DETAILED ACTION
Introductory Notes
Any paragraph citation of the instant is in reference to the U.S. published patent application.
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 .
Joint Inventors
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “210” has been used in the specification and drawings to designate both “a part 210 where the coating layer 202 is not formed” [0050] in Figs. 2D and 2E; as well as “a negative electrode current collector 210” [0390] in Fig. 4B. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 15 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 15, an image, as opposed to text, appears to have been used for formula 1 and the image is not of sufficient quality to be legible. Applicant is encouraged to use typed characters for the formula. For purposes of examination, after review of the specification and confirmation with the priority document, the formula is being read as (Li[3-ax+(5-b)(1-y)]Ax)(VyB1-y)O4.
Regarding claim 18, the claim utilizes the symbols Li, B, and O. Due to the use of “B” in claim 15 and throughout the specification as a placeholder for a group of elements (none of which are boron), the use of “B” alone in claim 18 leads to possible unnecessary confusion. Spelling out lithium, boron, and oxygen would remove the objection.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SAKAMOTO (US 20180102571 A1, supplied with an IDS) as evidenced by Ni Powder Certificate of Analysis (Alfa Aesar, Certificate of analysis, Nickel powder, APS 2.2-3.0 micron).
Regarding claim 1, SAKAMOTO discloses a solid-state battery (“solid-state lithium ion batteries” [0003]) comprising: a positive electrode layer (cathode 14); a negative electrode layer (anode 18); and a solid electrolyte layer (solid state electrolyte 16) interposed between the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer,
wherein at least one electrode layer of the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer contains a conductive agent composed of a metal material (“the cathode 14 may include a conductive additive … e.g., Co, Mn, Ni, Cr, Al, or Li” [0049]), and the conductive agent is coated with a coating material (“the stabilization coating 406 may be configured to coat the conductive additive 404” [0067]) having a melting point higher than that of the conductive agent (“Ni conductive additive was coated as a powder with magnesium oxide (MgO)” [0106]; MgO has a higher melting point than Ni).
Regarding claim 2, SAKAMOTO discloses the coating material is a metal oxide (“stabilization coatings for use in the lithium ion battery 210 include one or more oxides selected from … lithium boron oxide, zinc oxide, magnesium oxide, … strontium oxide, calcium oxide, barium oxide, yttrium oxide” [0072]).
Regarding claim 3, SAKAMOTO discloses the at least one electrode layer further includes an electrode active material (“active material for the cathode 14” [0048], with examples given in the same paragraph) and a solid electrolyte (“solid state electrolyte 16” [0051] including a formula in [0051] with examples such as LLZO in [0059-0060]), and the coating material is a different material from the electrode active material and the solid electrolyte (the example active materials and electrolytes are different than the example coatings).
Regarding claim 4, SAKAMOTO discloses the coating material contains an element that does not form a solid solution in the electrode active material (“stabilization coatings for use in the lithium ion battery 210 include one or more oxides selected from boron oxide, lithium boron oxide, zinc oxide, magnesium oxide, phosphorus oxide, strontium oxide, calcium oxide, barium oxide, yttrium oxide, silicon oxide” [0072]; notably this list includes elements given in paragraph [0046] of the instant that are specifically stated to not form a solid solution; furthermore per instant paragraph [0045] the problem solved is “weakening of the coating effect at the time of sintering” and SAKAMOTO utilizes sintering and teaches “stabilization coatings in the present invention are tailored for solid state batteries by addressing the problem of controlling the inherent chemical reactions that occur during elevated temperatures at the interface between electrodes, solid-state electrolytes, current collectors, and conductive additives in a composite solid-state battery” [0063]).
Regarding claim 5, SAKAMOTO discloses the coating material is in the form of a coating layer around the conductive agent, and the coating layer has a particle form or a film form (“Ni conductive additive was coated as a powder with magnesium oxide (MgO) from a magnesium alkoxide (magnesium methoxide) in a sol-gel process” [0106], thus reading on at least film form; notably the sol-gel process matches that of instant paragraph [0049] which states “a particle shape by a film forming method such as a sputtering method, a vapor deposition method, an ion plating method, or a sol-gel method”).
Regarding claim 6, SAKAMOTO discloses the coating material has a maximum length in a direction perpendicular to a surface of the conductive agent of 500 nm or less (“Ni conductive additive was coated as a powder with magnesium oxide (MgO) from a magnesium alkoxide (magnesium methoxide) in a sol-gel process” [0106] as well as Table 1 giving thickness of the coating using sol-gel process being 50-200 nm).
Regarding claim 7, SAKAMOTO discloses the coating material has an area ratio of 0.1% to 15% with respect to the conductive agent (this claim is a statement of the size of the conductive agent in comparison to the thickness of the coating; SAKAMOTO discloses a powder conductive agent and a thin film coating in [0106], and as discussed in the rejection of claim 6, thus reading on the claim; notably the sol-gel process of SAKAMOTO matches that of instant paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 8, SAKAMOTO discloses the conductive agent is composed of one or more metal materials selected from the group consisting of silver (Ag), gold (Au), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), copper (Cu), tin (Sn), nickel (Ni), and alloys thereof (“Ni conductive additive” [0106]).
Regarding claim 9, SAKAMOTO discloses the conductive agent is an elongated conductive agent, a spherical conductive agent, or a mixture thereof (“Ni conductive additive was coated as a powder” [0106]).
Regarding claim 10, SAKAMOTO discloses the conductive agent has an average short side thickness of 0.1 µm to 4.0 µm (“Ni conductive additive was coated as a powder” [0106] where Ni powder, as well as other metals, is readily available at the claimed size as evidenced by Ni Powder Certificate of Analysis).
Regarding claims 14-18, these claims modify an optional limitation of claim 1, upon which they depend. SAKAMOTO discloses the at least one electrode layer is the positive electrode layer; therefore, it is not required that SAKAMOTO meet further limitations of the non-selected group via subsequent dependent claims. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, 103 rejections of claims 14-18 are presented below.
Regarding claim 19, SAKAMOTO discloses the positive electrode layer (“suitable active material for the cathode 14 of the lithium ion battery 10 is a lithium host material capable of storing and subsequently releasing lithium ions” [0048]) and the negative electrode layer (“suitable active material for the anode 18 of the lithium ion battery 10 is a lithium host material capable of incorporating and subsequently releasing the lithium ion” [0050]) are layers capable of occluding and releasing lithium ions.
Regarding claim 20, SAKAMOTO discloses the positive electrode layer, the solid electrolyte layer, and the negative electrode layer are an integrally sintered body (“assembling an electrochemical device … (c) … creating a layered structure of the first layer, the second layer and the third layer … (d) sintering the layered structure to form the electrochemical device” [0023] where the sintering as provided in [0023] is performed on the positive, electrolyte, and negative layers as a single layered structure).
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.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAKAMOTO in view of SATO (US 20130017435 A1).
Regarding claim 12, SAKAMOTO discloses a solid state battery, however SAKAMOTO does not expressly teach an end face current collector structure.
SATO is directed to a layered all-solid lithium-ion secondary battery like SAKAMOTO.
SATO discloses Fig. 2(c), provided below, in which the positive and negative electrode layers are in electrical communication with the respective terminals via end faces. As such the current collector of each electrode is the region of conductive substance at the end face.
PNG
media_image1.png
372
1218
media_image1.png
Greyscale
SATO teaches the structure is “intended to reduce internal resistance of an electrode layer” [0078].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the structure of SATO for the battery of SAKAMOTO to reduce internal resistance of the electrode layer.
Therefore, modified SAKAMOTO discloses the at least one electrode layer has an end face current collecting structure in which the at least one electrode layer is in contact with an electrode current collector at an end face of the at least one electrode layer and is electrically connected to an electrode terminal via the electrode current collector (as taught by SATO).
Regarding claim 13, modified SAKAMOTO discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and SATO further discloses the electrode current collector has an upper face flush with an upper face of the at least one electrode layer and a lower face flush with a lower face of the at least one electrode layer in a stacking direction of the positive electrode layer, the solid electrolyte layer, and the negative electrode layer (as shown in Fig. 2(c) above the current collector end face region has upper and lower faces that are flush with the entirety of the same faces of electrode layer).
Claims 11 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAKAMOTO in view of TAKANO (WO 2019093403 A1, with US 20200259213 A1 used as English translation and for citations, each supplied with an IDS).
Regarding claim 11, the instant disclosure discusses the amount of negative electrode material [0117], solid electrolyte [0142, 0180], sintering aid [0146, 0182], positive electrode active material [0175], and notably the conductive agent in the positive electrode [0184] in terms of “proportion by volume”. The phrase “proportion by area” of claim 11 and the way it is computed given in [0353] is synonymous with “proportion by volume” as used commonly in the art as well as the instant regarding other materials.
SAKAMOTO discloses the use of a conductive agent. However, SAKAMOTO does not expressly teach the proportion of the conductive agent.
TAKANO is directed to an all-solid-state battery [0002] with a metal conductive auxiliary agent [0016], like SAKAMOTO. TAKANO discloses “electrode active material layer preferably contains 65% by volume or more of an oxide having a LISICON-type crystal structure” [0021] where the remainder is “a conductive auxiliary agent and a sintering auxiliary agent in addition to the oxide having the LISICON-type crystal structure” [0024]. Thus, the conductive auxiliary agent has a range reading on the claim. Furthermore, TAKANO discloses Table 4 where the conductive auxiliary agent (or Y vol %) is between 10-30%. TAKANO teaches that with the conductive auxiliary agent in this range it is possible to maintain “high initial reversible capacity and the high utilization rate can be obtained” [0242].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the proportion of conductive agent of TAKANO in the solid state battery of SAKAMOTO in order to preserve high initial reversible capacity and high utilization rate.
Therefore, modified SAKAMOTO discloses has a proportion by area of 5% to 35% with respect to the at least one electrode layer (as taught by TAKANO).
Regarding claim 14, SAKAMOTO discloses the at least one electrode layer is the negative electrode layer ("the anode 18 may also include one or more conductive additives similar to those listed above for the cathode 14" [0050]. However, SAKAMOTA does not expressly teach the molar ratio of Li to V.
TAKANO discloses the formula (Li[3-ax+(5-b)y]Ax)(V(1-y)By)O4 [0022] and gives “examples of the preferably used oxide having a LISICON-type crystal structure include Li3.2(V0.8Si0.2)O4, Li3.4 (V0.6Si0.4)O4, Li3.2 (V0.8Ge0.2)O4 and (Li3.3Al0.03) (V0.6Si0.4)O4” [0032], which all have a Li to V ratio greater than 2.
TAKANO teaches “By setting 0.1≤y, the utilization rate of the oxide having a LISICON-type crystal structure that functions as a negative electrode active material can be increased. By setting y≤0.4, the initial reversible capacity can be increased” [0023].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the Li to V ratio provided by TAKANO in the electrode of SAKAMOTO to increase utilization rate and initial reversible capacity.
Therefore, modified SAKAMOTO discloses the negative electrode layer contains a negative electrode active material having a molar ratio of Li to vanadium (V) of 2.0 or more (as taught by TAKANO).
Regarding claim 15, modified SAKAMOTO discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and TAKANO further discloses the negative electrode active material has an average chemical composition represented by (1): (Li[3-ax+(5-b)(1-y)]Ax)(VyB1-y)O4
wherein A is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Na, K, Mg, Ca, and Zn; B is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Zn, Al, Ga, Si, Ge, Sn, P, As, Ti, Mo, W, Fe, Cr, and Co; 0 ≤ x ≤ 1.0; 0.5 ≤ y ≤ 1.0; a is an average valence of A; and b is an average valence of B.
See TAKANO paragraph [0022] (shown below) as well as examples given in Tables 1-4. Notably in comparing the instant to TAKANO the y and 1-y are reversed, but otherwise the formulas are similar.
PNG
media_image2.png
553
1368
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, modified SAKAMOTO discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and TAKANO further discloses the negative electrode active material has a βII-Li3VO4-type crystal structure or a yII-Li3VO4-type crystal structure (because the formulas are the same, the underlying crystal structures are likewise the same).
Regarding claim 17, modified SAKAMOTO discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and SAKAMOTO further discloses the negative electrode layer has a thickness of 2 µm to 50 µm (“the electrode as discussed in any of the preceding embodiments may be sintered to have a thickness … less than 50 microns” [0092]).
Regarding claim 18, modified SAKAMOTO discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and TAKANO further discloses at least one of the negative electrode layer and the solid electrolyte layer further contains a sintering aid, and the sintering aid is a compound containing Li, B, and O and has a molar ratio of Li to B (Li/B) of 2.0 or more (“the preferably used sintering auxiliary agent include a boron-lithium complex oxide having a molar ratio of Li to B (Li/B) of 2.0 or more” [0026] as well as use of Li3BO3 and other boron-lithium complex oxides reading on the claim as given in Table 4; the disclosed sintering aid allowed the battery to maintain “high initial reversible capacity and the high utilization rate can be obtained” [0242]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
TAKANO (US 20200106130 A1, supplied with an IDS) directed to a co-fired all-solid-state battery where the negative electrode active material contains Li, V, and O with a mole ratio Li content to a V content of 2.0 or more. Teaching claims 11 and 14-18 in a manner like the rejections above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS L MARTIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303)297-4684. 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.
/T.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721