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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/02/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on 11/02/2023 were reviewed and are acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 11/02/2023 was reviewed and is acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 3 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. Claim 3 reads “…the log differential pore volume is less than or equal to 98 μL/g”. Claim 1 reads “a log differential pore volume at a pore diameter of 1.2 μm within a range of greater than or equal to 55 μL/g and less than 152 μL/g”. Despite being dependent of claim 1, claim 3 broadens the minimum value while further limiting the upper boundary. The claim is therefore rejected.
Claim 4 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. Claim 3 reads “…the log differential pore volume is less than or equal to 66 μL/g”. Claim 1 reads “a log differential pore volume at a pore diameter of 1.2 μm within a range of greater than or equal to 55 μL/g and less than 152 μL/g”. Despite being dependent of claim 1, claim 4 broadens the minimum value while further limiting the upper boundary. The claim is therefore rejected.
Claim 5 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. Claim 3 reads “…the log differential pore volume is more than or equal to 61 μL/g”. Claim 1 reads “a log differential pore volume at a pore diameter of 1.2 μm within a range of greater than or equal to 55 μL/g and less than 152 μL/g”. Despite being dependent of claim 1, claim 5 fails to further limit the scope and broads the upper boundary and is therefore rejected.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (WO2021205821A1; Sasaki hereinafter) in view of Nagai et al. (WO 2011/089702; Nagai hereinafter). WO2021205821A1/JP2021010468W has a prior application date: 2021-03-15, US20230019252A1 is being used for the English translation.
Regarding claim 1, Sasaki teaches a coated active material (positive electrode active material and a cover layer, Abstract) comprising: an active material (positive electrode active material, Abstract); and a coating layer (cover layer, Abstract) coating at least a part of a surface of the active material (covering at least partially the surface of the positive-electrode active material, Abstract). Sasaki fails to teach that the coated active material has a log differential pore volume at a pore diameter of 1.2 μm within a range of greater than or equal to 55 μL/g and less than 152 μL/g but discloses specific surface areas for the active material Sa, for the covered active material Sp and a specific surface ratio Sp/Sa and corresponding relations for the pore volume Va and the covered active material pore Volume Vp. The disclosed positive-electrode material satisfies 0.20 < Vp/Va <0.88 and 0.81 < Sp/Sa <0.97 which reflects the coating ratio of the coated material to the surface of active material. Nagai discloses the log differential pore volume for an uncoated active material in Figure 1. In seeking a coated active material with a pore size distribution similar to the current invention. It would have been obvious to apply a coating layer as disclosed by Sasaki to the uncoated active material as disclosed by Nagai and the motivation to do so would have as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known material for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result. As Lopez discloses in (US 2011/0111298A1) thin coatings result in an optimized battery resistance. It is assumed that the effect of such a thin coating would not significantly affect the pore size distribution or peaks or that the effects of the coatings would only not significantly alter the pore size distribution and peak position and that the resulting pore size distribution would still be within the claimed limitations. As the applicant disclosed the specific values representing am optimized coating for a reduction of battery resistance, optimizing the coating according to Lopez, would have been obvious and resulted in the material having a log differential pore volume at a pore diameter at 1.2 μm within a range of greater than or equal to 55 μL/g and less than 152 μL/g. In the case the distribution would not overlap it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 2, Sasaki discloses the coated active material according to claim 1, wherein the active material is a positive electrode active material.
PNG
media_image1.png
668
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Nagai Figure 1
Regarding claim 3, Sasaki teaches the coated active material but does not disclose the log differential pore volume or rely on it to evaluate the coating layer. Sasaki does not disclose a log differential pore volume less than or equal to 98 μL/g. Lopez however in the same field of endeavor discloses the optimization of coating layers and teaches that thin coating layers are most desirable [0054]. Lopez further discloses that for a metal fluoride the coating thickness of 0.5nm to 12 nm results in the most desirable battery properties. It would have been obvious to optimize the coating thickness as described by Lopez to decrease the interfacial resistance to improve battery performance.
Nagai Figure 1 shows the log differential pore volume distribution of an uncoated active material that shows a peak of roughly 0.2 μL/g at a 1 μL diameter. Applying a thin coating as disclosed by Lopez would not significantly affect the pore size distribution or peaks or that the effects of the coatings would only not significantly alter the pore size distribution and peak position. If the effects of a thin coating would not be negligible, coating the active material would cause the pores to become smaller as the coating would be applied around the pore openings and possibly even fill some of the pores. This would cause the particle distribution to shift to the left and reduce the peak. The coated material would still include areas with a log differential pore volume of less than 98 μL/g.
Regarding claim 4, Sasaki discloses a coated active material but does not disclose a log differential pore volume of less than or equal to 66 μL/g.
Nagai Figure 1 shows the log differential pore volume distribution of an uncoated active material that shows a peak of roughly 0.2 μL/g at a 1 μL diameter. Coating the active material would either have no effect on the pore size distribution or cause the pores to become smaller as the coating would be applied around the pore openings, in the pore channels and possibly fill some of the pores. It is assumed that the effect of such a thin coating would not significantly affect the pore size distribution or peaks or that the effects of the coatings would not significantly alter the pore size distribution and peak position and that the resulting pore size distribution would still be within the claimed limitations, as this would cause the peak distribution to be shifted to lower pore diameters and reduce the peak. The coated material would still show regions with a log differential pore volume of or less than 66 μL/g.
Regarding claim 5, Sasaki discloses a coated active material but does not disclose a log differential pore volume greater than or equal to 61 μL/g. Nagai Figure 1 shows the log differential pore volume distribution of an uncoated active material that shows a peak of roughly 0.2 μL/g at 1 μL pore diameter It is assumed that the effect of such a thin coating would not significantly affect the pore size distribution or peaks or that the effects of the coatings would only not significantly alter the pore size distribution and peak position and that the resulting pore size distribution would still be within the claimed limitations. The coated material would still show regions with a log differential pore volume of 61 μL/g or more.
Should the effects of the addition of a coating layer reduce the pore diameters nonetheless and in a non-negligible manner it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (WO2021205821A1; Sasaki hereinafter) in view of Nagai et al. (WO 2011089702; Nagai hereinafter) as applied to claims 1-5 and in further view of (US202117506720A; hereinafter Sasaki720).
Regarding claim 6, The coated active material according to claim 1, wherein the coating layer includes a first coating material (solid electrolyte), the first coating material includes Li, M1, and X1 (LiαMβXγ where α, β, and γ are each independently a value greater than 0, Abstract). M1 is at least one selected from the group consisting of metal elements excluding Li and metalloid elements (one element selected from the group consisting of non-Li metals and metalloids), and X1 is at least one selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, Br, and I (X includes at least one selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, Br, and I, Abstract).
Sasaki and Sasak720 are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely cathode active materials. Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teaching disclosed by Sasaki720 to the coating disclosed by Sasaki as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known material for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Regarding claim 7, wherein the first coating material is represented by the following Formula (1): Liα1M1β1X1γ1 (1) where α1, β1, and γ1 are each independently a value greater than 0. A first coating material (solid electrolyte), the first coating material includes Li, M1, and X1 (LiαMβXγ where α, β, and γ are each independently a value greater than 0, Abstract).
Regarding claim 8, teaches the active coated material but fails to explicitly disclose that M1 includes yttrium. Sasaki720 however discloses M may include Y (=yttrium) [0053].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (JPWO2021205821A1; Sasaki hereinafter) in view of Nagai et al. (WO 2011/089702; Nagai hereinafter) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Li et al. (WO2020001561A1; hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 9, Sasaki discloses the coated active material but does not specify the two layers and that a first coating layer contains a first coating material, and the second coating layer contains a second coating material, and the first coating layer is located on the outer side of the second coating layer. Li however in the same field of endeavor namely coated active materials discloses cathode material, the cathode material comprising a core-shell structure composite material, the core-shell structure composite material comprising a core material, an inner shell material and an outer shell material, the core material comprising a positive electrode active material (see figure 2 below). (In figure 2 the inner case material is a positive electrode active material that contains fluorine, and the outer case material includes fluorine oxide.)
PNG
media_image2.png
261
339
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Li Figure 1
Sasaki and Li are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrode active materials. Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the known coating disclosed by Li to the particle disclosed by Sasaki as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known method for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Claims 10 -15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (JPWO2021205821A1; Sasaki hereinafter) in view of Lopez et al. (US 2011/0111298A1; Lopez hereinafter) and in further view of Nagai et al. (WO 2011/089702; Nagai hereinafter) and in view of Li et al. (WO2020001561A1; hereinafter Li)·as applied to claim 9 and in further view of Miki et al. (US2018219229A1; hereinafter Miki).
Regarding claim 10, Sasaki discloses the coated active material according to claim 9 but fails to disclose that the second coating material includes an oxide solid electrolyte having lithium-ion conductivity. Li however discloses an active material particle; and a lithium ion conducting oxide. Sasaki and Li are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely active cathode materials. Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Miki to the composite particle as disclosed by Li as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known material for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Regarding claim 11, Sasaki discloses the coated active material according to claim 9 but fails to teach that the second coating material includes Nb. According to Sasaki the second coating layer is located on the inner side of the fist coating layer and is applied first. Miki discloses a coating layer that includes Nb and discloses a method for producing lithium niobate for use in a covering layer covering at least part of a surface of cathode active material particles.
Regarding claim 12, Sasaki discloses the coated active material according to claim 9 but fails to teach that the second coating material includes Nb. According to Sasaki the second coating layer is located on the inner side of the fist coating layer and is applied first. Miki discloses a coating layer that includes Nb and discloses a method for producing lithium niobate for use in a covering layer covering at least part of a surface of cathode active material particles.
Regarding claim 13, Sasaki discloses a coated separator material but fails to specify that the electrode material comprises: the coated active material according to claim 1; and a solid electrolyte. Miki discloses that the cathode includes the composite active material particle (10, figure 3 below) and the sulfide solid electrolyte (11, figure 3 below) in the cathode mixture layer (20a, figure 3 below) [0052].
PNG
media_image3.png
235
394
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3: Miki Figure 2
Regarding claim 14, Sasaki discloses a coated separator material but fails to specify that the electrode material comprises: the coated active material according to claim 1; and a solid electrolyte. Miki discloses the sulfide solid electrolyte (11, figure 3 below) in the cathode mixture layer (20a, figure 3 below) [0052].
Regarding claim 15, Sasaki discloses a coated separator material but fails to disclose a battery comprising a positive electrode including the electrode material according to claim 13, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte layer disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode.
[0081] As shown in FIG. 4, an all-solid-state battery 100 comprises a cathode 20 comprising a cathode layer 20a and a cathode current collector 20b, an anode 40 comprising an anode layer 41 and an anode current collector 42, and a solid electrolyte layer 30 disposed between the cathode 20 and the anode 40
PNG
media_image4.png
366
292
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4: Miki Figure 3
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure:
Lopez et al. (US 2011/0111298A1) discloses the optimization of coating layers and discloses that thin layers can improve battery properties.
OKAJIMA Okajima et al. (JP7552227B2) discloses a power storage element including a positive electrode active material layer with a maximum in the range of the pore diameter of 0.01 μ m or more and 20 μ m or less .
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA LEE HANYON whose telephone number is (571)272-8881. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights