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 .
Remarks
Claims 3-9 and 18 are currently amended, claims 1-2, 10-17 and 19-20 are as previously presented. Claims 1-20 are presently examined.
Status of objections and rejections
In response to the applicants amendments the examiner has withdrawn the objection to specification and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection. The examiner thanks the applicant for clarification in regards to the claim interpretation of the prior office action.
The rejection below has been modified as necessitated by the applicants amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano (WO2019044902A1, Examiner is using US20200106130A1 as an English equivalent) and in view of Mochizuki (US20180277901A1).
Regarding claim 1, Takano discloses a solid-state battery comprising: a positive electrode layer [0015, fig. 1 (11), Takano]; a negative electrode layer [0015, fig. 1 (12), Takano]; and a solid electrolyte layer interposed between the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer[0015, fig. 1(13), Takano], wherein the negative electrode layer includes a conductive additive comprising a metal material [0034, Takano], in a section view at 7% to 28% in area ratio with respect to the negative electrode layer [0036, Takano].
Takano discloses a negative electrode with a conductive agent coating the negative electrode material and having a volume proportion of the conductive auxiliary agent (equivalent to conductive additive) of 0.1-35 vol% [0036, Takano].
Takano discloses that the coated mixture was prepared by kneading the negative electrode active material with the conductive agent [0068, Takano]. Takano is explicitly silent to the uniformity of the electrode mixture.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill within the arts to make the conductive agent have a uniform distribution of conductive agents. Doing so would provide uniform properties throughout the electrode allowing for a conductive pathway to be established throughout the electrode.
The examiner is considering that each section view has an area ratio and the average of the summation of all area ratios/section views of an object(s) would produce the volume percentage of that object. As such, the section view of this volume proportion would produce a section view with conductive auxiliary agent approaching 0.1-35% in an area ratio with respect to the negative electrode layer. As such, a volume percent of 0.1% to 35% reads on the applicants claimed range as negative electrode disclosed by Takano would possess a section view with a conductive additive in the range of 0.1%-35%. The examiner notes that the “section view” is not clearly defined in the claim language. There is no indication as to a directional relationship, size, boundary, or continuity in the claim. As such, because the boundaries of section view are not defined, in the broadest reasonable interpretation one can select a section view of the layer which contains the claimed area percentage.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (see MPEP 2144.05).
Takano discloses the conductive additive may have metals or an elongated shape (e.g. carbon nanotubes) [0034, Takano]. But silent is explicitly silent to having a conductive additive comprising a metal material having an elongated shape.
Mochizuki discloses using an auxiliary conductive agent (equivalent to conductive additive) comprising a metal [0006, 0010, Mochizuki], having an aspect ratio of 1.5 or more [0082, Mochizuki], and having an elongated shape [0096, Mochizuki. Examples: a needle shape, a tubular shape, a dumbbell shape, a disc shape, an elliptical shape].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Takano such that the conductive additive was utilized as a conductive additive with an elongated shape (an aspect ratio of 1.5 or more) as disclosed by Mochizuki. Doing so would allow one to obtain an electrode in which the active material and the conductive agent can form a conductive path for electron conductivity [0090, Mochizuki].
Regarding claim 2, Takano as modified above discloses the solid-state battery, wherein the negative electrode layer includes a negative electrode active material having a molar ratio of Li to V of 2.0 or more [0008, Takano].
Regarding claim 3, Takano as modified above discloses solid-state battery, wherein the metal material having the elongated shape is a flattened conductive additive [0096, Mochizuki. The examiner is interpreting a disc shape to be “flattened”].
Regarding claim 4 and 5, Takano as modified above discloses the solid-state battery, wherein the metal material having the elongated shape has an average aspect ratio of greater than 1.5 [0082, Mochizuki].
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 6, Takano as modified above discloses the solid-state battery, wherein the metal material having the elongated shape has an average short-side length of preferably 5 μm or less and 5nm or more [0093, Mochizuki].
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 7, Takano as modified above discloses the solid-state battery, wherein the metal material having the elongated shape includes one or more selected from the group consisting of Ag, Cu, Sn, Ni, and alloys thereof [0034, Takano].
Regarding claim 8, Takano as modified above discloses the solid-state battery, wherein metal material having the elongated shape is included at 35% or more in area ratio with respect to a total of the conductive additive.
Tanako as modified above discloses the use of a single conductive additive. As such the area ratio of the conductive additive to the total conductive additive will be 100%.
Regarding claim 12, Takano as modified above discloses the solid-state battery, wherein
Takano discloses using Li3.2(V0.8Si-0.2) O4 as a negative electrode active material which satisfies the claimed equation when x = 0, y = 0.8, and B = Si [0023-0024, Takano].
Regarding claim 13, Takano as modified above discloses, wherein 0≤x≤0.5 and 0.55≤y≤1.0 [0023-0024, Takano].
Takano discloses using Li3.2V0.8Si-0.2O4 as a negative electrode active material which satisfies the above equation when x = 0, y = 0.8, and B = Si.
