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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/12/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Amended Claims 1-3 and 5 are pending.
Applicant's arguments are directed to an affidavit filed on 2/12/26 by one of the inventors, Mr. Kazuki Furukawa. The affidavit has been fully considered but it is not persuasive. First, the particulars of the experiments in the affidavit are not present in the claims. For example, the experiments are directed to a particular oxide, i.e. LiNbO3 and a particular firing time. Second, it is well-known in the art as shown by Jo et al. (US 20200303720) that LiNbO3 and Li3PO4 are known, interchangeable, electrode materials. It is also known as shown by Kanda (US20090068563) that some compounds that have higher lithium-ion conductivity in an amorphous state rather than a crystalline state. For example, LiNbO3 exhibits high lithium-ion conductivity in an amorphous state [0018]. Lastly, it is known in the art from Niessen (US 20090317664) that LiNbO3 optimal annealing temperature is less than 450C (see Table 1) to form the preferred phase, i.e. amorphous. Thus one skilled in the art would know to optimize firing temperatures to arrive at a desired optimized structure.
Thus, the affidavit and remarks are not persuasive.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015118815 (citing to machine translation performed 5/22/25) in view of Katoh et al. (US 20180316056), Kanda (US20090068563) and Jo (20200303720) with evidence from Niessen (US 20090317664).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 5, JP ‘815 teaches a negative electrode for an all-solid secondary battery comprising (see fig. 1):
A positive electrode #4 [0018] and a solid electrolyte layer #5 (i.e. claim 5);
a negative electrode active material #6 being a graphite-based active material such as artificial graphite, natural graphite, a mixture of artificial graphite and natural graphite, natural graphite coated with artificial graphite, or the like can be given [0030-31];
an oxide containing layer [0032-33; 0038-40], lithium phosphate (i.e. claim 2);
the weight ratio of oxide layer to graphite is preferably 0.1 to 10 wt% [0040); and
a solid electrolyte containing sulfur [0028].
JP ‘815 does not specifically teach a thickness for the negative electrode or specify the use of an amorphous oxide.
However, in the battery art, Katoh et al. also teaches a solid state battery having a negative electrode. Katoh et al. teaches that the negative electrode active material is not limited provided that occlusion and discharge of the Li ion are possible. Katoh et al. teaches that the thickness of the negative electrode active material layer will generally be appropriately within the range of 0.1 micrometer to 1000 micrometers [0045-51] which overlaps with the claimed range.
Additionally, Kanda also teaches a battery that utilizes a lithium oxide and teaches that some compounds that have higher lithium-ion conductivity in an amorphous state rather than a crystalline state. For example, LiNbO3 exhibits high lithium-ion conductivity in an amorphous state [0018]. Additionally, Jo teaches that in the battery art it is well-known that LiNbO3 and Li3PO4 are known, interchangeable, battery electrode materials [0007].
As evidenced by Niessen (US 20090317664), LiNbO3 optimal annealing temperature is less than 450C (see Table 1) to form the preferred phase, i.e. amorphous.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the present invention to utilize a negative electrode that falls within the claimed range of 200-3000 micrometers as taught by Katoh et al. in the device of JP ‘815 to provide electron flow and to utilize an amorphous oxide of either Li3PO4 or LiNbO3 as Jo teaches these are interchangeable materials (simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is not patentable. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007); MPEP 2143 B) and Kanda teaches it is well known in the battery art that amorphous oxides have higher conductivity than those in crystalline state and Niessen evidences they form at 450C or less.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015118815 (citing to machine translation performed 5/22/25) in view of Katoh et al. (US 20180316056), Kanda (US20090068563), Jo (20200303720) and Niessen (US 20090317664).
Regarding claim 3, JP ‘815 also discloses the fabrication of an all-solid lithium battery using graphite as a negative electrode active material, lithium phosphate as a lithium ion-conducting solid, a solid electrolyte having a composition of a sulfide-based lithium ion-conducting solid electrolyte, and an indium-lithium alloy layer as a positive electrode layer. Graphite was used with an average particle size of 0.1 to 10% to the graphite (see citing for claim 1 above).
JP ‘815 teaches a lithium phosphate layer is formed on the surface of the graphite powder particles [0038]. JP ‘815 teaches forming the negative electrode material using graphite particles [0038-39] (claimed step A). Adhering a lithium oxide [0041] to the surface of the graphite (claimed step i-1) and heat treating at 150° C under vacuum for 4 hours to remove the nitric acid remaining on the graphite surface and then heat treatment at 600° C under argon for 2 hours to completely react the poorly reacted lithium phosphate. The coating was performed so that the weight ratio of lithium phosphate to graphite was 0.1%-10% [0040].
JP ‘815 discloses the fabrication of an all-solid lithium battery using graphite as a negative electrode active material, lithium phosphate as a lithium ion-conducting solid, a solid electrolyte having a composition of a sulfide-based lithium ion-conducting solid electrolyte, and an indium-lithium alloy layer as a positive electrode layer. Graphite was used with an average particle size of 0.1 to 10% to the graphite (see citing for claim 1 above).
JP ‘815 teaches a lithium phosphate layer is formed on the surface of the graphite powder particles [0038]. JP ‘815 teaches forming the negative electrode material using graphite particles [0038-39] (claimed step A). Adhering a lithium oxide [0041] to the surface of the graphite (claimed step i-1) and heat treating at 150° C under vacuum for 4 hours to remove the nitric acid remaining on the graphite and then heat treatment at 600° C under argon for 2 hours to completely react the poorly reacted lithium phosphate. The coating was performed so that the weight ratio of lithium phosphate to graphite was 0.1%-10% [0040].
While JP ‘815 teaches the use of Li3PO4, it does not specifically teach the use of LiNbO3 and does not specifically teach the use of 450 C or less for the firing step for arrive at an amorphous oxide (claimed step i-2), as it teaches firing at 600 C.
However, Jo teaches that in the battery art it is well-known that LiNbO3 and Li3PO4 are known, interchangeable, battery electrode materials [0007].
Additionally, Kanda also teaches a battery that utilizes a lithium oxide and teaches that some compounds that have higher lithium-ion conductivity in an amorphous state rather than a crystalline state. For example, LiNbO3 exhibits high lithium-ion conductivity in an amorphous state [0018].
Lastly Niessen teaches LiNbO3 optimal annealing temperature is less than 450C (see Table 1) to form the preferred phase, i.e. amorphous.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the present invention to utilize a negative electrode that falls within the claimed range of 200-3000 micrometers as taught by Katoh et al. in the device of JP ‘815 to provide electron flow and to utilize an amorphous oxide of either Li3PO4 or LiNbO3, as Jo teaches these are interchangeable materials (simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is not patentable. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007); MPEP 2143 B), Kanda teaches it is well known in the battery art that they these oxides have higher conductivity in amorphous state than in crystalline state and Niessen teaches that annealing LiNbO3 at temperature of 450 provides optimal amorphous phase.
Note that applicant’s specification at PG Pub [0053] notes that “There is no particular limitation on the firing method used in the step (i-2), and various known firing methods can be adopted.”
Claims 1, 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama (US 2014/0220436) in view of Atsushi Sugihara (US 2019/0131628), Katoh (US 20180316056), Kanda (US20090068563), Jo (20200303720) and evidence from Niessen (US 20090317664).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 5, Yokoyama teaches a solid-state battery comprising:
A positive electrode [0039] and a solid electrolyte layer #3 (i.e. claim 5);
a molded negative electrode active material #2 [0060] being a carbon-based active [0061];
an oxide containing layer [0061], lithium titanium (i.e. claim 2); and
a solid electrolyte containing sulfur [0067].
Yokoyama does not specifically teach a weight percent of carbon to oxide.
Atsushi also teaches a method of making a negative battery electrode that also comprises lithium titanate oxide particles in an amount not lower than 2 mass percent and not higher than 15 mass percent of a total amount of the graphite-based particles and the lithium titanate oxide particles [abstract; 0015]. Atsushi found that this provides an improved balance between the extent of inhibition of heat generation at time of short circuit and the battery capacity [0022].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the present invention to utilize an oxide/carbon weight ratio of 1 part by mass oxide or more to 100 parts by mass carbon as taught by Atsushi in order to provide improved balance between inhibition of heat generation and sustained capacity.
Yokoyama appears silent on a thickness for the negative electrode or that it is amorphous.
However, in the battery art, Katoh et al. also teaches a solid state battery having a negative electrode. Katoh et al. teaches that the negative electrode active material is not limited provided that occlusion and discharge of the Li ion are possible. Katoh et al. teaches that the thickness of the negative electrode active material layer will generally be appropriately within the range of 0.1 micrometer to 1000 micrometers [0045-51] which overlaps with the claimed range.
Additionally, Kanda also teaches a battery that utilizes a lithium oxide and teaches that some compounds that have higher lithium-ion conductivity in an amorphous state rather than a crystalline state. For example, LiNbO3 exhibits high lithium-ion conductivity in an amorphous state [0018].
Additionally, Jo teaches that in the battery art it is well-known that LiNbO3 and lithium titanium are known, interchangeable, battery electrode materials [0007].
As evidenced by Niessen (US 20090317664), LiNbO3 optimal annealing temperature is less than 450C (see Table 1) to form the preferred phase, i.e. amorphous.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the present invention to utilize a negative electrode that falls within the claimed range of 200-3000 micrometers as taught by Katoh et al. in the device of Yokoyama modified by Sugihara to provide electron flow and to utilize an amorphous oxide of either Li3PO4 or lithium titanium, as Jo teaches these are interchangeable materials (simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is not patentable. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007); MPEP 2143 B) and Kanda teaches it is well known in the battery art that they have higher conductivity in amorphous state than in crystalline state.
Conclusion
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 JENNIFER M DIETERLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7872. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:30-5:30 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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at 571-272-4729. 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.
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights