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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/20/2023 and 10/11/2024 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Claim 2 recites “the M2 represents Ti”, however claim introduced “M2 represents one or more elements selected from the group consisting of transition metals, Al, Si, B, P, Sn, Ge, Sb, Bi, Mg, Ca, and Sr” which does not list Ti as an option for M2. Therefore, it is unclear how claim 2 further limits claim 1 from which it depends, and the metes and bounds of claim 2 cannot be determined.
Claim interpretation note: However, there is support in the specification as filed 07/20/2023 at [0029] where “M2 preferably represents Ti, Zr, Si, B, or P” and “the compound is … particularly preferably Li2TiF6”. Therefore, to promote compact prosecution, claim 2 is being interpreted to indeed intend that M2 represents Ti, even though such is not supported by base claim 1. Still, correction of the base claim 1 M2 list, and/or of the claim 2 M2 selection, would be needed to overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xie et al. (“Atomic Layer Deposition of Stable LiAlF4 Lithium Ion Conductive Interfacial Layer for Stable Cathode Cycling”, ACS Nano 2017, 11, 7019−702; DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.7b02561).
Regarding claim 1, Xie teaches an active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (cathode, modern lithium ion batteries; Title and Abstract), including:
a core (LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2 electrodes, Abstract; NMC-811 particles as shown in Abstract Figure) that is able to reversibly occlude and release Li (stable electrochemical window vs. Li+/Li, abstract; lithiation/delithiation of layered lithium transition-metal oxides, pg.7020,col.2,para.1; charge/discharge per pg.7025,col.1,para.1); and
a compound adhering to a surface of the core (LiAlF4 solid thin film, Abstract – on surfaces of NCM-811 as shown in Abstract Fig.; surface coating per pg.7019,col.2,para.2), wherein
the compound is represented by the general formula M1aM2Fb (LiAlF4 as cited above), (0.1 ≤ a ≤ 2.2 (a=1 in LiAlF4 as cited), 2 ≤ b ≤ 6 (b=4 in LiAlF4 as cited), M1 represents … Li (Li in LiAlF4 as cited) and M2 represents … Al (Al in LiAlF4 as cited)).
Regarding claim 3, Xie teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and wherein the core (NMC-811 particles as shown in Abstract Figure and cited above) has a layered structure (layered lithium transition-metal oxides, Abstract; lithiation/delithiation of layered lithium transition-metal oxides, pg.7020,col.2,para.1) and represented by the general formula LixNiyM31-yO2 (NMC-811 are particles of LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2 per Abstract as cited above) (0.9 ≤ x ≤ 1.4 (x=1 in LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2 as cited), 0.4 ≤ y ≤ 1 (y=0.8 in LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2 as cited), and M3 represents one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Mn, Co (M3 = Mn and Co, with subscripts of 0.1+0.1=0.2 which satisfies 1-y = 1-0.8= 0.2, in LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2 as cited).
Regarding claim 5, Xie teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (the lithium ion battery tested over cycles; pg.7025,col.1,paras.1-2, col.2para.2, and pg.7026,col.1,para.4; coin cell assembled per pg.7026,col.1,para.3), comprising:
an electrode including the active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1 (the LiAlF4-coated NMC-811 material of Abstract Fig., as cited above, and pg.7026,col.1,para.4 – see rejection of claim 1 above)
a counter electrode to the electrode (anode stabilization per pg.7023,col.2,para.1; e.g. of stainless steel (bare SS) as counter electrode per pg.7026,col.1,para.3); and
an electrolyte (electrolyte meets electrode, pg.7019,col.1,para.1; organic electrolyte, pg.7024,col.2,para.2 – e.g. 1 M LiPF6 in 1:1 ethylene carbonate (EC) and diethyl carbonate (DEC) per pg.7026,col.1,para.3).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (“Atomic Layer Deposition of Stable LiAlF4 Lithium Ion Conductive Interfacial Layer for Stable Cathode Cycling”, ACS Nano 2017, 11, 7019−702; DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.7b02561) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (“Versatile Coating of Lithium Conductive Li2TiF6 on Over-lithiated Layered Oxide in Lithium-Ion Batteries”, Electrochimica Acta 117 (2014) 492– 497, <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2013.11.184>; as cited in the 07/20/2023 IDS).
Regarding claim 2, Xie teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and wherein the M1 represents Li (Li in LiAlF4 as cited above in regards to claim 1), but fails to teach the M2 represents Ti.
(As noted above in the 35 USC 112(b) rejection, it is unclear how M2 can represent Ti since Ti is not among the list of M2 options in claim 1. However, M2 representing Ti is still examined as claimed for claim 2, yielding the following art-based rejection, in an effort to promote compact prosecution.)
Choi is analogous in the art of surface-coated cathode material for lithium-ion batteries (Abstract, Title) and teaches Li2TiF6 as a useful coating material for imparting high lithium-ion conductivity (Abstract) due to channels in its crystal structure through which lithium ions can easily move (pg.493,col.1,para.1), and for beneficially suppressing undesired side reactions (Abstract). In this Li2TiF6 formula, M1 is Li and M2 is Ti. Choi teaches that Li2TiF6 is desirable, and is the focus of their inventive coating, but is among other known lithium metal fluorides which are known to exhibit high lithium conductivity due to channels in their crystal structures (pg.493,col.1,para.1).
Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports an obviousness conclusion per MPEP 2143 I B, and selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination per MPEP 2144.07. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to select Li2TiF6 – where M2 represents Ti – instead of LiAlF4 as the coating material for the cathode in a modification to Xie and expect functionality of desirably high lithium ion conductivity and suppression of undesired side reaction of the lithium composite metal oxide cathode core material.
Thus, claim 2 is obvious.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (“Atomic Layer Deposition of Stable LiAlF4 Lithium Ion Conductive Interfacial Layer for Stable Cathode Cycling”, ACS Nano 2017, 11, 7019−702; DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.7b02561) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshida et al. (US 2009/0008602 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Xie teaches the limitations of claim 1 above but fails to explicitly teach that the compound is an adhering material adhering to the surface of the core by dry-mixing.
Examiner notes that such is a product-by-process claim, wherein the patentable weight is given to the resultant product. However, to promote compact prosecution, the limitation is further examined herein:
Although Xie teaches toward their inventive concept of LiAlF4 deposited as a thin-film (pg.7019,col.2,para.2), Xie also teaches it is known in the art that solution-phase coating methods on individual particles of cathode materials hold the advantages of being cost-effective and easy integration for large scale production (pg.7020,col.2,para.3). Xie also teaches that in preparing the cathode (working electrode) of the battery, typical slurry-making and drying steps were performed (pg. 7026,col.1,para.4).
Yoshida is analogous in the art of cathode material (positive-electrode active material powder) in the form of a core (a granular material (A) capable of doping/dedoping lithium ions) with a surface coating (a deposit (B) placed on the surface of the material in a granular or layered form) (see Yoshida abstract). Yoshida [0006] teaches electrode granular material being of a similar lithium-nickel-transition metal-oxide formula, like the LNMO core of Xie. Yoshida teaches in [0015] that: the deposit (B) is placed on the surface of the granular material (A) in a granular or layered form means that the deposit (B) is adhered on the surface of the granular material (A) in a granular or layered form, in which this adhesion may be a chemical bond or physical adsorption between the (A) and the (B), wherein the (B) may be adhered on a portion of the surface of the (A), and the (B) may be adhered on the surface of the (A) in a granular form, or may coat the surface of the (A) in a granular or layered form. Yoshida further teaches in [0021, 0028] that dry mixing is preferable, since it is a simple compared to wet mixing, and can be carried out by various typed of mixers. Yoshida additionally teaches in [0029] that it is preferred to add at least one mixing process using a medium in the dry mixing steps, since it tends to give good mixing efficiency, strong adhesion of the compound (B) to the particle surface of the compound (A), and a positive-electrode active material powder which provides a nonaqueous secondary battery having excellent cycle performance and safety.
It would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Xie such that the surface modification technique was a coating method for individual particles on cathode materials to achieve the advantages of being cost-effective and easy integration for large scale production (as taught toward by Xie), and use dry-mixing (taught by Yoshida) such that the coating compound was adhered to the surface of the core by dry-mixing – and therefore serves as an adhering material –with the motivation of achieving the benefits of: simplicity, good mixing efficiency, strong adhesion, excellent cycle performance, safety as taught by Yoshida.
Thus, the instant claim 4 is rendered obvious.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhao et al. (“Aegis of Lithium-Rich Cathode Materials via Heterostructured LiAlF4 Coating for High-Performance Lithium-Ion Batteries”, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2018 10 (39), 33260-33268; DOI: 10.1021/acsami.8b11471) teaches LiAlF4 nanolayer coated onto Li1.2Ni0.2Mn0.6O2 (LNMO) microspheres (p.33261 col.1 para.2 and section 2.2) for improved cycle performance (abstract and Fig. 6).
Sato et al. (US 2002/0122985 A1) teaches creating an orderly mixed state when a conductive powder is dry-mixed with a battery active material ([0013]) and carrying out dry mixture with a mixer that applies both rotation and revolution to the components makes it possible to achieve an orderly mixed state in which the conductive substance adheres to the periphery of the battery active substance, such that there can be obtained an active material powder mixture for secondary cells in which the ion-adsorbing and releasing sites within the battery active material remain intact, in which the contact surface area between the conductive substance and the battery active material has been increased without increasing the amount of conductive substance, and which has a high electron conductivity ([0015]).
Liu et al. ("High-Throughput Computational Screening of Li-Containing Fluorides for Battery Cathode Coatings", ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2020 8 (2), 948-957, DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b05557; as cited in the 10/11/2024) teaches in Table 2 (pg. 954) various cathode materials and various coatings, some of which overlap the instantly claimed core and compound compositions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessie Walls-Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-1664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, typically 10-4.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/JESSIE WALLS-MURRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728