Regarding claim 14, Takano as modified above discloses the solid-state battery, wherein 0≤x≤1.0; and y = 1 [0023-0024, Takano].
Takano discloses using Li3VO4 as a negative electrode active material which satisfies the above equation when x = 0 and y = 1.
Regarding claim 15, as modified above discloses the solid-state battery, wherein
Takano discloses using a general formula (Li[3-ax+(5-b)y] Ax ) (V1-y By )O4 , where A = Zn, B = Si x= 0.05, y = 0.8, a = 2, and b = 4 [0023-0024, Takano].
Regarding claim 16, Takano as modified above discloses the solid-state battery, wherein the negative electrode active material has a βII-Li3VO4-type crystal structure or a γII-Li3VO4-type crystal structure [0025, Takano].
Regarding claim 17, Takano as modified above discloses making a solid state battery sealed in a 2032 type coin cell [0069, Takano], but is silent to the thickness of the negative electrode.
However, Mochizuki discloses using a solid-state battery in a 2032 type coin case with a negative electrode active material layer of 30 µm which meets the applicants claimed range [0236, Mochizuki].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Takano such that the thickness of the negative electrode were 30 µm as this is a known thickness for producing a solid-state battery for a 2032 type coin cell that will lead to predictable results.
Regarding claim 18, Takano as modified above discloses the solid-state battery, wherein at least one of the negative electrode layer and the solid electrolyte layer further includes a sintering aid [0040, Takano], and the sintering aid is a compound that has a chemical composition containing Li, boron, and 0, and with a molar ratio of Li to boron of 2.0 or more [0040-0041, Takano discloses using Li4B2O5 as a sintering aid].
Regarding claim 19, Takano as modified does not explicitly state that their positive and negative electrode layers are layers capable of occluding and releasing lithium ions. However, Takano does use the same material disclosed in the instant application and would therefore inherently be capable of occluding and releasing lithium ions from the positive and negative electrode layers, see MPEP 2112.
Takano discloses using a positive electrode with lithium-containing phosphate compounds having a NASICON-type structure [0018, Takano]. Applicant does explicitly state the positive electrode layer may be a lithium-containing phosphate compounds having a NASICON-type structure capable of occluding and releasing lithium ions [0139, instant specification].
Takano discloses using a negative electrode active material containing Li, V, and O with a Li:V ratio of 2.0 or more [0022, Takano]. Examples of the negative electrode active material include an active material represented by a general formula (Li[3-ax+(5-b)y] Ax ) (V1-y By )O4 , where A is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Mg, Al, Ga, and Zn; B is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Zn, Al, Ga, Si, Ge, P, and Ti; 0≤x≤1.0; 0≤y≤0.6; a is an average valence of A; and b is an average valence of B. In the general formula (Li[3-ax+(5-b)y] Ax ) (V1-y By )O4 , Li may be partially substituted with, for example, Na, K, Ca, Fe, Cr, or Co. Further, in the general formula (Li[3-ax+(5-b)y] Ax) (V1-y By )O4 , V may be partially substituted with, for example, Zn, Al, Ga, Sn, As, Mo, W, Fe, Cr, or Co [0023, Takano]. Specific examples of the negative electrode active material may include Li3 VO4 and Li3.2 V0.8 Si0.2 O4 [0024]. The negative electrode active material has, for example, preferably a βII -Li3 VO4 structure or a γII -Li3 VO4 structure, further preferably a γII -Li3 VO4 structure [0025, Takano].
The applicant discloses using a negative electrode layer is a layer capable of occluding and releasing metal ions, preferably a layer capable of occluding and releasing lithium ions. The negative electrode active material included the molar ratio of Li (lithium) to V (vanadium) is 2.0 or more [0058, instant specification]. The negative active material has the formula (Li[3−a×+(5−b)(1−y)] Ax )(V y B1−y )O4 [0060-0061, instant specification]. x has a relationship of 0≤x≤0.06, and is more preferably 0 and y has a relationship of 0.55≤y≤1.0, more preferably 0.8≤y≤1.0, is still more preferably 1 [0065-0066]. Specific examples of the negative electrode active material may include Li3 VO4 and Li3.2 V0.8 Si0.2 O4 [0076, instant specification]. Finally, the applicant discloses that the negative electrode material preferably has a βII -Li3 VO4 -type structure or a γII -Li3 VO4 -type structure [0080, instant specification].
Regarding claim 20, Takano as modified above discloses the solid-state battery, wherein the solid electrolyte layer and the positive electrode layer, and the solid electrolyte layer and the negative electrode layer, have sintered bodies sintered integrally with each other [0015, Takano].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Takano as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang (US20180047982A1).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Takano is silent to the solid-state battery, wherein 20% or more in area ratio of the conductive additive with respect to a total of metal material having the elongated shape is at an orientation angle of 30o or less.
However, Huang discloses a cathode with uniformly aligned graphite (or other conductive material) in which 60% or more and most preferably 95% or more of the conductive material are substantially aligned [0064, Huang]. Substantial alignment being determined by projecting an imaginary axial line of each particles elongated axis [0064, Huang]. The specified percentage (i.e. 95% or more) of such imaginary axial line are within range of preferably no more than 30 degrees of one another [0064, Huang]. Having the graphite be oriented in line parallel with the current flow allows for improvement in electronic conductivity and ionic diffusivity [0062, Huang].
While Haung disclose the use of oriented graphite in a cathode and is silent to their use as an anode, the work is translatable as anodes still use conductive additives. Having the conductive additives highly oriented in an anode will beneficial from improving electronic conductivity and ionic diffusivity.
Prior to the effective filing one of ordinary skill within the art would find it obvious to further modify Takano such that the conductive additive had a highly oriented structure. The conductive additive being oriented such that 60% or more of the conductive additive are within 30 degrees of one another.
Claim(s) 10-11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Takano as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang (US20180013119A1).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Takano is silent to the solid-state battery, wherein the negative electrode layer includes a negative electrode current collector at an end surface of the negative electrode layer and that is constructed to be electrically connected to a negative electrode terminal.
However, Yang discloses a lithium ion battery with a negative electrode current collector (111) at an end surface of the negative electrode layer (112a) [fig. 4, Yang].
Prior to the effective filing dates, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Takano such that the negative electrode current collector is located at an end surface of the negative electrode layer as shown by Yang. Current collectors are common and a known technique within the art for collecting electrical current generated at the electrode. One would further find it obvious to connect the negative electrode current collector to a negative electrode terminal as this would allow one to productively use the current collected from the electrode for electronic devices.
Regarding claim 11, Modified Takano discloses the solid-state battery, wherein the negative electrode current collector (111) has an upper surface that is flush with an upper surface of the negative electrode layer (112a) and a lower surface that is flush with a lower surface of the negative electrode layer [fig. 4, Yang. ] in a laminating direction of the positive electrode layer (102a, 105), the solid electrolyte layer (120), and the negative electrode layer (112a, 115) [0070, 0057, 0087, fig. 4, Yang].
PNG
media_image1.png
605
1023
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 4 , Yang (Left) showing the lamination direction [0087, Yang] and (Right) showing the current collector being flush with an upper and lower surface (i.e. the top view surface is flush across all portions of the surface) of the electrode layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below of details.
The applicant argues that Takano’s disclosure of a negative electrode having a conductive additive present in a 0.1-35% vol% with respect to the negative electrode layer does not read on the applicant’s claimed limitation of 7-28% in an area ratio with respect to the negative electrode layer.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant disagrees with the examiner in regards to Takano’s teaching of volume percentage of a conductive material to the negative electrode layer reading on an area ratio. Applicant notes that the present application differentiates these values citing [0036] and [0159] of the instant specification. The examiner reviewed these paragraphs. Examiner notes that [0036] discusses the area ratio of the conductive additive to negative electrode layer and doe not mention volume percentage. Paragraph [0159] of the instant specification discloses the volume percentage of the conductive additive to the positive electrode layer but does not mention area ratio.
These two paragraphs are not sufficient to show that the instant application differentiates these two values because 1) there is not a direct discussion on the similarities and/or differences of the two measurements and 2) one paragraph relates to the structure of a negative electrode and the other discusses a positive electrode.
These two paragraphs are not convincing in differentiating volume percentage and area ratio and why Takano does not read on the limitations of the claimed negative electrode. Applicant has not clearly articulated how these paragraphs differentiate from the art presented.
Next, applicant points to the present application stating that when the conductive additive has an elongated shape, the area ratio of the conductive additive relative to the negative electrode layer varies depending on the orientation angle of the conductive additive. Because of this the area ratio relative to the negative electrode layer changes depending on the direction in which the cross section is taken.
The examiner notes the following:
The claim requires “a section view at 7% to 28% in area ratio”, as such the applicant is correct in that the relative ratio can change depending on the direction in which the section area is taken. There is nothing in the claim limitations that defines how the section area must be taken. As such, one only needs a single section view with a ratio between 7-28% to read on the claim limitation, the direction in which the section view is taken is irrelevant in meeting the limitation as the only requirement is that the cited section view ratio is present.
The examiner notes that in the office action that Takano notes that the conductive additive is kneaded (mixed) into the electrode mixture such that the active material was coated with the conductive additive. The examiner noted that it would be obvious to insure that the mixture was kneaded such that the negative electrode mixture was uniform without.
With a uniform modification the ratio of conductive additive to electrode mixture would be uniform regardless of the direction in which the cross section was taken.
In the event that a uniform mixture is not present, one will still find a section view within the claimed range by changing the direction of the section view.
Applicant is encouraged to claim the section to be commensurate with the arguments presented as such would assist in limited the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
Finally, the applicant asserts that one of ordinary skill within the arts would arrive have arrived at a solid-state battery where the area ratio relative to the negative electrode layer is within the range of 7-28% based off of the art used in the rejection of claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant for the reasons listed in the rejection of claim 1 and the above response to applicant’s arguments.
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 QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached on 5712705256. 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.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights