacity of 135 mAh g−1 (Fig. 3; Results and discussion section, first paragraph in left column of pg. 206), which is within the claimed range of at least 100 mAh g−1.
Therefore, since Yi already teaches having a capacity of 135 mAh g−1 , and modified Yi renders obvious the claimed battery composition and structure, including the active materials, disclosed in instant specification [0035];[0043] to have the claimed property, a skilled artisan would reasonably expect the battery of modified Yi to have the same capacity of at least 100 mAh g−1.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Yi discloses all limitations as set forth above. Yi teaches an initial Coulombic efficiency of up to 98% (Fig. 3; Results and discussion section, bottom of paragraph in right column of pg. 206), which is within the claimed range of at least 70%.
Therefore, since Yi already discloses having an initial Coulombic efficiency up to 98%, and modified Yi renders obvious the claimed battery composition and structure, including the active materials, disclosed in instant specification [0035];[0043] to have the claimed property, a skilled artisan would reasonably expect the battery of modified Yi to have the same initial Coulombic efficiency of 70%.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Yi discloses all limitations as set forth above. Yi teaches a capacity retention of 80% after 200 cycles (Fig. 3; Results and discussion section, paragraph in right column of pg. 206).
Modified Yi does not explicitly disclose wherein battery retains at least 90% of its original capacity after 850 cycles.
However, a skilled artisan would reasonably expect (given the same test/operation condition) the battery of modified Yi to, after 850 cycles, provide a capacity retention within the claimed range, because modified Yi renders obvious the claimed battery composition and structure, including the active materials, disclosed in instant specification [0035];[0043] to provide the claimed performance characteristic.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Yi discloses all limitations as set forth above. Yi teaches a capacity retention of 80% after 200 cycles (Fig. 3; Results and discussion section, paragraph in right column of pg. 206). Yi further teaches that LLTO-coated NCM532 also provides a coulombic efficiency of 98% after 200 cycles and overall enhanced discharge capacity and cycle performance (Results and discussion section, paragraph in right column of pg. 206).
Modified Yi does not explicitly disclose wherein the battery has a capacity retention of at least 91% at C/3.
However, a skilled artisan would reasonably expect (given the same test/operation condition) the battery of modified Yi to provide, at C/3, a capacity retention within the claimed range, because modified Yi renders obvious the claimed battery composition and structure, including the active materials, disclosed in instant specification [0035];[0043] to provide the claimed performance characteristic.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Yi discloses all limitations as set forth above. Yi teaches a cut-off voltage set to 2.3 – 3.8 V vs. Li-In (Experimental section, 2.3 Coating LLTO on NCM532, fourth paragraph in right column of pg. 203).
Modified Yi does not explicitly disclose wherein the battery has a voltage window from 2.5 V versus Li-In to 4.0 V versus Li-In.
However, a skilled artisan would reasonably expect (given the same test/operation condition) the battery of modified Yi to provide the claimed voltage window, because modified Yi renders obvious the claimed battery composition and structure, including the active materials, disclosed in instant specification [0035];[0043] to provide the claimed performance characteristic.
Regarding Claim 15, Yi discloses an amorphously coated cathode wherein the cathode comprises a lithium (Li) compound (LLTO-coated NMC532; Experimental section, Coating LLTO on NCM532 paragraph 1 and 2.3 Coating LLTO on NCM532 paragraph 1 on pg. 203; Results and Discussion section, end of paragraph 2 on pg. 204 and left column paragraph on pg. 205) and is uniformly coated with a cathode coating comprising lithium (Li), lanthanum (La), titanium (Ti), and oxygen (O), and wherein the coated cathode lacks organic residues (Li0.5La0.5TiO3 coating; Fig. 1; Experimental section, 2.2. Preparation of Li0.5La0.5TiO3 sol paragraph and 2.3 Coating LLTO on NCM532 paragraph 1 on pg. 203; Results and Discussion section, end of paragraph 2 on pg. 204 and left column paragraph on pg. 205).
Yi does not disclose wherein the cathode coating comprises strontium (Sr), in addition to the above elements.
Zhang teaches doping LLTO material with Sr to increase Li+ conductivity, and the LLTO materials includes structures with the stoichiometry Li3xLa2/3-xTiO3 (Abstract). One with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the LTTO stoichiometry taught by Zhang includes Li0.5La0.5TiO3.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the LLTO coating of Yi by doping the material with strontium, as taught by Zhang, and thus obtain the claimed LLSTO material, to increase the Li+ ionic conductivity of the cathode with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi ("Manipulating interfacial stability of LiNi0.5Co0.3Mn0.2O2 cathode with sulfide electrolyte by nanosized LLTO coating to achieve high-performance all-solid-state lithium batteries." Journal of Energy Chemistry 52 (2020), pp. 202-209) and Zhang ("Characterization of Sr-doped lithium lanthanum titanate with improved transport properties." Solid State Ionics 336 (2019), pp. 39-46), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Bauer (US PG Pub. 2019/0386311 A1). {Examiner Note: All prior art was cited in previous Office action mailed 10/02/2025}
Regarding Claims 5 and 7, modified Yi discloses all limitations as set forth above. Yi teaches using LiNi0.5Co0.3Mn0.2O2 as the cathode material (Abstract).
Modified Yi does not disclose wherein the cathode material comprises LiCoO2 (Claim 5) or LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3O2 (NMC 111) (Claim 7).
However, since Baur teaches that LiCoO2, NCM811, NCM 532, and NCM111 are functionally equivalent cathode materials (Bauer: [0016]), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select a cathode material from the claimed list for the cathode of modified Yi, because such a selection would be a selection of functionally equivalent cathode materials recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so [See MPEP 2144.06(II)].
Claim(s) 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi ("Manipulating interfacial stability of LiNi0.5Co0.3Mn0.2O2 cathode with sulfide electrolyte by nanosized LLTO coating to achieve high-performance all-solid-state lithium batteries." Journal of Energy Chemistry 52 (2020), pp. 202-209) and Zhang ("Characterization of Sr-doped lithium lanthanum titanate with improved transport properties." Solid State Ionics 336 (2019), pp. 39-46), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watanabe (US PG Pub. 2006/0275667 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Yi discloses all limitations as set forth above. Yi further teaches the coating cathode active material particles being in the form of smooth compact secondary particles (Fig. 2b; Results and Discussion section, paragraph 2 on pg. 204). Yi further teaches using the coated particles in a cathode material mixture for a battery (Experimental Section, 2.3 Coating LLTO on NCM532 last paragraph on pg. 203).
Modified Yi does not explicitly disclose wherein the coated cathode is ground.
Watanabe, directed toward cathode active material particles having a coating layer, teaches that is known in the art to perform after coating, light pulverization {i.e. one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize/understand pulverization to be a process that grounds the particles} or classification operation to adjust the particle size of the cathode active material ([0034];[0056]). Particle size is taught by Watanabe to affect the surface area of the active material and binding ability of the active material ([0046]).
Therefore, since the active material of modified Yi is mean to be included in a cathode of a battery, and thus on collector in a cathode material mixture (Experimental Section, 2.3 Coating LLTO on NCM532 last paragraph on pg. 203), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, after forming the coated particles, to pulverize the coated material as taught by Watanabe, and thus obtain the claimed ground cathode material, in the interest of adjusting/optimizing the particle size of the material prior to implementing the material in the cathode.
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 ARYANA Y ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/A.Y.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 4/26/2026
Prosecution Insights