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 .
Response to Amendment
In light of the amendments filed 9 September 2026, the objections to the claims and specification and the rejection under §112(b) have been withdrawn, the prior art rejection has been modified and new rejections under §112(a) have been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: the number “1.97.3” includes an extra decimal point and is believed to be a typo of --197.3--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regard to claim 22, the specification does not provide original basis for the limitation of “wherein the ionic conductive additive comprises a blend” as recited. Rather, paragraph [0037] teaches that the “Ni-rich battery cells including the ionic conductive additive include a blend.” Thus, the blend is not being disclosed as being the ionic conductive additive but rather forming the “Ni-rich electrode.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-12, 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2024/0178441; hereinafter “Kim”) in view of Wang et al. (US 2021/0391578; hereinafter “Wang”).
In regard to claims 1, 3-6, 8-9 and 11-12, Kim discloses a battery cell (see [0131]-[0145)) comprising at least one anode electrodes including an anode active material layer (“electrode active material” for the anode; see [0131]) arranged on an anode current collector (see [0132]); at least one cathode electrodes including a cathode active material layer (“electrode active material” for the cathode; see [0131]) necessarily arranged on a cathode current collector; at least one separators (see [0131]); and a lithium-based electrolyte (see at least [0134]-[0143]), and wherein the at least one cathode electrodes and the at least one anode electrodes exchange lithium ions. Kim discloses wherein the cathode active material layer includes a cathode active material including layered-structured cathode materials such as NCA, NMC or combinations thereof as recited in claim 3. See [0003]. Specifically, Kim discloses wherein NMC622, NMC811, NMC111 or NCA can be used. [0145]. Kim further discloses wherein the cathode active material layer necessarily includes an ionic conductive additive which is an ionic conductive precursor that is converted to an ionic conductor (as the same compositions are taught) as recited in claim 4 such as a metal oxide or metal fluoride as recited in claim 5 as Kim teaches that the NMC layered cathode can have various coating materials for surface passivation. See [0172]-[0174]. Specifically, Kim discloses wherein coating material can be a metal oxide such as aluminum oxide as recited in claim 6 or a metal fluoride such as aluminum fluoride as recited in claim 8. See [0174]. Kim also discloses wherein the cathode materials can be coated or intermixed with various solid-electrolyte materials such as garnet, NASICON, perovskite, or lithium argyrodite as recited in claim 9. See [0072]-[0077], [0079], [0133]-[0138], [0140] and [0181]. Kim further discloses wherein the layered-structure cathode materials can include ionic conductive additives such as a lithium derivative of a metal oxide or metal phosphate as recited in claim 11 such as lithium aluminate as recited in claim 12. Kim also teaches wherein the aluminum oxide can be consumed to form aluminum fluoride, which would necessitate the formation of LiAlF4. See [0019], [0145] and [0174].
Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the cathode active material is one of NCMA, NMA, NM or LNO as recited in claim 1.
Wang discloses electrodes for a battery wherein the cathode can include a cathode active material in the form of core or core particles 102 comprised of NCMA, NCA and NMC and include an ionic conductive additive such as aluminum oxide in the form of dusting particles 104 for thermal stabilization. See paragraphs [0040]-[0047] and Figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted and/or combined the cathode active material of Wang with or for the cathode active material of Kim to yield predictable results as the materials are disclosed to be functional equivalents. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
In regard to claim 10, Kim teaches that cathode is formed with “a first population of particles including an ionically conducting solid-electrolyte (the ionic conductive additive) with a second population of particles including an electrode active material (the cathode active material including nickel.” See [0100]. Kim teaches wherein the weight ratio of the first population of particles and the second population of particles can range from, for example, “1:1000 to 1:10” (~0.1-10 wt% of ionic conductive additive) and many other ranges which are within the recited range of 0.1 wt% to 10 wt%. See [0130].
In regard to claim 21, Kim discloses wherein the electrode active material can include a lithium nitride (LiPON, lithium phosphorus oxynitride). See [0074].
In regard to claim 22, Kim discloses that a coating of aluminum oxide can be used (see [0174]) and that the coating can be present in the amount of 1-10wt% (see [0202]). Kim teaches that the coating provides surface passivation. It would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined an optimum or workable range of the weight percentage of surface coating material through routine experimentation and without creating any new or unexpected results. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the active material of NCMA taught by Wang with the aluminum oxide coating of Kim in the relative amounts rendered obvious by the disclosure of Kim without creating any new or unexpected results as the aluminum oxide coating is used for the purpose of surface passivation and/or as a thermally stabilizing material.
In regard to claims 23-25, it is noted that the claimed limitations regard claimed properties or functions. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Therefore, it is held that the above combined battery cell of Kim and Wang would necessarily have the recited specific capacity, lithium-ion diffusivity and specific capacity values.
Claims 6-8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Wang as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of Amine et al. (US 2020/0373554; hereinafter “Amine”).
In regard to claims 6-8 and 20, Kim is silent in regard to wherein the ionic conductive precursor includes a metal phosphate as recited and to wherein the ionic conductive precursor comprises other recited materials besides aluminum oxide and aluminum fluoride.
Amine discloses cathode materials for secondary batteries wherein the cathode can comprise surface coatings for surface protection comprising aluminum oxide, zinc oxide, titanium oxide, tin oxide, aluminum fluoride, cesium fluoride, aluminum phosphate and/or cobalt phosphate. See [0032]. As aluminum phosphate is the same material as recited in claim 20, it is held that the material of aluminum phosphate is necessarily an ionic conductive precursor that is converted to an ionic conductor during cycling of the battery cell. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined or substituted the compositions of surface protecting coatings of Amine with the surface coatings of the above combination without creating any new or unexpected results as the material is disclosed to be functionally equivalent to the surface coatings disclosed by Kim. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Wang as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Mane et al. (US 2021/0336240; hereinafter “Mane”).
In regard to claim 19, Kim is silent in regard to wherein the ionic conductive precursor includes a metal oxide comprising at least one of diboron trioxide, molybdenum trioxide and tungsten oxide.
Mane discloses wherein a cathode of a battery can include coating materials such as B2O3, AlPO4, MoO3, and WO3. As the materials are identical to those cited in 19, it is held that the materials are necessarily an ionic conductive precursor that is converted to an ionic conductor during cycling of the battery cell. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined or substituted the compositions of surface protecting coatings of Amine with the surface coatings of the above combination without creating any new or unexpected results as the material is disclosed to be functionally equivalent to the surface coatings disclosed by Kim. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM - 3:30 PM ET.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights