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 .
Priority
This application claims the benefit of the filing date of Provisional Application No. 63/509,345, filed on June 21, 2023.
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claim 1-15, 20-40, drawn to product, classified in H01M 4/1391.
II. Claim 16-19, drawn to method, classified in H01M 4/0428.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions II and I are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case Al(Cl3)3) could be used instead of Al(CH3)3).
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions have acquired different classifications and a search for one invention would not necessarily encompass both inventions.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Kevin Able on August 27, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-15 and 20-40. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 16-19 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2,5-7, 9-10, 12-14, 20-22, 25-27, 29-30, 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Yushin et al. (US 2022/0131125 Al).
Claim 1: Yushin teaches a cathode prepared by sintering [0074] comprising lithium cobalt oxide (LCO) [0100] that is coated on the surface with an oxide such as aluminum oxide (Al2O3) [0128] that is deposited at least partially on the internal surface pores [0007, 0009].
Claim 10: Yushin teaches the sintered cathode comprises lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2) [0100].
Claim 20: Yushin further teaches a battery [0007] having a coated sintered cathode comprising aluminum oxide (Al2O3) [0128].
Claim 30: Yushin further teaches a battery having a coated sintered cathode comprising lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2) [0007, 0100].
Claim 2: Yushin further teaches is deposited at least partially on the internal surface pores by the coating layer is deposited by atomic-layer deposition (ALD) [0007, 0009].
Claims 5 and 25: Yushin further teaches the electrode (i.e., cathode) pores comprise open pores (i.e., open pore structure) [0084].
Claims 6 and 26: Yushin further teaches pores of the electrode (i.e., cathode), wherein the internal surfaces of the pores are accessible and can be coated (i.e., an open pore structure) [0007].
Claim 7 and 27: Yushin further teaches the porosity of the electrode is in the range 10% to 30% [0123].
Claim 9 and 29: Yushin further teaches the electrode pores comprise closed pores (i.e., closed pore structure) [0084].
Claim 12 and 32: Yushin further teaches surface layers may comprise lithium (i.e., doped with lithium) such as lithium comprising oxides including lithium aluminum oxide (i.e., aluminum oxide (Al2O3) doped with lithium) [0128].
Claims 13 and 33: Yushin teaches a battery [0007] including a sintered cathode comprising lithium cobalt oxide (LCO) [0100] that is coated on the surface with an oxide such as aluminum oxide (Al2O3) [0128]. This is the same configuration as the embodiment described in the specification. Thus, the battery comprising Yushin’s coated sintered cathode would be configured to cause the battery to have a reduced impedance relative to a battery using an otherwise identical uncoated sintered cathode after fifteen or more charge-discharge cycles have been performed.
This is also supported by Yushin. Yushin further teaches the deposition of ionically conducting layer between the intercalation-type cathode offers higher conductivity (i.e., reduced impedance) compared to uncoated electrodes [0102].
Claim 14 and 34: Yushin teaches the deposition of ionically conducting layer between the intercalation-type cathode enables higher accessible capacity compared to uncoated cathodes [0102].
Claim 21: Yushin further teaches the deposited cathode coating layer is an interfacial layer disposed between the electrolyte and the cathode (i.e., cathode-electrolyte interface) [0099].
Claim 22: Yushin further teaches a battery comprising a solid electrolyte comprising Li-La-Ti-O garnet, (i.e., lithium garnet) [0096].
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.
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.
Claims 3-4, 15, 23-24, 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin et al. (US 2022/0131125 Al).
Claim 3-4, 23-24: Yushin teaches the average thickness of the surface layer is in the range 0.3 nm to 50 nm [0007]. Yushin does not identically teach the range 0.2 nm to 20 nm or the range less than 20 nm. However, the claimed ranges of claims 3 and 4, and of claims 23 and 24, overlap the range disclosed in Yushin; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05.I). Selection of the overlapping ranges (0.3 nm to 20 nm) is held prima facie obvious.
Claims 15 and 35: Yushin further teaches that two, three or more surface coating layers of distinctly different composition may be deposited on the electrodes [0080]. Yushin also teaches aluminum oxide (Al2O3) and zinc oxide (ZnO) may be used as coatings. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filling the instant invention to have prepared Yushin’s cathode with two coating layers of aluminum oxide (Al2O3) and zinc oxide (ZnO) because Yushin teaches such is an operable cathode.
Claim 36: Yushin teaches a battery (i.e., energy storage device) [0007] comprising a cathode prepared by sintering [0074], having a coating layer including aluminum oxide (Al2O3) [0128]. Yushin further teaches the average thickness of the surface layer is in the range 0.3 nm to 50 nm [0007]. Yushin does not identically teach the range 0.2 nm to 20 nm, but it teaches an overlapping range and a prima facie case of obviousness exists for selection of values in the overlapping range (see MPEP 2144.05.I).
Claim 37: Yushin further teaches it may be advantageous for the deposited surface layer to cover over 99.9% of the cathode surface (i.e., encapsulate the cathode) [0102].
Claims 8 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin et al. (US 2022/0131125 Al), and further in view of Yura et al. (US 20230198110 A1).
Claim 8 and 28: Yushin teaches that perforation of the electrode has the advantage of reducing diffusion times of its ALD precursors [0175]. Yushin acknowledges that built-in mechanical stresses in the electrodes are a design concern [0211]. Yura teaches a porous sintered cathode [0076]. Yura teaches that the average pore diameter of 0.1 to 10 μm advantageously controls stress distributions in the electrode [0047]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to at the time of filing the instant invention to modify Yushin’s electrode to have an average pore diameter of 0.1 to 10 μm as suggested by Yura, as Yushin broadly wants a porous electrode to enhance ALD precursor diffusion in the electrode and Yura teaches a pore diameter distribution properties to the electrode, simultaneously meeting Yushin’s desire for a porous electrode while additionally giving a stress distribution benefit relevant to the stated concerns of Yushin. The claimed range of about 0.5 to 20 μm lies inside the range of 0.1 to 10 μm disclosed by Yura; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness for selecting the claimed range exists.
Claims 11, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin et al. (US 2022/0131125 Al), and further in view of Liang et al. (US 20220158160 A1).
Claim 11 and 31: Yushin teaches the cathode may comprise lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NMC) cathode material [0100]. Yushin does not specifically teach NMC 111 (LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3O2) as the cathode material. However, Liang teaches a cathode with a bilayer surface coating of AlF3 and Al2O3 suitable for use in for a Li-ion battery, wherein the cathode comprises a lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NMC) cathode material NMC111 LiNi0.3Mn0.3Co0.3O2. (0028, claims 1-4). Yushin does not identically teach the proportions of Ni:Mn:Co are 1/3:1/3:1/3 in the NMC compound. However, the claimed proportions of claims 11 and 31 are close to the proportion disclosed in Yushin; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05.I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used NMC 111 (LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3O2) in Yushin’s cathode because Yushin requires Li-NMC cathode material suitable for use in a Li-ion battery and Liang teaches a specific Li-NMC cathode material composition suitable for Li-ion batteries.
Claims 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin et al. (US 2022/0131125 Al), and further in view of Park et al. (US 12308415 B2).
Claim 38: As described above, Yushin teaches a battery (i.e., energy storage device), comprising a cathode comprising sintered lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2), and a coating layer coated on the cathode; selection of a thickness between 0.3 and 20 nanometers is obvious as discussed in the rejection of Claim 36 above. Yushin does not teach a cathode comprising sintered polycrystalline lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2) and/or NMC (LiNi(1-x-y)MnxCoyO2). However, Park teaches a sintered positive electrode (i.e., cathode) active material Li1+p[Ni(1-(x1-y1-z1)Mnx1Coy1 Mαz1]1-pO2 wherein and-0.02≤0.05, 0<x1≤0.4, 0.05≤y1≤0.4, 0≤z1≤0.1, and 0.05<x1+y1+z1≤0.35 (Col 2 lines 53-63, Col 6 lines 30-35), wherein the positive electrode active material comprises a single particle that is polycrystalline (Col 20 lines 34-45, claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling the instant invention to have prepared Yushin’s cathode using polycrystalline active material because Park teaches such is a functional active material for a battery commensurate with that disclosed in Yushin.
Claim 39: Yushin teaches a battery (i.e., energy storage device) [0007], comprising a cathode comprising sintered [0074] lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2) [0100]; wherein a coating layer is coated on the cathode [0007]. Yushin further teaches the average thickness of the surface layer is in the range 0.3 nm to 50 nm [0007]. Yushin does not identically teach the range 0.2 nm to 20 nm, but it teaches an overlapping range and a prima facie case of obviousness exists for selection of values in the overlapping range (see MPEP 2144.05.I).
Yushin does not teach a cathode comprising sintered polycrystalline lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2) and/or NMC (LiNi(1-x-y)MnxCoyO2). However, Park teaches a sintered positive electrode (i.e., cathode) active material Li1+p[Ni(1-(x1-y1-z1)Mnx1Coy1 Mαz1]1-pO2 wherein and-0.02≤0.05, 0<x1≤0.4, 0.05≤y1≤0.4, 0≤z1≤0.1, and 0.05<x1+y1+z1≤0.35 (Col 2 lines 53-63, Col 6 lines 30-35), wherein the positive electrode active material comprises a single particle that is polycrystalline (Col 20 lines 34-45, claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling the instant invention to have prepared Yushin’s cathode using polycrystalline active material because Park teaches such is a functional active material for a battery commensurate with that disclosed in Yushin.
Claim 40: Yushin teaches it may be advantageous for the deposited surface layer to cover over 99.9% of the cathode surface (i.e., encapsulate the cathode) [0102].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINAH RUSERE whose telephone number is (571)272-9954. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/L.N.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1712
/MICHAEL G MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights