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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-7 in the reply filed on September 8th, 2025 is acknowledged.
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 1-7 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. It is not clear what the “total surface area of the electrode” refers to. It can be reasonably interpreted as the surface area of all the materials comprising the electrode, the total surface area of a substrate or current collector upon which active materials are deposited, or the total surface are of both sides of said substrate, regardless of whether an active material layer is present or not. All of these interpretations will be considered with respect to formulating a prior art rejection. Claims 2-7 are also rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “preferentially less than or equal to 10-12 S.m-1”, and the claim also recites “less than or equal to 10-10 S.m-1” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “preferentially greater than or equal to 10-6 S.m-1”, and the claim also recites “greater than or equal to 10-8 S.m-1” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “2 to 50 nm”, and the claim also recites “5 to 10 nm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation "at least 50% of the surface of the electrode", and the claim also recites "preferentially at least 75%, more preferentially at least 90%, even more preferentially at least 95%" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaben (WO 2019/215406 A1, but citations will be drawn to US 2021/0367224 A1) and further in view of Kang (US 2009/0098460 A1), Yatsenko (Features of the Electrical Properties of Lithium Niobate Crystals Grown from a Melt Containing K2O Flux), Wang (Atomic Layer Deposition of Lithium Niobium Oxides as Potential Solid-State Electrolytes for Lithium-Ion Batteries), and Kim (KR 20140095999A).
Regarding claims 1-6, Gaben teaches a porous anode that is protected by a dense coating comprised of a solid electrolyte [0019] that may be lithium niobium oxide (LiNbO3, as required by claim 4; [0096]). Gaben continues to teach that this coating layer may be deposited using atomic layer deposition (ASD) which ensures that the entire surface of the electrode is covered by the coating layer [0089]. In other words, the coating layer surely covers at least 50% of the electrode, as required by claim 6. This coating’s thickness is within the range of 1 nm – 5 nm (as required by claim 5; [0091]), overlapping with the claimed range of 2 nm – 50 nm. 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). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Gaben, however, fails to teach both the electron conductivity and ionic conductivity of LiNbO3. Yatsenko is analogous art to Gaben because both discuss LiNbO3. It may have an electron conductivity of 7.4 x 10-17 (Ω cm)-1 at 26.85 °C (Yatsenko, Table 3), equivalent to 7.4 x 10-15 S/m, which lies within the claimed range of “less than or equal to 10-10” S/m or less (as required by claim 2) This low electron conductivity demonstrates that LiNbO3 is an electronic insulator material.
Wang is analogous art to Gaben because both discuss LiNbO-3. Wang teaches that a thin film of LiNbO3 may have an ionic conductivity of 6.39 x 10-8 S/cm at 30 °C (Wang, abstract), equivalent to 6.39 x 10-8 S/m, which lies within the claimed range of “greater than or equal to 10-8” S/m (as required by claim 3) This ionic conductivity demonstrates that LiNbO3 is an ionic conductor material.
Gaben continues to teach that the anode may be comprised of graphite (an active material) and carbon nanotubes (a carbon-containing electronic material) but is silent with respect to the surface area of these materials. Kim is analogous art because both Gaben and Kim teach materials for anodes in lithium secondary batteries. Kim teaches that the specific surface area of the graphite may be 4 m2/g or less and the specific surface area of the carbon nanotubes may be 10 m2/g or more [0023]. Kim continues to teach that when the anode’s materials have specific surface areas in the described ranges, the secondary battery that contains said anode will have improved charge, discharge rate, and lifespan characteristics [0025]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use graphite and carbon nanotubes in Gaben’s anode with specific surface areas within the ranges taught by Kim to achieve improved lifespan characteristics in a battery.
Gaben also fails to teach or discuss the total surface area of an electrode or current collector. Kang is analogous art to Gaben because both teach materials within lithium-ion secondary batteries. Kang teaches that there should be areas on a current collector that have active battery materials and areas that do not have any active battery materials ([0017] and [0018]). Kang teaches that negative active materials (which would include the active material and carbon-containing electronic material) should be located on 80% - 90% of the negative current collector. Kang continues to teach that this area where the negative active materials are present is about 0.01 – 25 mm2. When the active materials are present under these conditions, the electrode is less likely to crack due to the volume change during battery operation. This improves the cycle performance of the battery [0019]. Optimizing the size of area of active material on the electrode would likely optimize the amount of surface area of the active materials (including additional materials such as carbon-containing electronic material) relative to the total surface area of the electrode or current collector. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to optimize the area of active materials on the electrode or the specific surface area of said active materials on the electrode in order to improve the cycle performance of the battery and prevent cracking.
Regarding the quantities A1 and A2 recited in claim 1, Gaben, modified by Yatsenko, Kang, Wang, and Kim (henceforth referred to as modified Gaben), addresses all of the variables contained within the equations that determine the values of in A1 and A2. Modified Gaben teaches the material comprising the claimed coating layer and the ionic and electron conductivities of said material. Modified Gaben also teaches ranges of the thickness, the specific surface area of the active material, and the specific surface area of the carbon-containing electronic material. Modified Gaben continues to teach that the cycle performance of a battery may be improved by having a specific amount of material on a current collector (i.e., the ratios of surface area of active materials to the surface area of a current collector). Finding the optimum ranges and values related to the variables previously mentioned based on the teachings of modified Gaben would lead to a range of optimized values for A1 and A2. Optimization within the conditions of the prior art supports a conclusion of prima facie obviousness. [W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claim 7, Gaben teaches that a second layer comprised of a solid electrolyte may be deposited upon the coating layer [0175]. This solid electrolyte may be comprised of Li3BO3—Li2SO4 or Li3BO3—Li2SiO4—Li2SO4 which are sulfur materials 0178].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sung (EP 3651242-A2, citations drawn to US 2020/0321598 A1) discusses the impregnation of solid electrolyte into the pores of an active material layer [0054].
Yamazaki (US 2016/0336617 A1) discusses the presence of solid electrolytes in “communication holes” between active material particles [0029]; a concept similar to the concept of the presence of a solid electrolyte in the pores of an active material layer.
Nagai (US 2014/0127582 A1) discusses a range of ratios of the mass of a negative active material layer to the surface area of a current collector [0073]. The mass of the negative active material layer is proportional to its surface area (the exact nature of the proportionality depends on the active material and the method of its formation). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art may reasonably interpret Nagai’s teachings as a ratio between the surface area of the active material and the surface of an electrode, similar to the limitations of the Applicant’s claims.
Miara (US 2019/0140265 A1) discusses many different kinds of inorganic solid electrolytes, including those comprised of halides, oxides, and sulfides [0060]. Miara continues to disclose the shapes of said electrolytes [0061], methods of manufacturing them ([0062] – [0064]) and deposition methods to apply them to a substrate [0065].
Yura (WO 2019/093222 A1, but citations will be drawn to US 2020/0259217 A1) teaches a lithium battery that includes a melting a solid electrolyte and solidifying in the pores of positive and/or negative active material [0020].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN K BLACKWELL-RUDASILL whose telephone number is (571)270-0563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/R.B.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722