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 § 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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (KR 20200007326 A, provided by applicant’s IDS filed 03/27/2024 and a translated copy has been included in the file wrapper) as evidenced by Saha et al., (2000) "Structural and optical properties of paraelectric SrTiO3", J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 12. PPS. 3325-3336 (Provided in applicant’s IDS filed 03/27/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a positive electrode active material for an all-solid-state battery (Kim 0001) where the positive electrode active material comprises a core portion comprising a lithium metal oxide and a coating portion on the surface of the core portion comprising a dielectric (Kim 0014). Kim does teach that the dielectric can be the composition SrTiO3 (Kim 0019) but is silent to the specific crystal structure of the dielectric.
When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02.
While the prior art does not explicitly teach that SrTiO₃ is cubic, these properties are considered inherent in the prior art barring any differences shown by objective evidence between the dielectric disclosed in the prior art and the applicant. As SrTiO₃ taught by the prior art and the applicant are identical within the scope of claim 1, Kim inherently teaches that the dielectric is cubic at any temperature a lithium-ion battery operates. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) MPEP 2112.01.
As evidence of inherency, Saha evaluates the structural properties of SrTiO3 and teaches that SrTiO3 has a cubic structure at room temperature. (Saha introduction, paragraph 2, “While it has the simple cubic perovskite structure at high temperature, SrTiO3 goes through an AFD transition at 105 K…”, meaning its cubic at any temperature greater than 105 K or -168.15 oC).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches claim 1 as described above but is silent to whether or not SrTiO3 is paraelectric.
When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02.
While the prior art does not explicitly teach that SrTiO₃ is paraelectric, these properties are considered inherent in the prior art barring any differences shown by objective evidence between the dielectric disclosed in the prior art and the applicant. As SrTiO₃ taught by the prior art and the applicant are identical within the scope of claim 1, Kim inherently teaches that the dielectric is paraelectric at any temperature a lithium-ion battery operates. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) MPEP 2112.01.
As evidence of inherency, Saha evaluates the structural properties of SrTiO3 and further teaches that the paraelectric phase of SrTiO3 has the ideal cubic Pm3m perovskite structure above 105K or -168.15oC (Saha bottom of page 3).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Kim teaches claim 2 as described above and further teaches SrTiO3 as the dielectric present in the coating portion which meets the criteria of both claims (Kim 0019).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches claim 1 as described above but is silent to the dielectric constant of SrTiO3. It is known in the art, however, that the dielectric constant of SrTiO3 is 300 at room temperature which is a value with the claimed range of 100-400 and therefore anticipates it.
When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02.
While the prior art does not explicitly teach the dielectric constant of SrTiO3, these properties are considered inherent in the prior art barring any differences shown by objective evidence between the dielectric disclosed in the prior art and the applicant. As SrTiO₃ taught by the prior art and the applicant are identical within the scope of claim 1, Kim inherently teaches that the dielectric constant is 300 at standard room temperature. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches the diameter of the dielectric is 3nm-25nm (0068) which is a range fully within the range claimed and therefore anticipates it.
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches that the dielectric is distributed in an island formation with predetermined space from each other (0067).
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches that the appropriate amount of dielectric coating is between 0.5-5 wt% which is the same as the claimed range and therefore anticipates it (0069).
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches LiCoO2 as the lithium metal oxide which meets all criteria of the claim (0107).
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches a positive electrode further has a sulfide based solid electrolyte and a conductive material (0076 0080).
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches claim 10 as described above and further teaches that the solid electrolyte is between the positive and negative electrodes (0116).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN ROBERT BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-0640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 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, Galen 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.
/SEAN R. BROWN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
