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 . 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because it presents a plurality of elements without the required separation by line indentation. 37 C.F.R. 1.75(i); see also M.P.E.P. § 608.01(m). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (CN 112803008 A), hereinafter “Gao,” in view of Burshtain et al. (US 2019/0044133 A1), hereinafter “Burshtain.”
Regarding claim 1, Gao discloses an electrode active material comprising:
an active material, in this case the modified high-nickel ternary positive electrode material (p. 3) that is preferably LiNi1-x-yCoxMyO2 (p. 6), with an organic coating layer, in this case the modified high-nickel ternary positive electrode material is coated with a modified polymer (p. 3);
wherein the organic coating layer is a copolymer of diisocyanate and an alcohol, in this case the polymer emulsion includes diisocyanate and dihydric alcohol (p. 3).
Gao does not discloses that the polymer is lithiated. However, Burshtain teaches a lithiated polymer coating for cathode and anode active materials (¶ [0110], Figs. 1A & 1B, ref. no. 120).1 One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that lithiating the coating polymer of Gao would have provided improved ionic conductivity to the electrode (see ¶ [0185]), thereby facilitating improved electrode performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided a lithiated polymer as the coating in order to have facilitated improved electrode performance.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “wherein the lithiated polymer is a polymer obtained by further performing lithiation on the polymer of the diisocyanate and the alcohol compound” is a product-by-process limitation. Applicant is reminded that “‘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) (citations omitted).” M.P.E.P. § 2113 I. Here, Gao and Tang teach all of the positively-recited structural limitations of the claim, thus rendering it obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Gao further discloses that the diisocyanate possesses structure of formula 1, in this case the diisocyanate may be selected from isophorone diisocyanate, hexamethylene diisocyanate, toluene diisocyanate, 4, one or all of 4' 4' diphenyl methane diisocyanate, and 4, 4' 4' dicyclohexyl methane diisocyanate (p. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Gao further discloses that:
the diisocyanate may be selected from isophorone diisocyanate, hexamethylene diisocyanate, toluene diisocyanate, 4, one or all of 4' 4' diphenyl methane diisocyanate, and 4, 4' 4' dicyclohexyl methane diisocyanate (p. 5); and
the alcohol compound is a diol, in this case the dihydric alcohol may comprise polycarbonate diol or poly-adipic acid neopentyl glycol ester diol (p. 5).
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “wherein during the lithiation, a lithium reagent is used, and the lithium reagent is selected from at least one of lithium hydride, butyl lithium, ethyl lithium, phenyl lithium, or methyl lithium” is a product-by-process limitation. Applicant is reminded that “‘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) (citations omitted).” M.P.E.P. § 2113 I. Here, Gao and Tang teach all of the positively-recited structural limitations of the claim, thus rendering it obvious.
Regarding claim 7, Gao and Burshtain do not teach the molar ratios of lithium, diisocyanate, and the alcohol compound. However, Burshtain does teach that the lithium added to the polymer confers ionic conductivity (see ¶ [0185]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to select a lithium loading sufficient to have provided the desired ionic conductivity, thus facilitating improved electrode operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the ratio of diisocyanate to alcohol to Li+ to be 1:(1.5-2.5):(1.5-2.5) i order to have facilitated improved electrode operation.
Regarding claim 8, Gao and Burshtain do not teach the molar ratios of lithium, diisocyanate, and the alcohol compound. However, Burshtain does teach that the lithium added to the polymer confers ionic conductivity (see ¶ [0185]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to select a lithium loading sufficient to have provided the desired ionic conductivity, thus facilitating improved electrode operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the ratio of diisocyanate to alcohol to Li+ to be 1:(2.01-2.05):(2.01-2.05) i order to have facilitated improved electrode operation.
Regarding claim 9, the Gao discloses the diisocyanate and alcohol compound and Burshtain teaches a lithiated polymeric coating as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above. The lithiation of the polymeric coating of Gao would have resulted in the structure represented by formula 2.
Regarding claim 10, Gao does not disclose the ion conductor. However, Burshtain further teaches that the lithiated polymer includes an ionic conductor, in this case the lithium polymer includes lithium salt sites (¶ [0131]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that lithiating the coating polymer of Gao would have provided improved ionic conductivity to the electrode (see ¶ [0185]), thereby facilitating improved electrode performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided a lithiated polymer as the coating in order to have facilitated improved electrode performance.
Regarding claim 11, Gao does not disclose the ion conductor. However, Burshtain further teaches that the lithiated polymer includes an ionic conductor, in this case the lithium polymer includes lithium salt sites (¶ [0131]) and inorganic fillers such as Al2O3, B2O3, TiO2, and ZrO2 (¶ [0168]), but does not teach a specific loading. However, one with ordinary skill in the art would have understood what loadings of lithium salts and/or inorganic fillers would supply the desired ionic conductivity to the polymeric coating, thereby facilitating improved electrode operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the ion conductor content to have been 3 wt% to 8 wt% based on the weight of the organic coating layer in order to have facilitated improved electrode operation.
Regarding claim 12, Gao does not disclose the ion conductor. However, Burshtain further teaches that the lithiated polymer includes an ionic conductor, in this case the lithium polymer includes lithium salt sites (¶ [0131]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that lithiating the coating polymer of Gao would have provided improved ionic conductivity to the electrode (see ¶ [0185]), thereby facilitating improved electrode performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided a lithiated polymer as the coating in order to have facilitated improved electrode performance.
Regarding claim 13, Gao does not disclose the ion conductor and inorganic filler. However, Burshtain teaches including an inorganic filler such as Al2O3, B2O3, TiO2, and ZrO2 in order to enhance ionic conductivity (¶ [0102] & [0106]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that including such inorganic fillers in the coating polymer would have provided improved ionic conductivity to the electrode (see ¶ [0102] & [0106]), thereby facilitating improved electrode performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided an inorganic filler in the coating polymer in order to have facilitated improved electrode performance.
Regarding claim 14, Gao does not disclose the ion conductor. However, Burshtain further teaches that the lithiated polymer includes an ionic conductor, in this case the lithium polymer includes lithium salt sites (¶ [0131]). Burshtain further teaches that LiPF6, LiBF4, lithium bis(oxalato)borate, LiN(CF3SO2)2, LiN(C2F5SO2)2, LiAsF6, LiC(CF3SO2)3, LiClO4, LiTFSI, LiB(C2O4)2, LiBF2(C2O4) act as electrolyte salts (¶ [0049]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that lithiating the coating polymer with such salts would have provided improved ionic conductivity to the electrode (see ¶ [0185]), thereby facilitating improved electrode performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided a lithiated polymer as the coating in order to have facilitated improved electrode performance.
Regarding claim 15, Gao does not disclose the ion conductor and inorganic filler. However, Burshtain teaches including an inorganic filler such as Al2O3, B2O3, TiO2, and ZrO2 in order to enhance ionic conductivity (¶ [0102] & [0106]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that including such inorganic fillers in the coating polymer would have provided improved ionic conductivity to the electrode (see ¶ [0102] & [0106]), thereby facilitating improved electrode performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided an inorganic filler in the coating polymer in order to have facilitated improved electrode performance.
Regarding claim 16, Gao does not disclose the coating layer’s thickness. Burshtain teaches that the thickness of the buffering zones or coatings are determined by desired performance requirements (¶ [0058]). Furthermore, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to select an appropriate coating thickness in order to provide the desired buffering (see ¶ [0058]) and ionic conduction (see ¶ [0102] & [0106]), thereby facilitating improved electrode performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the thickness of the coating layer to be 1 nm to 100 nm in order to have facilitated improved electrode performance.
Regarding claim 17, Gao further discloses that the active material is a positive electrode active material (e.g., p. 3).
Regarding claim 18, Gao further discloses that the positive electrode active material is a lithium nickel cobalt oxide, in this case LiNi1-x-yCoxMyO2 (p. 6).
Regarding claim 19, Gao further discloses an electrode comprising the active material of claim 1 (e.g., Abstract, p. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Gao further discloses a battery comprising the active material of claim 1 (e.g., p. 2).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gao and Burshtain as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Daigle et al. (US 2023/0323029 A1), hereinafter “Daigle.”
Regarding claim 6, Gao does not disclose that the alcohol is pentaethylene glycol. However, Daigle teaches that pentaethylene glycol may be used in lieu of glycols and diols in ionic polymers (¶ [0013]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that substituting pentaethylene glycol for the glycols and diols disclosed by Gao would have yielded the predictable result of an ionically conductive polymer coating. See M.P.E.P. § 2143 I. B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have substituted the pentaethylene glycol for the polycarbonate diol and poly-adipic acid neopentyl glycol ester diol in order to yield the predictable result of an ionically conductive polymeric coating.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
1 Burshtain states that “[a]ny mention of the term anode may be replaced in some embodiments with the terms electrode and/or cathode, and corresponding cell elements may be provided in certain embodiments” (¶ [0044]).
Prosecution Insights