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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on 5/22/25 is acknowledged. Claims 2,13,14,22 and 24-28 have been canceled. Claims 15-2,23 and 29 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed toward a non-elected invention detailed in paper filed 3/26/25. In conclusion, claims 1 and 3-12 remain in the application for prosecution thereof.
Applicants’ election to a specie of the claimed volatile organo silyl compound has been selected to be tBuMe2SiLi also recited in claim 3. The other volatile organo silyl compounds have been withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1,4,7 and 12 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites tBuMe2SiLi + TMA which is confusing as if these are together or separate (see also tBuMe2SiLi-TMEDA)? Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “any one of” appears to be a typographical error and makes the claim confusing. The Examiner suggest deleting the phrase to overcome the rejection.
Regarding claim 7, the term “TiO2” is not a semiconductor. In addition, it is recited as an electrode in claim 5 and hence can’t be claimed as two differing materials unless doped. The phrase “sufficient material to enhance ssNMR signal” is confusing as to the limitation of “sufficient”, the “material” and what ss NMR stands for? Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 12, the term “s” should be spelled out as “sec” to avoid confusion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1,3,4,7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamalainen et al. (2012/0276305) in combination with KR 2014-0136146.
Hamalainen et al. (2012/0276305) teaches atomic layer deposition of metal phosphates and lithium silicates. Hamalainen et al. (2012/0276305) teaches forming the lithium silicates using ALD deposition comprising a plurality of deposition cycles including pulses of a first vapor phase reactant, purging and pulses of a second vapor reactant in a flow type reactor [0019]. Hamalainen et al. (2012/0276305) teaches forming lithium silicates to include a two-metal reactant including silicon (si) and lithium (li) and a second reactant including oxygen [0024]. Hamalainen et al. (2012/0276305) teaches the oxygen reactant can include ozone (O3) [0026]. Hamalainen et al. (2012/0276305) teaches coating on a substrate placed in a reactor chamber [0058].
Hamalainen et al. (2012/0276305) fails to teach the claimed two metal phase reactant being tBuMe2SiLi (t-butyl dimethyl silyl).
KR 2014-0136146 teaches using tBuMe2 as a vapor precursor of ALD using silyl reactions in forming metal silicate coatings.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hamalainen et al. (2012/0276305) process to include the claimed tBuMe silyl as the precursor as evidenced by KR 2014-0136146 in forming the lithium silicate coating
Regarding claims 4 and 7, Hamalainen et al. (2012/0276305) teaches coating silicon wafers (which are known to be semiconductor material [0166].
Regarding claims 9-11, Hamalainen et al. (2012/0276305) teaches a reaction chamber [0029] and deposition temperatures of 150C-400C [0103] which would meet the claimed organo silyl compound being greater than 145C and the vacuum reactor being greater than 85C.
Regarding claim 12, Hamalainen et al. (2012/0276305) teaches pulsing of reactants of from 0.05-10 seconds and purging of 0.05-20 seconds which would also include the claimed dwell time when switching from pulsing reactants to purging [0111]-[0112]. Furthermore, dwell times between purging is commonplace in ALD processing to ensure formation of the monolayer and/or removal of the reactant when purging and hence would have been within the skill of one practicing in the art absent a showing of criticality thereof.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamalainen et al. (2012/0276305) in combination with Hamalainen et al. (2012/0276305) further in combination with Yang et al. (10,312,501).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Hamalainen et al. (2012/0276305) in combination with Hamalainen et al. (2012/0276305) are incorporated here.
Hamalainen et al. (2012/0276305) in combination with Hamalainen et al. (2012/0276305) fails to teach the claimed substrate.
Yang et al. (10,312,501) teaches a method for making a solid electrolyte interface (SEI) layer on a surface of a lithium electrode and HE-NMC which protects the lithium metal electrode form additional reactions with the electrolyte (col. 6, lines 10-50 and abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have modified Hamalainen et al. (2012/0276305) in combination with Hamalainen et al. (2012/0276305) process to coat a He-NMC material as evidenced by Yang et al. (10,312,501) with the expectation of providing a protective layer thereon.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamalainen et al. (2012/0276305) in combination with Hamalainen et al. (2012/0276305) further in combination with Kawada et al. (2021/0057722).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Hamalainen et al. (2012/0276305) in combination with Kawada et al. (2021/0057722) are incorporated here.
Hamalainen et al. (2012/0276305) in combination with Hamalainen et al. (2012/0276305) fails to teach the claimed substrate.
Kawada et al. (2021/0057722) teaches coating a lithium silicate by ALD of metal foils including titanium and copper (abstract and [0031]-[0039] and [0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have modified Hamalainen et al. (2012/0276305) in combination with Hamalainen et al. (2012/0276305) process to coat a copper or titanium foil as evidenced by Kawada et al. (2021/0057722) with the expectation of providing a lithium coating layer thereon.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6:30-5PM - Fri OFF.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715