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 § 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.
Claims 1rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miki et al. (US Patent No. 10,243,209) in view of Miki (US Pub. No. 2018/0219229.
As to claims 1 and 3-5. A positive electrode (cathode active material, col. 10 lines 29-37) for an all-solid-state battery, comprising:
a sulfide-based solid electrolyte (col 10 line 32-35); and
a covered active material (oxide type active material -col. 5 lines 34, coat layer-col. 5 lines 60-62)), wherein
the covered active material includes a positive electrode active material particle (oxide active material) and a coating film (coat layer) covering at least part of a surface of the positive electrode active material particle,
the coating film includes a lithium-ion-conductive oxide (col. 6 lines 19-25).
Miki does not disclose that the surface includes a NOx or that the content at the surface of the coating film is more than 1000 ppm, the ratio of a moisture content to the NOx content at the surface of the coating film is less than 1.9 or 0.7 to 1.8 as is instantly claimed.
Miki #2 discloses a composite active material in an all solid state lithium battery.
Miki et al. and Miki #2 disclose the same process to create the composite active material particles.
The immediate application discloses this process as well but further supplements NOx by addition of aqueous ammonia to a portion of the coating solution (page 15, lines 7-15).
The process for making the positive active material incorporates 87.9g of ammonia water with a concentration of 28% by mass, leading to the presence of NOx on the composite particle’s coating’s surface (Miki et al. [col. 11, lines 49-50], Miki #2 [0098]). In the instant application, applicant discloses “the coating liquid includes a certain amount of NH3. This seems to be one of the reasons for the presence of NOx in the coat film” (page 15, lines 7-8). Miki et al. disclosed in the specification of their patent that ammonia was the source of nitrogen on the surface of the active material layer (col 6, lines 31-37). Following this rationale, the applicant then discloses the method of increasing the amount of NOx in the coat film, “39.0 mg of aqueous NH3 solution was added to 26.0 to 26.5 g of the coating liquid. The concentration of the aqueous NH3 solution was from 14 to 15 mass%” (page 15, lines 9-11).
Thus, by calculating the molar quantities of ammonia, it can be shown that 24.612g of NH3 was added to 1902g of ‘precursor solution,’ which is a 0.0129 ratio of ammonia to the rest of the solution by mass. In the immediate application’s step where aqueous ammonia is added to a specific portion of coating liquid to supplement the NOx on the surface, it can be shown that 0.00585g NH3 was added to 26g of coating liquid (Note: precursor solution is definitively equivalent to coating liquid). It follows that a minor/insignificant quantity of ammonia was added to achieve the new structure for the composite active material.
Finally, with regard to NOx content, Table 1 of the immediate application discloses the NOx content at the surface of the composite active material, where the NOx content of the composite active material of Comparative Example 1 was measured at 1000 ppm. The composite active material in Comparative Example 1 was obtained without supplemental aqueous ammonia and yet still contains 1000 ppm NOx on its surface. Therefore, since the process of making in the instant application and the prior art of Miki were equivalent, NOx would have already been present in the amount of at least 1000pm.
Furthermore, Miki #2 teaches a method for removing moisture from the composite active material particle by subjecting the particles to vacuum drying. Miki #2 teaches that the extremely low moisture content in the composite active material yields batteries with lower resistance:
The moisture content in the composite active material particle of this disclosure is extremely small. Whereby, when this composite active material particle is employed to an all-solid-state lithium ion battery, deterioration of a sulfide solid electrolyte due to moisture contained in the composite active material particle can be suppressed, and conductivity of the sulfide solid electrolyte is kept high. Whereby, an-all-solid-state lithium ion battery of low battery resistance can be obtained. [0023]
Miki #2’s procedure enabled him to produce a composite active material particle, comprising: an active material particle; and a lithium ion conducting oxide with which at least part of a surface of the active material is coated, wherein a moisture content in the composite active material particle is no more than 319 ppm (claim 1). Miki #2 also discusses the industrial applicability of his invention, stating that the composite active material particle “can be applied as a cathode active material particle for all-solid-state lithium ion batteries” [0131].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composite active material disclosed by Miki et al. by subjecting the coated active material to vacuum drying, inherently reducing the ratio of a moisture content to the NOx on the surface of the composite active material.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce deterioration of a sulfide solid electrolyte, keep the conductivity of the sulfide solid electrolyte high, and obtain an all, as suggested by Miki.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims The closest prior art of record discloses the coating made with ammonia but does not disclose the amount of NOx to be 1050-1500ppm.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW N KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-9169. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00am-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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727