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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 are canceled. Applicant amended claims 6 and 7 to include “wherein the solid electrolyte layer is an aggregate of metal-containing particles, wherein the metal-containing particles are mixed in the positive electrode active material layer and the negative electrode active material layer.” Applicant submits that the solid electrolyte particles of Dolle are lithium phosphate (see e.g., Dolle; [0040]). Dolle does disclose that the solid electrolyte particles are lithium phosphates, but more specifically, the particle may be lithium phosphates such as Li1.5 Al0.5 Ge1.5 (PO4 )3 (LAGP), which is a metal-containing particle as claimed. The lithium and aluminum are metals, and thus Dolle provides a metal containing particle. Dolle further discloses the metal-containing solid electrolyte particle is also included in the positive and negative electrode layers (see e.g., Dolle; [0089], [0098], [0108], [0119], [0129], [0138], [0147], fig. 7). Therefore, Dolle teaches amended claims 6 and 7.
Regarding new independent claim 12 and dependent claims 13-14, as above, Dolle discloses the elements of claim 12 and 13. Goldner is still used to combine with Dolle to teach claim 14, which is using the secondary battery in a vehicle.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dolle (US-20130189562-A1).
Regarding claim 12, Dolle discloses a secondary battery comprising: a stacked body in which a positive electrode current collector that is an aggregate of first metal particles (such as copper or stainless steel referred to as second current collector; see e.g., Dolle [0062]-[0066]), a positive electrode active material layer (“MP2”; see e.g., [0016]), a solid electrolyte layer (see e.g., [0067]), a negative electrode active material layer (“MP1”; see e.g., [0016]), and a negative electrode current collector layer that is an aggregate of second metal particles (such as copper or aluminum referred to as first current collector; see e.g., [0062]-[0066]) are stacked in this order (see e.g., [0066]),
wherein the solid electrolyte layer is an aggregate of metal-containing particles (see e.g., Dolle; [0089], [0098], [0108], [0119], [0129], [0138], [0147], fig. 7, regarding examples wherein the solid electrolyte layer is an aggregate of Li1.5 Al0.5 Ge1.5 (PO4 )3 or “LAG”),
wherein the metal-containing particles are mixed in the positive electrode active material layer and the negative electrode active material layer (see e.g., Dolle; [0089], [0098], [0108], [0119], [0129], [0138], [0147], fig. 7, regarding examples which have the same solid electrolyte LAG in the positive and negative electrode layers).
Regarding claim 13, Dolle discloses the secondary battery according to claim 12. Dolle also discloses that the secondary battery can be used in the field of mobile systems (see e.g., Dolle; [0004]) which corresponds to portable information terminals as claimed.
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(s) 6-8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolle (US-20130189562-A1), and in further view of Lakshmanan (US-20150357650-A1).
Regarding claim 6, Dolle discloses a secondary battery comprising: a stacked body in which a positive electrode current collector that is an aggregate of first metal particles (such as copper or stainless steel referred to as second current collector; see e.g., Dolle [0062]-[0066]), a positive electrode active material layer (“MP2”; see e.g., [0016]), a solid electrolyte layer (see e.g., [0067]), a negative electrode active material layer (“MP1”; see e.g., [0016]), and a negative electrode current collector layer that is an aggregate of second metal particles (such as copper or aluminum referred to as first current collector; see e.g., [0062]-[0066]) are stacked in this order (see e.g., [0066]),
wherein the solid electrolyte layer is an aggregate of metal-containing particles (see e.g., Dolle; [0089], [0098], [0108], [0119], [0129], [0138], [0147], fig. 7, regarding examples wherein the solid electrolyte layer is an aggregate of Li1.5 Al0.5 Ge1.5 (PO4 )3 or “LAG”),
wherein the metal-containing particles are mixed in the positive electrode active material layer and the negative electrode active material layer (see e.g., Dolle; [0089], [0098], [0108], [0119], [0129], [0138], [0147], fig. 7, regarding examples which have the same solid electrolyte LAG in the positive and negative electrode layers),
Dolle does not specifically teach wherein a surface of each of the first metal particles is coated with TiOxNy, wherein x is larger than zero and less than 2, and wherein y is larger than zero and less than 1.
However, Lakshmanan discloses a titanium oxynitride layer of formula TiOxNy with 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 1.95 and 0.1 ≤ y ≤ 1.4 (see e.g., Lakshmanan [0026], [0008], [0032]), which overlaps with the claimed formula range (of 0 < x < 2, and 0 < y < 1), wherein the titanium oxynitride layer is applied to a carbon powder layer in a fuel cell or battery, and a layer of platinum may be deposited over the titanium oxynitride layer (see e.g., Lakshmanan [0008]). Lakshmanan is analogous in the art of batteries having powder particles (Lakshmanan [0001, 0004, 0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the titanium oxynitride layer of formula TiOxNy with 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 1.95 and 0.1 ≤ y ≤ 1.4 taught by Lakshmanan as a coating layer on each of the first metal particles disclosed by Dolle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a protective film that is conductive or semi-conductive and also has corrosion resistance (see e.g., Lakshmanan [0006]).
Thereby, claim 6 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 7, Dolle discloses a secondary battery comprising: a stacked body in which a positive electrode current collector that is an aggregate of first metal particles (such as copper or stainless steel referred to as second current collector; see e.g., Dolle [0062]-[0066]), a positive electrode active material layer “MP2” (see e.g., [0016]), a solid electrolyte layer (see e.g., [0067]), a negative electrode active material layer “MP1” (see e.g., [0016]), and a negative electrode current collector layer that is an aggregate of second metal particles such as copper or stainless steel referred to as first current collector (see e.g., [0062]-[0066]) are stacked in this order (see e.g., [0066]),
wherein the solid electrolyte layer is an aggregate of metal-containing particles (see e.g., Dolle; [0089], [0098], [0108], [0119], [0129], [0138], [0147], fig. 7, regarding examples wherein the solid electrolyte layer is an aggregate of Li1.5 Al0.5 Ge1.5 (PO4 )3 or “LAG”),
wherein the metal-containing particles are mixed in the positive electrode active material layer and the negative electrode active material layer (see e.g., Dolle; [0089], [0098], [0108], [0119], [0129], [0138], [0147], fig. 7, regarding examples which have the same solid electrolyte LAG in the positive and negative electrode layers),
Dolle does not specifically teach wherein a surface of each of the second metal particles is coated with TiOxNy, wherein x is larger than zero and less than 2, and wherein y is larger than zero and less than 1.
However, Lakshmanan discloses a titanium oxynitride layer of formula TiOxNy with 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 1.95 and 0.1 ≤ y ≤ 1.4 (see e.g., [0026]), which overlaps with the claimed formula range (of 0 < x < 2, and 0 < y < 1), wherein the titanium oxynitride layer is applied to a carbon powder layer in a fuel cell, and a layer of platinum may be deposited over the titanium oxynitride layer (see e.g., [0008]) in order to beneficially protect the carbon powder by imparting corrosion resistance (Lakshmanan [0006, 0008]). In other words, Lakshmanan discloses the titanium oxynitride layer between a carbon active material layer and a platinum metal in an electrochemical cell. Lakshmanan is analogous in the art of batteries having powder particles (Lakshmanan [0001, 0004, 0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the titanium oxynitride layer, of formula TiOxNy with 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 1.95 and 0.1 ≤ y ≤ 1.4 taught by Lakshmanan, between the negative electrode active material layer and the second metal particles of a current collector disclosed by Dolle such that a surface of each of the second metal particles is coated. This film layer is further applicable to Dolle because Lakshmanan discloses the titanium oxynitride film over carbon particles, and similarly, Dolle discloses examples (see e.g., example 1, example 2) that have carbon particles in the negative electrode. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a protective film that is conductive or semi-conductive and also has corrosion resistance (see e.g., Lakshmanan [0006]).
Thereby, claim 7 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 8, modified Dolle discloses the element of claim 6 as described above. Dolle also discloses that the secondary battery can be used in the field of mobile systems (see e.g., Dolle [0004]) which include portable information terminals.
Regarding claim 10, modified Dolle teaches the elements of claim 7 as described above. Dolle also teaches that the secondary battery can be used in the field of mobile systems (see e.g., Dolle; [0004]) which include portable information terminals.
Claim(s) 9, 11, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolle (US-20130189562-A1), and Lakshmanan (US-20150357650-A1) as applied to claim 6, and further in view of Goldner (US-6982132-B1, as first cited in the 12/02/2024 rejection of record).
Regarding claim 9, modified Dolle teaches the limitations of claim 6 above but does not explicitly disclose the secondary battery used in a vehicle. However, loading a lithium-ion battery into a vehicle is a well-known technical feature, and is taught by those in the art such as Golder (see e.g., Golder abstract).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dolle by applying it in a vehicle disclosed by Goldner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to exhibit high energy density, high reversible charge capacity, high discharge current and long battery lifetimes to thus be useable in electric vehicle applications (see e.g., Golder abstract), as suggested by Goldner, since the battery of modified Dolle also delivers desirable capacity and cycle stability (per Dolle [0026, 0106]).
Thereby, claim 9 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 11, modified Dolle teaches the limitations of claim 7 above but does not explicitly disclose the secondary battery used in a vehicle.
However, loading a lithium-ion battery into a vehicle is a well-known technical feature, and is taught by those in the art such as Golder (see e.g., Golder abstract). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery of modified Dolle by applying it in a vehicle disclosed by Goldner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to exhibit high energy density, high reversible charge capacity, high discharge current and long battery lifetimes to thus be useable in electric vehicle applications (see e.g., Golder abstract), as suggested by Goldner, since the battery of modified Dolle also delivers desirable capacity and cycle stability (per Dolle [0026, 0106]).
Thereby, claim 11 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 14, modified Dolle teaches the limitations of claim 12 above but does not explicitly disclose the secondary battery used in a vehicle. However, loading a lithium-ion battery into a vehicle is a well-known technical feature, and is taught by those in the art such as Golder (see e.g., Golder; abstract).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dolle by applying it in a vehicle disclosed by Goldner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to exhibit high energy density, high reversible charge capacity, high discharge current and long battery lifetimes to thus be useable in electric vehicle applications (see e.g., Golder abstract), as suggested by Goldner, since the battery of modified Dolle also delivers desirable capacity and cycle stability (see e.g., Dolle; [0026, 0106]).
Thereby, claim 14 is rendered obvious.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KEVIN SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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 (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.
/KEVIN SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728