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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 05/09/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Examiner notes the following amendments made to the claims:
Claims 1 and 11 amended to limit the anion redox active material to be a solid solution.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2/2/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-13 under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, by further amending to specify a solid solution containing the claimed compounds, the previously applied prior art is overcome. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Mao (CN 105006564A) in view of Wang et al (2018), and additionally in view of Zhang et al (Ling Ming Zhang et al, Layered Li2RuO3–LiCoO2 composite as high-performance cathode materials for lithium-ion batteries, Materials Letters, Volume 179, 2016, Pages 34-37). Claims 1-13 remain rejected under the newly applied prior art, and there is currently not considered to be any allowable subject matter present in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao (CN 105006564A) in view of Wang et al (J. Wang et al, A new class of ternary compound for lithium-ion battery: from composite to solid solution ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 10 (2018), pp. 5125-5132)
Regarding claim 1, Mao teaches all of the following elements:
An energy storage device, comprising: (“The invention relates to the field of lithium ion batteries, in particular to a cathode material of a lithium ion battery and a modification method thereof.” Mao [3])
a cathode comprising an anion redox active material, (“In a first aspect, a positive electrode material for a lithium ion battery has a chemical formula” Mao [11]])
the anion redox active material comprising a solid solution of one or more of lithiated ruthenium oxide and lithiated iridium oxide as well as one or more lithium metal oxides, wherein the lithium metal oxide comprises one or more of iron, cobalt, nickel, manganese, tin, titanium, palladium, silver, zinc, gallium, indium, and vanadium; (“In a first aspect, a positive electrode material for a lithium ion battery has a chemical formula of LiNi1-abCoaAlbO2/Li2RuO3” Mao [11]. Mao teaches a doped lithium nickel cobalt oxide with Li2RuO3. This is not explicitly a solid solution, but does teach combining the two materials in order to gain improved characteristics from a ruthenium doping. This could be considered a solid solution on its own, but is more explicitly taught by Wang et al, as shown below.)
an anode disposed adjacent to the cathode; (One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a cathode in a lithium ion battery would also contain an anode, as otherwise the energy storage device would not function.)
and an electrolyte disposed between the cathode and the anode. (“Li 2 RuO 3 is electrochemically active, and LiNi 1-ab Co a Al b O 2 is coated and modified with Li 2 RuO 3 so that the coating layer allows lithium ions to pass freely while isolating the electrolyte and the positive electrode material.” Mao [21] Mao clearly implies that its lithium ion battery contains an electrolyte layer adjacent to the cathode. It is commonly known in the art that in a lithium ion battery, the electrolyte is disposed between the cathode and anode.)
Mao does not explicitly teach the following elements of claim 1:
comprising a solid solution of one or more of lithiated ruthenium oxide and lithiated iridium oxide as well as one or more lithium metal oxides.
However, Wang et Al teaches a method of doping a lithium metal oxide which includes the formation of a solid solution of a lithium metal oxide and a lithiated ruthenium oxide:
comprising a solid solution of one or more of lithiated ruthenium oxide and lithiated iridium oxide as well as one or more lithium metal oxides. (“Energy-dispersive scanning (EDS) mapping of the same sample in Figure 3F displays homogeneous distributions of Ru, Mn, and Sn elements, further confirming the formation of single-phase solid solution of Li2RuO3–Li2MnO3–Li2SnO3 ternary system” Wang et al page 3 column 2 lines 29-32)
Wang et al is considered to be analogous to Mao because they are both related to the doping of a lithium metal oxide with a lithiated ruthenium oxide in the context of electrode materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the doping method of Mao for a cathode active material in a lithium ion battery to include the formation of a solid solution between the lithium metal oxide and the lithiated ruthenium oxide. This would be obvious because Wang et al teaches that a solid solution is a known method in the art of doping a lithium metal oxide with a lithiated ruthenium oxide, and therefore it would be within the ambit of one of ordinary skill to use a different, known method to form a doped product for use in a cathode active material. The claim does not require a binary product, and therefore the ternary system of Wang et al would meet the limitations.
By modifying Mao, which teaches a doped lithium cobalt oxide with a lithiated ruthenium oxide, with the method of Wang that involves forming a solid solution of the oxides, the additional limitations of claims 2-3 would be met without requiring any further modification or motivation:
Regarding claim 2, modified Mao teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Mao teaches all of the additional limitations of claim 2:
The energy storage device of claim 1, wherein the lithium metal oxide comprises one or more of iron, cobalt, nickel, manganese, tin, titanium, and vanadium. (“In a first aspect, a positive electrode material for a lithium ion battery has a chemical formula of LiNi1-abCoaAlbO2/Li2RuO3” Mao [11]. Mao teaches a doped lithium nickel cobalt oxide with Li2RuO3. This is not explicitly a solid solution, but does teach combining the two materials in order to gain improved characteristics from a ruthenium doping. This could be considered a solid solution on its own, but is more explicitly taught by Wang et al, as shown below.)
Regarding claim 3, modified Mao teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Mao teaches all of the additional limitations of claim 3:
The energy storage device of claim 2, wherein the anion redox active material comprises lithiated ruthenium oxide and the lithium metal oxide is a lithium cobalt oxide. (“In a first aspect, a positive electrode material for a lithium ion battery has a chemical formula of LiNi1-abCoaAlbO2/Li2RuO3” Mao [11]. Mao teaches a doped lithium nickel cobalt oxide with Li2RuO3. This is not explicitly a solid solution, but does teach combining the two materials in order to gain improved characteristics from a ruthenium doping. This could be considered a solid solution on its own, but is more explicitly taught by Wang et al, as shown below.)
Regarding claim 9, modified Mao teaches all of the elements of claim 3, as shown above. Mao teaches all of the additional limitations of claim 9:
The energy storage device of claim 3, wherein an atomic ratio of lithium to cobalt is about 21:1 to about 5:1. (“Preferably, the mass ratio of the Li2RuO3 to the LiNi1-a-bCoaAlbO2 is 0.01 to 0.2:1.” Mao [13]. In example 1, Mao uses LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2. In this case, if the mass ratio were 0.2:1, there would be a molar ratio of 8.62:1 of lithium to cobalt, based on the math assuming a 100g sample that comprises 20g of Li2RuO3 and 80g of LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2. This falls within the claimed range. Over the entire range of Mao, the atomic ratio of lithium to cobalt would anticipate the claimed range.)
Regarding claim 10, modified Mao teaches all of the elements of claim 3, as shown above. Mao teaches all of the additional limitations of claim 10:
The energy storage device of claim 3, wherein an atomic ratio of ruthenium to cobalt is about 10:1 to about 1:1. (“Preferably, the mass ratio of the Li2RuO3 to the LiNi1-a-bCoaAlbO2 is 0.01 to 0.2:1.” Mao [13]. In example 1, Mao uses LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2. In this case, if the mass ratio were 0.2:1, there would be a molar ratio of 2.95:3.00 of ruthenium to cobalt, based on the math assuming a 100g sample that comprises 20g of Li2RuO3 and 80g of LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2. This falls within the claimed range. This is sufficient to meet the limitation of “about 1:1”)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.040:1 (using a 99:1 ratio of LiNi1-a-bCoaAlbO2 to Li2RuO3) to 0.983:1 (using a 20:80 ratio of the same) as the atomic ratio of lithium to cobalt in the energy storage device nearly overlaps the claimed range of about 10:1 to about 1:1 for the same parameter. Specifically, 0.983:1 is considered to overlap with “about 1:1.” Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao (CN 105006564A) in view of Wang et al (J. Wang et al, A new class of ternary compound for lithium-ion battery: from composite to solid solution ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 10 (2018), pp. 5125-5132) and further in view of Song (US 20140030449 A1)
Regarding claim 4, modified Mao teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Mao is silent on the following elements of claim 4:
The energy storage device of claim 1, wherein the electrolyte has an electrolyte thickness of about 0.05 µm to about 3 µm.
However, Song teaches all of the elements of claim 4 not found in Mao. Specifically, Song teaches:
The energy storage device of claim 1, wherein the electrolyte has an electrolyte thickness of about 0.05 µm to about 3 µm. (“the electrolyte layer 108 can be about 1 to 3 µm or more microns thick, sufficient to assure electrical isolation between cathode and anode.” Song [0007]. This anticipates the claimed range.)
Mao and Song are considered to be analogous because they are both related to energy storage devices containing lithium cobalt oxides. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium metal oxide electrodes of Mao to be in a thin film battery of Song, as there are numerous possible benefits to thin film batteries over traditional battery structures (“All solid state Thin Film Batteries (TFB) are known to exhibit several advantages over conventional battery technology such as superior form factors, cycle life, power capability and safety.” Song [0003]). This would be desirable as it could further improve the characteristics of the battery material including a lithium ruthenium oxide of Mao. This reasoning supports the use of the electrolyte layer dimensions of Song, but also the battery structure and deposition methods of claims 5-7, as all would be necessary to fabricate a thin film battery with the materials of Mao. Therefore, no further motivation is needed for the modifications of claims 5-7.
Regarding claim 5, modified Mao teaches all of the elements of claim 4, as shown above. Mao is silent on the following elements of claim 5:
The energy storage device of claim 4, further comprising a current collector, wherein the cathode is disposed between the current collector and the electrolyte.
However, Song teaches all of the elements of claim 5 not found in Mao. Specifically, Song teaches:
The energy storage device of claim 4, further comprising a current collector, wherein the cathode is disposed between the current collector and the electrolyte. (Song figure 2 clearly shows the cathode disposed between the cathode current collector and the electrolyte, it is also analogous to figure 1 of the instant application. Song describes figure 2 as prior art, but also states that this is the traditional method of forming a thin film battery—“ FIGS. 1A to 1F illustrate a traditional process flow for fabricating a TFB on a substrate. In the figures, a top view is shown on the left and a corresponding cross-section A-A is shown on the right. There are also other variations, e.g., an "inverted" structure, wherein the anode side is grown first, which are not illustrated here. FIG. 2 shows a cross-sectional representation of a complete TFB, which may have been processed according to the process flow of FIGS. 1A to 1F.” Song [0005]. Therefore, this method and battery structure is commonly known in the art and would be obvious to use.)
PNG
media_image1.png
499
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
404
589
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, modified Mao teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Mao is silent on the following elements of claim 6:
The energy storage device of claim 1, wherein the cathode is amorphous or nanocrystalline.
However, Song teaches all of the elements of claim 6 not found in Mao. Specifically, Song teaches:
The energy storage device of claim 1, wherein the cathode is amorphous or nanocrystalline. (“A typical cathode material in batteries (thin film or bulk) is LiCoO2, which is deposited as an amorphous or microcrystalline layer under typical conditions of physical vapor deposition (PVD)” Song [0032])
Regarding claim 7, Mao teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Mao is silent on the following elements of claim 7:
The energy storage device of claim 1, wherein the cathode is deposited using PVD.
However, Song teaches all of the elements of claim 4 not found in Mao. Specifically, Song teaches:
The energy storage device of claim 1, wherein the cathode is deposited using PVD. (“A typical cathode material in batteries (thin film or bulk) is LiCoO2, which is deposited as an amorphous or microcrystalline layer under typical conditions of physical vapor deposition (PVD)” Song [0032])
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao (CN 105006564A) in view of Wang et al (J. Wang et al, A new class of ternary compound for lithium-ion battery: from composite to solid solution ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 10 (2018), pp. 5125-5132) and further in view of Zhang et al (Ling Ming Zhang et al, Layered Li2RuO3–LiCoO2 composite as high-performance cathode materials for lithium-ion batteries, Materials Letters, Volume 179, 2016, Pages 34-37)
Regarding claim 8, modified Mao teaches all of the elements of claim 3, as shown above. Mao is silent on the following elements of claim 8. Specifically, Mao does not teach an atomic ratio of lithium to ruthenium that is about 5:1 to 2:1.
The energy storage device of claim 3, wherein an atomic ratio of lithium to ruthenium is about 5:1 to about 2:1.
However, Zhang et al teaches all of the elements of claim 8 that are not found in Mao:
The energy storage device of claim 3, wherein an atomic ratio of lithium to ruthenium is about 5:1 to about 2:1. (“A series of samples (xLi2RuO3·(1−x)LiCoO2 with x=0.15, 00.35 and 0.6) was produced.” Zhang page 2 column 2 lines 1-2. In this case, if x were 0.6, there would b1 1 2.67:1 ratio of Li to Ru, which falls within the claimed range.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range 7.67:1 (where “x” in the formula is 0.15) to 2.67:1:1 (where “x” is 0.6) as the atomic ratio of lithium to ruthenium in the energy storage device overlaps the claimed range of about 5:1 to about 2:1 for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Zhang et al is considered to be analogous to Mao because it is within the same field of Li2RuO3-LiCoO2 composite used in cathode active materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mao with the teachings of Zhang to optimize the ratio of Li to Ru, as the doping of the LiCoO2 according to the method of Zhang was shown to improve properties (“Electrochemical tests indicate that the as-prepared LCRO has better electrode properties than LiCoO2, where the Li2MO3 component, as the electrochemical active phase, plays a crucial role in the electrochemistry of layered lithium-rich transition-metal oxides.” Zhang conclusion.) Zhang also teaches that its composite is a solid-state composition of the two materials, and could potentially be used in combination with Mao to meet the limitations of the above claims without requiring Wang et al.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Homma (US 20160233543 A1) in view of Mao (CN 105006564A) and further in view of Wang et al (J. Wang et al, A new class of ternary compound for lithium-ion battery: from composite to solid solution ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 10 (2018), pp. 5125-5132)
Regarding claim 11, Homma teaches the following limitations:
An energy storage device, comprising: (“In another aspect described in the disclosure, an all-solid-state secondary battery using a solid electrolyte has a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an amorphous solid electrolyte positioned between the positive electrode and the negative electrode,” Homma [0009])
a support substrate; a platinum film disposed on a portion of the support substrate; (“ the current collector 15 is formed over the substrate 11 covered with the silicon oxide film 12 with a thickness of 100 nm, by depositing a titanium (Ti) film 13 with a thickness of 30 nm and a platinum (Pt) film 14 with a thickness of 170 nm in this order.” Homma [0043])
a cathode disposed on the platinum film (“Then, LiCoO2 film 17, which is a cathode active material, is formed over the current collector 15.” Homma [0044]. In this case, the current collector comprises the platinum film, and the cathode is disposed on the current collector.)
an anode disposed adjacent to the cathode comprising lithium; (“The all-solid-state secondary battery 2 has a layered structure over a substrate 11 on which silicon oxide film 12 is formed, the layered structure including a current collector 15, a positive electrode 17, a solid electrolyte film 19, and a metal film 21 deposited in this order. The metal film 21 serves as a negative electrode and a current collector.” Homma [0042] and “ In FIG. 1A, the sample 1 has a LiAlPO based amorphous solid electrolyte film 19 between LiCoO2 film 17 and lithium metal film 21.” Homma [0023]. Lithium metal film functions as the negative electrode, meeting the above limitation.)
and an electrolyte disposed between the cathode and the anode. (“The all-solid-state secondary battery 2 has a layered structure over a substrate 11 on which silicon oxide film 12 is formed, the layered structure including a current collector 15, a positive electrode 17, a solid electrolyte film 19, and a metal film 21 deposited in this order. The metal film 21 serves as a negative electrode” Homma [0042]).
Homma is silent on the following limitations of claim 11:
a cathode comprising a solid solution of lithium, ruthenium, cobalt, and oxygen;
However, Mao modified by Wang et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 not found in Homma. Specifically, Mao teaches a cathode comprising a mixture of LiCoO2 and Li2RuO3, and Wang et al teaches a method of producing a cathode comprising a mixed lithium metal oxide and lithiated ruthenium oxide in the form of a solid solution:
a cathode comprising a solid solution of lithium, ruthenium, cobalt, and oxygen; (“In a first aspect, a positive electrode material for a lithium ion battery has a chemical formula of LiNi1-abCoaAlbO2/Li2RuO3” Mao [11]. Mao teaches a doped lithium nickel cobalt oxide with Li2RuO3. This is not explicitly stated to be a solid solution, but does teach combining the two materials in order to gain improved characteristics from a ruthenium doping. This could be considered a solid solution on its own, but is more explicitly taught by Wang et al: “Energy-dispersive scanning (EDS) mapping of the same sample in Figure 3F displays homogeneous distributions of Ru, Mn, and Sn elements, further confirming the formation of single-phase solid solution of Li2RuO3–Li2MnO3–Li2SnO3 ternary system” Wang et al page 3 column 2 lines 29-32)
Mao and Homma are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of energy storge devices containing LiCoO2 in their positive electrode active materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Homma to include the ruthenium and cobalt containing electrode active material mixture of Mao in order to improve battery characteristics (“By doping or coating modification of the positive electrode material of the lithium ion battery, the stability of the positive electrode material and the rate performance of the battery are improved.” Mao [9]). It would additionally have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the doped material of Mao to be formed via a solid solution, as taught by Wang et al, for the same reasons as provided above for claim 1.
No further modification or motivation would be required to meet the limitations of dependent claims 12 and 13.
Regarding claim 12, modified Homma teaches all of the elements of claim 11, as shown above. Homma teaches the additional elements of claim 12:
The energy storage device of claim 11, wherein the electrolyte is a solid lithium- ion conductor. (“As a material of a solid electrolyte of an all-solid-state secondary battery, lithium phosphorous oxynitride (LiPON) is generally used because of its high ionic conductivity.” Homma [0004].)
While Homma does not actually use LiPON in its battery, it states that it is a commonly used solid electrolyte material with excellent lithium ion conductivity. Therefore, one skilled in the art would know that this material functions well for that purpose and it would only require a simple substitution to replace the solid electrolyte of Homma with a LiPON electrolyte, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding claim 13, modified Homma teaches all of the elements of claim 11, as shown above. Homma is silent on the following elements of claim 13:
The energy storage device of claim 11, wherein an atomic ratio of ruthenium to cobalt within the cathode is about 10:1 to about 1:1.
However, Mao teaches all of the elements of claim 13 that are not found in Homma:
The energy storage device of claim 11, wherein an atomic ratio of ruthenium to cobalt within the cathode is about 10:1 to about 1:1. (“Preferably, the mass ratio of the Li2RuO3 to the LiNi1-a-bCoaAlbO2 is 0.01 to 0.2:1.” Mao [13]. In example 1, Mao uses LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2. In this case, if the mass ratio were 0.2:1, there would be a molar ratio of 2.95:3.00 of ruthenium to cobalt, based on the math assuming a 100g sample that comprises 20g of Li2RuO3 and 80g of LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2. This falls within the claimed range. This is sufficient to meet the limitation of “about 1:1”)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.040:1 (using a 99:1 ratio of LiNi1-a-bCoaAlbO2 to Li2RuO3) to 0.983:1 (using a 20:80 ratio of the same) as the atomic ratio of lithium to cobalt in the energy storage device nearly overlaps the claimed range of about 10:1 to about 1:1 for the same parameter. Specifically, 0.983:1 is considered to overlap with “about 1:1.” Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
The following references were considered to be relevant but were not used in the above rejection:
Bai (CN 109904424 A)—teaches the doping of a cathode material with a coating layer that can include Li2RuO3.
Yun et Al (Phys. Rev. B 103, 035151 – Published 29 January, 2021) teaches the formation of a solid solution of doped Li2RuO3 and a lithium metal oxide
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 BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET whose telephone number is (571)272-0156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm except for the first Friday of bi-week.
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, NICHOLAS SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights