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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-20 remain withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Claims 1, 5-12, and 14 are pending in this office action.
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.
Claim(s) 7, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3,080,862 (hereafter “FR ‘862”) in view of Ichikawa (US 2011/0045355). Ichikawa is being cited and relied on for the first time with this office action. For the rejections under FR ‘862, the examiner will be relying on the English language disclosure of US 2021/0367224.
With respect to claim 7, FR ‘862 discloses an anode comprising a plurality of electroactive particles of lithium-doped silicon oxide (par. 0062-0068) and a solid electrolyte coating (e.g. Li3PO4 among others) (par. 0091). Although FR ‘862 also discloses that this coating (which can be a solid electrolyte) can be applied to the anode film as a whole, FR ‘862 also discloses that the protective can be applied to the powder version of the anode material (par. 0016). Although FR ‘862 does not disclose the particular combination of lithium-doped silicon oxide with solid electrolyte material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize this particular combination of components because choosing from a finite number of provided choices requires only routine skill in the art.
FR ‘862 does not explicitly disclose the addition of a plurality of solid-state electrolyte particles. Ichikawa teaches constructing both anodes and cathodes using a combination of an electroactive particles 4 (equivalent to the anode particle of FR ‘862) and solid electrolyte particles 5 in order to increase the electrolyte/electrode contact interface. Ichikawa teaches that the relative amounts of electroactive particle to electrolyte particle is not particularly limited, but does teach 80% electroactive particle and 20% electrolyte particle. See fig. and par. 0013 and 0037-0056. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize the solid electrolyte particle of Ichikawa for the anode of FR ‘862 in order to increase the electrolyte/electrode contact interface.
With respect to claim 8, the x and y of LixSiOy in par. 0068 of FR ‘862 overlaps the y and x respectively of the claim.
With respect to claim 11, because FR ‘862 is disclosing the solid electrolyte coating as a protective coating (par. 0088) and also suggested the coating can be applied to the powder partials (par. 0016), this would render obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to coat substantially all of the surface of the lithium-doped silicon oxide to provide as much protection as possible.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR ‘862 in view of Ichikawa as applied to claim 7 above, and in further view of Nitta (US 2022/0223838). Nitta was previous cited and relied on.
FR ‘862 and Ichikawa set forth a number of lithium conducting solid electrolytes for use with the coating but did not explicitly disclose the use of Li3PS4. Nitta discloses an alternate anode material comprising an anode particle with solid electrolyte coating (see the previous rejection) and suggested the utility this compound as the electrolyte (par. 0084). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize the teaching of Nitta for the anode material of FR ‘862 and Ichikawa because the substation of one known electrolyte component for another requires only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR ‘862 in view of Ichikawa as applied to claim 7 above, and in further view of Yabe et al (US 2024/0204188). Yabe was previously cited and relied on.
FR ‘862 and Ichikawa set forth a number of lithium conducting solid electrolytes for use with the coating but did not explicitly disclose the use of the phosphorus sulfide compositions of the claim. However, Yabe suggested the utility of LiαPSβXγ as a solid electrolyte with 4.5 ≤ α ≤ 6.5 (overlapping the claimed 7-m), 4.5 ≤ β ≤ 5.5 (overlapping the claimed 6-m), and 0.5 ≤ γ ≤ 1.5 (overlapping 1) (see par. 0130). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize the teaching of Yabe for the anode material of FR ‘862 and Ichikawa because the substation of one known electrolyte component for another requires only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 14 are allowed.
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to indicative allowed claims, the prior art does not disclose nor render obvious all the cumulative limitations of claim 1 or claims 7 and 12 with particular attention to the solid electrolyte coating having a thickness of about 20 to about 350 nm. FR ‘862 is explicit that its dense coatings that can comprise a solid electrolyte should be less than 10 nm as that maximizes the barrier effect they are seeking (par. 0026 and 0090 for example).
Response to Arguments
With regard to applicant’s argument regarding claims 1, 5, 6, and 14, the arguments concerning the obviousness of using the now claimed solid electrolyte thicknesses are persuasive. The remaining arguments concerning these claims are moot.
With respect to arguments regarding claims 7-12, those arguments are moot in view of the new teaching of Ichikawa.
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAJ K OLSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/KAJ K OLSEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714