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 .
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendment to claim 1 the rejection of claim 9 under U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 4 the rejection of claim 4 under U.S.C. 112 is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-7 under U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
The cancellation of claims 8 and 10 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, related to the presence of polymer after sintering with respect to the rejections of claims 1-7 and 9 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, however as this step is only required for the formation of the battery of claim 9, modified Zheng still produces the positive electrode of newly amended claim 1 before sintering. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn for claim 9, however, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Fanhui.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et. al. (CN109860550), and in view of Li et. al. (CN111129602).
Regarding claim 1, Zheng discloses a positive electrode for a lithium battery, characterized in that the positive electrode for a lithium battery comprises a current collector and an active material layer arranged on the surface of the current collector(¶[0056]); and
the active material layer comprises a positive electrode active material (Lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide) and an oxide solid state electrolyte (LLZO) (¶[0052]), and a binder and polymer (i.e. binder and dispersant polyvinylpyrrolidone ¶[0055]),
wherein a mass of the oxide solid state electrolyte is 5% of a total mass of the positive electrode active material and the oxide solid state electrolyte (¶[0052]) and a particle size of the oxide solid state electrolyte is 1-10 µm (¶[0052]) which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize to be a D50 of 1-10µm, but does not disclose a conductive agent or a monomer, initiator, lithium salt in an organic solvent..
Li, related to positive electrodes, teaches a positive electrode with an active material, a binder and an inorganic solid state electrolyte and a conductive agent(¶[0018]). Li further discloses a solid electrolyte preparation may include a monomer mixed with a lithium salt, initiator and solvent to form a polymer in-situ(¶[0020]) and that this method improves physical contact of the solid electrolyte(¶[0038]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized adding a conductive agent to the positive electrode of Zheng would improve conductivity within the positive electrode and adding the polymer materials of Li would have led to improved physical contact of the solid electrolyte.
Therefore it would have been obvious to have added a conductive agent to the positive electrode of Zheng to improve conductivity and to have added the solid electrolyte components of Li to the positive electrode of Zheng to improve physical contact.
Claim 1 is considered product-by-process claim for the polymer obtained by in-situ polymerization. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure (a polymer) of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 2, modified Zheng discloses a positive electrode for a lithium battery according to claim 1 and that the polymer may be polyacrylate (see dispersant as polyacrylic acid ¶[0021]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Zheng discloses a positive electrode for a lithium battery according to claim 1. Claim 3 is considered product-by-process claim for the polymer obtained by in-situ polymerization initiated by light heat or radiation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure (a polymer, monomer, imitator, lithium salt and solvent) of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 4, modified Zheng discloses a positive electrode for a lithium battery according to claim 1, and Zheng further discloses the oxide solid state electrolyte is LLZO which is a garnet crystal structure (¶[0015]) and is the chemical structure Li7La3Zr2O12 (¶[0013]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Zheng discloses a positive electrode for a lithium battery according to claim 1, the mass of the oxide solid state electrolyte is 5% of the total mass of the positive electrode active material and the oxide solid state electrolyte((¶[0052]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Zheng discloses a positive electrode for a lithium battery according to claim 1, the particle size of the oxide solid state electrolyte is 1-10 µm (¶[0052]).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, modified Zheng discloses a positive electrode for a lithium battery according to claim 1, lithium cobalt oxide (LCO), lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide, spinel lithium nickel manganese oxide, or nickel cobalt aluminum cathode materials(¶[0014]).
Claims 9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fanhui (CN110518293, as cited in IDS dated 11/28/22, reference made to previously attached English translation), in view of Zheng et. al. (CN109860550, reference made to previously attached English translation).
Regarding claims 9 Fanhui discloses a positive electrode for a lithium battery containing a current collector and an active material layer arranged on the surface of the current collector (¶[0066]); and the active material layer comprises a positive electrode active material (¶[0071]), a conductive agent (¶[0074]), a binder (i.e. adhesive, ¶[0073]), an oxide solid state electrolyte(i.e. fast ion conductor, ¶[0075]), and a polymer obtained by combining monomer, a lithium salt, solvent(¶[0016]) and an initiator(i.e. lithium catalyst, ¶[0009]) in-situ polymerization (¶[0017]).
wherein a mass of the oxide solid state electrolyte over laps with the range of 1-5% of a total mass of the positive electrode active material and the oxide solid state electrolyte (¶[0019]-[0020])
but does not disclose a particle size of the oxide solid state electrolyte.
Zheng, related to positive electrodes, teaches a particle size of the oxide solid state electrolyte is 1-10 µm (¶[0052]) which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize to be a D50 of 1-10µm.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized using the particle size range of the oxide solid state electrolyte of Zheng in the positive electrode plate of Fanhui would improve ionic conductivity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used the particle size taught by Zheng in the positive electrode plate of Fanhui to improve ionic conductivity.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Claim 9 is considered product-by-process claim for the polymer obtained by in-situ polymerization. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure (a polymer) of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Fanhui additionally discloses integrating the solid electrolyte and active material via a solid electrolyte preparation including a monomer mixed with a lithium salt, initiator and solvent to form a polymer in-situ and thus creating a semi-solid battery(¶[0002]) according to the definition provided in the instant specification(page 6, lines 12-14).
Regarding claims 11-14 modified Fanhui discloses a positive electrode for a lithium battery containing a current collector and an active material layer arranged on the surface of the current collector (¶[0066]); and the active material layer comprises a positive electrode active material (¶[0071]), a conductive agent (¶[0074]), a binder (i.e. adhesive, ¶[0073]), an oxide solid state electrolyte(i.e. fast ion conductor, ¶[0075]), and a polymer obtained by combining monomer, a lithium salt, solvent(¶[0016]) and an initiator(i.e. lithium catalyst, ¶[0009]) in-situ polymerization (¶[0017]).
wherein a mass of the oxide solid state electrolyte over laps with the range of 1-5% of a total mass of the positive electrode active material and the oxide solid state electrolyte (¶[0019]-[0020])
but does not disclose a particle size of the oxide solid state electrolyte.
Zheng, related to positive electrodes, teaches a particle size of the oxide solid state electrolyte is 1-10 µm (¶[0052]) which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize to be a D50 of 1-10µm.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized using the particle size range of the oxide solid state electrolyte of Zheng in the positive electrode plate of Fanhui would improve ionic conductivity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used the particle size taught by Zheng in the positive electrode plate of Fanhui to improve ionic conductivity.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Claims 11-14 are considered product-by-process claim for the polymer obtained by in-situ polymerization. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure (a polymer) of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
The limitations related to selection of NASICON, perovskite, anti-perovskite and LISICON does not exclude the selection of a garnet structural material, therefore claims 11-14 are rejected for the same reasons as above.
Regarding claim 15, modified Fanhui discloses a positive electrode for a lithium battery containing a current collector and an active material layer arranged on the surface of the current collector (¶[0066]); and the active material layer comprises a positive electrode active material (¶[0071]), a conductive agent (¶[0074]), a binder (i.e. adhesive, ¶[0073]), an oxide solid state electrolyte(i.e. fast ion conductor, ¶[0075]), and a polymer obtained by combining monomer, a lithium salt, solvent(¶[0016]) and an initiator(i.e. lithium catalyst, ¶[0009]) in-situ polymerization (¶[0017]).
wherein a mass of the oxide solid state electrolyte over laps with the range of 1-5% of a total mass of the positive electrode active material and the oxide solid state electrolyte (¶[0019]-[0020])
but does not disclose a particle size of the oxide solid state electrolyte.
Zheng, related to positive electrodes, teaches a particle size of the oxide solid state electrolyte is 1-10 µm (¶[0052]) which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize to be a D50 of 1-10µm.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized using the particle size range of the oxide solid state electrolyte of Zheng in the positive electrode plate of Fanhui would improve ionic conductivity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used the particle size taught by Zheng in the positive electrode plate of Fanhui to improve ionic conductivity.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Claim 15 is considered product-by-process claim for the polymer obtained by in-situ polymerization. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure (a polymer) of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Fanhui further discloses the oxide solid state electrolyte is LLTZO which is a tantalum doped LLZO-based garnet crystal structure as taught by Zhang(¶[0015])
Furthermore Zhang also teaches LLZO may be used in place of LLTZO and has the chemical structure Li7La3Zr2O12 (¶[0013]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized selection of a garnet structural material as taught by Fanhui and Zhang would have resulting in a functioning electrode.
Therefore it would have been obvious to select a garnet structural material as taught by Fanhui and Zhang to result in a functioning electrode.
The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 16, modified Fanhui discloses a positive electrode for a lithium battery containing a current collector and an active material layer arranged on the surface of the current collector (¶[0066]); and the active material layer comprises a positive electrode active material (¶[0071]), a conductive agent (¶[0074]), a binder (i.e. adhesive, ¶[0073]), an oxide solid state electrolyte(i.e. fast ion conductor, ¶[0075]), and a polymer obtained by combining monomer, a lithium salt, solvent(¶[0016]) and an initiator(i.e. lithium catalyst, ¶[0009]) in-situ polymerization (¶[0017]).
wherein a mass of the oxide solid state electrolyte over laps with the range of 1-5% of a total mass of the positive electrode active material and the oxide solid state electrolyte (¶[0019]-[0020])
but does not disclose a particle size of the oxide solid state electrolyte or that the active material is at least one selected from the group consisting of LiNixCoyMnlxyO2 and LiNixCoyAlixyO2; wherein 0.6<x<1,0<y<0.4, and 0<x+y<1.
Zheng, related to positive electrodes, teaches a particle size of the oxide solid state electrolyte is 1-10 µm (¶[0052]) which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize to be a D50 of 1-10µm and the positive electrode contains active materials of lithium cobalt oxide (LCO) and lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide as an alternative to LCO(¶[0026]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized using the particle size range of the oxide solid state electrolyte of Zheng in the positive electrode plate of Fanhui would improve ionic conductivity and selection of the active material of Zheng would create a functioning electrode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used the particle size and active material taught by Zheng in the positive electrode plate of Fanhui to improve ionic conductivity and create a functioning electrode.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Claim 16 is considered product-by-process claim for the polymer obtained by in-situ polymerization. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure (a polymer) of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN J. ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am-6 pm EST.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/K.J.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1726 /RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights