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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 29, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Chemical Formulas 2 and 5 are functionally identical, so it is duplicative and confusing. Additionally, table 2 shows different results for Chemical Formulas 2 and 5, even though the compounds are functionally identical, which does not make sense.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 is missing a period at the end of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for claims 1-7 and 9-20, does not reasonably provide enablement for claim 8. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The specification states that “selection through actual tests is bound to take an astronomical amount of time and cost” and expressly proposes identifying coating materials “without conducting actual tests”. Consistent with that statement, the disclosure contains no working examples for any of the eleven recited formulas. It discloses no synthesis route, no precursor, no reaction temperature or atmosphere, no method of applying any recited composition to a core component as a coating, and no experimental verification of any computed property. Chemical formulas 8 and 9 require protactinium, a radioactive actinide with no commercial supply. The specification provides no guidance for obtaining, handling or incorporating protactinium into a cathode coating, and no discussion of how a radioactive coating would be employed in the disclosed application to hybrid and electric vehicles. Chemical formula 3, as discussed below, cannot exist. Further, as is set forth above, Chemical Formulas 2 and 5 are functionally identical, but have different data in table 2. Considering the Wands factors – particularly the absence of working examples, the absence of any direction or guidance regarding synthesis or application, the unavailability of a required element, the breadth of the claim relative to the disclosure, and the unpredictability evidenced by inconsistencies above – undue experimentation would be required to practice the full scope of claim 8.
Claims 6-7 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. Claims 6 and 7 specify energy of a negative amount or less, which mathematically requires the values to be even more negative, but this is contrary to Applicant’s specification.
Claim 8 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. Chemical formula 3 is not charge balanced, and therefore cannot exist – Li3B3-xAlxO5 gives 3(+1) + 3(+3) = +12 against O5 = -10, at every value of x, since Al3+ and B3+ are isovalent. Additionally, chemical formulas 2 and 5 are functionally identical, so having the formula duplicated is confusing.
Claims 19-20 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 19 recites the limitation "the primary particles" and claim 20 recites the limitation “the secondary particles”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims, because they depend upon claim 16, but these limitations are introduced in claim 17.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9-12, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim (US Pub. No. 2018/0323435).
Regarding claims 1 and 9-10 and 16, Lim teaches a cathode active material for an all solid state (taken to meet the limitation of a solid electrolyte) lithium secondary battery (title; paragraphs [0002]-[0003]), comprising NCM (taken to be the core component comprising lithium transition metal oxide – NCM contains transition metals nickel, cobalt, and manganese) and a coating of Li(Nb0.6Ta0.4)O3 (taken to be the claimed lithium oxide, comprising lithium, a first element, and a second element that substitutes for at least a part of the first element) (paragraphs [0122]-[0126]), as well as teaching an anode, and solid electrolyte between the cathode and the anode (paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, the first element comprises Nb (paragraph [0126]).
Regarding claim 4, the oxidation numbers of Nb and Ta in the compound are both +5 (inherent to how these elements interact in the compound), and the coordination numbers of both Nb and Ta in the compound are both 6 (paragraph [0076] – R3c space group leads to the coordination number of 6).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, the second element comprises Ta (paragraph [0126]).
Regarding claim 18, Lim teaches a range of average particle size of the cathode active material may be 1 μm to 20 μm (paragraph [0072]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claims 2, 6-7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lim (US Pub. No. 2018/0323435).
Regarding claims 2 and 6-7 and 15, the embodiment of Lim set forth above meets the limitations of claims 1, 3-5, 9-12, 16 and 18, and thus appears to be the same as that of Applicant, and would therefore be expected to meet these claimed properties, or else it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make an embodiment of Lim which meets these claimed properties. “’When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.’” MPEP § 2112.01 citing In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, expressed as a 102/103 rejection.” MPEP § 2112.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong (US Pub. No. 2017/0155132) in view of Lim (US Pub. No. 2018/0323435) and Filho (Lithiotantite, ideally LiTa3O8, Acta Cryst. E68, i27 (2012)).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Kong teaches a positive electrode active material comprising a LiNb3O8 coating (paragraph [0033]) on a core component (paragraphs [0056]-[0059]). Kong does not specifically disclose substitution of tantalum for a portion of the niobium to result in chemical formula 11. Lim teaches a cathode active material for an all solid state (taken to meet the limitation of a solid electrolyte) lithium secondary battery (title; paragraphs [0002]-[0003]), comprising NCM (taken to be the core component comprising lithium transition metal oxide – NCM contains transition metals nickel, cobalt, and manganese) and a coating of Li(Nb0.6Ta0.4)O3, where Ta substitutes for a portion of Nb (paragraphs [0122]-[0126]), as well as teaching that the amount of substitution x is 0.4<x<1.0, particularly 0.6≤x<1.0 (paragraph [0068]), indicating that the amount of substitution is a result effective variable. Filho teaches a single-crystal structure of Lithiotantite with composition Li0.96Mn0.03Na0.01Nb0.82Ta2.18O8 (such a composition having an amount of Nb of 0.82 within the claimed range of chemical formula 11) in which the three non-lithium cation sites are jointly occupied by Ta5+ and Nb5+ (page i27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute Ta for a portion of Nb as taught by Lim in the cathode active material of Kong in order to take the merits of Nb and Ta without disadvantage (see Lim at paragraph [0076]). It would have been obvious to determine workable or optimum ranges of substitution through routine experimentation, resulting in the range of chemical formula 11, because Lim teaches minimum and maximum amount of substitution. Lastly, Filho provides evidence that an amount of substitution within the claimed range is a real, structurally characterized phase.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Zhu (US Pub. No. 2021/0408539).
Regarding claim 13, Lim teaches the use of a sulfide-based solid electrolyte (paragraph [0149]) but does not specifically disclose argyrodite as the sulfide-based solid electrolyte. Zhu teaches the use of high-crystalline argyrodite as a solid electrolyte in a solid state lithium battery (paragraph [0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use crystalline argyrodite as taught by Zhu as the sulfide-based solid electrolyte of Lim as a known solid electrolyte with predictable results.
Claims 14, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim as applied to claims 10 and 16 above, and further in view of Miki (US Pub. No. 2018/0219229).
Regarding claim 14, Lim does not specifically disclose that the cathode further comprises a carbon conductive material. Miki teaches that a cathode can optionally comprise a conductive material such as vapor grown carbon fibers, acetylene black, Ketjen black, carbon nanotubes, and carbon nanofibers (paragraph [0045]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a carbon conductive material as taught by Miki in the cathode of Lim as a known conductive material for use in a cathode with predictable results.
Regarding claims 17 and 19, Lim does not specifically disclose that the core component comprises secondary particles containing the lithium transition metal oxide. Miki teaches that a lithium transition metal oxide can be secondary particles formed by aggregation of primary particles, where the primary particles preferably have a diameter of 500 nm to 3 μm (paragraph [0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use primary particles cohered into secondary particles as taught by Miki in the battery of Lim as a known configuration of lithium transition metal oxide particles with predictable results (see MPEP at 2143 I. A.). Regarding claim 19, the limitation that the primary particles are composed of a single grain or a plurality of grains is necessarily met, because these limitations together exclude nothing.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim in view of Miki as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Takano (US Pub. No. 2013/0011726).
Regarding claim 20, Lim does not specifically disclose that the secondary particles are spherical. Takano teaches that the secondary particles are spherical (paragraph [0186]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use spherical shaped secondary particles as taught by Takano in the battery of Lim (combined) as a known shape of secondary particles in a battery cathode with predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1612. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/P.N.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 August 29, 2026
/KATELYN W SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights