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 .
Drawings
Applicant’s amendments to the specification have overcome the previously presented objections to the drawings and thus the objections are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously presented objections and thus the objections are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 20, and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1, 20, and 26, the limitations “0.2 Wcm-2” and “3.5 Wcm-2” should be amended to read “0.2 Wcm-2” and “3.5 Wcm-2” to improve clarity
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 13, the limitation “wherein the X-ray diffraction pattern optionally comprises at least one peak, the at least one peak having a Full Width at Half Maximum (FWHM) value, and wherein the FWHM is from 0.05 to 0.2 degrees” is interpreted to not necessarily require at least one peak having a FWHM value from 0.05 to 0.2 degrees because the at least one peak is optional.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously presented rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) except for those included below. Therefore, the previously presented rejections not included below have been withdrawn.
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 20, 26, and 29-30 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.
In claims 20, 26, and 29, the limitation “optionally for a solid-state battery” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim requires a cathode that could be used for a solid state battery or any cathode formed by the claimed method, regardless of whether it could function in a solid state battery. These rejections may be overcome by deleting the word “optionally” as in claim 1.
Claim 30 is indefinite by virtue of depending on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 28 and 31-33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) selecting a desired crystallinity, determining a voltage bias, selecting a desired volume fraction, selecting a voltage bias, determining the crystal structure, and determining a function which describes a relationship between power density and volume fraction.
The limitations of determining and selecting are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, determining a function can encompass the user manually calculating a relationship/function based upon observations/data and selecting a crystallinity can encompass the user manually choosing a crystallinity. Therefore, these claim limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas and the claims 27-28 and 31-33 recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. After the “determining” or “selecting” of the function or voltage bias, no action is taken, much less a particular practical application. Additionally, the “determining” and “selecting” are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to generally applying the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and linking the abstract idea to a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), which are not particular practical applications.
The additional elements recited in claims 28 and 31-33 include generating a remote plasma, sputtering target material using the plasma, and depositing the sputtered material on a substrate to which a bias voltage is applied and performing X-ray diffraction. These additional elements are each well-understood, routine and conventional (see for example Kwak (US 20090288943 A1) and Su (NPL – “Structural evolution of bias sputtered LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 thin film cathodes for lithium ion batteries”)). Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 27-28 and 31-33 are directed to an abstract idea and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception; therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-8, 13, 21, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (US 20090288943 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kwak (US 20090288943 A1) teaches a method of depositing a thin film solid state battery cathode layer on a substrate 202 from a sputtering target 204 by sputtering wherein the substrate is provided with a bias voltage and wherein a plasma for sputtering material may include a remote plasma generated by a remote plasma source 214 and/or microwave plasma generator 216 (Abstract, para 0002, 0033-0035; Fig. 2).
Kwak fails to explicitly teach the power density associated with the voltage bias of the substrate is at least 0.2 Wcm-2 and no more than 3.5 Wcm-2. However, Kwak teaches the power density of the voltage bias of the substrate may be up to 5 W/cm2 (Table 1). One skilled in the art would have expected the use of any value within the Kwak range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values up to 5 W/cm2, including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Regarding claim 3, Kwak teaches the voltage bias may be supplied by an RF power source (para 0034).
Regarding claim 6, Kwak teaches the cathode layer may contain Li (alkali metal based material) (para 0024-0028).
Regarding claim 7, Kwak teaches the layer may contain a transition metal (Co, Mn, Ni, or V) and counter ion (PO4, O, F, N, etc.) (para 0024-0028).
Regarding claim 8, Kwak teaches the layer of cathode may belong to the group of LiCoO2, LiMn2O4, or LiFePO4 wherein some elements are substituted with additives (para 0024-0028).
Alternatively, Kwak teaches that the substituted cathode materials are used as an alternative to traditional cathode materials including LiCoO2, LiMn2O4, and LiFePO4, wherein the traditional materials are known to be functional (para 0006, 0022-0023, 0028-0030). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the substituted cathode materials with unsubstituted cathode materials because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 13, Kwak teaches that the film has a crystalline structure (Abstract, para 0015, claim 1) and thus necessarily has a characteristic X-ray diffraction pattern.
Regarding claim 21, Kwak teaches depositing an electrolyte material for a solid state battery on the cathode layer (para 0002, para 0006, 0035-0036, 0039, Table 1).
Regarding claim 23, Kwak teaches a substrate is provided with a layer of cathode of a solid state battery made according to the method of claim 1 (para 0002, 0013, 0035-0036, 0039).
Regarding claim 24, Kwak teaches using the method of claim 21 to deposit a solid state thin film battery cathode layer and electrolyte layer (half-cell) (para 0002, 0013, 0035-0036, 0039).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (US 20090288943 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nieh (US 20130164459 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kwak teaches a bias voltage (para 0035) but fails to explicitly teach the bias voltage is negative. However, Nieh (US 20130164459 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches maintaining a substrate carrier at a negative bias voltage to deposit a film onto a battery substrate, wherein the film comprises lithium cobalt oxide (para 0057-0058). Kwak teaches the layer deposited may contain lithium cobalt oxide (para 0028). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the bias voltage of Kwak with the negative bias voltage of Nieh because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of forming a lithium cobalt oxide film on a battery substrate. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (US 20090288943 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Su (NPL – “Structural evolution of bias sputtered LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 thin film cathodes for lithium ion batteries”).
Regarding claim 9, Kwak teaches the layer of cathode comprises a deposited material (Abstract) but fails to explicitly teach the deposited material is able to exist in a lower energy crystal structure and a higher energy crystal structure, the layer of cathode comprising the deposited material in the higher energy crystal structure. However, Su (NPL), in the analogous art of bias sputtered cathodes for batteries, teaches deposited LiNiMnO films contain crystal grains with higher (400) and lower (111) surface energy with a ratio depending on the bias supplied during deposition (Abstract, pg. 18; Fig. 2). Kwak similarly teaches a battery cathode layer target material comprising Li, O, Mn, and Ni, where bias is applied to the substrate during deposition (para 0022, 0024-0028, 0035). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the cathode layer of Kwak with the LiNiMnO film of Su because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of forming a battery cathode layer. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). As a result, the film of Kwak in view of Su is able to exist in a lower energy crystal structure (111 plane) and a higher energy structure (400 plane) and contains a higher energy crystal structure (Su Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kwak and Su teaches that the deposited film may be deposited at a higher bias such that the (111) plane (lower energy crystal structure) is reduced or does not appear and therefore the volume fraction of the higher energy crystal structure is higher than the volume fraction of the lower energy crystal structure (Su pg. 17-18, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kwak and Su teaches the higher energy crystal structure of the (400) plane has a characteristic first x-ray diffraction pattern and the lower energy (111) plane has a characteristic second x-ray diffraction pattern, wherein each characteristic x-ray diffraction pattern comprises a characteristic peak indicative of the presence of the structure (Su Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kwak and Su teaches the (111) plane is reduced or disappears at higher bias and therefore the area under the first characteristic peak corresponding to the (400) plane (higher energy crystal structure) is higher than the area under the second characteristic peak corresponding to the (111) plane (lower energy crystal structure).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (US 20090288943 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hofmann (US 20110226617 A1) and Wu (US 20220157604 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Kwak fails to explicitly teach the ratio of the power used to generate the plasma to the power associated with a bias on the target is greater than 1:1. However, Hofmann (US 20110226617 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches that a sputtering process for depositing a cathode material used in a battery may use a remote plasma source with a target power, wherein the diameter of the target is 13 inches for a 200 mm diameter substrate (para 0005, 0023, 0035-0037, 0051-0054, claim 12). Additionally, Wu (US 20220157604 A1), in the analogous art of remote plasma sources, teaches that a remote plasma source has a diameter equal to or larger than a diameter of the substrate (para 0053). Kwak teaches a target (bias) power level of up to 25 W/cm2 and a microwave power level of up to 10 W/cm2, wherein the remote plasma is a substitute for the microwave plasma (para 0034,Table 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the remote plasma source, substrate, and target of Kwak with a substrate having a diameter of 200 mm, a remote plasma source having a diameter of 200 mm or larger (equal to or larger than a diameter of the substrate) and a target having a diameter of 13 inches, as described by Hofmann and Wu, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). As a result, the target power with a density of up to 25 W/cm2 would be less than or equal to 21408 W and the remote plasma power with a density of up to 10 W/cm2 would be less than or equal to 3142 W.
Though the combination of Kwak, Hofmann, and Wu fails to explicitly teach a ratio of plasma power to target bias power greater than 1:1, one would have expected the use of any value within the Kwak ranges to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values less than or equal to 3142 W for remote plasma power and less than or equal to 21408 W for target bias power, including values resulting in a ratio within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Claim(s) 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (US 20090288943 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi (US 20190033618 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Kwak fails to explicitly teach a flexible substrate. However, Choi (US 20190033618 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering thin film batteries, teaches the substrate that the cathode layer is deposited upon may be a flexible substrate (para 0063-0071).It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the substrate of Kwak with the flexible substrate of Choi because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 16, the previous combination of Kwak and Choi fails to explicitly teach the temperature of the substrate is no more than 200°C. However, Choi teaches that the cathode layer is deposited at room temperature (no more than 200°C) (para 0071). Kwak is silent to a deposition temperature but describes a high temperature anneal as an existing problem (para 0010). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the substrate temperature of Kwak with the 200°C substrate temperature of Choi because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (US 20090288943 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Obinata (US 6280585 B1).
Regarding claim 17, Kwak fails to explicitly teach the working distance between the target and the substrate is within +/- 50% of the theoretical mean free path of the system. However, Obinata (US 6280585 B1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches the pressure in conventional sputtering apparatuses is controlled so that the (theoretical) mean free path of atoms is substantially equal (within +/- 50%) to the distance between the target and substrate so that the atoms are less likely to collide with each other and the deposition rate can be improved (col 2 line 16-32). Kwak teaches that a low deposition rate is undesirable (para 0010). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the pressure in the chamber such that the mean free path of the sputtered atoms is equal to the distance from target to substrate in order to improve the deposition rate.
Claim(s) 18, 22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (US 20090288943 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Liang (US 20160248117 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Kwak teaches a deposition chamber 200 for performing the sputtering process with a pumping system for controlling pressure, wherein a working pressure may be from 1-100 mtorr, or 0.001333 mbar to 0.1333 mBar (para 0033, Table 1; Fig. 2).
Kwak fails to explicitly teach the working pressure is between 0.00065 mBar and 1e-2 mBar. However, one would have expected the use of any value within the Kwak range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 0.001333 to 0.1333 mBar, including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Kwak fails to explicitly teach the working pressure is at a substantially constant value throughout the deposition process. However, Liang (US 20160248117 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering in forming a thin film battery, teaches maintaining a predefined pressure by a gas exhaust before and during deposition (para 0019, 0028, 0051-0052). Kwak teaches controlling the pressure within the chamber using a pumping system (para 0033). Therefore, because Liang teaches that such pressure control methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the pressure to be maintained at a predefined pressure before and during the deposition process with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 22, Kwak teaches forming a solid state battery half-cell in accordance with claim 21 (para 0002, para 0006, 0035-0036, 0039, Table 1) but fails to explicitly teach contacting anode material suitable for a solid state battery cell on the electrolyte material. However, Liang (US 20160248117 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering in forming a thin film battery, teaches that an anode layer is deposited over the electrolyte layer (contacting anode material on the electrolyte material) to form a battery cell (para 0030). Kwak teaches an anode may be formed on the substrate in forming a thin film battery as well as depositing a cathode layer and electrolyte layer on the substrate for forming a thin film battery (para 0004, 0035). Because Liang teaches that such anode layers were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deposit an anode layer atop the electrolyte layer of Kwak to form a battery cell with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Kwak and Liang teaches a solid state battery cell made according to the method of claim 22 (Kwak para 0002, para 0006, 0035-0036, 0039, Table 1; Liang para 00030).
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (US 20090288943 A1) in view of Liang (US 20160248117 A1), as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Zhang (US 20070125638 A1).
Regarding claim 19, the previous combination of Kwak and Liang teaches the sputtering is partially caused by bombardment of ions of a sputter gas with argon and oxygen (Kwak para 0014, 0033; Liang para 0028) but fails to explicitly teach the flow rate of the sputter gas is at a substantially constant value of 5 to 200 sccm throughout the deposition process. However, Zhang (US 20070125638 A1), in the analogous art of depositing a cathode material for a battery, teaches depositing an LiCoO2 film using a LiCoO2 target with 60 sccm Ar and 20 sccm O2 flows, resulting in a total sputtering gas flow rate of 80 sccm (constant value of 5 to 200 sccm throughout the deposition process) (para 0041, 0068). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the argon and oxygen flow rates of Kwak with the argon and oxygen flow rates of Zhang because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of forming a battery cathode material. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 20 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (US 20090288943 A1) in view of Su (NPL – “Structural evolution of bias sputtered LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 thin film cathodes for lithium ion batteries”).
Regarding claim 20, Kwak (US 20090288943 A1) teaches a method of depositing a thin film solid state battery cathode layer on a substrate 202 from a sputtering target 204 by sputtering wherein the substrate is provided with a bias voltage, and wherein a plasma for sputtering material may include a remote plasma generated by a remote plasma source 214 and/or microwave plasma generator 216 (Abstract, para 0002, 0033-0035; Fig. 2).
Kwak fails to explicitly teach the power density associated with the voltage bias of the substrate is at least 0.2 Wcm-2 and no more than 3.5 Wcm-2. However, Kwak teaches the power density of the voltage bias of the substrate may be up to 5 W/cm2 (Table 1). One skilled in the art would have expected the use of any value within the Kwak range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values up to 5 W/cm2, including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Kwak fails to explicitly teach the layer of cathode comprising deposited material in the higher energy crystal structure and that the deposited material is capable of existing in a lower energy structure and a higher energy structure. However, Su (NPL), in the analogous art of bias sputtered cathodes for batteries, teaches deposited LiNiMnO films contain crystal grains with higher (400) and lower (111) surface energy with a ratio depending on the bias supplied during deposition (Abstract, pg. 18; Fig. 2). Kwak similarly teaches a cathode layer target material comprising Li, O, Mn, and Ni, where bias is applied to the substrate during deposition (para 0022, 0024-0028, 0035). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the cathode layer of Kwak with the LiNiMnO film of Su because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of forming a battery cathode layer. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). As a result, the film of Kwak in view of Su is able to exist in a lower energy crystal structure (111 plane) and a higher energy structure (400 plane) and contains a higher energy crystal structure (Su Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 26, Kwak (US 20090288943 A1) teaches a method of depositing a thin film solid state battery cathode layer on a substrate 202 from a sputtering target 204 by sputtering wherein the substrate is provided with a bias voltage, and wherein a plasma for sputtering material may include a remote plasma generated by a remote plasma source 214 and/or microwave plasma generator 216, wherein the bias voltage has an associated power level/density, and wherein a desired crystalline structure is formed (Abstract, para 0002, 0015, 0033-0035, 0037-0038, Table 1; Fig. 2).
Kwak fails to explicitly teach the power density associated with the voltage bias of the substrate is at least 0.2 Wcm-2 and no more than 3.5 Wcm-2. However, Kwak teaches the power density of the voltage bias of the substrate may be up to 5 W/cm2 (Table 1). One skilled in the art would have expected the use of any value within the Kwak range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values up to 5 W/cm2, including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Kwak fails to explicitly teach the power density associated with the bias voltage having been determined to provide the crystalline layer of a desired crystallinity. However, Su (NPL), in the analogous art of bias sputtered cathodes for batteries, teaches deposited LiNiMnO films contain crystal grains with crystal structure depending on the bias supplied during deposition, wherein the different crystal structures also exhibit different capacities and electrochemical properties (Abstract, pg. 17-18; Fig. 2). Kwak similarly teaches a cathode layer target material comprising Li, O, Mn, and Ni, where bias is applied to the substrate during deposition (para 0022, 0024-0028, 0035). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the cathode layer of Kwak with the LiNiMnO film of Su deposited with a determined bias voltage and thus power density corresponding to a desired crystal structure, and thus capacity and electrochemical properties, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of forming a battery cathode layer. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 28-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su (NPL – “Structural evolution of bias sputtered LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 thin film cathodes for lithium ion batteries”) in view of Kwak (US 20090288943 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Su (NPL) teaches a method of depositing LNMO cathode thin films on stainless steel substrates (first and second crystalline layers on first and second portion of substrate) by sputtering a target in a plasma at different bias voltages and thus different power densities (first and second power densities) associated with the bias, wherein the different films produced have different crystalline structures (first and second crystallinity), wherein the cathode layers contain higher energy (400) crystal structures and lower energy (111) crystal structures in different amounts depending on the bias, and wherein a step-wise function describing the relationship between bias on the substrate, and its associated power density, and the volume fraction of a high energy (400) crystal structure of the cathode layer is necessarily determined by performing x-ray diffraction on the films formed at different biases (pg. 16-18; Fig. 2). Su also teaches that the capacity of LNMO thin films can be optimized by selecting a bias voltage of -30 V to form a desirable crystal structure (selecting a desired crystallinity, determining the voltage bias to be applied to the substrate such that the material forms with a desired crystallinity), where the determination of the desired voltage/crystallinity is based on the evaluation of each of the crystalline layers (based on a crystallinity of the first and second crystalline layers) (Abstract, pg. 18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the deposition method of Su with a bias voltage of -30 V to form a LNMO film with optimized capacity.
Su fails to explicitly teach generating a plasma remote from the sputter targets. However, Kwak (US 20090288943 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering cathode films, teaches a method of depositing a thin film solid state battery cathode layer on a substrate 202 from a sputtering target 204 by sputtering wherein the substrate is provided with a bias voltage, and wherein a plasma for sputtering material may include a remote plasma generated by a remote plasma source 214 and/or microwave plasma generator 216 (Abstract, para 0002, 0033-0035, 0037-0038; Fig. 2). Because Kwak teaches that such deposition methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deposit the layers of Su using a remote plasma source, as described by Kwak, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 29, Su (NPL) teaches a method of depositing LNMO cathode thin films on stainless steel substrates (first and second crystalline layers on first and second portion of substrate) by sputtering a target in a plasma at different bias voltages and thus different power densities (first and second power densities) associated with the bias, wherein the different films produced have different crystalline structures (first and second crystallinity), wherein the cathode layers contain higher energy (400) crystal structures and lower energy (111) crystal structures in different amounts depending on the bias, and wherein a step-wise function describing the relationship between bias on the substrate, and its associated power density, and the volume fraction of a high energy (400) crystal structure of the cathode layer is necessarily determined by performing x-ray diffraction on the films formed at different biases (pg. 16-18; Fig. 2). Su also teaches that the capacity of LNMO thin films can be optimized by selecting a bias voltage of -30 V to form a desirable crystal structure (forming the crystalline layer, a power density associated with the voltage bias having been determined to provide a desired lower energy or higher energy crystal structure, and determining the voltage bias to be applied to the substrate such that the material forms with a desired crystallinity), where the determination of the desired voltage/crystallinity is based on the evaluation of each of the crystalline layers (based on a crystallinity of the first and second crystalline layers) (Abstract, pg. 18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the deposition method of Su with a bias voltage of -30 V to form a LNMO film with optimized capacity.
Su fails to explicitly teach generating a plasma remote from the sputter targets. However, Kwak (US 20090288943 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering cathode films, teaches a method of depositing a thin film solid state battery cathode layer on a substrate 202 from a sputtering target 204 by sputtering wherein the substrate is provided with a bias voltage, and wherein a plasma for sputtering material may include a remote plasma generated by a remote plasma source 214 and/or microwave plasma generator 216 (Abstract, para 0002, 0033-0035, 0037-0038; Fig. 2). Because Kwak teaches that such deposition methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deposit the layers of Su using a remote plasma source, as described by Kwak, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 31, Su (NPL) teaches a method of depositing LNMO cathode thin films on stainless steel substrates (first and second portion of substrate) by sputtering a target in a plasma at different bias voltages and thus different power densities associated with the bias, wherein the different films produced have different crystalline structures (first and second crystalline layers) determined by x-ray diffraction, wherein the cathode layers contain higher energy (400) crystal structures and lower energy (111) crystal structures in different amounts depending on the bias, and wherein a step-wise function describing the relationship between bias on the substrate, and its associated power density, and the volume fraction of a high energy (400) crystal structure of the cathode layer is necessarily determined by performing x-ray diffraction on the films formed at different biases (pg. 16-18; Fig. 2).
Su fails to explicitly teach generating a plasma remote from the sputter targets. However, Kwak (US 20090288943 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering cathode films, teaches a method of depositing a thin film solid state battery cathode layer on a substrate 202 from a sputtering target 204 by sputtering wherein the substrate is provided with a bias voltage, and wherein a plasma for sputtering material may include a remote plasma generated by a remote plasma source 214 and/or microwave plasma generator 216 (Abstract, para 0002, 0033-0035, 0037-0038; Fig. 2). Because Kwak teaches that such deposition methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deposit the layers of Su using a remote plasma source, as described by Kwak, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Su and Kwak teaches a method of depositing a thin film solid state battery cathode layer on a substrate 202 from a sputtering target 204 by sputtering wherein the substrate is provided with a bias voltage, and wherein a plasma for sputtering material may include a remote plasma generated by a remote plasma source 214 and/or microwave plasma generator 216, wherein the film has a desired crystalline structure (selecting a desired volume fraction of high energy crystal structure to be present in the layer of cathode) and the relationship between bias and crystal structure (method of claim 31) is used to select/determine a voltage bias corresponding to a desired crystal structure (volume fraction of high energy crystal structure) and thus desired capacity and electrochemical properties (Kwak Abstract, para 0002, 0015-0016, 0033-0035, 0037-0038, Fig. 2; Su pg. 16-18, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 33, Su (NPL) teaches a method of depositing LNMO cathode thin films on stainless steel substrates (first and second portion of substrate) by sputtering a target in a plasma at different bias voltages (adjusting the voltage bias to be applied to the substrate before forming another cathode layer) and performing x-ray diffraction on the cathode layers, thus determining if a high energy (400) crystal structure is present and determining the voltage biases at which the high energy crystal structure is present in the cathode layer (pg. 16-18; Fig. 2).
Su fails to explicitly teach generating a plasma remote from the sputter targets. However, Kwak (US 20090288943 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering cathode films, teaches a method of depositing a thin film solid state battery cathode layer on a substrate 202 from a sputtering target 204 by sputtering wherein the substrate is provided with a bias voltage, and wherein a plasma for sputtering material may include a remote plasma generated by a remote plasma source 214 and/or microwave plasma generator 216 (Abstract, para 0002, 0033-0035, 0037-0038; Fig. 2). Because Kwak teaches that such deposition methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deposit the layers of Su using a remote plasma source, as described by Kwak, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 30 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 30, Su and Kwak fail to teach the combination of “determining if the desired volume fraction of the high energy crystal structure is higher than 50%, upon determining that the desired volume fraction of the high energy crystal structure is higher than 50%, selecting a voltage bias higher than the critical value, and upon determining that the desired volume fraction of the high energy crystal structure is lower than 50%, selecting a voltage bias lower than the critical value” because the references do not describe selecting the voltage bias relative to a critical value in response to the desired volume fraction. Additionally, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the aforementioned references to meet the claimed limitations. Therefore, claim 30 contains allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 28 has been amended to overcome the 101 rejection because the claim is directed to a physical and tangible process that cannot be performed mentally. This argument is not persuasive because the claim is directed toward the mental process of determining voltage bias and the additional elements are known in the prior art. Additionally, the determination of the bias voltage is not incorporated into the practical application because the determined voltage is not required to be used in a deposition process. Claim 29 requires using the determined bias voltage in the deposition process and thus incorporates the abstract idea into the practical application.
Applicant argues that the integration of crystallinity testing with controlled power density reflects an inventive concept that would not be routine to someone skilled in the art. This argument is not persuasive because the claimed limitations are taught by the prior art as described above.
Applicant also argues that the invention provides a specific solution to a technical problem by using power densities in the claimed range to advantageously increase the crystallinity of the cathode layer. This argument is not persuasive because claims 28 and 31-33 do not recite a particular claimed range and the claims do not require using the determined power density/voltage in a deposition process, rather the claims only require determining the voltage or generally adjusting the voltage (as in claim 33).
Applicant argues that the claimed range of power in claim 1, 20, and 26 provides unexpected results. This argument is not persuasive because paragraph 0019-0024 of the specification describe that the bias unexpectedly causes an increase in crystallinity when compared to a cathode layer deposited with no bias but does not provide evidence that the claimed range of 0.2 W/cm2 to 3.5 W/cm2 is critical compared to other power densities, especially because the specification describes that the power density may be 0.1 or 4.0 W/cm2.
Applicant argues that claims 9-10 and 31-32 are not disclosed by the references. This argument is not persuasive because Su teaches the claimed limitation including higher and lower energy crystal structures where the higher energy structure may be present in a higher volume fraction, as described above.
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 PATRICK S OTT whose telephone number is (571)272-2415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/PATRICK S OTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1794