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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the arguments filed on 12/15/2025. Claims 1-22 are pending. Claims 1-12, 21, 22 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention, in accordance with 37 CFR 1.142(b). Applicant’s arguments have been considered, and are persuasive. Claims 13-20 are non-finally rejected for reasons of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, 2nd
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14, 15 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.
In claim 14, 15, the limitations “transition metal or post-transition metal oxide” and “transition metal or post-transition metal fluoride” are unclear whether the claim legally calls for transition metal as a choice.
The suggested way to amend the claim to overcome this issue would be “transition metal oxide or post-transition metal oxide” and “transition metal fluoride or post-transition metal fluoride”, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 13, 14, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ein-Eli (US 2018/0233770) in view of Kim (WO 2020/056802, using US 2021/0305550 as translation) and Suh (US 2003/0211235).
Regarding claim 13, Ein-Eli discloses a method of manufacture, comprising:
preparing a cathode composition, including:
forming a core cathode body, the core cathode body composed of nickel oxide crystallite particles [0162]; and
forming by multiple atomic layer deposition (ALD) cycles, a surface cathode coating layer contacting and at least partially surrounding an outer surface of the core cathode body [0016] wherein, the surface cathode coating layer includes a plurality of grains, adjacent ones of the grains separated by grain boundaries, and in least one of the multiple ALD cycles, each of the grains includes a transition metal fluoride or post-transition metal fluoride [0017],
wherein each of the multiple ALD cycles each of the grains:
has a thickness in a range from about 0.5 to 30 nm [0102]; and
has an amorphous, polycrystalline or composite amorphous/polycrystalline atomic structure [0179].
Regarding claim 13, wherein, the surface cathode coating layer includes a plurality of grains, adjacent ones of the grains separated by grain boundaries, and, each of the grains, the instant Specification states:
[0068] As further illustrated in FIG. 4, some embodiments of the method 400 can further include, after forming the core cathode body and the surface cathode coating layer, applying a post-ALD thermal anneal (step 440), the anneal including a temperature value in a range from range from 200 to 900 °C for a time interval in a range from 1 to 24 hours. In some embodiments, e.g., the post-ALD anneal in step 440 is performed at a temperature value of about 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, or 900 °C for about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,9 10, 11, 12,13 14,15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, or 24 hours. As noted elsewhere herein, the post-ALD anneal is believed to help convert an ALD-formed amorphous surface coating layer into a polycrystalline or partial polycrystalline surface coating layer.
Ein-Eli discloses in [0179]: The freedom to use high temperatures in the formation of the metal fluoride layer provides yet another advantage of the present invention, in the form of the ability to improve the stability and effectiveness of the metal fluoride layer on the surface of the particles. As known in the art, thermal treatment of layers deposited by ALD is an optional step in the process, which is effected in order to modify the layer's morphology from amorphous to more crystalline, rendering the deposited layer more stable.
[0180] Hence, according to some embodiments of the present invention, the ALD process further includes an optional step of heating the metal fluoride layer to relatively high temperatures, referred to herein as “optimizing temperature”.
[0181] For example, the metal fluoride layer is heated to an optimizing temperature that is higher than 200° C., higher than 250° C., higher than 275° C., higher than 300° C. or higher than 400° C. It is noted that the optional thermal treatment can be effected after forming each atomic period, or after forming any number of atomic periods, or after forming the entire uniform metal fluoride layer on the surface of the particles.
The heat treatment of Ein-Eli reads on Applicant’s “grain boundaries” as claimed.
MPEP 2112 V states that "once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the Examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show an unobvious difference."
When the Examiner has provided a sound bases for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the burden of proof is shifted to the applicant to prove that the product shown in the prior art does not possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 14, the forming by ALD includes repeatedly sequentially exposing the outer surface of the core cathode body to gaseous deposition precursors of the transition metal or the post-transition metal, the oxide or the fluoride and the lanthanide row atoms [0072-0074].
Regarding claim 17, the repeated sequential exposing of the ALD is performed at a temperature value in a range from 100 to 800 °C [0099, 0181] at cycling rates from 0.2 to 0.3 nm atomic layer per for 2 to 50 cycles to provide the thickness [0159, 0173].
Regarding claim 18, further including, after forming the core cathode body and the surface cathode coating layer, applying a post-ALD thermal anneal, the anneal including a temperature value in a range from 200 to 800°C [0099, 0181] for a time interval in a range from 1 to 24 hours [0263].
Regarding claim 19, the at least partially surrounding surface cathode coating layer contacts about 80 percent or more of the outer surface of the core cathode body [0017].
Regarding claim 20, further including assembling the cathode composition as a plurality of layers in a cathode electrode structure where the layers are separated from each other by an electrolyte medium including lithium ions, Ein-Eli discloses the cathode active material is a particulate lithium intercalation material [0192] and hence is arranged in a layered fashion to intercalate lithium ions. If not anticipated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to form the cathode material of Ein-Eli in layers for the benefit of intercalating and deintercalating lithium ions.
Regarding claim 13, includes a transition metal oxide or post-transition metal oxide and at least one of the other grains includes a transition metal fluoride or post-transition metal fluoride, Ein-Eli discloses depositing a layer of a transition metal fluoride or post-transition metal fluoride [0017]. Kim teaches a positive active material having a coating layer including lithium fluoride, metal fluoride, and metal oxide. See Abstract. Kim teaches that metal fluoride has no reactivity with the electrolyte solution and thus is the most stable but greatly deteriorates conductivity and this interferes intercalation/deintercalation of lithium [0032]. When the metal oxide and the fluorine-based organic material are fired, fluorine produced through the firing of the fluorine-based organic material is bonded with some or all of the metal oxide and thus produce the metal fluoride. When the fluorine is bonded with some of the metal oxide and produces the metal fluoride, the metal oxide may be present on the surface of the nickel-based composite oxide, and the metal fluoride may be present on the surface of the metal oxide and/or the interface of the nickel-based composite oxide and the metal oxide. When the metal oxide is additionally present in the coating layer, conductivity of the coating layer may be improved [0047]. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to add a layer to the positive active material of Ein-Eli either on the surface of the metal fluoride coating or a layer between the positive active material and the metal fluoride, as taught by Kim, for the benefit of making Ein-Eli’s positive active material more conductive.
Ein-Eli discloses that it is known in the art to form metal oxide layers on positive active materials using the atomic layer deposition technique [0008]. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to add a metal oxide layer to the positive active material of Ein-Eli using the same ALD technique as Ein-Eli’s metal fluoride coating for the benefit of forming a uniform conductive layer.
Regarding claim 13, includes one or more lanthanide row atoms having a concentration in a range from about 0.1 to 10 mol%, Ein-Eli discloses the fluoride coating layer comprises a lanthanide [0149]. Suh teaches a positive active material with uniformly doped elements to improve electrochemical performance such as high rate properties, power capability, cycle life characteristics, initial discharge capacity of the positive active material [0023]. Any element can be used, such as a rare earth element, for example La, Ce [0026]. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to add a dopant to each coating layer of Ein-Eli modified by Kim, for the benefit of forming a uniform coating of the dopant for the benefit of enhancing its electrochemical properties.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ein-Eli (US 2018/0233770) in view of Kim (WO 2020/056802, using US 2021/0305550 as translation) and Suh (US 2003/0211235) as applied to claim 13, in view of Jung (Enhanced stability of LiCoO2 cathodes in lithium-ion batteries using surface modification by atomic layer deposition, Journal of the Electrochemical Society, 157, (1), A75-A81, 2010).
Regarding claim 15, Ein-Eli discloses the forming by ALD includes repeatedly sequentially exposing the outer surface of the core cathode body to gaseous deposition precursors of the transition metal or the post-transition metal, the oxide or the fluoride and the lanthanide row atoms [0173], and the precursor gas for the fluoride is HF [0183].
Regarding claim 15, the transition metal or post-transition metal fluoride of the surface cathode coating layer is one or more of AIF3 [0264] and the precursor gas is Al(NO3)3 [0264], not trimethylaluminum [0011]. Ein-Eli discloses that trimethylaluminum, along with hydrogen fluoride, is used in prior art to form an aluminum fluoride coating [0011]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to use trimethylaluminum instead of Al(NO3)3 for the benefit of forming a AlF3 coating.
Regarding claim 15, Ein-Eli does not disclose the transition metal or post-transition metal oxide of the surface cathode coating layer is one or more of TiO₂, ZnO, ZrO₂, HfO₂ or Al2O₃ and the precursor gases of Ti, Zn, Zr, Hf and Al are TiCl4, Diethylzine, TEMA-Zr, TEMA-Hf and Trimethylaluminum, respectively, and the precursor gas for O are O₂, H₂O, O₃ or mixtures thereof. Jung teaches coating a LiCoO2 cathode active material using atomic layer deposition. Jung uses trimethylaluminum and H2O as precursors (page A75, 2nd column). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to use trimethylaluminum and H2O as precursors, as taught by Jung, for the benefit of forming a coating layer of aluminum oxide.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ein-Eli (US 2018/0233770) as applied to claim 13, in view of Chatterjee (US 2022/0154335).
Regarding claim 16, the lanthanide row atoms of the surface cathode coating layer is one or more of La, Ce, Sm or Gd and the precursor gases are La(C5H5)3, Ce(iPrCp)2(N-iPr-amd), C27H30Sm and C27H30Gd respectively, Ein-Eli discloses lanthanide atoms, but does not disclose the precursor gases as claimed. Chatterjee teaches using La(C5H5)3 as a precursor gas in a vapor deposition process [0045]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to use La(C5H5)3 as a precursor gas in the coating of Ein-Eli in the atomic layer deposition process of Ein-Eli for the benefit of depositing lanthanum in the coating.
Response to Arguments
Arguments dated 12/15/2025 are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA KYUNG SOO WALLS whose telephone number is (571)272-8699. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F until 5pm.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CYNTHIA K WALLS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751