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 .
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.
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.
Claim 8 recites the limitations “the first coating layer” and “the second coating layer.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshida (US 20140087270). Regarding claim 1, the reference is directed to a positive electrode material comprising a core comprising a lithium intercalation material, and a coating layer formed on the surface of the core (abstract, [0029]). Regarding claims 1 and 9, the coating layer comprises lithium carbonate (Li2CO3) and can also comprise a lithium titanium oxide such as Li4Ti5O12 ([0033], [0034]). Regarding claim 4, the lithium carbonate is present in an amount of preferably 0.3-1% by weight with respect to the coated active material ([0033]), which anticipates the claimed range. Regarding claim 10, a positive electrode comprises the coated active material and a sulfide electrolyte ([0050]). Regarding claim 11, the sulfide can comprise Li2S-P2S5, among others ([0079]). Regarding claim 13, the positive electrode is contained in a battery comprising a negative electrode and a solid electrolyte layer ([0079]). Thus, the instant claims are anticipated.
Claims 1, 2, 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2022056039. Regarding claim 1, the reference is directed to a positive electrode material comprising a core comprising a lithium intercalation material, and coating layers formed on the surface of the core (abstract, [0181] et seq). Regarding claims 1, 2 and 9, the coating layers comprise a first coating layer comprising lithium carbonate (Li2CO3) and a second, outer coating layer that may comprise a lithium titanium oxide ([0172]) such as Li4Ti5O12 (see claim 23). Regarding claim 10, a positive electrode comprises the coated active material and a sulfide electrolyte ([0177]). Regarding claim 11, the sulfide can comprise Li2S-P2S5-LiI, among others ([0177]). Regarding claim 13, the positive electrode is contained in a battery comprising a negative electrode and a solid electrolyte layer ([0409]). Thus, the instant claims are anticipated.
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, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida.
The reference is applied to claims 1, 4, 9-11 and 13 for the reasons stated above. However, the reference does not expressly teach the claimed amount of the coating layer relative to the active material (claim 3), the claimed amount of the lithium titanate (claim 5), nor the ratio of the lithium carbonate to the lithium titanate (claim 6).
However, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because the artisan could reasonably optimize the amounts and/or ratios involved so as to affect specific properties of the electrode material. In [0033] the reference discusses the rationale of using 0.02-3 wt% lithium carbonate in the active material. Further, the lithium titanate (which is an “Li-ion conductive oxide” identified by the reference in [0034]) may be present to “allow interface resistance between a cathode active material and a solid electrolyte material to be effectively inhibited from increasing.” The thickness of the coating layer as a whole is also discussed in [0035] (0.1-100 nm, with reasons provided). Given all these factors, a skilled artisan could readily optimize the claimed amount of the coating layer as a whole (claim 3), the claimed amount of the lithium titanate (claim 5), and the ratio of the lithium carbonate to the lithium titanate (claim 6). It has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022/056039.
The reference is applied to claims 1, 2, 9-11 and 13 for the reasons stated above. In addition, it is disclosed that the coating layers each have a thickness of 1-50 nm, and the thicknesses may be the same or different ([0156]).
With respect to claim 8, the disclosed thicknesses overlap the claimed ranges (1-20 nm) and therefore render these ranges obvious. 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 re Wertheim, 191USPQ 90; In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934).
With respect to claim 7, this claim recites that the thickness ratio of the first and second coating layers is in the range of 20:80 to 80:20. The disclosure above that the layer thicknesses can be “the same or different” renders this range obvious. For example, the “same” would read on 50:50. Accordingly, the claimed range is rendered obvious.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of Walther et al (Chemistry of Materials, 2021).
Yoshida is applied to claims 1, 4, 9-11 and 13 for the reasons stated above. However, the reference does not expressly teach the sulfide-based electrolyte used in the positive electrode is an argyrodite type having a formula of Li6PS5Cl as recited in claim 12.
Walther teaches a solid state battery having a coated positive active material, and a solid electrolyte comprising Li6PS5Cl as the solid electrolyte layer and in both electrodes (abstract).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan Crepeau whose telephone number is (571) 272-1299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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 phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272-1700. Documents may be faxed to the central fax server at (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Jonathan Crepeau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
September 30, 2026
