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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 27, 2026 has been entered.
Summary
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted March 27, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claim 1 is amended and claims 1-12 pending for examination.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. In the instant case, the phrase “the present disclosure relates to” is used.
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 1-12 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, claim 1 recites the limitation "that abut each other". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 does not include a previous recitation of any components abutting each other, therefore, it appears that this limitation is referencing something that has not been provided sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpretated as requiring the oxide-based solid electrolyte have a surface that abuts a surface of the positive electrode material particles and at least one of the oxide-based solid electrolyte surface or the surface of the positive electrode material particles be coated with the dissimilar oxide.
It is suggested that claim 1 be amended to recite:
wherein a thickness of the dissimilar oxide coated on the at least one of the oxide-based solid electrolyte or the positive electrode active material particles is 1 nm to 100 nm,
wherein a surface of the oxide-based solid electrolyte and a surface of the positive electrode material particles abut each other, and wherein at least one of the surface of the oxide-based solid electrolyte or the surface of the positive electrode material particles is coated with the dissimilar oxide.
Claims 2-12 are indefinite as they depend from an indefinite base and fail to cure the deficiencies of said claim.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites the limitation "that abut each other". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 does not include a previous recitation of any components abutting each other, therefore, it appears that this limitation is referencing something that has not been provided sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpretated as requiring the oxide-based solid electrolyte layer have a surface that abuts a surface of the positive electrode and at least one of the oxide-based solid electrolyte layer surface or the surface of the positive electrode be coated with the dissimilar oxide.
It is suggested that claim 5 be amended to recite:
wherein a surface of the oxide-based solid electrolyte layer and a surface of the positive electrode abut each other and wherein at least one of the surface of the oxide-based solid electrolyte layer or the surface of the positive electrode is coated with the dissimilar oxide.
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 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.
Claims 1, 4-6, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto (US 2018/0102571 A1) in view of Allie (US 2020/0036000 A1) and Zhang (Zhang, H. et al. Surface-Coated LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 (NCM811) Cathode Materials by Al2O3, ZrO2, and Li2O-2B2O3 Thin-Layers for Improving the Performance of Lithium Ion Batteries. Frontiers in Materials. 6, 309 (2019)).
Regarding claim 1, Sakamoto teaches an all-solid-state battery (10, Sakamoto Fig. 1) comprising:
an oxide-based solid electrolyte layer (solid state electrolyte 16, Sakamoto Fig. 1 and [51-60])
a positive electrode (cathode 14, Sakamoto Fig. 1) comprising positive electrode active material particles (Sakamoto [48])
a negative electrode (anode 18, Sakamoto Fig. 1)
Sakamoto teaches a stabilization coating that stabilizes the interfaces between active materials, conductive additives, solid electrolytes, and current collectors in a solid-state battery (Sakamoto [12 and 22]) by slowing “the chemical reactions that will occur at elevated temperature” (Sakamoto [63]), wherein lithium boron oxide is a suitable stabilization coating (Sakamoto [72]). Sakamoto also teaches that the solid state electrolyte, the cathode active material, or the anode active material may be pre-coated with the stabilization coating (Sakamoto [22]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate an all-solid-state battery, as taught by Sakamoto, wherein the positive electrode active material particles are coated with lithium boron oxide in order to stabilize interfaces between positive electrode constituents.
Example 5 of Sakamoto teaches an embodiment of positive electrode active material particles coated by lithium boron oxide, wherein the lithium boron oxide compound is represented by Li3BO3. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Li3BO3 as the lithium boron oxide stabilization coating of Sakamoto.
Sakamoto is silent to the thickness of the stabilization coating on the positive electrode active material particles in the final product.
Zhang teaches a lithium boron oxide coating on positive active material particles (NCM811 coated with LBO, Zhang pg. 5 right column), as taught by Sakamoto, wherein the coating has a thickness of 50-200 nm and reduces undesired reaction between the positive electrode active material (cathode material) and the electrolyte, as taught by the stabilization coating of Sakamoto (Zhang pg. 5 right column). Since Sakamoto is silent to the thickness and Zhang teaches that a thickness of 50-200 nm is suitable to reduce reaction between the positive electrode active material and the electrolyte, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the all-solid-state battery of Sakamoto having a lithium boron oxide coating thickness within the range taught by Zhang in order to achieve the predictable result of the reduction of reactions between the positive electrode active material particles and the electrolyte.
The thickness range of Zhang substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 1. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Zhang, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Sakamoto teaches sintering at a temperature of 108°C to 1300°C (Sakamoto [101]). The sintering temperature range of Sakamoto substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 1. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Sakamoto, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Sakamoto does not teach the positive electrode comprising an oxide-based electrolyte.
Sakamoto teaches that electrolyte materials comprising lithium, lanthanum, zirconium, and oxygen are suitable, hereinafter referred to as LLZO (Sakamoto [59]).
Allie teaches that is known to add a solid electrolyte with high ionic conductivity, such as LLZO which is a garnet-like oxide, to a cathode to facilitate faster ionic transport (Allie [57]).
Since Sakamoto and Allie both teach that LLZO is a suitable electrolyte material and Allie teaches that the addition of a solid electrolyte with high ionic conductivity to a cathode can facilitate faster ionic transport, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add LLZO to the positive electrode of Sakamoto in order to facilitate faster ionic transport through the cathode.
Thus, modified Sakamoto further teaches a surface of the positive electrode material particles being coated with the dissimilar oxide and this surface abutting a surface of the oxide-based solid electrolyte. When the LLZO is added to the positive electrode, the oxide-based solid electrolyte and the positive electrode material particles abut each other and one of these abutting surfaces is coated with the dissimilar oxide (the positive electrode material particles)).
Regarding claim 4, Sakamoto in view of Allie and Zhang teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Sakamoto further teaches the oxide-based solid electrolyte coated with the positive electrode active material particles which are coated with the dissimilar oxide (since they are in the same slurry during manufacturing, they are coated on each other).
The Examiner notes that the limitations “an oxide-based solid electrolyte coated with the positive electrode material particles” and “positive electrode active material particles coated with the oxide-based solid electrolyte” do not exclude intervening layers or components and do not require them to be directly coated.
Regarding claim 5, Sakamoto in view of Allie and Zhang teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Sakamoto further teaches at least one surface of a surface of the oxide-based solid electrolyte layer and a surface of the positive electrode that abut each other being coating with the dissimilar oxide. In Fig. 1 of Sakamoto, the solid electrolyte layer (16, Fig. 1) and the positive electrode (14, Fig. 1) abut each other and, since the positive electrode comprises the positive electrode active materials that are coated with dissimilar oxide, a surface where they abut each other is coated with the dissimilar oxide. The Examiner notes that “coated with” does not exclude intervening layers or components.
Regarding claim 6, Sakamoto in view of Allie and Zhang teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Sakamoto further teaches the positive electrode comprising a conductive agent (conductive additive, Sakamoto [49]).
Regarding claim 8, Sakamoto in view of Allie and Zhang teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Sakamoto further teaches that it is suitable for the positive electrode active material particles to comprise LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 (Sakamoto [48]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 as the positive electrode active material in the invention of Sakamoto to achieve the predictable result of a battery containing a cathode capable of storing and releasing lithium ions.
Regarding claim 9, Sakamoto in view of Allie and Zhang teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Allie further teaches the garnet-like oxide having a pellet form (Allie [93]).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Sakamoto in view of Allie and Zhang teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Sakamoto teaches coating the positive electrode active material particles with the stabilization coating material (Sakamoto [22] “pre-coated with a stabilization coating material”) by wet coating or dry coating (Sakamoto [76]). Sakamoto does not explicitly teach preparing a coating mixture comprising the dissimilar oxide; however, the ordinary artisan would recognize that the dissimilar oxide used to form the stabilization coating of Sakamoto would be in a coating mixture before application to the positive electrode active material particles.
Regarding claim 12, Sakamoto in view of Allie and Zhang teaches all features of claims 1 and 10, as described above. Allie further teaches the garnet-like oxide having a pellet form (Allie [93]).
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto in view of Allie and Zhang, as applied to claim 1 above, as evidenced by Cheng (Cheng, L. Garnet Electrolyte Surface Degradation and Recovery. ACS Applied Energy Materials. 1, 7244-7252 (2018)).
Regarding claims 2 and 7, Sakamoto in view of Allie and Zhang teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Sakamoto in view of Allie and Zhang teaches the dissimilar oxide being Li3BO3 and the garnet-like oxide being LLZO, as described above. Sakamoto does not explicitly teach the dissimilar oxide being a composite of Li3BO3 and Li2CO3 or Li2SO4. However, Cheng teaches that LLZO (garnet structure oxide) is known to form Li2CO3 on its surface upon exposure to air or moisture (Cheng abstract). Therefore, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the presence of Li2CO3 as a reaction product generated by a surface reaction of the garnet-like oxide would obviously flow from the battery of Sakamoto in view of Allie and Zhang.
Sakamoto teaches sintering at a temperature of 108°C to 1300°C (Sakamoto [101]). The sintering temperature range of Sakamoto substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 2. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Sakamoto, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto in view of Allie and Zhang, as applied to claim 1 above, as evidenced by Cheng, and in further view of Lv (Lv, D. et al. Li2O-B2O3-Li2SO4 modified LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2cathode material for enhanced electrochemical performance. Electrochimica Acta. 247, 803-811 (2017)).
Regarding claim 3, Sakamoto in view of Allie and Zhang teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Sakamoto in view of Allie and Zhang teaches the dissimilar oxide being Li3BO3 and the garnet-like oxide being LLZO, as described above.
Sakamoto further teaches that it is suitable for the positive electrode active material particles to comprise LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 (Sakamoto [48]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 as the positive electrode active material in the invention of Sakamoto to achieve the predictable result of a battery containing a cathode capable of storing and releasing lithium ions.
Sakamoto teaches sintering at a temperature of 108°C to 1300°C (Sakamoto [101]). The sintering temperature range of Sakamoto substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 3. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Sakamoto, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Sakamoto does not explicitly teach the dissimilar oxide being a composite of Li3BO3 and Li2CO3 -Li2SO4.
However, Cheng teaches that LLZO (garnet structure oxide) is known to form Li2CO3 on its surface upon exposure to air or moisture (Cheng abstract). Therefore, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the presence of Li2CO3 as a reaction product generated by a surface reaction of the garnet-like oxide would obviously flow from the battery of Sakamoto in view of Allie and Zhang.
Lv teaches LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 coated with a dissimilar oxide that includes lithium boron oxide and Li2SO4 (Lv abstract, title) in order to provide surface protection to the cathode material and improve electrochemical performance (Lv pg. 804 left column). Lv teaches that LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 is “restricted by poor low temperature performance” and that doping lithium boron oxide (LBO) with lithium sulfate can “incorporate additional lithium ions” and enhance ionic conductivity (Lv pg. 804 left column first paragraph).
Since Sakamoto and Lv both teach coatings on cathode active materials that provide surface protection that include lithium boron oxide and Lv teaches that coating LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2, as used by modified Sakamoto described above, with Li2SO4 doped lithium boron oxide enhances ionic conductivity, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Li2SO4 to the dissimilar oxide of Sakamoto in order to improve ionic conductivity.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed March 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6 of the response, Applicant states that “Sakamoto discloses, at most, that a lithium host material layer (positive electrode) and a solid electrolyte material layer can be separately coated with a stabilization coating material…However, Sakamoto is completely silent with respect to the claimed configuration”.
On pages 6-7 of the response, Applicant appears to allege that “Allie cannot cure the deficiencies of Sakamoto” and that Allie does not teach the claimed configuration. Applicant appears to support said allegation be stating that the Allie references discloses that “the positive electrode active material and the solid electrolyte are configured to be in direct contact so as to react during the cathode manufacturing process”.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, the rejection of claim 1 is based on the combination of Sakamoto, Allie, and Zhang, as described above.
Additionally, the modification of Sakamoto in view of Allie regarding the addition of LLZO does not bodily incorporate the method of Allie, rather the Allie reference provides motivation for adding LLZO to the positive electrode of Sakamoto in order to improve ionic transport through the cathode, as described above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ohta (US 20150056519 A1): appears to disclose a garnet-type oxide comprising lithium, lanthanum, zirconium, oxygen, and an additive component including lithium borate (abstract, claim 7).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/J.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights