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 § 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 1-14 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomura et al. (US 20170207482 A1, published 20 Jul 2017) in view of Fukui et al. (US 20180198169 A1, published 12 Jul 2018) and Yasuda et al. (US 20200052342 A1, published 13 Feb 2020).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Tomura et al. discloses an all-solid-state battery ([0012]) comprising a cathode active material layer (3b, [0041]; Fig. 10), a cathode current collector (3a, [0045]; Fig. 10), an anode active material layer (1b, [0041]; Fig. 10), an anode current collector (1a, [0041]; Fig. 10), a solid electrolyte layer between the cathode layer and the anode layer (2, [0041]; Fig. 10), and an insulation material on a thickness side of the cathode layer (3ax, [0085]; Fig. 10). Tomura further teaches an embodiment in which an adhesive may also be arranged on the insulation material ([0085]), thereby creating a multilayer structure. Furthermore, Figure 10 as disclosed by Tomura shows two of the multilayer structure, and thus Tomura discloses a plurality of multilayer structures. The adhesive layer and insulation material read on the claimed “inactive member” comprising a multilayer structure, and the insulation material is interpreted as the claimed “support layer.” Tomura further discloses that an area of the stacking face of the cathode current collector (3a) can be made smaller than the stacking face of the corresponding anode current collector (1a), when the stacking face of the cathode active material layer (3b) is also made smaller than the corresponding stacking face of the anode active material layer (1b, [0064]).
Tomura, however, teaches and shows that the inactive member may include only one support and one adhesive. Fukai et al., in Figure 3, shows an inactive member disposed around a battery. The Fukai structure includes 2 multilayer structures, wherein each of the multilayer structures comprises an adhesive layer (51, 53, [0034-0036]) and an insulation (support) layer (41A, 41B, [0034-0036]). Thus, the inactive member disclosed by Fukui has 4 layers in total.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the inactive member of Tomura by adding the multilayer structure of Fukai to the multilayer structure of Tomura (thus including an inactive member with 4 layers in total), because multilayer support/adhesive structures are recognized in the art as suitable for protecting an all-solid battery. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.04). Modified Tomura still does not teach that the cathode current collector (3a) is not overlapping the inactive member (adhesive and insulation material 3ax) in a plan view.
Yasuda et al. discloses a lithium-ion rechargeable battery (1) with a battery part (20) that does not overlap an inside adhesion layer (34) and a thermo-adhesive resin layer (35) in a plan view (as shown in Fig. 2). The battery part includes a positive electrode collector layer (24), in addition to a positive electrode layer (23), a negative electrode layer (21) and a solid electrolyte layer (22, [0032]; Fig. 2). Yasuda further discloses that the thermo-adhesive resin layer comprises an insulating resin having high electrical resistance ([0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Tomura so that the cathode current collector does not overlap the inactive member in a plan view, as taught by Yasuda. The lithium-ion battery of Yasuda is similar to that of Tomura in that it also contains an adhesive and an insulating material as the inactive member, and includes the inactive member on a thickness side of the cathode layer. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices or products in the same way is likely to be obvious (see MPEP § 2143, C.). Therefore, modified Tomura meets the limitations of claims 1 and 2.
Regarding claim 3, modified Tomura meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. While not to scale, it appears Figure 10 as disclosed by Tomura shows that the adhesive or the support layer is 90% or less of the total thickness. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to specifically provide the adhesive or support layers less than 90% of the total thickness in order to achieve the handling properties desired.
Furthermore, in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims w-as a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefore, modified Tomura meets the limitations of claim 3.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, modified Tomura meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Tomura further discloses that the thickness of the insulation material “may be the same or smaller than the thickness of the cathode active material layer” ([0083; Fig. 10). The thickness being the same is synonymous with the thickness of the insulation material being 100% of the thickness of the cathode active material layer. Therefore, modified Tomura meets the limitations of claims 4 and 5.
Regarding claim 6, modified Tomura meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Tomura further discloses that the adhesive layer may be a thermosetting or thermoplastic adhesive ([0045, 0103]), thus reading on the claim limitation, “the adhesive layer comprises an organic material.” Tomura teaches that the insulation material may include thermoplastic resins, rubbers, or non-conductive binders ([0103]). Since the insulation material reads on the support layer, as discussed regarding claim 1, modified Tomura also meets the claim limitation, “the support layer comprises an organic material and/or an inorganic material.” Therefore, modified Tomura meets the limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, modified Tomura meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The thermosetting adhesives disclosed by Tomura ([0045, 0103]) include curable polymers such as polyimide tape ([0103]). Thus, modified Tomura reads on the claim limitation “the adhesive layer comprises a curable polymer,” and modified Tomura meets the limitations of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, modified Tomura meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The thermoplastic resins, rubbers, or non-conductive binders ([0103]) disclosed by Tomura as insulation materials read on the claimed “insulating polymer.” Therefore, modified Tomura meets the limitations of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, modified Tomura meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Tomura further discloses that by increasing the densities of the anode active material layer, the solid electrolyte layer, and the cathode active material layer, ion conductive resistance and electron conductive resistance can be reduced ([0050]) and performance increased ([0016]). Thus, Tomura identifies material density as a known results effective variable.
The courts have held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Tomura does not disclose the density of the support layer relative to the cathode active material layer, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the density of the support layer in addition to that of the cathode layer in order to reduce conductive resistance and improve performance as disclosed by Tomura. Therefore, modified Tomura meets the limitations of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, modified Tomura meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Figures 7-10 of Tomura show that the inactive member (3ax) is on all thickness sides of the cathode layer (3ai, 3a/3b) and contact the solid electrolyte layer (2, [0066-0067]). Thus, modified Tomura meets the limitations of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, modified Tomura meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Figures 7-10 of Tomura further show that the inactive member (3ax) extends to a distal end portion of the solid electrolyte layer (2) and is spatially separated from the first anode active material layer (1b). The solid electrolyte layer separates the inactive member from the anode active material layer. Thus, modified Tomura meets the limitations of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, modified Tomura meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. While not to scale, it appears Figure 10 as disclosed by Tomura shows that the width of the inactive member extending from the thickness side of the cathode layer to a distal end portion of the solid electrolyte layer is 1% to 30% of a width of the cathode layer. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to specifically provide the inactive member 1 to 30% of the width of the cathode layer in order to achieve the handling properties desired.
Furthermore, in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefore, modified Tomura meets the limitations of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, modified Tomura meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Figures 7-10 of Tomura further show that the area of the cathode active material layer (3b) is smaller than an area of the solid electrolyte layer (2, [0066]) contacting the cathode layer, and the inactive member (3ax) is on the thickness side of the cathode layer to make up a difference in area between the cathode active material layer and the solid electrolyte layer. Thus, modified Tomura meets the limitations of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, modified Tomura meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Tomura further discloses that the solid electrolyte layer may include sulfide-based amorphous solid electrolytes such as Li2S—SiS2, LiI—Li2S—SiS2, LiI—Li3PO4—P2S5, Li2S—P2S5 and Li3PS4 ([0094]). Each of Li2S—SiS2, LiI—Li2S—SiS2, and Li2S—P2S5 is a compound listed by claim 14, and thus modified Tomura meets the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 21, modified Tomura meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Figure 10 of Tomura further shows that the inactive member (insulation material 3ax and adhesive layer) is on a top surface of one of the solid electrolyte layers (2). Therefore, modified Tomura meets the limitations of claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, modified Tomura meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Tomura further discloses that the thickness of the insulation material “may be the same or smaller than the thickness of the cathode active material layer” ([0083; Fig. 10). Therefore, modified Tomura meets the limitations of claim 22.
Regarding claim 23, modified Tomura meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Tomura does not specify the thicknesses of the adhesive layer and the support layer. Fukui further teaches an example embodiment where the thicknesses of the adhesive layer (51, 53) and the support layer (insulating member 41) are 30 µm and 50 µm, or 37.5% and 62.5%, respectively, of the total thickness (80 µm) of the multilayer structure. However, Fukui is not limited thereto.
Yasuda teaches a thickness of a thermo-adhesive resin layer (35), which serves as an inactive member ([0044, 0067]; see Fig. 2). Yasuda further teaches that when the thickness of the thermo-adhesive resin layer is less than 20 μm, pinholes are likely to be generated, and when the thickness of the thermo-adhesive resin layer exceeds 80 μm, the battery becomes too thick and there is a possibility of resulting in insufficient thermal adhesion ([0035]). Thus, Yasuda identifies the thickness of the adhesive layer as results effective.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the thickness of the adhesive layer of modified Tomura, such that a thickness of the adhesive layer and a thickness of the support layer are each 45% to 55% of a total thickness of their respective multilayer structure, to prevent pinholes as taught by Yasuda. If the thickness of the support layer of modified Tomura is 50 µm, as taught by Fukui, an adhesive layer with a thickness of about 41 µm to 61 µm, which is within the optimal range taught by Yasuda, falls within the claimed thickness ratio. Furthermore, the courts have held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Therefore, modified Tomura meets the limitations of claim 23.
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomura et al. (US 20170207482 A1) in view of Fukui et al. (US 20180198169 A1) and Yasuda et al. (US 20200052342 A1) as applied to claims 1-14 above, and further in view of Kojima et al. (WO 2019093461 A1, published 16 May 2019, paragraphs cited are from the provided English translation).
Regarding claim 15, modified Tomura meets the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above. Tomura discloses that the solid electrolyte layer may include sulfide-based amorphous solid electrolytes ([0094]). Tomura does not disclose that argyrodite-type solid electrolytes may be used.
Kojima et al. discloses that it is preferable to use a sulfide solid electrolyte having an argyrodite structure containing chlorine and/or bromine, such as Li6PS5Cl and Li6PS5Br, “because of its high electrical conductivity and high resistance to lithium metal” ([0039]). Given that the density of Li6PS5Cl is 1.64 g/cc, and the density of Li6PS5Br is 1.90 g/cc, both compounds are within the claimed density range of 1.5 g/cc to 2.0 g.cc.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the amorphous sulfide-based solid electrolytes of modified Tomura with the argyrodite-type solid electrolytes to increase electrical conductivity and resistance to lithium metal as disclosed by Kojima. Therefore, modified Tomura meets the limitations of claim 15.
Regarding claim 20, modified Tomura meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Tomura discloses that the anode active material may include carbon active materials, oxide active materials and metal active materials, and that lithium-containing metal active materials including Li metal or Li alloy may be used ([0093]). Tomura does not disclose a second anode active material layer.
Kojima discloses a negative electrode 1 comprising a lithium foil on a transition metal layer ([0047]), and further discloses that the lithium foil is preferably provided between the sulfide-based solid electrolyte and the transition metal layer ([0050]). Kojima further discloses that a lithium foil is used to achieve long-lasting charging and discharging ([0040]). It is the examiner’s interpretation that the transition metal layer is the first anode active material, and the lithium foil us the second anode active material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the anode active material layer of modified Tomura with an additional, separate lithium layer between the sulfide-based solid electrolyte and the first anode active material as disclosed by Kojima to achieve long-lasting charging and discharging. Therefore, modified Tomura meets the limitations of claim 20.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomura et al. (US 20170207482 A1) in view of Fukui et al. (US 20180198169 A1) and Yasuda et al. (US 20200052342 A1) as applied to claims 1-14 above, and further in view of Yu et al. (CN 109686952 A, published 26 Apr 2019, paragraphs cited are from the provided English translation).
Regarding claim 16, modified Tomura meets the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Tomura discloses that the anode active material layer may include a binder in addition to the anode active material ([0095]). Tomura further discloses that the anode active material may be in particle form ([0093]). However, Tomura does not teach the specifics of the anode material, although Tomura teaches that the selection of the anode material is not limited. Thus, Tomura does not disclose the average particle diameter of the anode active material. Yu et al discloses a silicon-carbon composite negative electrode material composed of silicon-carbon composite particles, an amorphous carbon coating layer and carbon nanotubes ([0011]) with a particle size of 1-20 μm ([0014]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the silicon-carbon composite particles of Yu as the anode active material of modified Tomura. The courts have held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness. See In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the size of the anode active material particles of modified Tomura to a range of 1-20 μm as disclosed by Yu. 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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to select an average particle size of 1-4 μm, and modified Tomura meets the limitations of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, Tomura as modified by Fukui and Yu teaches all of the limitation of claim 16 as discussed above. Tomura further discloses that the anode active material may include carbon active materials, oxide active materials and metal active materials ([0093]). Tomura further discloses that a conductive material may be included in the anode active material to improve the conductivity, and further that the conductive material may be amorphous carbon such as acetylene black (AB) or Ketjen black (KB) ([0095]). Therefore, modified Tomura teaches all the limitations of claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, Tomura as modified by Fukui and Yu teaches all of the limitation of claim 16 as discussed above. Tomura further discloses examples of metal active materials including In, Al, Si, Sn, and lithium-containing metals ([0093]). Silicon, aluminum, and tin are each listed by the claim 18. Therefore, modified Tomura teaches all the limitations of claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, Tomura as modified by Fukui and Yu teaches all of the limitation of claim 16 as discussed above. Tomura further discloses that the anode active material may include metal active materials ([0093]), and that a conductive material such as amorphous carbon may be included in the anode active material to improve the conductivity ([0095]). Tomura further discloses that the content of the anode active material in the anode active material layer is not particularly limited, and may be in the range of from 40% to 99% by mass ([0093]). Tomura does not disclose if the conductive material is in particle form. Yu discloses a silicon-carbon composite negative electrode material composed of silicon-carbon composite particles, wherein the silicon content is 10-40 wt% ([0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the conductive material of modified Tomura could also be in particulate form, such as the silicon-carbon composite particles of Yu. The 10-40 wt% silicon range of Yu is also within the claimed range of 8-60 wt% of metal or metalloid particles, and therefore reads on the claim. Thus, modified Tomura meets the limitations of claim 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Tomura should instead need its cathode current collector (3a) to have the same area size as the anode current collector (1a), applicant fails to address the teaching of Tomura in which “the size of the stacking face of the cathode current collector and the size of the stacking face of the anode current collector are not particularly limited. For example, when making the stacking face of the cathode active material layer smaller than the stacking face of the anode active material layer, it is also possible to make the stacking face of the cathode current collector smaller than the stacking face of the anode current collector” ([0064]). Thus, Tomura clearly states that the cathode current collector (3a) does not need to have the same area size as the anode current collector (1a), only that both current collectors should have the same shape ([0080]) for the ease of manufacturing.
In response to applicant's argument that Yasuda is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Yasuda is clearly in the field of the inventor's endeavor, as it also teaches a solid-state lithium-ion battery containing an adhesive (34) and an insulating material (35) as the inactive member, and includes the inactive member on a thickness side of the cathode layer. Additionally, the insulating resin (35) of Yasuda is pertinent to applicant's concerns regarding short circuit, as the material chosen has high electrical resistance to improve safety ([0065]). The examiner also notes that if the cathode current collector of Tomura is made to be the same size as the cathode active material layer of Tomura, as described above, the cathode current collector would no longer overlap the inactive member, and the teachings of Yasuda would not be needed to render the claim obvious.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding new claim 23, applicant is correct that Fukui teaches an example where the thicknesses of the adhesive layer (51, 53) and the support layer (insulating member 41) are 30 µm and 50 µm, or 37.5% and 62.5%, respectively, of the total thickness (80 µm) of the multilayer structure. However, Fukui is not limited thereto, and therefore can be modified accordingly. Yasuda teaches a thickness of a thermo-adhesive resin layer (35), which serves as an inactive member ([0044, 0067]; see Fig. 2). Yasuda further teaches that when the thickness of the thermo-adhesive resin layer is less than 20 μm, pinholes are likely to be generated, and when the thickness of the thermo-adhesive resin layer exceeds 80 μm, the battery becomes too thick and there is a possibility of resulting in insufficient thermal adhesion ([0035]). Thus, Yasuda identifies the thickness of the adhesive layer as results effective.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the thickness of the adhesive layer of modified Tomura, such that a thickness of the adhesive layer and a thickness of the support layer are each 45% to 55% of a total thickness of their respective multilayer structure, to prevent pinholes as taught by Yasuda. If the thickness of the support layer of modified Tomura is 50 µm, as taught by Fukui, an adhesive layer with a thickness of about 41 µm to 61 µm, which is within the optimal range taught by Yasuda, falls within the claimed thickness ratio. Furthermore, the courts have held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA J SIMMONS whose telephone number is (571) 272-3036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10a - 6p.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached on (571) 270-7871. 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.
/A.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights