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 § 112
2. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
3. Claim 1 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.
With regards to claim 1, the claim recites “the ceramic strain”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as a ceramic strain has not been previously established.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 15, 17-19 and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laramie et al. (US-20170338475-A1).
With regards to claim 1, Laramie teaches an article (electrode) for use in an electrochemical cell (¶ 0045). Laramie teaches that the electrode may comprise an electroactive layer comprising lithium (¶ 0053). In ¶ 0047, Laramie teaches that the electrode may include a protective layer that comprises ionically conductive and non-ionically conductive ceramics. Laramie also teaches that the protective layer comprises particles and can be made of non ionically conductive material (¶ 0008). The non-ionically conductive ceramics read on a plurality of ionically insulting particles. As the ceramic and ionically insulating particles are included in the protective layer, this reads on the ceramic coating at least a portion of the surfaces of the ionically insulating particles. After review of applicant’s disclosure, it appears that as long as the particles are coated with the ceramic, the ironically insulating particles having surfaces coated by the ceramic strain the crystal lattice structure of the ceramic coating their surface. In ¶ 0087, Laramie discloses that the protective layer is formed of materials that allow lithium ions to pass through the material. This reads on the protective layer being conductive to lithium ions.
With regards to claim 2, Laramie teaches an article (electrode) for use in an electrochemical cell (¶ 0045). Laramie teaches that the electrode may comprise an electroactive layer comprising lithium (¶ 0053). Laramie goes on to teach that the article (electrode) may include a protective layer comprising lithium aluminate (¶ 0092). Laramie also teaches that the protective layer is conductive to lithium ions (¶ 0087).
With regards to claim 15, Laramie teaches that the protective layer (second layer ) may be porous (¶ 0008). Since the protective layer comprises particles as discussed in ¶ 0008, the protective layer being porous read on the particles that make up the layer being porous.
With regards to claim 17, Laramie teaches that the ionically insulating particles (non-conductive ceramics) comprises silica (¶ 0177).
With regards to claim 18, Laramie teaches that the ionically insulating particles (non-conductive ceramics) comprises aluminum oxide (alumina) (¶ 0177).
With regards to claim 19, Laramie teaches that the silica and aluminum oxide are nonconductive (¶ 0177).
With regards to claim 43, In ¶ 0125, Laramie teaches that the protective layer is porous which reads on the protective layer comprising a plurality of pores.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laramie et al. (US-20170338475-A1) in view of De Jonghe et al. (US-6911280-B1).
With regards to claim 3, Laramie teaches an article (electrode) comprising an electroactive layer comprising lithium (¶ 0045 and ¶ 0053). Laramie teaches that the electrode may include a protective layer that comprises ionically conductive and non-ionically conductive ceramics which reads on the protective layer comprising a ceramic (¶ 0047). The non-ionically conductive ceramics read on a plurality of ionically insulting particles. Laramie teaches aluminum oxide (alumina) as an example of such non-conductive ceramics (¶ 0177). In ¶ 0087, Laramie teaches that the protective layer is conductive to lithium ions. Laramie teaches that the protective layer may comprise ceramics (¶ 0141), however, Laramie does not specifically teach that the ceramic comprises an alkali metal carbonate and/or an alkaline earth metal carbonate.
In a similar field of endeavor, De Jonghe teaches a protective layer that may be utilized in an electrode for a lithium metal battery (col 2; lines 20-32). De Jonghe teaches that the protective layer may be composed of any suitable material that reacts with lithium without degrading its surface (col 5; lines 56-58). De Jonghe goes on to teach metal salts such as carbonates as suitable materials (col 5; lines 60-61). In claim 1, De Jonghe teaches that the protective layer may comprise an alkali or alkaline earth metal carbonate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to include an alkali or alkaline earth metal carbonate as taught by De Jonghe in the protective layer taught by Laramie as this would predictably prevent the degradation of the lithium in the electroactive material taught by Laramie.
Through this modification, modified Laramie teaches an article, comprising an electroactive layer comprising lithium; and a protective layer comprising a ceramic and a plurality of ionically insulating particles. Since the ceramic and the alkali or alkaline earth metals are included in the protective layer, the ceramic comprises an alkali metal carbonate and/or an alkaline earth metal carbonate, wherein the plurality of ionically insulating particles comprises aluminum oxide, and wherein the protective layer is conductive to lithium ions.
Claim(s) 9-12, and 45-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Laramie et al. (US-20170338475-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of De Jonghe et al. (US-6911280-B1).
With regards to claim 9, Laramie teaches the article of claim 1. Laramie teaches that the protective layer may comprise ceramics (¶ 0141). However, Laramie does not specifically teach that the ceramic comprises an alkali metal carbonate and/or an alkaline earth metal carbonate.
In a similar field of endeavor, De Jonghe teaches a protective layer that may be utilized in an electrode for a lithium metal battery (col 2; lines 20-32). De Jonghe teaches that the protective layer may be composed of any suitable material that reacts with lithium without degrading its surface (col 5; lines 56-58). De Jonghe goes on to teach metal salts such as carbonates as suitable materials (col 5; lines 60-61). In claim 1, De Jonghe teaches that the protective layer may comprise an alkali or alkaline earth metal carbonate. De Jonghe teaches that lithium and potassium as examples of a suitable alkali metals (col 15; lines 11-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to include an alkali or alkaline earth metal carbonate such as potassium carbonate as taught by De Jonghe in the protective layer taught by Laramie as this would predictably prevent the degradation.
Through this modification, modified Laramie teaches that the protective layer comprises the potassium carbonate as well as the ceramic. Since the ceramic and the potassium carbonate are included in the protective layer, the article taught by modified Laramie comprises the ceramic that comprises an alkali metal carbonate and wherein the alkali metal carbonate is potassium carbonate.
With regards to claim 10, Laramie does not specifically teach that the ceramic comprises an alkali metal carbonate , and wherein the alkali metal carbonate is lithium carbonate.
De Jonghe teaches a protective layer that may be utilized in an electrode for a lithium metal battery (col 2; lines 20-32). De Jonghe teaches that the protective layer may be composed of any suitable material that reacts with lithium without degrading its surface (col 5; lines 56-58). De Jonghe goes on to teach metal salts such as carbonates as suitable materials (col 5; lines 60-61). In claim 1, De Jonghe teaches that the protective layer may comprise an alkali or alkaline earth metal carbonate. De Jonghe teaches that lithium and potassium as examples of a suitable alkali metals (col 15; lines 11-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to include an alkali or alkaline earth metal carbonate such as lithium carbonate as taught by De Jonghe in the protective layer taught by Laramie as this would predictably prevent the degradation.
Through this modification, modified Laramie teaches that the protective layer comprises the lithium carbonate in addition to the ceramic. Since the ceramic and the lithium carbonate are included in the protective layer, the article taught by modified Laramie comprises the ceramic that comprises an alkali metal carbonate and wherein the alkali metal carbonate is lithium carbonate.
With regards to claim 11, as discussed above, modified Laramie teaches that the ceramic may comprises lithium carbonate and potassium carbonate which reads on the ceramic comprising two alkali metal carbonates (col 15; lines 11-15). One of ordinary skill may include the two carbonates in any amount such as equally. See rejection of claim 9 and 10 above.
With regards to claim 12, Laramie in view of De Jonghe teaches that the article comprises at least two alkali metal carbonates in the protective layer. Modified Laramie does not specifically teach that the carbonates may be included in an atomic ratio of between 1:10 (0.1) and 10:1 (10). However, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to adjust the two carbonates to be included in an amount such as an equal amount barring the showing of any unexpected results or criticality. This 1:1 atomic ratio is within the claimed range of 1:10 to 10:1 and is rendered obvious over the claimed range.
Given the breadth the claim, one of ordinary skill may adjust the amounts of the alkali metal carbonates within the broad range without any unexpected results.
With regards to claim 45, Laramie teaches the article of claim 1. As discussed above, modified Laramie teaches the protective layer comprising substantially the same materials as the claimed invention in amounts within the claimed ranges. Laramie also teaches that the article comprising this protective layer is present in an electrochemical cell (¶ 0045). As a material is inseparable from its properties, the protective layer taught by modified Laramie, when included in an article for an electrochemical cell, increases a recharge ratio of the electrochemical cell by between 0.1% to 0.5% in comparison to an otherwise-equivalent electrochemical cell lacking the protective layer. NOTE: Where … the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on “inherency” under 35 USC § 102, on “prima facie obviousness” under 35 USC § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. In re Best, 562 F2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-4 (CCPA 1977).
With regards to claim 46, Laramie teaches the article of claim 1. As discussed above, modified Laramie teaches the protective layer comprising substantially the same materials as the claimed invention in amounts within the claimed ranges. Laramie also teaches that the article comprising this protective layer is present in an electrochemical cell (¶ 0045). As a material is inseparable from its properties, the protective layer taught by modified Laramie, when included in an article for an electrochemical cell, reduces a relative coulombic loss during recharging by a factor of between 5 and 8 in comparison to an otherwise-equivalent electrochemical cell lacking the protective layer. NOTE: Where … the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on “inherency” under 35 USC § 102, on “prima facie obviousness” under 35 USC § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. In re Best, 562 F2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-4 (CCPA 1977).
Claim(s) 13, 22, and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laramie et al. (US-20170338475-A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
With regards to claim 13, Laramie teaches that the protective material comprises ceramics such as lithium aluminates which is an ion conductive material (¶ 0141). In ¶ 0100, Laramie teaches that the ionically conductive material may be included in an amount of 50 wt.% to 100 wt.%. This reads on the concentration of the ceramic present in the protective layer. The claimed range of 60 wt.% to 98 wt.% falls within the range taught by Laramie. 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regards to claim 22, Laramie teaches that the protective layer may comprise the ionically insulating particles (non ionically conductive material) in an amount of 10 wt.% to 99.9 wt.% (¶ 0102). This overlaps with the ionically insulating particles being present in the protective layer in an amount of between 2 wt.% and 40% versus the total weight of the protective layer. 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regards to claim 42, Laramie teaches that the protective layer may have a thickness between 0.1 µm and 20 µm (¶ 0124). This range overlaps with the claimed range of between 0.1 µm and 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laramie et al. (US-20170338475-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US-20190348672-A1).
With regards to claim 16, Laramie teaches that the average largest cross-sectional dimension of the particles may be between 0.5µm - 20µm. However, Laramie is silent an average cross-sectional diameter of the particles.
In a similar field of endeavor, Wang teaches a protective electrode that may comprise a protective structure integrally connected to the electroactive portion of an electrode (¶ 0029). This protective structure reads on a protective layer. Wang teaches that the protective structure includes particles that may have any suitable average cross-sectional diameter (¶ 0050). Wang goes on to teach 2 µm to 5 µm as a suitable range of the average cross-sectional diameter (¶ 0050). This range falls within the claimed ranged of 0.2 µm and 5 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the protective layer taught by Laramie to have an average cross-sectional diameter of 2 µm to 5 µm as taught by Wang as there are no unpredictable results. Through this modification, modified Laramie renders obvious the article of claim 1 wherein the particles have an average cross-sectional diameter of between 0.2 µm and 10 µm.
With regards to claim 20, Laramie teaches that the ionically insulating particles included in the protective layer (nonconductive ceramics) include aluminum oxide and silicon oxide (¶ 0177). Laramie teaches that the protective layer is permeable to the electrolyte used in the electrochemical cell (¶ 0009). However, Laramie does not specifically teach that the insulating particles are insoluble in an electrolyte to be used with the article.
Wang teaches that the protective layer may comprise two or more oxides (¶ 0039). Wang also teaches that the oxides may be insoluble in an electrolyte for the electrochemical cell comprising the protected electrode (¶ 0039). Similar to Laramie, Wang teaches that the oxide may comprise oxygen and a metal such as silicon and aluminum (¶ 0039).
Since Laramie and Wang teach the same metal oxides (silica and alumina), the silica and alumina taught by Laramie will be insoluble in an electrolyte of the electrochemical cell as disclosed by Wang. Even if not, it would have been obvious to modify the insulating particles to be insoluble as taught by Wang as the Wang teaches that the alumina and silica are insoluble in electrolyte. Thus, the combination would render obvious wherein the alumina and silica are insoluble in an electrolyte to be used with the article.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laramie et al. (US-20170338475-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishikawa et al. (US-20190144706-A1)
With regards to claim 21, Laramie teaches the article of claim 1. In ¶ 0177, Laramie teaches alumina and silica as the ionically insulating particles (non-conductive ceramics). However, Laramie does not teach the surface area of the ionically insulating particles.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ishikawa teaches an insulating film that may be used as a protective film (¶ 0034). Ishikawa teaches that the insulating film includes ceramic particles that efficiently improve the performance value of the film (¶ 0041). In ¶ 0053, Ishikawa teaches silica and alumina as examples of the ceramic particles. Ishikawa teaches that the surface area of the ceramic particles may be 10 m2/g or more and preferably 50 m2/g to 300 m2/g to reliably improve the thermal conductivity of the insulating film (¶ 0043 -¶ 0044). This range overlaps with the claimed range of 1 m2/g to 100 m2/g. 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the surface area of the ionically insulating particles (non-conductive ceramics) taught by Laramie to be within a range of 10 m2/g to 300 m2/g as this would predictably improve the thermal conductivity of the protective layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNSUYADOR YUSIF whose telephone number is (571)272-4531. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am - 5 pm (M-R).
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, Galen H Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/HUNSUYADOR MUGEESATU YUSIF/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights