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 .
Specification
For clarity, the applicant is requested to define acronyms throughout the specification. For instance, in paragraph [0107], adding NEC after introducing “nano-engineered coating” (ie. nano-nanoengineered coating (NEC)) links the later introduced acronym NEC [0107] to the phrase.
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.
Claims 43 – 56 are 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 43, is indefinite based on antecedent issues. The term “a battery” (line 4 of rejection below) is introduced twice, and the term “anode active material” (line 3) appears to be missing the article “the”. Claims 44-56 are rejected as depending therefrom. Clarification is required.
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.
Claims 43 – 45, 47 – 49, and 53 – 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) by Se-Hee, US20120077082A1.
Regarding claim 43, Se-Hee teaches a process for coating a cathode active material or anode active material of a battery [0005], comprising:
depositing of a layer of material disposed on the cathode active material or anode active material of a battery [0009]
by atomic layer deposition [0008]
wherein the material comprises one or more of a: (i) metal oxide [0054]; (ii) metal halide [0054]; (iii) metal oxyflouride; (iv) metal phosphate [0007]; (v) metal sulfate [0054]; (vi) non-metal oxide [0055].
Regarding claim 44, Se-Hee teaches the process of claim 43, further comprising one or more of a metal selected from a group consisting of: alkali metals; transition metals; lanthanum; boron; silicon; carbon; tin; germanium; gallium; aluminum; and indium [0054][0055].
Regarding claim 45, Se-Hee teaches the process of claim 43, further comprising depositing a coating having a thickness of less than or equal to about 2,500 nm (0.2 – 10 nm which is fully encompassed by the claimed range thereby anticipating the claim)[0014].
Regarding claim 47, Se-Hee teaches the process of claim 43, further comprising depositing a uniform coating (absence of holes)[0007][0009].
Regarding claim 48, Se-Hee teaches the coating of claim 43, further comprising a coating depositing a coating conforming to the surface (conformality)[0009].
Regarding claim 49, Se-Hee teaches the process of claim 43, further comprising depositing a continuous coating (absence of holes)[0007][0009]..
Regarding claim 53, Se-Hee teaches the process of claim 43, further comprising depositing titania [0054] on a graphite surface (coating graphite electrodes)[0002][0007][0098].
Regarding claim 54, Se-Hee teaches the process of claim 43, further comprising depositing nitrogen-niobium-titanium oxide on a silicon surface (silicon electrode material)[0022][0024].
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 46 and 51 - 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Se-Hee, US20120077082A1 as applied to claim 43 above.
Regarding claim 46, Se-Hee teaches the process of claim 43, further comprising depositing a coating having a thickness between about 2 and about 2,000 nm (0.2 – 10 nm)[0014]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 51, Se-Hee teaches the process of claim 43, further comprising depositing alumina [0054] on a lithium-nickel-cobalt-aluminum-oxide surface (lithium transition metal oxides wherein metals such as Al, Co, and Ni are used) [0022]. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding claim 52, Se-Hee teaches the process of claim 43, further comprising depositing titania [0054] on a lithium-nickel-cobalt-aluminum-oxide surface (lithium transition metal oxides wherein metals such as Al, Co, and Ni are used) [0022]. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose MPEP 2144.06.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Se-Hee, US20120077082A1 as applied to claim 43 above, and further in view of Piper, “Reversible High-Capacity Si Nanocomposite Anodes for Lithium-ion Batteries Enabled by Molecular Layer Deposition” (cited in IDS filed 9/17/24).
Regarding claim 50, Se-Hee teaches the process of claim 43.
Se-Hee does not teach further comprising depositing a coating comprising one or more of: complexes of aluminum cations and glycerol; or complexes of aluminum cations and glucose.
Piper teaches a process for coating an anode material of a battery (coating Si-based anode materials)[pg. 1596. para. 1 – 2] further comprising depositing a coating comprising one or more of: complexes of aluminum cations and glycerol [pg. 1597 para. 1]. Further, Piper teaches that the aluminum glycerol coating improves capacity retention [pg. 1597 para. 1]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aluminum glycerol coating of Piper to coat the Si-based anode materials of Se-Hee [0024] to improve capacity retention.
Claims 55 and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Se-Hee, US20120077082A1 as applied to claim 43 above, and further in view of Iwamoto, US20030232248A1.
Regarding claim 55, Se-Hee teaches the process of claim 43 further comprising depositing alumina [0054].
Se-Hee does not teach a lithium titanate surface.
Iwamoto teaches a process for coating a cathode material or anode material of a battery [0036] wherein a suitable electrode material is taught to be lithium titanate [0053] among others listed in the suitable materials also present in Se-Hee [0024]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the anode material of Iwamoto into the battery of Hee as substitution of one known element for another.
Regarding claim 56, Se-Hee teaches the process of claim 43, further comprising depositing titania [0054].
Se-Hee does not teach a lithium titanate surface.
Iwamoto teaches a process for coating a cathode material or anode material of a battery [0036] wherein a suitable electrode material is taught to be lithium titanate [0053] among others listed in the suitable materials also present in Se-Hee [0024]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the anode material of Iwamoto into the battery of Se-Hee as substitution of one known element for another.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-1340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/PATRICK MARSHALL GREENE/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724