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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 07/27/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2022-119623 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDSs) submitted on 06/30/2023 and 08/27/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on 06/30/2023 were reviewed and are acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 06/30/2023 was reviewed and is acceptable.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are provisionally rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of copending Application No. 18/343,878 to Hashimoto et al. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: application claim 1 is anticipated by patent claim 1 of Hashimoto et al.
Application claim 1 is anticipated by copending claim 1 of Hashimoto et al. Patent claim 1 of Hashimoto recites an electrode comprising: an active material layer, wherein the active material layer includes a composite particle and an imidazoline-based compound, the composite particle includes a core particle and a covering layer, the covering layer covers at least part of a surface of the core particle, the core particle includes an active material, the covering layer includes a first layer and a second layer, at least part of the first layer is interposed between the core particle and the second layer, the first layer includes a first solid electrolyte, the second layer includes a second solid electrolyte, the first solid electrolyte is a fluoride, and the second solid electrolyte is a sulfide.
Application claim 7 is anticipated by copending claim 4 of Hashimoto et al. Patent claim 4 of Hashimoto recites the electrode according to claim 1, wherein the first solid electrolyte is represented by a formula (2): Li6-nxMxF6 ... (2) where x satisfies 0<x<2, M is at least one selected from the group consisting of semimetal atoms and metal atoms except Li, and, n represents an oxidation number of M.
Application claim 8 is anticipated by copending claim 5 of Hashimoto et al. Patent claim 5 of Hashimoto recites the electrode according to claim 4, wherein M in the formula (1) includes an atom whose oxidation number is +4.
Application claim 9 is anticipated by copending claim 6 of Hashimoto et al. Patent claim 6 of Hashimoto recites the electrode according to claim 4, wherein M in the formula (1) includes an atom whose oxidation number is +3.
Application claim 10 is anticipated by copending claim 7 of Hashimoto et al. Patent claim 7 of Hashimoto recites the electrode according to claim 4, wherein M in the formula (1) includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Ca, Mg, Al, Y, Ti, and Zr.
Therefore, application claims 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Hashimoto are in essence a “species” of the generic invention of copending application claims 1, 7, 8, 9 and 10 respectively. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki et al. (WO 2014/122520 A1), in view of Nakama et al. (US 2022/0416296 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Iwasaki et al. discloses an electrode material (a composite active material, Par. 0007, line 1) comprising: a composite particle (composite particles, Par. 0007, line 2), wherein the composite particle includes a core particle (active material particles, Par. 0007, line 3) and a covering layer, the covering layer covers at least part of a surface of the core particle (the oxide-based solid electrolyte coats all or part of a surface of each of the active material particles, Par. 0007, lines 6-7), the core particle includes an active material (active material particles, Par. 0007, lines 7), the covering layer includes a first layer and a second layer, at least part of the first layer is interposed between the core particle and the second layer, the first layer includes a first solid electrolyte, the second layer includes a second solid electrolyte, the first solid electrolyte is a fluoride, and the second solid electrolyte is a sulfide (the sulfide-based solid electrolyte further coating 76.0% or more of a surface of each of the composite particles, Par. 0007, lines 7-8).
Iwasaki et al. fails to mention the first layer containing a solid electrolyte that is a fluoride.
However, Nakama et al. discloses a solid electrolyte in the first layer of the positive electrode material containing fluorine (Par 0018, lines 3-7).
Iwasaki et al. and Nakama et al. are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely lithium battery electrodes.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iwasaki to incorporate the teachings of Nakama to provide an electrode material comprising a composite particle, that includes a core particle where the first covering layer is a fluoride solid electrolyte and the second covering layer is a sulfide solid electrolyte. Doing so would suppress reaction degradation due to contact between active material particle and the sulfide based solid electrolyte, as recognized by Iwasaki.
Regarding claim 4, Iwasaki et al. in view of Nakama et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Iwasaki et al. fails to mention the electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the second layer further includes the first solid electrolyte and the active material in addition to the second solid electrolyte, and in the second layer, a volume fraction of the second solid electrolyte is more than a total volume fraction of the first solid electrolyte and the active material.
However, Nakama et al. mentions, directed to a positive electrode, it may include a second electrolyte material that is a material different from the first solid electrolyte Par. 0141, lines 2-4).
Nakama et al. further mentions, directed to a positive electrode, in the volume ratio “v1:100−v1” of the positive electrode material to the second electrolyte material included in the positive electrode, 30≤v1≤98 may be satisfied. Here, v1 represents, when the total volume of the positive electrode material and the second electrolyte material included in the positive electrode is defined as 100, the volume ratio of the positive electrode material (Par. 0247, lines 1-7).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iwasaki to incorporate the teachings of Nakama to include the first solid electrolyte, the second solid electrolyte and the active material in a layer, where a volume fraction of the second solid electrolyte is more than that of the active material. Doing so would suppress an increase in internal resistance of the battery (Par. 0239, lines 1-3), as recognized by Nakama.
Regarding claim 5, Iwasaki et al. in view of Nakama et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Iwasaki et al. fails to mention that in the second layer, the first solid electrolyte is adhered to the active material.
However, Nakama et al. mentions, directed to a second layer, the first solid electrolyte (first electrolyte, Par. 0073, line 3) is adhered to the active material (may be provided between the positive electrode active material and the second electrolyte material, Par. 0073, lines 3-5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iwasaki to incorporate the teachings of Nakama to adhere the first solid electrolyte to the active material layer. Doing so would suppress oxidative decomposition of the second electrolyte material and the active material (Par. 0199, lines 3-6), as recognized by Nakama.
Regarding claim 7, Iwasaki et al. in view of Nakama et al., discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Iwasaki et al. fails to mention the electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the first solid electrolyte is represented by a formula (1): Li6-nxMxF6 ... (1) where x satisfies 0<x<2, M is at least one selected from the group consisting of semimetal atoms and metal atoms except Li, and, n represents an oxidation number of M.
However, Nakama et al. mentions the first solid electrolyte is represented by a formula (1):
Li6-nxMxF6 ... (1) (Li6-(4-2x1)b1(Ti1-x1 M1x1)F6 (Par. 0029)) where x satisfies 0<x<2 (where 0 <x1<1 (Par. 0030)), M is at least one selected from the group consisting of semimetal atoms metal atoms except Li (M1 is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Ca, Mg, Al, Y and Zr (Par. 0025)) and, n represents an oxidation number of M (and 0<b1<3 are satisfied (Par. 0030)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iwasaki to incorporate the teachings of Nakama to represent the first solid electrolyte by formula 1. Doing so would result in the first solid electrolyte exhibiting higher ion conductivity (Par. 0031, lines 2-3), as recognized by Nakama.
Regarding claim 8, Iwasaki et al. in view of Nakama et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Iwasaki et al. fails to mention the electrode material according to claim 7, wherein M in the formula (1) includes an atom whose oxidation number is +4.
However, Nakama et al. mentions the first solid electrolyte material includes Li, Ti, M1, and F, and the M1 is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Ca, Mg, Al, Y, and Zr. (Par. 0025). It is an inherent quality of Zirconium (Zr) to have an oxidation number of +4.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iwasaki to incorporate the teachings of Nakama to include Zirconium as M in formula 1. Doing so would result in the first solid electrolyte exhibiting higher ion conductivity (Par. 0031, lines 2-3), as recognized by Nakama.
Regarding claim 9, Iwasaki et al. in view of Nakama et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Iwasaki et al. fails to mention the electrode material according to claim 7, wherein M in the formula (1) includes an atom whose oxidation number is +3.
However, Nakama et al. mentions the first solid electrolyte material includes Li, Ti, M1, and F, and the M1 is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Ca, Mg, Al, Y, and Zr. (Par. 0025). It is an inherent quality of Aluminum (Al), Zirconium (Zr) and Yttrium (Y) to have an oxidation number of +3.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iwasaki to incorporate the teachings of Nakama to include Aluminum, Zirconium and Yttrium as M in formula 1. Doing so would result in the first solid electrolyte exhibiting higher ion conductivity (Par. 0031, lines 2-3), as recognized by Nakama.
Regarding claim 10, Iwasaki et al. in view of Nakama et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Iwasaki et al. fails to mention the electrode material according to claim 7, wherein M in the formula (1) includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Ca, Mg, Al, Y, Ti, and Zr.
However, Nakama et al. mentions the first solid electrolyte material includes Li, Ti, M1, and F, and the M1 is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Ca, Mg, Al, Y, and Zr. (Par. 0025).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iwasaki to incorporate the teachings of Nakama to include the aforementioned elements as M in formula 1. Doing so would result in the first solid electrolyte exhibiting higher ion conductivity (Par. 0031, lines 2-3), as recognized by Nakama.
Regarding claim 11, Iwasaki et al. in view of Nakama et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Iwasaki et al. fails to mention an electrode comprising the electrode material according to claim 1.
However, Nakama et al. mentions a positive electrode material comprising a positive electrode material (Par. 0005).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iwasaki to incorporate the teachings of Nakama to include the aforementioned electrode material in an electrode. Doing so would result in suppressing the increase in internal resistance of a battery during charge (Par. 0010), as recognized by Nakama.
Regarding claim 12, Iwasaki et al. in view of Nakama et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Iwasaki et al. fails to mention an all-solid-state battery comprising the electrode according to claim 11.
However, Nakama et al. mentions a battery (Par. 0075) that includes: a positive electrode including the positive electrode material according to any one of the first to twenty-second aspects (Par. 0076).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iwasaki to incorporate the teachings of Nakama to include the aforementioned electrode in an all-solid-state battery. Doing so would result in suppressing an increase in internal resistance of the battery (Col. 6, lines 63-65), as recognized by Nakama.
.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki et al. (WO 2014/122520 A1) and Nakama et al. (US 2022/0416296 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Du et al. (US 2023/0074353 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Iwasaki et al. in view of Nakama et al., discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Iwasaki et al. fails to mention the electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the second layer further includes the first solid electrolyte in addition to the second solid electrolyte, and in the second layer, a volume fraction of the second solid electrolyte is more than a volume fraction of the first solid electrolyte.
However, Nakama et al. mentions, directed to a positive electrode, it may further include a second electrolyte material different from the first solid electrolyte material (Par. 0052, lines 2-5). Furthermore, he mentions that the second electrolyte material may include a sulfide solid (Par 0063, lines 3-4) electrolyte.
Nakama et al. fails to mention a volume fraction of the second solid electrolyte is more than a volume fraction of the first solid electrolyte.
However, Du et al. mentions a second catholyte gradient layer may be formed onto a first catholyte gradient layer using a second composite cathode powder formulation, wherein the second catholyte gradient layer has a higher catholyte content than the first catholyte gradient layer (Paragraph 0175, lines 1-5).
Iwasaki et al., Nakama et al. and Du et al. are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely lithium battery electrodes.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iwasaki to incorporate the teachings of Nakama and Du et al. to include the first solid electrolyte in the second layer wherein a volume fraction of the second solid electrolyte is more than a volume fraction of the first solid electrolyte. Doing so would maximize power and energy density in the gradient multilayer structure of a battery (Par. 0039, lines 5-6), as recognized by Du et al.
Regarding claim 3, Iwasaki et al. in view of Nakama et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Iwasaki et al. further mentions the electrode material according to claim 1, wherein the second layer further includes the active material in addition to the second solid electrolyte (the electrode active material layer of at least one of the above-described positive electrode and the above-described negative electrode may be configured to contain at least an electrode active material and an electrode electrolyte (Par 0065, Lines 1-3)).
Iwasaki et al. fails to mention that in the second layer, a volume fraction of the second solid electrolyte is more than a volume fraction of the active material.
However, Du et al. mentions the amount of catholyte may be increased in each subsequent catholyte gradient layer to control the gradient structure. In addition, active cathode and catholyte particle sizes may be tuned to further control the morphology of the catholyte gradient composite cathode structure, wherein the active cathode particle size range is narrowed, and the catholyte particle size range is increased in each subsequent catholyte gradient layer (Par. 0179).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iwasaki to incorporate the teachings of Nakama et al. and Du et al. to include the active material in addition to the second electrolyte in the second layer wherein a volume fraction of the second solid electrolyte is more than a volume fraction of the active material. Doing so would maximize power and energy density in the gradient multilayer structure of a battery (Par. 0039, lines 5-6), as recognized by Du et al.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki et al. (WO 2014/122520 A1) and Nakama et al. (US 2022/0416296) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (US 11,984,583 B2). .
Regarding claim 6, Iwasaki et al. in view of Nakama et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Iwasaki et al. fails to mention the electrode material according to claim 1, wherein relative to 100 parts by mass of the active material, the first solid electrolyte is from 1 to 10 parts by mass, and the second solid electrolyte is from 0.1 to 20 parts by mass.
However, Kwon et al. mentions, directed to a positive electrode (Col. 3, line 13), an amount of the lithium ion conductor is in a range of about 0.1 parts to about 10 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the total weight of the positive active material (Col. 3, lines 22-24), wherein the lithium ion conductor is selected from a lanthanum oxide and a lithium lanthanum oxide (Col. 3, lines 20-21).
Furthermore, Kwon et al. mentions an amount of the solid electrolyte may be in a range of about 5 parts to about 15 parts by weight (Col. 4, lines 62-64). Kwon et al. further mentions that the amount of positive active material may be in a range of about 80 parts to about 93 parts by weight (Col. 4, lines 64-66) based on 100 parts by weight of the total weight of the positive electrode (Col. 5, lines 2-3).
Iwasaki et al., Nakama et al. and Kwon et al. are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely lithium battery electrodes.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iwasaki et al. in view of Nakama et al. to incorporate the teachings of Kwon et al. including the concentrations of the first and second electrolytes relative to the active material in the electrode material according to claim 1. Doing so would suppress or reduce diffusion between electrode and electrolyte (Col. 3, lines 56-58), as recognized by Kwon.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA N LIZARAZU whose telephone number is (571)272-9697. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 5712703879. 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.
/J.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725