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
Amendments have been entered. Amendments do overcome the 103-rejection necessitated by amendments, see rejection below.
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.
Claims 1,5 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by (US-20090017371-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Nakamura’
Regarding Claim 1,
Nakamura teaches a lithium ion secondary battery wherein at least one positive electrode layer including a positive electrode active material layer (Nakamura, positive electrode layer, 12 , Fig, 1) and at least one negative electrode layer including a negative electrode active material layer (Nakamura, negative electrode layer, 13, Fig. 1) are laminated in sequence with a solid electrolyte layer, which includes a solid electrolyte, interposed therebetween (Nakamura, solid electrolyte layer, 14, Fig. 1) , the lithium ion secondary battery includes a plurality of positive electrode layers, a plurality of negative electrode layers, and a plurality of solid electrolyte layers, and a number of the solid electrolyte layers provided between one of the plurality of positive electrode layers and one of the plurality of negative electrode layers is one (Nakamura, see Fig. 1) , a ratio t1/t2 of an average thickness t1 of the thickest solid electrolyte layer to an average thickness t2 of the thinnest solid electrolyte layer satisfies 1.02 ≤t1/t2 ≤1.99 when an average thickness of each of the solid electrolyte layer is defined as t (see annotated figure below), and the lithium ion secondary battery further comprises the solid electrolyte and one of the positive active material and the negative active material in at least one part between the solid electrolyte layer and one of the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer (Nakamura, “1, the bipolar battery 100 has a structure in which a plurality of bipolar electrodes 10 are stacked with solid electrolyte layers 14 interposed between them.”, see [0024]).
PNG
media_image1.png
181
341
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of ratio 1<t1/t2<1.5 broadly overlaps the claimed range 1.21 <t1/t2 <1.79. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 5,
Nakamura teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the ratio t1/t2 satisfies 1.21<=t1/t2<= 1.79 (Nakamura, see Fig. 3)
PNG
media_image1.png
181
341
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of ratio 1≤t1/t2≤1.5 broadly overlaps the claimed range 1.21 ≤ t1/t2 ≤ 1.79. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 9,
Nakamura teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1, further comprising a first outer layer on an upper outermost layer and a second outer layer on a lower outermost layer in a lamination direction, and the first outer layer and the second outer layer includes the solid electrolyte (Nakamura, solid electrolyte layer, 14, Fig. 1) (see annotated figure below and Fig. 1)
PNG
media_image2.png
181
341
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10,
Nakamura teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 9, comprising a plurality of the solid electrolyte layers, and the solid electrolyte layers are layers of increasing thickness from the first outer layer to the second outer layer (see annotated figure below and Fig. 1)(the examiner notes that Nakamura teaches increasing thickness from the middle to the outer layer, but explains that the thickness can be adjusted based on the desired resistance and voltage of the cell “The resistance value of the solid electrolyte layers 14 is varied previously in this manner depending on the position in the stacking direction. Even when charge and discharge of the bipolar battery 101 causes the uneven temperature distribution shown in section (B) of FIG. 3, it is possible to prevent variations in resistance value among the solid electrolyte layers 14 in the stacking direction. The prevention of variations in resistance value can repress variations in voltage value and input/output value in the bipolar battery 101. For example, as shown by solid lines in sections (C) and (D) of FIG. 3, substantially constant voltage value and input/output value can be achieved.” See [0066]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness as a matter of optimization of the resistance and voltage of the cell see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A))
PNG
media_image2.png
181
341
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11,
Nakamura teaches the lithium ion secondary battery according to claim l, wherein the plurality of positive electrode layers (Nakamura, positive electrode layer, 12 , Fig, 1), the plurality of negative electrode layers(Nakamura, negative electrode layer, 13, Fig. 1), and the plurality of solid electrolyte layers are contained within the same laminate, and in the stacking direction, the positive electrode layers and the negative electrode layers are arranged alternately (Nakamura, “1, the bipolar battery 100 has a structure in which a plurality of bipolar electrodes 10 are stacked with solid electrolyte layers 14 interposed between them.”, see [0024]).
