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 .
Response to Amendment
Currently, the pending Claims are 1-5, 7-10, 12-34, 59-60. The examined Claims are 1-5, 7-10, 12-34, 59-60, with Claims 1, 4, 8-9, 13-19, 21-28, 33 being amended, and Claims 59-60 being newly added.
Response to Arguments
Per Applicant’s aforementioned amendments to the Claims, the previous rejections of record under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant has mainly (1) amended Claim 1 to require that the first adhesion interface permeates and extends into pores of the anode material coating, and the second adhesion interface permeates and extends into pores of the cathode material coating, (2) newly presented independent Claim 59, and (3) newly presented independent Claim 60).
Regarding independent Claim 1 (and its associated dependent Claims), Applicant mainly argues that Makino neither teaches nor suggests the instantly claimed permeation of the first and second adhesion interfaces (Pages 10-11 of Remarks). Makino describes sequential layering of the constituent materials to form the battery, but Makino only considers that the layers rest on top of each other and not that an adhesion interface extends into and penetrates into pores of the anode and cathode material coatings as instantly claimed (Pages 10-11 of Remarks). Furthermore, Zimmerman does not cure the deficiencies of Makino insofar as to the extent that Zimmerman teaches a battery construction, Zimmerman does not teach or consider a structure of the interface between layers of said battery, let alone an interface structure which satisfies the instantly claimed permeation characteristics (Page 11 of Remarks).
Regarding newly presented independent Claim 59, Applicant argues that the prior art of record neither teaches nor suggests all of its limitations (Page 16 of Remarks).
Regarding newly presented independent Claim 60, Applicant argues that the prior art of record neither teaches nor suggests all of its limitations (Page 17 of Remarks).
Applicant’s amendments and corresponding arguments with respect to independent Claim 1 are persuasive. Accordingly, all previous prior art rejections of record for Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-34 are hereby withdrawn.
However, Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 59-60 are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, presented below, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the Claims.
Furthermore, concerning the newly presented grounds of rejection for Claim 60 described below (which relies in part on the Sato reference), the following is noted in response to Applicant’s arguments with respect to Sato in context of Claim 29 (while the rejection of Claim 29 is withdrawn, it is withdrawn due to dependency on Claim 1 as opposed to a deficiency in Sato):
While it is true that Sato discloses the structure of Claim 29 in a liquid electrolyte-based battery, Sato neither explicitly states nor suggests that the double-coated structure is applicable only to liquid-electrolyte systems or otherwise that the double-coated structure cannot be applied to a system as in Makino and/or Zimmerman. Neither Makino nor Applicant explicitly make clear why the particular physical state of the electrolyte precludes the use of a double-coated structure in a system as in Makino and/or Zimmerman, especially when the benefit(s) disclosed by Sato (i.e. the double-coated structure would provide for a unit cell which is useful as an essential component of a battery composed of a plurality of stacked unit cells) would readily and obviously be applicable to a battery system as in Makino and/or Zimmerman.
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.
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.
Claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makino (WO 2019/065066, using the equivalent US 2020/0220210 for translation/citation purposes), and further in view of Liao et al. (US 2018/0261820).
Regarding Claim 59, Makino teaches an all-solid state secondary battery ([0002], [0260]). As illustrated in Figure 1, Makino teaches that the battery comprises a “coated hybrid electrode” comprising a negative electrode collector (1) (“anode current collector”), a positive electrode collector (5) (“cathode current collector”), a negative electrode active material layer (2) (“anode material coating disposed on the anode current collector, the anode material coating comprising an anode active material”), a positive electrode active material layer (4) (“cathode material coating disposed on the cathode current collector, the cathode material coating comprising a cathode active material”), a solid electrolyte layer (3) (“solid polymer electrolyte coating disposed between the anode material coating and the cathode material coating”), a “first adhesion interface” (i.e. the interface between the solid electrolyte layer and the negative electrode active material layer), and a “second adhesion interface” (i.e. the interface between the solid electrolyte layer and the positive electrode active material layer) ([0260]). Makino teaches that the solid electrolyte layer comprises an inorganic solid electrolyte (A) and an acid-modified cellulose nanofiber (B) (i.e. the solid electrolyte layer comprises a “solid ionically conductive polymer material”) ([0037]). Makino teaches that the inorganic solid electrolyte exhibits a glassy state at room temperature and an ionic conductivity greater than 1x10-5 S/cm at room temperature ([0054], [0056]). Makino teaches that the 180° peel strength of said first and second adhesion surfaces may be higher than 200 gf/in (i.e. an “A” rated peel strength may be greater than said value) ([0355]-[0366], Table 5).
Makino does not explicitly teach a battery separator layer bifurcating the solid electrolyte layer.
However, Liao teaches an electrochemical cell (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 1A, Liao teaches that the electrochemical cell comprises a first electrode (110) and a second electrode (120) with an electrolyte layer (130) therebetween ([0033]-[0035]). As illustrated in Figures 3 and 5, Liao teaches that the solid electrolyte is bifurcated into two sections (131, 133) by a mechanically separable interface (135), wherein an intervening cell component (137) may or may not be present along the interface ([0042], [0046]). Liao teaches that the mechanically separable interface helps redirect the growth of dendrites such that they do not traverse the full thickness of the electrolyte layer ([0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would bifurcate the solid electrolyte layer of Makino with a mechanically separable interface (“battery separator layer”) or a mechanically separable interface comprising an intervening cell component (the intervening cell component being the “battery separator layer”), as taught by Liao, given that such an interface would help redirect growth of dendrites such that they do not traverse the full thickness of the solid electrolyte layer.
Claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman et al. (WO 2016/182884), and further in view of Makino (WO 2019/065066, using the equivalent US 2020/0220210 for translation/citation purposes) and Liao et al. (US 2018/0261820).
Regarding Claim 59, Zimmerman teaches a “coated hybrid electrode” comprising an anode current collector (“anode current collector”), a cathode current collector (“cathode current collector”), an anode layer (“anode material coating”) disposed on the anode current collector and comprising an anode active material, a cathode layer (“cathode material coating”) disposed on the cathode current collector and comprising a cathode active material, and a solid polymer electrolyte film (“solid polymer electrolyte coating disposed between the anode material coating and the cathode material coating”) comprising a solid ionically conductive polymer material (“solid ionically conductive polymer material”) which has a glassy state at room temperature and an ionic conductivity greater than 1 x 10-5 S/cm at room temperature (Fig. 16, Page 4 lines 12-29, Page 36 lines 15-24).
Zimmerman does not explicitly teach that a first adhesion interface between the solid polymer electrolyte layer and the anode layer and a second adhesion interface between the solid polymer electrolyte layer and the cathode layer has a 180° peel strength of 200 gf/in.
However, Makino teaches an all-solid state secondary battery ([0002], [0260]). As illustrated in Figure 1, Makino teaches that the battery comprises a negative electrode collector (1), a positive electrode collector (5), a negative electrode active material layer (2), a positive electrode active material layer (4), a solid electrolyte layer (3), a first adhesion interface (i.e. the interface between the solid electrolyte layer and the negative electrode active material layer), and a second adhesion interface (i.e. the interface between the solid electrolyte layer and the positive electrode active material layer) ([0260]). Makino teaches that the 180° peel strength of said first and second adhesion surfaces may be higher than 200 gf/in (i.e. an “A” rated peel strength may be greater than said value) ([0355]-[0366], Table 5). Makino teaches that such a high peel strength is indicative of a strong binding force at said interfaces ([0360]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure that the first and second adhesion interfaces of Zimmerman exhibit a 180° peel strength higher than 200 gf/in, as taught by Makino, given that such a high peel strength would provide for a strong adhesion/binding force at said interfaces, thereby increasing overall mechanical stability characteristics.
Zimmerman, as modified by Makino, does not explicitly teach a battery separator layer bifurcating the solid polymer electrolyte film.
However, Liao teaches an electrochemical cell (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 1A, Liao teaches that the electrochemical cell comprises a first electrode (110) and a second electrode (120) with an electrolyte layer (130) therebetween ([0033]-[0035]). As illustrated in Figures 3 and 5, Liao teaches that the solid electrolyte is bifurcated into two sections (131, 133) by a mechanically separable interface (135), wherein an intervening cell component (137) may or may not be present along the interface ([0042], [0046]). Liao teaches that the mechanically separable interface helps redirect the growth of dendrites such that they do not traverse the full thickness of the electrolyte layer ([0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would bifurcate the solid polymer electrolyte film of Zimmerman, as modified by Makino, with a mechanically separable interface (“battery separator layer”) or a mechanically separable interface comprising an intervening cell component (the intervening cell component being the “battery separator layer”), as taught by Liao, given that such an interface would help redirect growth of dendrites such that they do not traverse the full thickness of the solid polymer electrolyte film.
Claim 60 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makino (WO 2019/065066, using the equivalent US 2020/0220210 for translation/citation purposes), and further in view of Sato et al. (US 2002/0034685).
Regarding Claim 60, Makino teaches an all-solid state secondary battery ([0002], [0260]). As illustrated in Figure 1, Makino teaches that the battery comprises a “coated hybrid electrode” comprising a negative electrode collector (1) (“anode current collector”), a positive electrode collector (5) (“cathode current collector”), a negative electrode active material layer (2) (“anode material coating disposed on a first side of the anode current collector” and “the anode material coating comprising an anode active material”), a positive electrode active material layer (4) (“cathode material coating disposed on a first side of the cathode current collector” and “the cathode material coating comprising a cathode active material”), a solid electrolyte layer (3) (“solid polymer electrolyte coating” which is “positioned between the anode current collector and the cathode current collector”), a first adhesion interface (i.e. the interface between the solid electrolyte layer and the negative electrode active material layer), and a second adhesion interface (i.e. the interface between the solid electrolyte layer and the positive electrode active material layer) ([0260]). Makino teaches that the solid electrolyte layer comprises an inorganic solid electrolyte (A) and an acid-modified cellulose nanofiber (B) (i.e. the solid electrolyte layer comprises a “solid ionically conductive polymer material”) ([0037]). Makino teaches that the inorganic solid electrolyte exhibits a glassy state at room temperature and an ionic conductivity greater than 1x10-5 S/cm at room temperature ([0054], [0056]). Makino teaches that the 180° peel strength of said first and second adhesion surfaces may be higher than 200 gf/in (i.e. an “A” rated peel strength may be greater than said value) ([0355]-[0366], Table 5).
Furthermore, it is interpreted that in a scenario where the battery of Makino is positioned/oriented in a manner such that the battery of Figure 1 is rotated clockwise 90° (i.e. the battery is rotated such that the left side is positioned/oriented on the top and the right side is positioned/oriented on the bottom), the solid electrolyte layer forms, at least in part, an “upper outer surface” of the coated hybrid electrode, and a “lower outer surface” of the coated hybrid electrode (it is noted that the instant Claim does not provide an explicit orientation from which “upper” and “lower” are determined, or otherwise provide a frame of reference from which “upper” and “lower” are defined).
Makino does not explicitly teach that the negative electrode active material layer is also disposed on a second side of the negative electrode collector, or that the positive electrode active material layer is also disposed on a second side of the positive electrode collector.
However, Sato teaches a battery. As illustrated in Figures 1-2, Sato teaches that the battery comprises positive and negative current collectors (1a, 2a) which are each included in a double-coated structure wherein positive or negative electrode layers (1, 2) are formed on both surfaces of a respective positive or negative current collector ([0035]-[0036]). Sato teaches that said double-coated structure provides for a unit cell which is useful as an essential component of a battery composed of a plurality of stacked unit cells.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would include the anode and cathode current collectors of Zimmerman, as modified by Makino, each in a double-coated structure (i.e. such that the negative electrode active material layer is also disposed on a second side of the negative electrode collector, and that the positive electrode active material layer is also disposed on a second side of the positive electrode collector), as taught by Sato, given that such a double-coated structure would provide for a unit cell which is useful as an essential component of a battery composed of a plurality of stacked unit cells.
Claim 60 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman et al. (WO 2016/182884), and further in view of Sato et al. (US 2002/0034685).
Regarding Claim 60, Zimmerman teaches a “coated hybrid electrode” comprising an anode current collector (“anode current collector”), a cathode current collector (“cathode current collector”), an anode layer (“anode material coating”) disposed on a first side of the anode current collector and comprising an anode active material, a cathode layer (“cathode material coating”) disposed on a first side of the cathode current collector and comprising a cathode active material, and a solid polymer electrolyte film (“solid polymer electrolyte coating” which is “positioned between the anode current collector and the cathode current collector”) comprising a solid ionically conductive polymer material (“solid ionically conductive polymer material”) which has a glassy state at room temperature and an ionic conductivity greater than 1 x 10-5 S/cm at room temperature (Fig. 16, Page 4 lines 12-29, Page 36 lines 15-24).
Furthermore, it is interpreted that in a scenario where the coated hybrid electrode of Zimmerman is positioned/oriented in a manner such that the battery of Figure 16 is rotated clockwise 90° (i.e. the battery is rotated such that the left side is positioned/oriented on the top and the right side is positioned/oriented on the bottom), the solid polymer electrolyte film forms, at least in part, an “upper outer surface” of the coated hybrid electrode, and a “lower outer surface” of the coated hybrid electrode (it is noted that the instant Claim does not provide an explicit orientation from which “upper” and “lower” are determined, or otherwise provide a frame of reference from which “upper” and “lower” are defined).
Zimmerman does not explicitly teach that the anode layer is also disposed on a second side of the anode current collector, or that the cathode layer is also disposed on a second side of the cathode current collector.
However, Sato teaches a battery. As illustrated in Figures 1-2, Sato teaches that the battery comprises positive and negative current collectors (1a, 2a) which are each included in a double-coated structure wherein positive or negative electrode layers (1, 2) are formed on both surfaces of a respective positive or negative current collector ([0035]-[0036]). Sato teaches that said double-coated structure provides for a unit cell which is useful as an essential component of a battery composed of a plurality of stacked unit cells.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would include the anode and cathode current collectors of Zimmerman each in a double-coated structure (i.e. such that the anode layer is also disposed on a second side of the anode current collector, and that the cathode layer is also disposed on a second side of the cathode current collector), as taught by Sato, given that such a double-coated structure would provide for a unit cell which is useful as an essential component of a battery composed of a plurality of stacked unit cells.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-34 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent Claim 1 requires, among all other limitations, that the first adhesion interface permeates and extends into pores of the anode material coating, and the second adhesion interface permeates and extends into pores of the cathode material coating.
The closest prior art references of record relevant to at least independent Claim 1 are Makino and Zimmerman (see the 10/03/25 Non-Final Rejection which outlines, in detail, the relevant teachings of said prior art references).
Makino neither teaches nor suggests the instantly claimed permeation of the first and second adhesion interfaces. Makino describes sequential layering of the constituent materials to form the battery, but Makino only considers that the layers rest on top of each other and not that an adhesion interface extends into and penetrates into pores of the anode and cathode material coatings as instantly claimed. Furthermore, Zimmerman does not cure the deficiencies of Makino insofar as to the extent that Zimmerman teaches a battery construction, Zimmerman does not teach or consider a structure of the interface between layers of said battery, let alone an interface structure which satisfies the instantly claimed permeation characteristics.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST M-F.
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 at 5712707871. 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.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728