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 with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) being anticipated by Park, applicant argues Park does not teach a solid-state battery and does not teach a solid electrolyte. However, Park discloses that the electrolyte may comprise a solid electrolyte (see e.g., Park; [0104], regarding the electrolyte also comprising of organic or inorganic solid electrolyte). That is, the full disclosure of [0104] is:
“The electrolyte of the lithium secondary battery is a lithium salt-containing electrolyte solution which is a non-aqueous electrolyte consisting of a non-aqueous organic solvent electrolyte solution and a lithium salt, and also may comprise an organic solid electrolyte or an inorganic solid electrolyte but is not limited thereto.”
This disclosure may be interpreted to be that the electrolyte of the lithium secondary battery also may comprise of an organic/inorganic solid electrolyte, rather than a lithium-salt containing electrolyte solution. That is, it seems that Park discloses that the solid electrolyte may be in lieu of the electrolyte solution.
From the amendment to claim 1 which claims the solid polymer electrolyte layer comprising a resin and a lithium salt, Lu (CN-108365262-A) (see translation) is newly applied to modify Park to teach a solid polymer electrolyte layer comprising a resin and a lithium salt. Therefore, in the final rejection below, modified Park teaches a solid-state battery with a solid polymer electrolyte comprising a resin and a lithium salt.
Park is still used to teach the use of a filler in the functional layer which exerts physical pressure. Applicant submits that Park does not disclose the use of a filler used to exert physical pressure on the negative electrode. Applicant submits that Park teaches the inorganic solid electrolyte applied to the protective layer 55 through a sputtering or slurry coating (see e.g., Park; [0092]) and argues that claim 1 requires the filler to be within the functional layer that provides a mechanical function wherein the filler creates a physical structure which allows the layer to exert physical pressure on dendrites. However, the slurry coating or sputtering process disclosed by Park effectively integrates the inorganic solid electrolyte into the protective layer 55 described by Park. That is, the layer of inorganic solid electrolyte that is applied by whatever method is described as part of the protective layer 55 (see e.g., Park; [0093], regarding the protective layer 55 comprising the inorganic solid electrolyte). Even if the layers of the lithium ion conductive polymer and the inorganic solid electrolyte are offset from one another, the claimed functional layer corresponds with the entirety of the protective layer 55, which includes the inorganic solid electrolyte filler. The inorganic solid electrolyte has mass, so the particles in the protective layer 55 therefore have to form a physical structure. Park describes that the functional layer inhibits or prevents the formation of lithium dendrites, figs. 4-6 show that the protective layer 55 is directly layered on the current collector, and [0095] that the thickness of the protective layer needs to be thick enough in order to effectively suppress the growth of dendrites, all of which are evidence that the protective layer 55 is exerting a physical pressure on the dendrites to suppress growth.
Applicant further submits that Park describes the protective layer as inhibiting or preventing the formation of the lithium dendrite by increasing the transfer rate of lithium ions. However, [0093] of Park is:
“The protective layer 55 comprising the lithium ion conductive polymer and/or the inorganic solid electrolyte described above can simultaneously ensure the effect of inhibiting or preventing the formation of the lithium dendrite, which is generated when the lithium metal layer 23 the negative electrode current collector 51 are used as the negative electrode, while increasing the transfer rate of lithium ions and then facilitating the formation of the lithium metal layer 23.”
That is, the benefit of preventing lithium dendrite formation can be simultaneously ensured at the same time as increasing the lithium ion transfer rate. Inhibiting lithium dendrite formation is not a byproduct of increasing the transfer rate of lithium ions. Park does not rely on electrochemical transport to manage dendrites, rather the protective layer 55 achieves electrochemical transfer while managing dendrite formation.
Regarding new claim 21, Park discloses that the inorganic solid electrolyte may be selected from a variety materials, many of which are metal oxides (see e.g., Park; [0091], such as Li2 O-B2 O3, Li2 O-B2 O3 -P2 O5, Li2 O-V2 O5 -SiO2, among other metal oxide materials).
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) 1-2, 4-11, and 13-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US-20190341601-A1), and in further view of Lu (CN-108365262-A) (see translation).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a solid-state battery comprising a positive electrode (see e.g., Park; [0022]), a solid electrolyte (see e.g., Park; [0091], [0104]), and a negative electrode that is free of a negative-electrode active material (see e.g., Park; [0008], [0023]-[0024], regarding anode-free structure using only negative electrode current collector in which no negative electrode is formed on the negative electrode current collector during the initial assembly).
Park discloses a functional layer (see e.g., Park; [0082] regarding protective layer 55) comprising a filler (see e.g., Park; [0084], [0091], regarding the protective layer 55 comprising an inorganic solid electrolyte which may be crystalline or amorphous material of a ceramic-based material, or may be inorganic solid electrolyte), wherein: the function layer has a surface facing at least the negative electrode (see e.g., Park; [0082] regarding protective layer 55 formed on the surface of the negative electrode); the function layer suppresses the formation of dendrites on the surface of the negative electrode (see e.g., Park; [0093] regarding inhibiting or preventing the formation of the lithium dendrite); and the filler suppresses the formation and growth of dendrites on the negative electrode by allowing the functional layer to exert physical pressure on the dendrites toward the negative electrode (see e.g., Park; [0084], [0091], describes the inorganic solid electrolyte corresponding to the filler contained in the protective layer 55, [0093] regarding the inhibition and prevention of the formation of lithium dendrites, figs. 4-6 which show that the protective layer 55 is directly layered with the negative electrode).
Park provides that that the electrolyte of the lithium secondary battery also be of an organic/inorganic solid electrolyte, rather than a lithium-salt containing electrolyte solution (see e.g., Park; [0104]). That is, it seems that Park discloses that the solid electrolyte may be in lieu of the electrolyte solution. Park does not explicitly disclose wherein the solid electrolyte comprises a solid polymer electrolyte layer comprising a resin and a lithium salt. However, Lu discloses a solid electrolyte comprising a solid polymer electrolyte layer comprising a resin (see e.g., Lu; [0012], [0053], regarding the three-dimensional network polymer electrolyte matrix comprising epoxy resins) and a lithium salt (see e.g., Lu; [0011], [0060], [0061], regarding the polymer electrolyte comprising a lithium salt, such as LiFSI). The solid electrolyte disclosed by Lu is further applicable to Park because Lu discloses the solid electrolyte applied to lithium secondary batteries (see e.g., Lu; [0099]). 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 solid polymer electrolyte with resin and lithium salt of Lu in the solid-state battery of Park in order to withstand the physical external forces during assembly and use for practical applications (see e.g., Lu; [0099]) by providing high conductivity with excellent mechanical properties and flexibility, as well as excellent thermal stability and dimensional stability, thereby improving safety (see e.g., Lu; [0008]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Park teaches the solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein the functional layer is arranged on only one side of the solid polymer electrolyte layer (see e.g., Park; fig. 4, [0082] regarding second embodiment wherein protective layer 55 is only on one side of the separator 60).
Regarding claim 4, modified Park teaches the solid-state battery according to claim 2, wherein the functional layer has a portion arranged so as to traverse the solid polymer electrolyte layer (see e.g., Park; fig. 4, [0082], regarding protective layer 55 in contact with the separator 60).
Regarding claim 5, modified Park teaches solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein the solid-state battery is a lithium secondary battery in which charging and discharging are performed by depositing lithium metal on the surface of the negative electrode and dissolving the deposited lithium (see e.g., Park; [0023]-[0024], [0028] regarding charging depositing lithium metal; the battery and electrode is structurally the same such that when discharging lithium metal on the surface of the negative electrode is dissolved).
Regarding claim 6, modified Park teaches the solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein lithium foil is not formed on the negative electrode prior to an initial charge of the solid-state battery (see e.g., Park; [0023]-[0024]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Park teaches the solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein lithium foil is not formed between the solid electrolyte and the negative electrode prior to the initial charge (see e.g., Park; [0023]-[0024]).
Regarding claim 8, Park discloses the solid-state battery according to claim 1.
Park is modified by Lu with a polymer solid electrolyte as described above regarding claim 1. Lu further discloses that the polymer solid electrolyte may have ionic conductivity and not electron conductivity (see e.g., Lu; [0033]), wherein the ionic conductivity is 1.04 x 10-3 S cm-1 which is 1.04 mS/cm at 80 °C (see e.g., Lu; [0086] – refer to original document for correctly listed value) which falls within the range of 0.10 mS/cm or more. 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 polymer solid electrolyte of Lu with ionic conductivity of 1.04 x 10-3 S cm-1 which is 1.04 mS/cm at 80 °C in order to withstand the physical external forces during assembly and use for practical applications (see e.g., Lu; [0099]) by providing high conductivity with excellent mechanical properties and flexibility, as well as excellent thermal stability and dimensional stability, thereby improving safety (see e.g., Lu; [0008]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Park teaches the solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein the solid polymer electrolyte layer comprises a first resin (see e.g., Park; [0098]-[0101]) and lithium salt (see e.g., Park; [0104], [0106]),
and the functional layer further comprises a second resin (see e.g., Park; [0084]-[0085] regarding protective layer 55 having lithium ion conductive polymer), and a lithium salt (see e.g., Park; [0084], [0090] regarding further comprising lithium salt), the second resin may be PVDF or PVDF-HFP (see e.g., Park; [0085]) which are materials with fluororesins having fluorine in a main chain, which corresponds with the claimed group of fluororesins having fluorine in a main chain, aromatic resins having an aromatic ring in a main chain, imide resins, amide resins, and aramid resins.
Park does not explicitly disclose wherein the solid polymer electrolyte layer has the first resin being at least one selected from a group consisting of resins having an ethylene oxide unit in a main chain and/or a side chain, acrylic resins, vinyl resins, ester resins, and nylon resins. However, Lu discloses that the solid polymer electrolyte layer may comprise of linear polymers (see e.g., Lu; [0013]), which includes PEO which consists of ethylene oxide units, acrylic resins such as polyacrylonitrile, vinyl resins such as PVDF, and ester resins such as polymethyl methacrylate. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provide a solid electrolyte with a first resin as disclosed by Lu in order to withstand the physical external forces during assembly and use for practical applications (see e.g., Lu; [0099]) by providing high conductivity with excellent mechanical properties and flexibility, as well as excellent thermal stability and dimensional stability, thereby improving safety (see e.g., Lu; [0008]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Park teaches the solid-state battery according to claim 9, wherein the filler is an inorganic salt.
Regarding claim 11, modified Park teaches the solid-state battery according to claim 9, wherein the amount of the lithium salt in the functional layer 10% (see e.g., Park; [0144], regarding example of protective layer having lithium salt LiTFSI at a ratio of 1:9 with polyethylene oxide), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5 parts by mass or more and 50.0 parts by mass or less with respect to 100 parts by mass of the second resin.
Regarding claim 13, modified Park teaches the solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein the average thickness of the functional layer facing the negative electrode is most preferably 10 μm to 50 μm (see e.g., Park; [0095]), and further provides an example wherein the thickness is 10 μm (see e.g., Park; [0145], example 4). The range and specific example disclosed by Park overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5 μm or more and 10.0 μm or less.
Park further discloses that the if the thickness of the protective layer is less than the above range, the over-charging or the side reaction and the exothermic reaction between the lithium and the electrolyte which are increased under the conditions such as high temperature storage cannot be effectively suppressed and thus the safety cannot be improved, and if the thickness exceeds the above range, the composition of the protective layer in the case of the lithium ion conductive polymer is required to be impregnated or swelled for a long time by the electrolytic solution and there is a concern that the movement of the lithium ions is lowered and the performance of the whole battery is deteriorated (see e.g., Park; [0095]). As shown in table 5, example 4 with a protective layer having a thickness of 10 μm showed improved capacity per Li area formed after 1 cycle of discharging, initial charging capacity, and number of cycles at 50% remaining capacity relative to the initial discharging capacity.
Regarding claim 14, modified Park teaches the solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein the positive electrode has a positive electrode active material (see e.g., Park; [0032]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Park teaches the solid-state battery according to claim 8, wherein the solid-state battery is a lithium secondary battery in which charging and discharging are performed by depositing lithium metal on the surface of the negative electrode and dissolving the deposited lithium (see e.g., Park; [0023]-[0024], [0028] regarding charging depositing lithium metal; the battery and electrode is structurally the same such that when discharging lithium metal on the surface of the negative electrode is dissolved).
Regarding claim 16, modified Park teaches the solid-state battery according to claim 8, wherein lithium foil is not formed on the negative electrode prior to an initial charge of the solid-state battery (see e.g., Park; [0023]-[0024]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Park teaches the solid-state battery according to claim 8, wherein lithium foil is not formed between the solid electrolyte and the negative electrode prior to the initial charge (see e.g., Park; [0023]-[0024]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Park teaches the solid-state battery according to claim 9, wherein the solid-state battery is a lithium secondary battery in which charging and discharging are performed by depositing lithium metal on the surface of the negative electrode and dissolving the deposited lithium (see e.g., Park; [0023]-[0024], [0028] regarding charging depositing lithium metal; the battery and electrode is structurally the same such that when discharging lithium metal on the surface of the negative electrode is dissolved).
Regarding claim 19, modified Park teaches the solid-state battery according to claim 9, wherein the negative electrode is a lithium-free electrode (see e.g., Park; [0023]-[0024]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Park teaches the solid-state battery according to claim 9, wherein lithium foil is not formed between the solid electrolyte and the negative electrode prior to the initial charge (see e.g., Park; [0023]-[0024]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Park teaches the solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein the filler comprises of materials including metal oxides, such as Li2 O-B2 O3, Li2 O-B2 O3 -P2 O5, Li2 O-V2 O5 -SiO2, among others (see e.g., Park; [0091]), which corresponds with the claimed filler comprising a metal oxide.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US-20190341601-A1) and Lu (CN-108365262-A) (see translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Fan (US-20170244093-A1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Park teaches the solid-state battery according to claim 1.
Park discloses the functional layer is arranged on one side of the solid polymer electrolyte layer (see e.g., Park; fig. 4, [0082] regarding second embodiment wherein protective layer 55 is only on one side of the separator 60).
Park does not explicitly disclose wherein the functional layer is arranged on both sides of the solid polymer electrolyte layer.
However, Fan discloses a solid state electrolyte 400 with a first protective layer 120 and a second protective layer 500 on either side (see e.g., Fan; fig. 5, [0047]), wherein the first protective layer 120 and the second protective layer 500 may be made of the same material (see e.g., Fan; [0038], regarding the material of layer 120, [0046], regarding the material of layer 500, the layers sharing similar materials such as crosslinked polymer, a non-crosslinked polymer, a stiff polymer, a block polymer, and/or a composite of different polymers, with additives such as LiPF4 and/or LiPF6). Fan is further similar because the solid electrolyte may be a polymer electrolyte (see e.g., Fan; [0007], [0039], [0045]), and because the protective layer may prevent dendrite growth (see e.g., Fan; [0009], [0040]). 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 battery disclosed by Park by providing a first and second protective layer on either side of the solid polymer electrolyte disclosed by Fan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to further prevent lithium dendrite from penetrating the separator and causing an internal short, and prevent the solid state electrolyte from coming in contact with both the first electrode and/or the second electrode to thwart any potential interface reaction (see e.g., [0047]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US-20190341601-A1) and Lu (CN-108365262-A) (see translation) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Uemura (US-20140107275-A1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Park teaches the solid-state battery according to claim 9. Park does not explicitly disclose wherein the amount of the filler is 0.5 parts by mass or more and 30.0 parts by mass or less with respect to 100 parts by mass of the second resin.
However, Uemura discloses a coating composition that may be applied to a negative electrode (see e.g., Uemura; [0185]) for protection (see e.g., Uemura; [0025]), the coating composition comprising of a filler such as magnesium hydroxide (see e.g., Uemura; [0143]), the filler is 1 to 99 parts by weight relate to 100 parts by weight of a vinyl alcohol copolymer (see e.g., Uemura; [0144]), the coating composition also may comprise of a polymer binder such as polyvinylidene fluoride (see e.g., Uemura; [0151]) corresponding to a second resin, wherein the polymer may be included from 0.1 to 99 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of the vinyl alcohol copolymer (see e.g., Uemura; [0152]), which overlaps with the claimed filler to second resin range. Uemura is equivalent analogous art because the coating also specifically prevents dendrite formation (see e.g., Uemura; [0025]), and the described second resin binder above is a resin with having fluorine in a main chain. 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 layer disclosed by Park by providing a filler in the claimed range of 0.5 parts by mass or more and 30.0 parts by mass or less with respect to 100 parts by mass of the second resin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent dendrite formation, improve adhesion, exhibit satisfactory protection function when the battery suffer runaway heat generation or is crushed (see e.g., Uemura; [0025]).
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