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 .
2. Claims 1-12 are pending in this office action.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. Information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted June 17, 2024, and October 7, 2025, have been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 2019/0020024 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Wang et al. disclose a positive active material, comprising: a positive active material with layered crystal structure (paragraph 0042), and wherein, a XRD spectrum of a grain of the positive active material has diffraction peaks corresponding to the (003) plane and the (110) plane, and a ratio of the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the diffraction peak corresponding to the (110) plane to the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the diffraction peak corresponding to the (003) plane is 1.30 to 1.60 (paragraphs 0045-0049; See Table 2).
The recitation, “for all solid batteries”, is functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2113.
With regard to Claim 2, Wang et al. disclose wherein: the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the diffraction peak corresponding to the (003) plane is 0.100 to 0.125 (paragraphs 0045-0049; See Table 2).
With regard to Claim 3, Wang et al. disclose wherein: the positive active material is a secondary particle formed by agglomeration of primary particles, an average particle diameter D50 of the secondary particle is 3µm to 8µm (paragraph 0050), which meets the claimed limitation of 3µm to 12µm.
With regard to Claims 5-6, Wang et al. disclose wherein: the positive active material comprises nickel (Ni) and cobalt (Co), more specifically, the positive active material comprises layered nickel-cobalt-manganese-based oxide or layered nickel-cobalt-aluminum-based oxide, as represented by LiaNixCoyMnzMbO2, wherein 1.0≤a≤1.2; 0.00≤b≤0.05; 0.30≤x≤0.60; 0.10≤y≤0.40; 0.15≤z≤0.30; x+y+z=1; M is one or two or more selected from the group consisting of Mg, Ti, Al, Zr, Y, W, Mn, Ba and rare earth elements (paragraph 0042).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2019/0020024 A1), as applied to Claims 1-3 and 5-6 above.
With regard to Claim 4, Wang et al. disclose the positive active material in paragraph 7 above, but do not specifically disclose an average grain size of 70nm to 90nm. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the positive active material to have an average grain size of 70 nm to 90 nm, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
12. Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2019/0020024 A1), as applied to Claims 1-3 and 5-6 above, and in further view of Kodama et al. (EP 3182499 A1).
With regard to Claims 7-8, Wang et al. disclose the positive active material in paragraph 7 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein the positive active material comprises a coating layer containing LiZrO3 or LiNbO3, wherein: the LiZrO3 or LiNbO3 is included at 0.1 to 1.5wt% for the positive active material.
Kodama et al. disclose solid state lithium battery (10) comprising a cathode active material layer (1), an anode active material layer (2), a solid electrolyte layer (3) that is formed between the cathode active material layer (1) and the anode active material layer (2) (paragraph 0019). Kodama et al. disclose wherein the cathode active material layer contain an oxide active material as a cathode active material, including a rock salt bed tow active material such as layered nickel-cobalt-manganese-based oxide or layered nickel-cobalt-aluminum-based oxide (paragraphs 0035-0036). Kodama et al. disclose wherein the surface of the oxide active material is preferably coated with a coating layer comprising a Li ion conductive oxide, such as, Li2ZrO3 or LiNbO3 (paragraph 0037), and wherein the thickness of the coating later is in the range of 0.1 nm to 100 nm and a coverage factor of the coating layer on the surface of the oxide active material is preferably 80% or more (paragraph 0038).
Kodama et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the LiZrO3 or LiNbO3 is included at 0.1 to 1.5wt% for the positive active material. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the LiZrO3 or LiNbO3 in an amount of 0.1 to 1.5wt% for the positive active material, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the positive active material of Wang et al. to include a coating layer containing LiZrO3 or LiNbO3, because Kodamaa et al. teach that this coating layer helps to suppress the reaction between the oxide active material and the sulfide solid electrolyte material (paragraph 0037).
With regard to Claims 9-12, Wang et al. disclose a positive electrode comprising the positive active material in paragraph 7 above (paragraph 0042), but do not specifically disclose the positive active material for an all solid battery, further comprising a sulfide solid electrolyte and a negative electrode.
Kodama et al. disclose a solid state lithium battery (10) comprising a cathode active material layer (1), an anode active material layer (2), a solid electrolyte layer (3) that is formed between the cathode active material layer (1) and the anode active material layer (2) (paragraph 0019). Kodama et al. disclose wherein the cathode active material layer contain an oxide active material as a cathode active material, including a rock salt bed tow active material such as layered nickel-cobalt-manganese-based oxide or layered nickel-cobalt-aluminum-based oxide (paragraphs 0035-0036). Kodama et al. disclose wherein the surface of the oxide active material is preferably coated with a coating layer comprising a Li ion conductive oxide, such as, Li2ZrO3 or LiNbO3 (paragraph 0037). Kodama et al. disclose a sulfide solid electrolyte (paragraphs 0039-0043) and a negative electrode (paragraphs 0051-0053). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the positive active material of Wang et al. to be included in an all solid battery, further comprising a sulfide solid electrolyte and a negative electrode, because Kodama et al. teach that this configuration improves the thermal stability of the battery (paragraph 0016).
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARIE O APICELLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 5:00PM EST.
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.
/KARIE O'NEILL APICELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights