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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 12, 13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US 20140023921 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses an electrode for an electrochemical device (title, electrode … and electrochemical device containing the same), the electrode comprising: a lithium host material comprising particles (para. 0011, [the electrode active material particles …. include LiCoO2, LiNiO2, LiMn2O4, LiCoPO4, LiFePO4, LiNiMnCoO2 … ); and a uniform porous coating on the lithium host material particles (para. 0007, [to provide an electrode having a uniform porous coating layer]) (para. 0028, [a porous coating layer formed on the surface of the electrode active material layer, comprising a mixture of inorganic particles and a second binder polymer]) (para. 0038, [the inorganic particles penetrate into the pores between the electrode active material particles to reduce the pores for delivering an electrolyte into the electrode active material layer]), the porous coating comprising a solid-state ion conducting electrolyte material selected from the group consisting of (para. 0042 see below):
(ii) lithium containing phosphates (para. 0042, Li3PO4),
(vi) a ceramic electrolyte material (para. 0042, (LiAlTiP)xOy type glass (0<x<4, 0<y<13))
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches the electrode of claim 1 wherein: the porous coating comprising the solid-state ion conducting electrolyte material is formed from one or more precursors that form the porous coating comprising the solid-state ion conducting electrolyte material upon cycling of the electrochemical device.
Regarding the formation of the porous coating, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [MPEP 2113].
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches the electrode of claim 1 wherein the electrode comprises: a plurality of first particles (para. 0011, [electrode active material particles]) (para. 0071, [graphite]) (para. 0039 teaches that the active material particles may include a mixture which includes graphite) comprising a porous coating of one of the solid-state ion conducting electrolyte materials on the lithium host material (para. 0028, [a porous coating layer formed on the surface of the electrode active material layer, comprising a mixture of inorganic particles and a second binder polymer])(para. 0042 states that the inorganic particles can include a mixture of the listed compounds) and a plurality of second particles (para. 0039 teaches that the active material particles may include a mixture which includes Si) comprising a porous coating of another of the solid-state ion conducting electrolyte materials on the lithium host material (para. 0028, [a porous coating layer formed on the surface of the electrode active material layer, comprising a mixture of inorganic particles and a second binder polymer])(para. 0042 states that the inorganic particles can include a mixture of the listed compounds) (para. 0072 teaches an example wherein a mixture of two inorganic particles were used to obtain the coating) .
Examiner notes that example 1 of Lee teaches a mixture of inorganic particles used to coat the active material (para. 0072), therefore teaching two different solid-state ion conducting electrolyte materials on the lithium host material.
Examiner notes that the instant specification teaches that the first particles and the second particles are both lithium titanium oxide (instant specification, para. 0022).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses the electrode of claim 1 wherein: the electrode is a cathode (para. 0011, the electrode … may be cathode active material particles]), and the lithium host material comprises a cathode active material selected from
(i) lithium metal oxides wherein the metal is one or more cobalt, iron, manganese, nickel and vanadium (para. 0011)
(ii) lithium-containing phosphates having a general formula LiMPO4 wherein M is one or more of iron (para. 0011, LiFePO4)
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses the electrode of claim 1 wherein: the solid-state ion conducting electrolyte material comprises a lithium containing phosphate (para. 0042).
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses the electrode of claim 1 wherein: the solid-state ion conducting electrolyte material comprises the ceramic electrolyte material (para. 0042, (LiAlTiP)xOy type glass (0<x<4, 0<y<13)).
Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses the electrode of claim 1 wherein: the electrode is an anode (para. 0011, [the electrode active material particles may be anode active materials), and the lithium host material is selected from the group consisting of silicon-containing materials (para. 0011, [active materials include silicone]).
Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses an electrochemical device comprising: the electrode of claim 1 as a cathode (claim 19); an anode (claim 19); and an electrolyte positioned between the cathode and the anode (claim 19, claim 20, and para. 0067 discusses an electrolyte solution within the assembled electrodes and also discusses an optional separator that may be interposed between the cathode and anode in manufacturing the electrochemical device).
Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses an electrochemical device comprising: the electrode of claim 1 as an anode (claim 19); a cathode (claim 19); and an electrolyte positioned between the cathode and the anode (claim 19, claim 20, and para. 0067 discusses an electrolyte solution within the assembled electrodes and also discusses an optional separator that may be interposed between the cathode and anode in manufacturing the electrochemical device).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamazaki (US 20160226094 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Yamazaki discloses an electrode for an electrochemical device (para. 0023, [when the electrode composite body, which is manufactured as described above, is applied to a battery …]), the electrode comprising: a lithium host material (para. 0049, [the active material molded body [2] includes an active material particle [21] which includes a lithium composite oxide]) comprising nano-sized particles (para. 0058, [an average particle size of the active material particles is preferably 300 nm to 5 μm]); and a porous coating on the lithium host material (Fig. 1 shows that the solid electrolyte layer [3] and particles [31] coat the surfaces of the active material body [2] and particles [21]) (para. 0065, [the solid electrolyte layer [3] uses a solid electrolyte as a formation material, and is provided to come into contact with the surface, which includes a surface inside the core of the active material molded body 2, of the active material molded body [2])) (para. 0067, [the solid electrolyte layer [3] is also constituted by a porous body]), the porous coating comprising a solid-state ion conducting electrolyte material selected from the group consisting of (para. 0066, examples of the solid electrolyte includes …):
(i) lithium aluminum oxides (para. 0066, [LiI—Al2O3] , [LiF—Al2O3] , [LiBr—Al2O3]),
(ii) lithium containing phosphates (para. 0066, [Li1.3Ti1.7Al0.3(PO4)3]),
(iii) LixPON wherein x is 1, (para. 0066, LiPON)
Regarding claim 22, Yamazaki discloses an electrode for an electrochemical device (para. 0023, [when the electrode composite body, which is manufactured as described above, is applied to a battery …]), the electrode comprising: a lithium host material (para. 0049, [the active material molded body [2] includes an active material particle [21] which includes a lithium composite oxide]); and a porous coating on the lithium host material (Fig. 1 shows that the solid electrolyte layer [3] and particles [31] coat the surfaces of the active material body [2] and particles [21])(para. 0065, [the solid electrolyte layer [3] uses a solid electrolyte as a formation material, and is provided to come into contact with the surface, which includes a surface inside the core of the active material molded body 2, of the active material molded body [2])) (para. 0067, [the solid electrolyte layer [3] is also constituted by a porous body]), the porous coating comprising a solid-state ion conducting electrolyte material selected from the group consisting of (para. 0066, examples of the solid electrolyte include …):
(i) lithium aluminum oxides (para. 0066, [LiI—Al2O3] , [LiF—Al2O3] , [LiBr—Al2O3]),
(ii) lithium containing phosphates (para. 0066, [Li1.3Ti1.7Al0.3(PO4)3]),
(iii) LixPON wherein x is 1, (para. 0066, LiPON)
wherein the porous coating comprising the solid-state ion conducting electrolyte material is formed from one or more solid precursors that form the porous coating comprising the solid state ion conducting electrolyte material upon cycling of the electrochemical device.
Regarding the formation of the porous coating, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [MPEP 2113].
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.
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.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20140023921 A1) and further in view of Christensen (US 20210098820 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Lee teaches the electrode of claim 3.
Modified Lee does not teach wherein: the one of the solid-state ion conducting electrolyte material is present in the first particles at a weight percentage between 5% and 30% based on a total weight of the one of the solid-state ion conducting electrolyte material and the lithium host material in the first particles, and the another of the solid-state ion conducting electrolyte materials is present in the second particles at a weight percentage between 5% and 30% based on a total weight of the another of the solid-state ion conducting electrolyte materials and the lithium host material in the second particles.
Christensen, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches that the weight percent of the solid electrolyte [catholyte] is approximately 15 to 35% based on the cathode (para. 0024).
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) [MPEP 2144.05].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added the first and second solid electrolytes of modified Yamazaki’s electrochemical cell at a weight percentage between 15 to 35%, as taught by Christensen, in order to allow sufficient electrolyte-cathode interfacial area for a desired design, as taught by Christensen (para. 0024).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Lee (US 20140023921 A1) and in view of Temeche (Temeche, Eleni, et al. “Polymer precursor derived lixpon electrolytes: Toward Li–S Batteries.” ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, vol. 12, no. 18, 13 Apr. 2020, pp. 20548–20562.) and further in view of Yasuda (US 20060147802 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches the electrode of claim 1 wherein: the porous coating comprises particles having an average particle size between 1 and 100 nanometers (para. 0053, [the inorganic particles are not particularly limited to their size, but preferably have an average diameter of 0.001 to 10µm for the formation of a coating layer having a uniform thickness]).
Lee is silent regarding the thickness of the porous coating.
Temeche, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches that the porous coating has a thickness between about 20 nanometers and about 10 micrometers (pg. 20553, section 3.3, first paragraph] the coatings are optimal with average coating thicknesses of 5-10 µm).
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) [MPEP 2144.05].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized a coating thickness of 5 to 10 microns for Lee’s electrochemical cell, as taught by Temeche, as that range was considered optimal for polymer electrolytes in all solid state batteries, as taught by Temeche (pg. 20553, section 3.3, first paragraph] the coatings are optimal with average coating thicknesses of 5-10 µm).
Lee is silent regarding the electrode thickness.
Yasuda, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches the electrode has a thickness between 1 and 200 micrometers (Yasuda, para. 0119, 10-100 microns).
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) [MPEP 2144.05].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lee’s electrode to have a thickness of 10-100 microns, as taught by Yasuda, in order to minimize the total thickness of the negative electrode, thus increasing the energy density of the electrode, as taught by Yasuda (para. 0019).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20140023921 A1) and further in view of Temeche (Temeche, Eleni, et al. “Polymer precursor derived lixpon electrolytes: Toward Li–S Batteries.” ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, vol. 12, no. 18, 13 Apr. 2020, pp. 20548–20562.).
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches the electrode of claim 1.
Lee does not teach wherein: the solid-state ion conducting electrolyte material comprises LixSiPON wherein x is 1,1.5,3,or 6.
Temeche, in the same field of endeavor, batteries teaches wherein: the solid-state ion conducting electrolyte material comprises LixSiPON wherein x is 3 or 6. (Table 2, Li3SiPON and Li6SiPON).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included the solid electrolyte of Li3SiPON as an option for Yamazaki’s electrochemical cell, as taught by Temeche, in order to provide an electrolyte that offers properties anticipated to be similar or superior to LiPON (Temeche, abstract, first sentence) and in order to use a composition polymer electrolyte that exhibits excellent cycle performance (Temeche, abstract, final sentence).
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20140023921 A1) and further in view of Zhang (Zhang, Xinyu, et al. “Lixsion (x = 2, 4, 6): A novel solid electrolyte system derived from agricultural waste.” Green Chemistry, vol. 22, no. 21, 2020, pp. 7491–7505. ).
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches the electrode of claim 1.
Lee does not teach wherein: the solid-state ion conducting electrolyte material comprises LixSiON wherein x is 2, 4, or 6.
Zhang, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches wherein: the solid-state ion conducting electrolyte material comprises LixSiON wherein x is 2, 4, or 6 (abstract, first sentence, [a set of LixSiON (x = 2, 4, 6) polymer precursors to a novel solid-state electrolyte system]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included LixSiON wherein x is 4 or 6 as an option for a solid electrolyte material in Lee’s electrochemical cell, as taught by Zhang, in order to utilize a precursor in which its synthesis is easily scalable, that has a dense microstructure, and has an optimum conductivity, as taught by Zhang (pg. 7503, first column, first full paragraph).
Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches the electrode of claim 1.
Lee does not teach that the electrode further comprises: silica depleted rice hull ash.
Zhang teaches wherein: the solid-state ion conducting electrolyte material comprises silica depleted rice hull ash (abstract, first sentence, [a set of LixSiON (x = 2, 4, 6) polymer precursors to a novel solid-state electrolyte system were synthesized starting from rice hull ash (RHA)]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have , to have included LixSiON wherein x is 4 or 6 as an option for a solid electrolyte material in Yamazaki’s electrochemical cell, as taught by Zhang, in order to utilize a precursor in which its synthesis is easily scalable, that has a dense microstructure, and has an optimum conductivity, as taught by Zhang (pg. 7503, first column, first full paragraph).
Zhang teaches that the LixSiON wherein x is 4 or 6, was synthesized starting from rice hull ash (RHA). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have also synthesized the precursor material/solid electrolyte of LixSiON of Modified Lee’s electrochemical cell with RHA, in order to provide a green route towards the assembly of all solid-state batteries, as taught by Zhang (abstract, first sentence).
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20140023921 A1) and further in view of Miki (US 20130316237 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses the electrode of claim 1.
Lee does not teach wherein: the solid-state ion conducting electrolyte material comprises a lithium aluminum oxide.
Miki, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches wherein: the solid-state ion conducting electrolyte material comprises a lithium aluminum oxide (Miki, para. 0041, [The foundation coating layer is not particularly limited if the layer contains Si and allows the active material and the electrolyte material to be restrained from reacting, but is preferably such as to have ion conductivity…. Also, the foundation coating layer may include … an ion conductive oxide containing no Si… … Li3PO4 … Li2AlO3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating of Lee by replacing the Li3PO4 coating of Lee with the Li2AlO3 coating taught by Miki. The simple substitution of a known element (Li3PO4) for another (Li2AlO3) would achieve the predictable result of providing a flame retardant material that delays, inhibits, or slows the spread of fire by suppressing chemical reactions, as disclosed by Miller. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20140023921 A1) and further in view of Miki (US 20130316237 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses the electrode of claim 1.
Lee does not teach wherein: the solid-state ion conducting electrolyte material comprises LixPON.
Miki, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches wherein: the solid-state ion conducting electrolyte material comprises LixPON wherein x is 1 (Miki, para. 0041, [The foundation coating layer is not particularly limited if the layer contains Si and allows the active material and the electrolyte material to be restrained from reacting, but is preferably such as to have ion conductivity…. Also, the foundation coating layer may include … an ion conductive oxide containing no Si… … Li3PO4 … LiPON).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating of Lee by replacing the Li3PO4 coating of Lee with the LiPON coating taught by Miki. The simple substitution of a known element (Li3PO4) for another (LiPON) would achieve the predictable result of providing a flame retardant material that delays, inhibits, or slows the spread of fire by suppressing chemical reactions, as disclosed by Miller. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding the term nano-sized particles, the instant specification does not define nano-sized as having a range form 1 – 100 nm. Examiner acknowledges that applicant provided Exhibit 1 to provide support for the definition of nanometer. However, additional pertinent art (Mishra et al. cited under ‘Other Pertinent Art’), includes a definition of nanomaterials wherein the range is less than 500 nm (nature, nanoscience, and textile structures, introduction, [This range may be … or less than 500 nm].
Other Pertinent Art
Electrochemical Performance of LixSiON Polymer Electrolytes Derived from an Agriculture Waste Product, Rice Hull Ash. Temeche. March 30, 2021.
US 20070224513 A1
US 20160104882 A1
Mishra et. al, Nature, nanoscience, and textile structures, 2019, Department of Material Engineering, Faculty of Textile Engineering, Technical University of Liberec, Liberec, Czech Republic. Introduction.
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 VERITA E GRANNUM whose telephone number is (571)270-1150. The examiner can normally be reached 10-5 EST / 7-2 PST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/V.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights