DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The rejections of claims 11-18 under U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
The cancellation of claim 10 is acknowledged.
The addition of claims 19-21 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicants’ argument Chemical Book is used improperly and is not prior art, the rejection of claim 15 relies on the reference solely to show lithium oxide has the property of reacting quickly with water to form lithium hydroxide. This is a property of the material and has always been the case, therefore Chemical Book is an evidentiary reference that does not require a date prior to the effective filing date of the instant application.
In response to applicants’ argument Silicates Manufacturing Company manufactures lithium silicates that are distinct from colloidal silica, the examiner agrees in that the colloidal silica is placed in solution, then reacted to form lithium silicate which has different properties that the starting materials. Furthermore while Zhang uses lithium silicate directly, this material must be produced and Silicates Manufacturing Company provides a method using colloidal silica which would necessarily come before the use of the lithium silicate in the invention of Zhang.
Applicant argues Zhang does not show a lithium silicate coating layer, however as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, paragraph 76 of Zhang discloses the particles(i.e. active material) are coated with the coating solution which contains lithium silicate.
In response to applicants’ argument of improper inherency, the rejection of claim 11 shows the production of a structure substantially similar to that produced by the applicant, therefore the material properties of the produced structure, such as absolute zeta potential and coefficient of friction, are inherently present. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US20220134297) in view of Silicates Manufacturing Company. Further evidence provided by Nouryon and Chemical Book.
Regarding claim 11, Zhang discloses a method for manufacturing a cathode active material of an all-solid-state battery comprising:
preparing a precursor solution (i.e. coating solution, ¶[0073]) and a solvent(¶[0078]);
obtaining a coating powder by adding an active material particle to the precursor solution(¶[0073]);
thermally treating the coating powder(¶[0076]); and
forming the cathode active material by forming a coating layer covering at least a portion of a surface of the active material particle (see coated with a thin film, ¶[0076]),
wherein the coating layer comprises Li2SiO3 (see lithium silicate, ¶[0077),
but does not disclose the solution comprising colloidal silica.
Silicates manufacturing company, related to lithium silicate coatings, teaches the formation of lithium silicate by the use of colloidal silica and this material provides good film forming and binding properties in coatings (page 1 paragraph 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized using colloidal silica as a starting material for lithium silicate formation would provide good film formation and bonding properties in the coating of Zhang.
Therefore it would have been obvious to have used colloidal silica as taught by Silicates manufacturing company to produce a lithium silicate coating in the material of Zhang.
Regarding claim 12, modified Zhang teaches the method according to claim 11 wherein the colloidal silica is commonly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be 1-100 nm as evidenced by Nouryon (page 1 paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 13, modified Zhang teaches the method according to claim 11 wherein Zhang further discloses the solvent comprises at least one of: ethanol and water (¶[0078]-[0079]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Zhang teaches the method according to claim 11 wherein Zhang further discloses wherein the active material particle comprises at least one of: LiCoO2, LiMn2O4, LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3O2, (¶[0075]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Zhang teaches the method according to claim 11 wherein Silicates Manufacturing Company further teaches adding lithium oxide to form lithium silicate which forms lithium hydroxide in-situ by immediate reaction with water as evidenced by Chemical Book(page 1 paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 17 and 18, modified Zhang teaches the method according to claim 11 wherein the absolute zeta potential of the cathode active material is inherently 77 mV or more and the coefficient of friction of the cathode active material is inherently about 0.9 or less in the active material made by the substantially similar method and materials of modified Zhang as cited in claim 11.
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claim 20, modified Zhang teaches the method according to claim 11, further comprising drying the coating powder prior to the thermal treating(¶[0076]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US20220134297) in view of Silicates Manufacturing Company as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Choi (US20160276660A1). Further evidence provided by Nouryon and Chemical Book.
Regarding claim 16, modified Zhang teaches the method according to claim 11, but does not teach the weight of the coating layer relative to the active material.
Choi, related to cathode active materials, teaches a lithium silicate coating layer which may be 0.2-2% weight of the cathode active material to improve initial capacity and charge and discharge efficiency.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized using a coating layer weight of Choi in the active material of modified Zhang would improve initial capacity and charge/discharge efficiency.
Therefore it would have been obvious to use the coating layer weight of choi in the active material of modified Zhang to improve initial capacity and charge/discharge efficiency.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US20220134297) in view of Silicates Manufacturing Company, and further in view of Sjong (US20130299097A1). Further evidence provided by Nouryon and Chemical Book.
Regarding claim 19, modified Zhang teaches the method according to claim 11, but does not teach dispersing the precursor solution using sonication prior to adding the active material particles.
Sjong, related to coating solutions, teaches sonication of a colloidal silica solution to improve mixing efficiency during a reaction.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized mixing the colloidal silica solution of modified Zhang by sonication would result in improved mixing efficiency.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have mixed the colloidal silica solution of modified Zhang by sonication to improve mixing efficiency.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US20220134297) in view of Silicates Manufacturing Company further in view of Paulsen (US20140170494A1). Further evidence provided by Nouryon and Chemical Book.
Regarding claim 21, modified Zhang teaches the method according to claim 15, but does not teach wherein the lithium source is a residual lithium remaining at the surface of the active material particle.
Paulsen, related to cathode active materials, teaches active materials such as LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3O2 (LNMCO, ¶[0006]) have bases such as Li2CO3 and LiOH on the surface of the material.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the same active material taught by modified Zhang(¶[0075]) would also have these residual lithium sources on the surface of the active material particle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious the active material of modified Zhang would have a residual lithium source of Li2CO3 and/or LiOH on the surface of the material.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN J. ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am-6 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.J.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1726 /RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights