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 02/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues unexpected results and criticality. Applicant submits that Tanaka does not measure an internal resistance or density, and that the results demonstrated in table 1 of Tanaka are limited to capacity measurement. However, capacity measurement is directly related to at least internal resistance of the battery. Although the pending application measures capacity at 2 μA and Tanaka measures capacities at 10, 100, and 500 μA, the office does not have the resources to directly measure the invention as provided by Tanaka by the same method as presented by the applicant. Therefore, the provided method of Tanaka is compared to the disclosure in the present specification. Moreover, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Measurements of capacity and the corresponding arguments are not directly related to instant claim 1 as claimed; the claim does not provide capacity, internal resistance, or density values.
Applicant submits that claim 1 recites an a/b range of 1.5 to 5.0, and that table 2 of the pending application provides an a/b ratio, such as in examples 2, 7, and 8, which demonstrate superior Imp, discharge capacity, and relative density, while inferior results are achieved outside the claimed range. Applicant argues that the major and minor axis as provided by Tanaka does not provide the same smaller range of a/b which demonstrates criticality. However, the claimed a/b ratio of 1.5-5 is commensurate with the provided data. In examples, 7, 2, and 8, the a/b ratios are 1.5, 3.0, and 5.0. Examples 7 and 8 having a/b ratios of 1.5 and 5.0 have very similar results; the Imp at 0.005 Hz is 2.0 x 106 compared to 1.99 x106, the discharge capacity is 5.98 compared to 4.53, and the relative density is 96.17 compared to 96.68. Meanwhile, the resistance and discharge capacity of example 2, which has an a/b ratio of 3.0, is 5.15 x 105 and 8.15 μAh. That is, example 2 which has an a/b ratio of 3.0 has a internal resistance value an order of magnitude smaller than examples 7 and 8, and a discharge capacity nearly twice as large as examples 7 and 8. The internal resistance and the discharge capacity of examples 7 and 8 are closer to examples 5-6 and 9-12, which varies a/b from 1.0 to 200. Thus, from the provided data, the range of criticality that strongly improves internal resistance and discharge capacity is more centered around when a/b is equal to 3.0, as opposed to the broader range of 1.5-5.0 as claimed.
Applicant argues that fig. 12E of Dai does not provide the claimed G-FWHM, and that Dai only provides an approximate peak at 1580 cm-1 with gridlines 500 cm-1 apart. However, from the graph, the peak at 1580 cm-1 has a very high intensity (visually about 700). The peak itself does not span more than from 1500 cm-1 to 1625 cm-1, and possibly has a smaller range than 1500 cm-1 to 1625 cm-1, such that the Dai may provide an overlapping range to the range as claimed. Furthermore, applicant argues that the claimed G-FWHM range of 40 cm-1 or less is critical to the battery performance. However, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims and the provided data. Instant specification table 1 provides examples 1-4 which vary the G-FWHM from 10-39 cm-1 as opposed to the broader claimed range of 0-40 cm-1. Moreover, example 2 which has a G-FWHM of 18 cm-1 has a discharge capacity of 8.15, which is about twice as large compared to examples 3 and 4. Examples 1 and 2 which have G-FWHM of 10 cm-1 and 18 cm-1 also have a resistance at 0.005 Hz of 1 magnitude smaller than that of examples 3 and 4, and the relative density is notably higher than examples 3 and 4. Therefore, from the provided data, the range of criticality of G-FWHM of the carbon particle seems to be a smaller range that the range as claimed in claim 1.
Applicant further argues that claim 1 provides a D10 range of 0.25 μm or more and D90 of 4.5-5.0 μm, which is a critical range because inferior results are achieved outside of the claimed range. Applicant further argues that the example provided by Azami having D10 of 1.2 μm and D90 of 4.7 μm (see e.g., Azami; table 1) is not labeled as “preferred” such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not arrive at the specific value when in the modification. However, firstly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the D10 and D90 of Azami in order to improve cycle characteristics (see e.g., Azami; [0006]), and have less metal impurities, and have low resistance with respect to electron conductivity (see e.g., Azami; [0014]). From table 3 of the instant specification, examples 2 and 13 which provide D10 and D90 within the claimed range do show battery characteristics of internal resistance, discharge capacity, and relative density notably stronger than that of examples outside the claimed range of D10 and D90 (examples 14 and 15). Therefore, it does seem that the claimed D10 and D90 range have criticality. However, as previously discussed, Azami does specifically provide D10 and D90 values within the claimed range.
In addition to tables 1-3, table 4 of the instant specification provides G-FWHM of 18 cm-1 D10 of 0.25 D90 of 4.5, and a/b ratio of 3.0, showing examples 16-21 and 2. The charged addition amount is varies from 0.49-18.08%, and the internal resistance, discharge capacity, and relative density are significantly affected by the amount of carbon. That is, example 2 which has a charged addition amount of 11.30 wt% provides a discharge capacity of 8.15 μAh, which is significantly above all the other examples 16-21. Therefore, it seems that the carbon particles corresponding to the charged addition amount is also a critical factor in the performance of the battery characteristics.
In summary, while there is partial criticality for the claimed ranges, there is no criticality for the entire combination of ranges as claimed. Moreover, attorney arguments cannot substitute for evidence, which is provided by the combination of references as provided.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 7-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP-2018170189-A), and further in view of Dai (US-20190006701-A1) and Azami (US-20190097263-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka discloses an all-solid-state battery (see e.g., Tanaka; [0001]) comprising:
a positive electrode layer that has a positive electrode current collector layer and a positive electrode active material layer; a negative electrode layer that has a negative electrode current collector layer and a negative electrode active material layer; and a solid electrolyte layer that contains a solid electrolyte (see e.g., Tanaka; [0008]),
wherein the positive electrode active material layer is composed of positive active materials and the carbon particles, wherein the negative electrode active material layer is composed of negative active materials and the carbon particles (see e.g., Tanaka; [0008], regarding the positive and negative electrode comprising of active material layers, and wherein at least one of the positive electrode current collector layer, the positive electrode active material layer, the negative electrode active material layer, and the negative electrode current collector layer contains a carbon material and glass; because of the term "at least", Tanaka discloses that there may be a configuration in which both the positive and negative electrodes have the carbon particles; indeed, Tanaka specifically discloses this configuration in [0018], [0027]-[0028]).
Tanaka discloses wherein a minor axis is 0.01 µm or more and 4.0 µm or less and the major axis is 0.03 µm or more and 10 µm or less (see e.g., Tanaka; [0053]); when length of a major axis of the carbon particles is a and a minor axis thereof is b, a ratio thereof falls within the range of 0.0075 < a/b < 1000, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.0 <a/b. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a minor axis “a” and major axis “b” such that a/b is 1.5 to 5.0 in order to improve rate discharge characteristics (see e.g., Tanaka; [0007]).
Tanaka discloses that carbon particles used in the positive electrode active material layer and negative electrode active material layer may have high electronic conductivity, high ratio of sp2 bonds, such as graphite, acetylene black, glassy carbon, carbon nanotubes, carbon fiber, graphene, and natural graphite, and particularly graphite, acetylene black, and glassy carbon due to glass adhesion and improved discharge characteristics (see e.g., Tanaka; [0052]). The included carbon material disclosed by Tanaka improves the overall discharge rate characteristics of the all-solid-state secondary battery (see e.g., Tanaka; [0010]). Tanaka does not explicitly disclose the measurement of the carbon particles to show a G-band full-width at half-maximum (G- FWHM) in a Raman spectrum is 40 (cm⁻¹) or less. However, Dai discloses in fig. 12E a graph showing the G-band full-width at half- maximum (G-FWHM) in a Raman spectrum is 40 (cm⁻¹) or less of a carbon material (see e.g., Dai; [0049], [0139], fig. 12E, regarding KS-6 carbon G-FWHM). The G-FWHM property of the carbon as disclosed by Dai may be applied to the carbon particles disclosed by Tanaka because the particle is graphite, which is the preferred material disclosed by Tanaka. Moreover, Tanaka similarly discloses the use of KS-6 (manufactured by TIMICAL Graphite & Carbon: average particle size 3.4 µm) (see e.g., Tanaka; [0076]). 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 carbon particles disclosed by Tanaka to have the property of a G-band full-width at half- maximum (G-FWHM) in a Raman spectrum is 40 (cm⁻¹) or less as disclosed by Dai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a particle with a desired level of crystallinity, surface area, and defect density (see e.g., Dai; [0139]).
As mentioned above, Tanaka discloses the size of the carbon particles may be 0.01-4.0 μm in the short axis and 0.03-10 μm in the long axis (see e.g., Tanaka; [0054]). Tanaka does not explicitly disclose a particle size distribution of the carbon particles, D10 is 0.25 um or more, and D90 is 4.5 m or more and 5.0 m or less. However, Azami discloses a carbon particle (see e.g., Azami; [0019]-[0020], regarding the first artificial graphite used as a conductive assisting agent) that is most preferably having a particle size distribution of D10 being 1 µm or more and D90 being 35 µm or less (see e.g., Azami; [0020]), and further provides examples, such as graphite conductive assisting agent A (see e.g., Azami; Table 1) with a D10 of 1.2 µm and a D90 of 4.7 µm. This overlaps with the claimed range of D10 of 0.25 μm or more and D90 of 4.5-5 μm. Azami is further applicable because Tanaka specifies that graphite is particularly preferable because they have good adhesion to glass and are highly effective in improving discharge rate (see e.g., Azami; [0052]), and Azami specifically chooses graphite as the conductive assisting agent. Furthermore, Azami teaches that the carbon particles have an average particle size (D50) of 2- 15 um for the first carbon particle (see e.g., Azami; [0020]), which is similar to the examples of average particle size of the carbon particle disclosed by Tanaka (see e.g., Tanaka; [0077], [0097], regarding examples of D50 of 3.4 μm). 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 modified the carbon particle disclosed by Tanaka by providing a particle with D10 of 1.2 µm and a D90 of 4.7 µm disclosed by Azami. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve cycle characteristics (see e.g., Azami; [0006]), contain less metal impurities, and have low resistance with respect to electron conductivity (see e.g., Azami; [0014]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Tanaka teaches the all-solid-state battery according to claim 1. Tanaka discloses wherein the positive electrode active material layer and the negative electrode active material layer each contain 0.1 vol% to 50 vol% of the carbon particles (see e.g., Tanaka; [0013]) and provides examples (see e.g., Tanaka; [0076], [0085], [0090], [0096], [0097]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5 (wt%) or more and 15.0 (wt%) or less of the carbon particles. 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 carbon particles of 0.1-50 vol% that overlap with the claimed range of 0.5-15 wt% in in order to provide improved discharge rate characteristics (see e.g., Tanaka; [0008]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Tanaka teaches the all-solid state battery according to claim 1.
Tanaka discloses that carbon particles used in the positive electrode active material layer and negative electrode active material layer may have high electronic conductivity, high ratio of sp2 bonds, such as graphite, acetylene black, glassy carbon, carbon nanotubes, carbon fiber, graphene, and natural graphite, and particularly graphite, acetylene black, and glassy carbon due to glass adhesion and improved discharge characteristics (see e.g., Tanaka; [0052]). The included carbon material disclosed by Tanaka improves the overall discharge rate characteristics of the all-solid-state secondary battery (see e.g., Tanaka; [0010]). Tanaka does not explicitly disclose the measurement of the carbon particles to show a G-band full-width at half-maximum (G- FWHM) in a Raman spectrum is 24 (m⁻¹) or less. However, Dai discloses in fig. 12E a graph showing the G-band full-width at half- maximum (G-FWHM) in a Raman spectrum is 24 (m⁻¹) or less of a carbon material (see e.g., Dai; [0049], [0139], fig. 12E, regarding KS-6 carbon G-FWHM). The G-FWHM property of the carbon as disclosed by Dai may be applied to the carbon particles disclosed by Tanaka because the particle is graphite, which is the preferred material disclosed by Tanaka. Moreover, Tanaka similarly discloses the use of KS-6 (manufactured by TIMICAL Graphite & Carbon: average particle size 3.4 µm) (see e.g., Tanaka; [0076]). 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 carbon particles disclosed by Tanaka to have the property of a G-band full-width at half- maximum (G-FWHM) in a Raman spectrum is 24 (m⁻¹) or less as disclosed by Dai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a particle with a desired level of crystallinity, surface area, and defect density (see e.g., Dai; [0139]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Tanaka teaches the all-solid-state battery according to claim 1. Tanaka discloses wherein the solid electrolyte layer may include a compounds having NASICON structure (see e.g., Tanaka; [0043]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a NASICON solid electrolyte disclosed by Tanaka in order to improve discharge rate characteristics (see e.g., Tanaka; [0008]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Tanaka teaches the all-solid-state battery according to claim 8. Tanaka further discloses wherein the solid electrolyte layer includes Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3 (see e.g., Tanaka; [0043], [0097], regarding Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3 as a possible electrolyte and used in example 17). 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 selected Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3 as disclosed by Tanaka as the solid electrolyte in order to improve discharge rate characteristics (see e.g., Tanaka; [0008]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Tanaka teaches the all-solid-state battery according to claim 1. Tanaka discloses wherein the positive electrode active material is one of LiCoO2, LiMn2O4, and Li3V2(PO4)3 (see e.g., Tanaka; [0047]), which overlaps with the list of positive electrode active material as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, modified Tanaka teaches the all-solid-state battery according to claim 9. Tanaka discloses wherein the positive electrode active material is Li3V2(PO4)3 (see e.g., Tanaka; [0047], [0075], regarding example 1 use of Li3V2(PO4)3).
Regarding claim 12, modified Tanaka teaches the all-solid-state battery according to claim 11. Tanaka discloses wherein the positive electrode active material layer and the negative electrode active material layer each contain 0.1 vol% to 50 vol% of the carbon particles (see e.g., Tanaka; [0013]) and provides examples (see e.g., Tanaka; [0076], [0085], [0090], [0096], [0097]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5 (wt%) or more and 15.0 (wt%) or less of the carbon particles. 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 carbon particles of 0.1-50 vol% that overlap with the claimed range of 0.5-15 wt% in in order to provide improved discharge rate characteristics (see e.g., Tanaka; [0008]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Tanaka teaches the all-solid-state battery according to claim 11. Tanaka discloses wherein the positive electrode active material layer and the negative electrode active material layer each contain 0.1 vol% to 50 vol% of the carbon particles (see e.g., Tanaka; [0013]) and provides examples (see e.g., Tanaka; [0076], [0085], [0090], [0096], [0097]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 10 wt% or more and 15.0 wt% or less of the carbon particles. 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 carbon particles of 0.1-50 vol% that overlap with the claimed range of 10-15 wt% in in order to provide improved discharge rate characteristics (see e.g., Tanaka; [0008]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Tanaka teaches the all-solid-state battery according to claim 10. Tanaka discloses wherein the negative electrode active material may be Li3V2(PO4)3, Li4Ti5O12, or oxides elements which may be an oxide of Ti and Fe (see e.g., Tanaka; [0047], see also [0075] regarding example 1 using Li3V2(PO4)3 in the negative electrode).
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
Prosecution Insights