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 Objections
Claims 11-13 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 11, “at least one selected from the group” should read --at least one element selected from a group--.
In claim 12, “the group consisting of F, Cl, Br, and I” should read --a group consisting of F, Cl, Br, and I--.
In claim 13, “at least one selected from the group consisting of Y and Ta” should read --at least one element selected from a group consisting of Y and Ta--.
In claim 20, “a material having the same composition” should read --a material having a same composition--.
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, 8-15, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (WO 2019146217), hereinafter “Sasaki”, as cited in the IDS dated 1/9/2024, in view of Ogawa et al. (WO 2014155989 A1), hereinafter “Ogawa”, wherein an English machine translation of Ogawa is cited.
Regarding claim 1, Sasaki teaches:
a positive electrode 201 including a positive electrode active material and an electrolyte material (Sasaki, [0100], line 1)
the electrolyte material comprising a first electrolyte layer (Sasaki, [0007], lines 1-5)
the first electrolyte layer comprising a first solid electrolyte material (Sasaki, [0007], lines 1-5).
a cathode active material that may comprise lithium-containing transition metal oxides, such as Li(NiCoMn)O (corresponding to the claimed positive electrode active material comprises a Li-including transition metal oxide) (Sasaki, [0101], lines 1-3)
Fig. 1 from Sasaki shows the first solid electrolyte layer 101 in contact with the surface of the positive electrode active material on the positive electrode 201 (corresponding to the claimed first solid electrolyte material coating at least a portion of a surface of the positive electrode active material). Sasaki does not teach a first solid electrolyte material comprising Li, P, O, and F. However, Ogawa teaches an additive that may form a coating on a cathode surface, such as lithium difluorophosphate (LiPO2F2) (Ogawa, [0016], lines 3-5; [0015], lines 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Ogawa's lithium difluorophosphate coating for the first solid electrolyte material of Sasaki in order to suppress a reaction between the electrode and the electrolyte (Ogawa, [0016], lines 3-5).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Ogawa teaches a preferred range of 1.8% mass of lithium difluorophosphate to the total amount of active material at the cathode (Ogawa, [0018], lines 1-2 & 6-7), which meets the instantly claimed ranges of 0.5% or more and 1.5% or more mass of the first solid electrolyte material with respect to a mass of the positive electrode active material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Ogawa’s first solid electrolyte material mass percent range to the positive electrode of Sasaki, to keep a sufficient volume of positive electrode active material in the compound layer (Ogawa, [0018], lines 3-6).
Regarding claims 10-14, Sasaki teaches a second solid electrolyte material that may be represented by the formula Li3YX6, wherein Y represents yttrium, and X includes at least one of Cl, Br, and I (Sasaki, [0063], line 1; [0074], lines 1-3). Sasaki’s second solid electrolyte material meets the instantly claimed composition formula (3) given that α=3, β=1, γ=6, and δ=0 lie within the respectively claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 15, Sasaki teaches a second electrolyte layer (corresponding to the claimed second electrolyte material) that may include a solid sulfide electrolyte (Sasaki, [0136], lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 18, modified Sasaki teaches the positive electrode material according to claim 1, as discussed regarding claim 1 (Sasaki, [0101], lines 1-3; [0100], line 1; [0007], lines 1-5; Ogawa, [0016], lines 3-5; [0015], lines 1-2). Regarding claim 18, Sasaki further teaches a battery 1000 comprising a positive electrode 201, an anode 204 and an electrolyte layer 100 positioned between the positive electrode 201 and the anode 202 (Sasaki, [0012] lines 1-2; [0013] line 1).
Regarding claim 19, Sasaki teaches an electrolyte layer including a first electrolyte layer and a second electrolyte layer (Sasaki, [0007], lines 1-4). Sasaki further teaches that the first electrolyte layer is arranged between the positive electrode and the second electrolyte layer (corresponding to the claimed first electrolyte layer is in contact with the positive electrode) (Sasaki, [0007], lines 1-4). Fig. 1 from Sasaki also shows the second electrolyte layer 102 in contact with the anode 202.
Regarding claim 20, Ogawa teaches a composition of the first solid electrolyte material, as discussed regarding claim 1 (Ogawa, [0016], lines 3-5; [0015], lines 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Ogawa's lithium difluorophosphate coating for the first electrolyte layer material of Sasaki in order to suppress a reaction between the electrode and the electrolyte (Ogawa, [0016], lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 21, Sasaki teaches that a second solid electrolyte material (corresponding to the claimed second electrolyte layer material) is different than the first solid electrolyte material (Sasaki, [0017], lines 1-2).
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (WO 2019146217), and Ogawa (WO 2014155989 A1), as applied to claims 1, 8-15, and 18-21, and further in view of Okada et al. (JP 2002216744 A), hereinafter “Okada”, wherein and English machine translation of Okada is cited.
Regarding claims 2-5, Okada teaches a preparation method for a battery comprising positive electrode active material particles LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 (Okada, [0053], lines 1-2), which meets the instantly claimed composition formula (1) in claims 3 and 4. Okada further teaches that LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 batteries have a potential of 4.7 V vs. Li/Li+ (corresponding to the claimed redox potential of the positive electrode active material versus lithium metal being 4 V or more in claim 2) (Okada, [0011], lines 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Okada’s LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 active material for the positive electrode active material of Sasaki and Ogawa in order to increase battery energy density (Okada, [0005], lines 1-2).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Ogawa teaches an additive that forms a coating on the cathode that may comprise lithium difluorophosphate (LiPO2F2), as described above in the rejection of claim 1 (Ogawa, [0015], lines 1-2; [0016], lines 3-5). Ogawa’s LiPO2F2 meets the instantly claimed composition formula (2) in claims 6 and 7. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Ogawa's LiPO2F2 coating for the first solid electrolyte material of Sasaki and Okada in order to suppress a reaction between the electrode and the electrolyte (Ogawa, [0016], lines 3-5).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (WO 2019146217), Ogawa (WO 2014155989 A1), and Okada (JP 2002216744 A), as applied to claims 2-7, and further in view of Mecca et al. (CN 111430688 A), hereinafter “Mecca”, wherein and English machine translation of Mecca is cited.
Regarding claim 16, Mecca teaches a battery comprising a solid sulfide electrolyte layer may comprise Li6PS5Cl (Mecca, [0022], lines 1-2 & 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Mecca's Li6PS5Cl solid electrolyte layer for the solid sulfide electrolyte layer of Sasaki and Okada in order to solve the problems of poor electrochemical performance (Mecca, [0009], lines 2-7).
Regarding claim 17, Sasaki teaches a first electrolyte layer, comprising a first solid electrolyte material (Sasaki, [0016], line 1), a second electrolyte layer comprising a second solid electrolyte material (Sasaki, [0017], line 1), and a positive electrode 201 comprising a positive electrode active material (Sasaki, [0100], line 1). Sasaki further teaches that the first electrolyte later arranged between a positive electrode and a second electrolyte layer (corresponding to the first solid electrolyte material is provided between the positive electrode active material and the second electrolyte material) (Sasaki, [0007], lines 1-4).
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 12-15 and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9-11, and 13 of copending Application No. 18/473,312, hereinafter referred to as “the 312 application”, in view of Ogawa (WO 2014155989 A1).
Regarding the instant claim 12, claim 1 of the 312 application teaches the same formula for the second electrolyte material. The 312 application does not teach the first solid electrolyte material comprises Li, P, O, and F. Ogawa teaches an additive that may form a coating on a cathode surface, such as lithium difluorophosphate (Ogawa, [0016], lines 3-5; [0015], lines 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Ogawa's lithium difluorophosphate coating for the first solid electrolyte material of the 312 application in order to suppress a reaction between the electrode and the electrolyte (Ogawa, [0016], lines 3-5).
Regarding the instant claims 13, 15 and 17, claims 9, 11, and 13 of the 312 application recites the same limitations, respectively.
Regarding the instant claim 14, claim 10 of the 312 application recites the same ranges as the instant claim for α, β, and γ, and a smaller range for δ within the instantly claimed range.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kishimoto et al. (WO 2015132641) discloses a lithium nickel manganese oxide secondary battery with an operation voltage of 4.5 V or higher.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rachel Avina whose telephone number is (571)270-0429. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1177. 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.
/R.M.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights