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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 12, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that the claimed ranges are critical, as demonstrated by Table 1 of the instant specification (pp. 6-7). However, the changes in pore volume and surface area are incidental to changes in coating thickness, as demonstrated in Table 1. Increasing coating thickness necessarily occludes pores in the active material, decreasing both surface area and pore volume. The need to optimize coating thickness is recognized by Sasaki, as cited in the rejection.
The rejections are maintained.
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.
Claim 25 is 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.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the second solid electrolyte" in the fifth line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 13-15, 21, 22, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (“Stabilizing Effect of a Hybrid Surface Coating on a Ni-Rich NCM Cathode Material in All-Solid-State Batteries”, Chemistry of Materials 31(23), pp. 9664-9672, November 2019) in view of Sasaki (US 2018/0062166 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a positive electrode active material comprising active material particles (NCM) coated in LiNbO3 (Kim Experimental Section, Li2CO3/LiNbO3 Layer Formation on NCM622), which is a solid electrolyte (see Kim Introduction: “LiNbO3…because of its relatively high ionic conductivity”)
Kim does not teach any particular value for Vβ/Vα or for Sβ/Sα. Kim teaches the use of porous aggregate particles, and the pores are occluded by the coating (Kim Figure 1), which will necessarily decrease both exposed pore volume and specific surface area. In addition, Sasaki teaches that the thickness of such a coating should be 1-100 nm thick to balance charge-discharge efficiency with energy density (Sasaki [0124]-[0126]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select an appropriate coating thickness to balance charge-discharge efficiency with energy density, which would necessarily result in Vβ/Vα<1 and Sβ/Sα<1, each of which overlaps the ranges of the instant claim. 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).
Regarding claim 2, the covered positive active material of modified Kim has Vβ/Vα<1, which overlaps the range of the instant claim. 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).
Regarding claim 3, the covered positive active material of modified Kim has Sβ/Sα<1, which overlaps the range of the instant claim. 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).
Regarding claim 4, the covered positive active material of modified Kim has 1 wt% coating on the particles (Kim Experimental Section, Li2CO3/LiNbO3 Layer Formation on NCM622), or Wα/Wβ=0.99, which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 5, coating of modified Kim is approximately 12 nm thick at 1 wt% (Kim Results and Discussion, 2nd paragraph). For the 1-100 nm thickness taught by Sasaki (Sasaki [0124]-[0126]), this gives approximately 0.1-8 wt% coating, or 0.92<Wα/Wβ<0.999, which overlaps the range of the instant claim. 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).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, modified Kim teaches a thickness of 1-100 nm (Sasaki [0124]-[0126]), which overlaps the range of the instant claim. 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).
Regarding claim 13, modified Kim teaches the use of NCM622 (Kim Experimental Section, Li2CO3/LiNbO3 Layer Formation on NCM622), which contains Ni, Co, and Mn.
Regarding claim 14, modified Kim teaches the use of a second solid electrolyte (β-Li3PS4) (Kim Experimental Section, Preparation of Electrode Composites).
Regarding claim 15, modified Kim does not teach the claimed ratio of first to second electrolyte volume. The coating of modified Kim is approximately 12 nm thick at 1 wt% (Kim Results and Discussion, 2nd paragraph). For the 1-100 nm thickness taught by Sasaki (Sasaki [0124]-[0126]), this gives approximately 0.1-8 wt% coating. The covered material and second electrolyte are mixed at a 7:3 weight ratio (Kim Experimental Section, Preparation of Electrode Composites). This gives range of weight ratios of 0.07:3 to 0.56:3, or 0.023 to 0.187. For roughly equal densities, this gives 0.023<Vγ/Vδ<0.187, or for denser first electrolytes such as LiNbO3, this gives 0.01<Vγ/Vδ<0.09, each of which overlaps the range of the instant claim. 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).
Regarding claim 21, the second electrolyte of modified Kim is β-Li3PS4 (Kim Experimental Section, Preparation of Electrode Composites), which is a sulfide.
Regarding claim 22, modified Kim teaches a battery comprising the positive electrode active material in a positive electrode layer, an electrolyte layer, and a negative electrode stacked in that order (Kim Experimental Section, Cell Assembly and Electrochemical Testing).
Regarding claim 25, the covered positive active material of modified Kim has 1 wt% coating on the particles (Kim Experimental Section, Li2CO3/LiNbO3 Layer Formation on NCM622), or Wα/Wβ=0.99, which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Modified Kim teaches a thickness of 1-100 nm (Sasaki [0124]-[0126]), which overlaps the range of the instant claim. 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).
Modified Kim teaches the use of a second solid electrolyte (β-Li3PS4) (Kim Experimental Section, Preparation of Electrode Composites). Modified Kim does not teach the claimed ratio of first to second electrolyte volume. The coating of modified Kim is approximately 12 nm thick at 1 wt% (Kim Results and Discussion, 2nd paragraph). For the 1-100 nm thickness taught by Sasaki (Sasaki [0124]-[0126]), this gives approximately 0.1-8 wt% coating. The covered material and second electrolyte are mixed at a 7:3 weight ratio (Kim Experimental Section, Preparation of Electrode Composites). This gives range of weight ratios of 0.07:3 to 0.56:3, or 0.023 to 0.187. For roughly equal densities, this gives 0.023<Vγ/Vδ<0.187, or for denser first electrolytes such as LiNbO3, this gives 0.01<Vγ/Vδ<0.09, each of which overlaps the range of the instant claim. 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).
Claim(s) 8-12, 16-20, 23, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Sasaki as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Shi et al. (CN 110970667 A; all citations refer to the English translation made of record in the rejection mailed June 25, 2025).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kim does not teach the use of a first electrolyte of the form Liα1M1β1X1γ1. Modified Kim teaches the use of LiNbO3 (Kim Experimental Section, Li2CO3/LiNbO3 Layer Formation on NCM622), and that the cover material for such a coating may be any suitable solid electrolyte such as LiNbO3 or a halogenated solid electrolyte (Sasaki [0118]-[0121]). LiNbO3 and halogenated solid electrolytes are therefore art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose, and substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II). Shi teaches that electrolytes of the form Li3YCl4Br2 (Shi Example 3) have better plasticity than oxide electrolytes (Shi [0005]) and can be produced more cheaply than similar alternatives (Shi [0014]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the electrolyte of Shi in the coating of modified Kim for improved plasticity and reduced cost. The electrolyte Li3YCl4Br2 is Formula 1 of the instant claim for M1 = Y; X1 = Cl and Br; and α1, β1, and γ1 all greater than 0.
Regarding claim 9, the electrolyte of modified Kim has M1 = Y.
Regarding claim 10, the electrolyte of modified Kim has α1 = 3, β1 = 1, and γ1 = 6, each of which falls within the ranges of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 11, the electrolyte of modified Kim has X1 = Cl and Br.
Regarding claim 12, the electrolyte of modified Kim is Li3YCl4Br2.
Regarding claim 16, modified Kim does not teach the use of a second electrolyte of the form Liα1M1β1X1γ1. Modified Kim teaches the use of β-Li3PS4 (Kim Experimental Section, Li2CO3/LiNbO3 Layer Formation on NCM622), which is a sulfide electrolyte. Shi teaches that electrolytes of the form Li3YCl4Br2 (Shi Example 3) have better stability than sulfide electrolytes (Shi [0005]) and can be produced more cheaply than similar alternatives (Shi [0014]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the electrolyte of Shi as the second electrolyte of modified Kim for improved stability and reduced cost. The electrolyte Li3YCl4Br2 is Formula 1 of the instant claim for M1 = Y; X1 = Cl and Br; and α1, β1, and γ1 all greater than 0.
Regarding claim 17, the electrolyte of modified Kim has M1 = Y.
Regarding claim 18, the electrolyte of modified Kim has α1 = 3, β1 = 1, and γ1 = 6, each of which falls within the ranges of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 19, the electrolyte of modified Kim has X1 = Cl and Br.
Regarding claim 20, the electrolyte of modified Kim is Li3YCl4Br2.
Regarding claim 23, modified Kim does not teach the use of a first electrolyte of the form Liα1M1β1X1γ1. Modified Kim teaches the use of LiNbO3 (Kim Experimental Section, Li2CO3/LiNbO3 Layer Formation on NCM622), and that the cover material for such a coating may be any suitable solid electrolyte such as LiNbO3 or a halogenated solid electrolyte (Sasaki [0118]-[0121]). LiNbO3 and halogenated solid electrolytes are therefore art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose, and substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II). Shi teaches that electrolytes of the form Li3YCl4Br2 (Shi Example 3) have better plasticity than oxide electrolytes (Shi [0005]) and can be produced more cheaply than similar alternatives (Shi [0014]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the electrolyte of Shi in the coating of modified Kim for improved plasticity and reduced cost. The electrolyte Li3YCl4Br2 is Formula 1 of the instant claim for M1 = Y; X1 = Cl and Br; and α1, β1, and γ1 all greater than 0.
Modified Kim teaches the use of a second solid electrolyte (β-Li3PS4) (Kim Experimental Section, Preparation of Electrode Composites), which is a sulfide solid electrolyte.
Regarding claim 24, modified Kim does not teach the use of a first electrolyte of the form Liα1M1β1X1γ1. Modified Kim teaches the use of LiNbO3 (Kim Experimental Section, Li2CO3/LiNbO3 Layer Formation on NCM622), and that the cover material for such a coating may be any suitable solid electrolyte such as LiNbO3 or a halogenated solid electrolyte (Sasaki [0118]-[0121]). LiNbO3 and halogenated solid electrolytes are therefore art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose, and substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II). Shi teaches that electrolytes of the form Li3YCl4Br2 (Shi Example 3) have better plasticity than oxide electrolytes (Shi [0005]) and can be produced more cheaply than similar alternatives (Shi [0014]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the electrolyte of Shi in the coating of modified Kim for improved plasticity and reduced cost. The electrolyte Li3YCl4Br2 is Formula 1 of the instant claim for M1 = Y; X1 = Cl and Br; and α1, β1, and γ1 all greater than 0.
Modified Kim does not teach the use of a second electrolyte of the form Liα1M1β1X1γ1. Modified Kim teaches the use of β-Li3PS4 (Kim Experimental Section, Li2CO3/LiNbO3 Layer Formation on NCM622), which is a sulfide electrolyte. Shi teaches that electrolytes of the form Li3YCl4Br2 (Shi Example 3) have better stability than sulfide electrolytes (Shi [0005]) and can be produced more cheaply than similar alternatives (Shi [0014]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the electrolyte of Shi as the second electrolyte of modified Kim for improved stability and reduced cost. The electrolyte Li3YCl4Br2 is Formula 1 of the instant claim for M1 = Y; X1 = Cl and Br; and α1, β1, and γ1 all greater than 0.
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.
/J.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722