Claims 2,4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by (US 20090017371 A1) hereinafter referred to as Nakamura in view of (US-20190326585-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Aiso’
Regarding Claim 2,
Nakamura alone does not teach the standard deviation σ of an average thickness of the at least one solid electrolyte layer satisfies 0.15< σ <1.66 (μm).
Aiso teaches an average thickness T, which is an average of the average thickness t of each of the solid electrolyte layer, satisfying 4.8<T<9.8 (μm) (Aiso, “A film thickness of the electrolyte layer 30 is preferably set in a range of 1 μm to 100 μm, and more preferably in a range of 5 μm to 50 μm in order to decrease internal resistance.”, see [0088]).
Aiso teaches that this thickness allows for the minimization of resistance across the cell (Aiso, “A film thickness of the electrolyte layer 30 is preferably set in a range of 1 μm to 100 μm, and more preferably in a range of 5 μm to 50 μm in order to decrease internal resistance.”, see [0088]).
Nakamura and Aiso are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery assemblies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thickness of the electrolyte layers as taught in Nakamura to be in the range to the thickness a taught in Aiso in order to help minimize resistance across the cell.
Modified Nakamura teaches the standard deviation σ of an average thickness of the at least one solid electrolyte layer satisfies 0.15< σ <1.66 (μm) (the examiner notes if it is assumed that the smallest is 5 micron then following Nakamura the max would be 7.5 microns. Using a bell curve as seen in Fig.3, the standard deviation can be calculated as SD=(avg-min)/3= 0.833 microns)
Regarding Claim 4,
Nakamura does not teach an average thickness T, which is an average of the average thickness t of each of the solid electrolyte layer, satisfying 4.8<T<9.8 (μm).
Aiso teaches an average thickness T, which is an average of the average thickness t of each of the solid electrolyte layer, satisfying 4.8<T<9.8 (μm) (Aiso, “A film thickness of the electrolyte layer 30 is preferably set in a range of 1 μm to 100 μm, and more preferably in a range of 5 μm to 50 μm in order to decrease internal resistance.”, see [0088]).
Aiso teaches that this thickness allows for the minimization of resistance across the cell (Aiso, “A film thickness of the electrolyte layer 30 is preferably set in a range of 1 μm to 100 μm, and more preferably in a range of 5 μm to 50 μm in order to decrease internal resistance.”, see [0088]).
Nakamura and Aiso are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery assemblies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thickness of the electrolyte layers as taught in Nakamura to be in the range to the thickness a taught in Aiso in order to help minimize resistance across the cell.
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of the thickness of 5 μm to 50 μm broadly overlaps the claimed range the thickness within the range of 4.8<T<9.8 (μm). Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 6,
Modified Nakamura teaches the standard deviation σ of an average thickness of the solid electrolyte layer satisfies 0.21< σ <1.24 (μm) (the examiner notes if it is assumed that the smallest is 5 micron then following Nakamura the max would be 7.5 microns. Using a bell curve as seen in Fig.3, SD=(avg-min)/3= 0.833 microns)
Claims 3,7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by (US 20090017371 A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Nakamura’ , in further view of ‘Interfacial Processes and Influence of Composite Cathode Microstructure Controlling the Performance of All-Solid-State Lithium Batteries’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Zhang’
Regarding Claim 3,
Nakamura does not teach an intermediate layer in at least one part between the positive layer or the negative layer and the solid electrolyte layer, which includes each constituent element of the positive layer or the negative layer and the solid electrolyte layer .
Zhang teaches an intermediate layer includes the positive active material and the solid electrolyte (Zhang, “shows a scanning electron microscopy (SEM) micrograph of the composite cathode (m(LiCoO2):m(LGPS) = 70:30”, pg. 17837)
Zhang teaches that this mixture can improve the ion transport kinetics of the structure (Zhang,” In consequence, the active material can be fully accessed and used in the electrochemical processes. Therefore, at cycling below 2 C, a small fraction of solid electrolyte (e.g., 20 wt %) appears to be sufficient to ensure Li+ transport and good battery performance.”, see pg. 17841).
Modified Nakamura and Zhang are analogous as they both relate to the field of solid-state batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte layer as taught in Nakamura with the composite of electrolyte and positive material as taught in Zhang in order to improve the ion transport kinetics.
Regarding Claim 7,
Modified Nakamura does not teach wherein the intermediate layer is provided between the negative layer and the solid electrolyte layer, and the intermediate layer includes the negative active material and the solid electrolyte
Zhang teaches and the intermediate layer includes the positive active material and the solid electrolyte (Zhang, “shows a scanning electron microscopy (SEM) micrograph of the composite cathode (m(LiCoO2):m(LGPS) = 70:30”, pg. 17837)
Zhang teaches that this mixture can improve the ion transport kinetics of the structure (Zhang,” In consequence, the active material can be fully accessed and used in the electrochemical processes. Therefore, at cycling below 2 C, a small fraction of solid electrolyte (e.g., 20 wt %) appears to be sufficient to ensure Li+ transport and good battery performance.”, see pg. 17841).
Modified Nakamura and Zhang are analogous as they both relate to the field of solid-state batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte layer as taught in Nakamura with the composite of electrolyte and positive material as taught in Zhang in order to improve the ion transport kinetics.
Regarding Claim 8,
Modified Nakamura does not teach the lithium-ion secondary battery and the intermediate layer includes the positive active material and the solid electrolyte.
Zhang teaches and the intermediate layer includes the positive active material and the solid electrolyte (Zhang, “shows a scanning electron microscopy (SEM) micrograph of the composite cathode (m(LiCoO2):m(LGPS) = 70:30”, pg. 17837)
Zhang teaches that this mixture can improve the ion transport kinetics of the structure (Zhang,” In consequence, the active material can be fully accessed and used in the electrochemical processes. Therefore, at cycling below 2 C, a small fraction of solid electrolyte (e.g., 20 wt %) appears to be sufficient to ensure Li+ transport and good battery performance.”, see pg. 17841).
Modified Nakamura and Zhang are analogous as they both relate to the field of solid-state batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte layer as taught in Nakamura with the composite of electrolyte and positive material as taught in Zhang in order to improve the ion transport kinetics.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by (US-20090017371-A1) hereinafter referred to as Nakamura in view of (US-20160141716-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Ito’
Regarding Claim 12,
Nakamura does not teach wherein the plurality of positive electrode layers are connected to an outer positive electrode from one end side intersecting the stacking direction of the stack, and the plurality of negative electrode layers are connected to an outer negative electrode from the other end side opposite to the one end.Ito teaches wherein the plurality of positive electrode layers are connected to an outer positive electrode from one end side intersecting the stacking direction of the stack, and the plurality of negative electrode layers are connected to an outer negative electrode from the other end side opposite to the one end (Ito, “a negative electrode active material layer 30, and a current collector 31 arranged in that order are layered together. The plurality of all-solid-state secondary cells are connected in parallel to increase the overall battery capacity by connecting the current collectors to respective external electrodes 50.”, see [0061]).
Ito teaches that this increases the overall capacity (Ito, “a negative electrode active material layer 30, and a current collector 31 arranged in that order are layered together. The plurality of all-solid-state secondary cells are connected in parallel to increase the overall battery capacity by connecting the current collectors to respective external electrodes 50.”, see [0061]).
Nakamura and Ito are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery assemblies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have ends of the electrodes connected as taught in Ito to maximize the capacity of the cell.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed 04/10/2026 on have been entered. Arguments are fully considered.
On pg. 6, the applicant states:
“With regard to feature C, in Honda’s battery 2100, each power generating element (310a, 310b, 320a) of the laminate is separated by conductive portions ((111,) 211, 112(,212)) [sic] and is not a continuous structure physically connected via a margin layer or the like, such as by co-firing. The conductive portions are part of the current collectors (100,200) and are connected by insulating portions (121, 221). This structure is derived from the fact that in Honda’s laminate, the electrode and counter electrode layers are arranged in reverse in adjacent power generating elements. Therefore, applicant submits that Honda’s configuration is not possible in which multiple positive electrode layers and multiple negative electrode layers are formed within the same laminate, or in which the positive electrode layers and negative electrode layers alternative in the lamination direction. ”
However, this is not convincing. The examiner notes that the claim language does not require that the laminate be continuous physically connected through a method such a co-firing. The examiner also notes that the layers are connected continuously in a method similar to the instant application. For example, in Fig. 26 330a and 330b are constructed continuously interposed by the electrode conductive portions. Similarly, in the instant application, the active material layers in Fig. 1 32 are interposed by a current collector layer 31. These two laminate structure are similar in the way that they both consist of active electrode layers interposed by a non-active layer. Further, the structure of Honda has multiple elements (310, 320, and 330) in Fig. 26. Therefore, it is possible that there can be multiple positive electrode and negative electrode laminates in the system. Therefore, Honda teaches this feature as they are currently claimed.
On pg. 7, the applicant argues:
“Furthermore, the description of the thickness of the solid electrolyte in Honda [0199] (corresponding Japanese application [0109], [0100]) does not appear to be intended to lead to any effect. In the first place, Honda’s above configuration does not refer to the thickness of the solid electrolyte layer within a single continuous laminate, and based on Honda’s completely different basic configuration, it does not suggest the idea of removing one of the first electrolyte layer 16 and the second electrolyte layer 17 from Nakamura, arranging one electrode layer in a single laminate shared by multiple power generating elements, and adjusting the thickness of each solid electrolyte layer. The effect described in Honda (preventing electrolyte layer misalignment and peeling when subjected to impact or vibration) is an effect achieved by adopting a collector structure that connects two conductive parts with one insulating part, and is unrelated to the effect of the present invention of improving output characteristics through moderate charge imbalance, or the effect of preventing peeling during firing. ”
The examiner finds this convincing and has added the record (US-20090017371-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Nakamura’, which teaches a structure of electrolyte closer than Nakamura.
On pg. 8, the applicant states,
“However, this standard deviation is the standard deviation over five measurements points for a single solid electrolyte and it differs from the standard deviation of the thickness of multiple solid electrolyte layers in the present invention.”
This is convincing. However, the examiner notes that the range of thicknesses as described by Nakamura is approximately seen in Fig.3, and the standard deviation can be calculated in combination with Aiso to be within the claimed range.
On pg. 8, the applicant states,
“Jeon are different, the sum of which is interpreted as the thickness of the solid electrolyte layer.”
The examiner finds this convincing and Nakamura teaches a variable thickness of electrolytes layers as seen in Fig.3. Nakamura teaches that this allows for adjustment of the cell to varying heat and resistance “The resistance value of the solid electrolyte layers 14 is varied previously in this manner depending on the position in the stacking direction. Even when charge and discharge of the bipolar battery 101 causes the uneven temperature distribution shown in section (B) of FIG. 3, it is possible to prevent variations in resistance value among the solid electrolyte layers 14 in the stacking direction. The prevention of variations in resistance value can repress variations in voltage value and input/output value in the bipolar battery 101. For example, as shown by solid lines in sections (C) and (D) of FIG. 3, substantially constant voltage value and input/output value can be achieved.” See [0066] .It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thicknesses as taught in Nakamura to the resistance and heat variation as needed to improve the performance of the cell.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am to 5pm.
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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached on (571) 272-8760. 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.
/S.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights