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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 6 are amended. Claims 4, 9 and 10-21 are cancelled. Claims 22-25 are new. Claims 1-3, 5-8 and 22-25 are rejected as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4 of claims 1 and 6 there appears to be a typo “ethioxide” should read “ethoxide”. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: page 5, line 25 appears to have a typo “ethioxide” should read “ethoxide”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8 and 22-25 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.
Claims 1 and 6 each require “compressing the coated particles to form a LTO coated cathode” in line 8. Review of the originally filed disclosure does not recite this step in the method description on page 5, lines 20-29. The only mention of compressing in the originally filed disclosure appears to discuss compressing/compression of all the layers to form the final ASSB rather than the coated cathode material itself as claimed (page 3, line 31; page 5, line 33 to page 6, line 8). Claims 2-3, 5, 7-8 and 22-25 are rejected as depending therefrom.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 6-7 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Albano (US 2016/0351973 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 24-25, Albano teaches a coating for improving cycling stability of a sodium all-solid state battery [0072], the coating comprising LTO (SSE encapsulation coating, LiTiOx [0038]) applied to a cathode of the battery [0038]. The limitations related to sol-gel process (claim 6, lines 3-8 and claims 24-25) are considered product by process. Even 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. (MPEP 2113) In this case, as discussed above, Albano teaches the required structure and therefore reads on the instant claimed product. Moreover, Albano teaches that sol-gel process is known ([0207]). Barring evidence that the particular method steps impart patentable distinction in structure in the final product the claims remain anticipated.
Regarding claim 7, Albano further teaches the cathode is NLNMO (LMNO [0255], lithium metal oxide or a sodium variant [0054]).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makino (US20190198919).
As to claim 1, Makino teaches methods for manufacturing in the solid state battery art (title) including a method of coating an active material with LTO ([0332]) including mixing (stirred) particles of cathode active material (NCA) in a solution of lithium ethoxide and titanium tetraisopropoxide (same as titanium isopropoxide) in anyhydrous (dehydrated) ethanol solvent; drying (ethanol removed) and vacuum (reduced pressure) thereby removing residual solvent (ethanol) from the coated particles (powder); annealing the coated particles under heat (350oC and 120oC) to form LTO-coated NCA ([0334]). Furthermore, Makino teaches compression of the layers which would therefore include the LTO-coated cathode ([0301]) which reads on the claimed limitation. Note that Makino specifies a deviation of pressure in the drying step but does not describe a deviation from ambient conditions during the annealing/heat step; therefore barring evidence to criticality and unexpected results one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the use of ambient conditions where possible is obvious in order to simplify the process. While Makino relies on lithium ethoxide (Li-OEt) one of ordinary skill in the art that both Li-OEt and the claimed Na-OEt belong to the genus of alkali ethoxide only differing by the alkali used (Li versus Na). Alkali metals are art recognized equivalent elements wherein one of ordinary skill in the art before filing would appreciate that Na is more stable and affordable than Li and is expected to perform the same function (provide alkali salt) therefore it would have been obvious to substitute Na ethoxide in modified Albano with a reasonable expectation of similar results barring evidence of critically and unexpected results. Finally, while Makino is not specifically directed to the method for a sodium solid state battery; the preamble intended use does not impart structure on claim 1 because claim 1 does not require a sodium cathode material and the LTO coating of Makino would be capable of the intended use barring evidence to the contrary.
In an effort to expedite prosecution claims 1 and 6-7; 22-23 (should the method steps be taken to impart patently distinct structure) are alternatively rejected below.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albano and Makino.
As to claims 1 and 6, Albano teaches a method for improving cycling stability of a sodium all-solid-state battery [0072], comprising: applying a LTO coating (SSE encapsulation coating, LiTiOx [0038]) to a cathode of the battery [0038]. Albano generally teaches the use of sol-gel process for coating the cathode ([0028], [0207]) but is silent to the particulars thereof.
Makino teaches methods for manufacturing in the solid state battery art (title) including a method of coating an active material with LTO ([0332]) including mixing (stirred) particles of cathode active material (NCA) ([0093]) in a solution of lithium ethoxide and titanium tetraisopropoxide (same as titanium isopropoxide) in anyhydrous (dehydrated) ethanol solvent; drying (ethanol removed) and vacuum (reduced pressure) thereby removing residual solvent (ethanol) from the coated particles (powder); annealing the coated particles under heat (350oC and 120oC) to form LTO-coated NCA ([0334]). Makino teaches compression of the layers which would therefore include the LTO-coated cathode ([0301]) which reads on the claimed limitation. Note that Makino specifies a deviation of pressure in the drying step but does not describe a deviation from ambient conditions during the annealing/heat step; therefore barring evidence to criticality and unexpected results one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the use of ambient conditions where possible is obvious in order to simplify the process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the sol gel particulars of Makino in Albano as an art recognized process for applying an LTO coating to a solid state battery cathode active material with a reasonable expectation of similar results. Both LTO coatings of Albano and Makino solve the problem of formation of a high resistance layer in the interface between the positive active material and the solid electrolyte (i.e. SEI formation) (Albano: [0007] and [0008]; Makino: [0006] and [0008]).
While modified Albano relies on lithium ethoxide (Li-OEt) one of ordinary skill in the art that both Li-OEt and the claimed Na-OEt belong to the genus of alkali ethoxide only differing by the alkali used (Li versus Na). Alkali metals are art recognized equivalent elements wherein one of ordinary skill in the art before filing would appreciate that Na is more stable and affordable than Li and is expected to perform the same function (provide alkali salt) therefore it would have been obvious to substitute Na ethoxide in modified Albano with a reasonable expectation of similar results barring evidence of critically and unexpected results.
Regarding claims 2 and 7, Albano further teaches the cathode is NLNMO (LMNO [0255], lithium metal oxide or a sodium variant [0054]).
Regarding claim 5, Albano teaches the LTO coating is generically LiTiOx [0038]. Albano does not disclose the LTO coating is specifically Li4Ti5O12. However, Makino specifies the method produces Li4Ti5O12 ([0334]). Because the combination relies on the method steps of Makino the combination teaches the claimed LTO.
Regarding claim 6, Albano teaches a coating for improving cycling stability of a sodium all-solid state battery [0072], the coating comprising LTO (SSE encapsulation coating, LiTiOx [0038]) applied to a cathode of the battery [0038].
Regarding claims 22 and 24, modified Albano teaches that the ethoxide to isopropoxide is stoichiometric 5mmol to 5mmol (Makino: [0304]) but is explicitly silent to the wt% relative to the volume of active material. In this situation, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the amounts and volume of ingredients directly effects the material available to be coated and available to form the coating thereby recognizing that the various concentrations are result effective variables which are obvious to optimize to arrive at a desired coating amount/thickness for a given active material amount. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05) barring evidence of criticality and unexpected results.
Regarding claims 23 and 25, modified Albano teaches that annealing is performed at 350oC for 30min (Makino: [0304]) and is therefore silent to the claimed 450oC for 1hr. In this situation, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that annealing provides for grain growth wherein higher temperatures provide increased energy (heat) and long times together effect the resulting potential growth of grains in a material. Therefore, the annealing conditions including time and temperature are art recognized result effective variables which are obvious to optimize to arrive at desired grain size and associated properties. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05) barring evidence of criticality and unexpected results.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albano and Makino as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Clement (Direct evidence for high Na+ mobility and high voltage structural processes in P2-Nax[LiyNizMn1-y-z]O2 (x, y, z ≤ 1) cathodes from solid-state NMR and DFT calculations, Journal of Materials Chemistry A, 2017).
Regarding claim 3, Albano teaches the method as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the cathode can comprise a high voltage lithium manganese nickel oxide spinel [0255] or a sodium variant of a lithium metal oxide [0054]. Albano does not explicitly disclose the cathode is Na0.8[Li0.12Ni0.22Mn0.66]O2. However, Clement teaches Na0.8[Li0.12Ni0.22Mn0.66]O2 as a cathode active material (Introduction, pg. 4130) for a Na-ion battery (Introduction, pg. 4129) that exhibits excellent electrochemical performance, promotes Na+ mobility, and prevents water intercalation (Conclusions, pg. 4141). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date for the cathode to be Na0.8[Li0.12Ni0.22Mn0.66]O2, in order to improve electrochemical performance and Na+ mobility as taught by Clement (Conclusions, pg. 4141).
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albano as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Clement.
Regarding claim 8, Albano teaches the coating as applied to claim 6 above, wherein the cathode can comprise a high voltage lithium manganese nickel oxide spinel [0255] or a sodium variant of a lithium metal oxide [0054]. Albano does not explicitly disclose the cathode is Na0.8[Li0.12Ni0.22Mn0.66]O2. However, Clement teaches Na0.8[Li0.12Ni0.22Mn0.66]O2 as a cathode active material (Introduction, pg. 4130) for a Na-ion battery (Introduction, pg. 4129) that exhibits excellent electrochemical performance, promotes Na+ mobility, and prevents water intercalation (Conclusions, pg. 4141). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date for the cathode to be Na0.8[Li0.12Ni0.22Mn0.66]O2, in order to improve electrochemical performance and Na+ mobility as taught by Clement (Conclusions, pg. 4141).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/22/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 4, Applicant argues that the amendments to include method steps in the product of claim 6 differentiate render the claim unanticipated by Albano. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations in claim 6 are product by process; Applicant has not explained what patentable distinction the process imparts on the final product. Therefore because the product of Albano teaches the claimed structures the claim remains anticipated as discussed above. In an effort to expedite prosecution an alternative rejection is presented as necessitated by this amendment. (MPEP 2113)
On page 4, Applicant argues that Albano teaches away from the use of sol gel. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Despite potential negatives Albano clearly envisions sol-gel as a preferred process among others ([0028], [0041], [0207]) as well in their claimed invention (Albano’s claims 32) therefore it is clear Albano appreciates that sol-gel would not destroy the invention and is a viable process. Similarly, Applicant argues that Albano provides little detail to the sol-gel process. The examiner agrees however upon further search and consideration Makino is presented.
On page 5, Applicant argues that the claims are directed to improving a sodium ASSB and that Albano appears to focus on lithium (264 times used) over sodium (9 times used). However, the use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain. A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. (MPEP 2123) In this case, the preamble of the independent claims describes the intended use being for a sodium ASSB. Albano while not the focus of examples does discuss alternatives to lithium such as sodium ([0009]) as art recognized equivalents facing the same problems and therefore in need of their solutions ([0009]). The argument is not persuasive.
On page 5, Applicant argues the combination of Albano with Clement is improper because Clement is directed to a sodium-ion not a sodium ASSB and that liquid electrolyte would not have the same problem. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Albano explains that liquid (M-ion) and solid electrolyte batteries while having some differences ([0003-4]) face similar problems ([0007]) and in both the active materials were not typically coated in fear that such a coating would increase resistance ([0005]). Albano explains this problem which arises in BOTH liquid (M-ion) and ASSB is an increase in resistance due to side reactions at the interface of respective active materials and electrolytes ([0008-9]). Albano offers a solution to this problem in coating the active material layer (solid in both M-ion and ASSB) ([0023-5]). Albano therefore establishes that liquid and solid electrolyte batteries do share some of the same problems and that both rely on solid cathode active material; the only different being the electrolyte state, safety/leakage, performance. Both types of electrolytes facilitate movement of ions despite the state (liquid or solid). Therefore it would be reasonable to one of ordinary skill in the battery art to consider solid cathode materials of both SSB and ion batteries. Applicant asserts no motivation to combine was provided however
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRIAM STAGG whose telephone number is (571)270-5256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm.
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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at (571) 272-7769. 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.
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724