DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 7/15/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gaben (US2014/0308576).
With regard to claims 1-4, Gaben teaches an all-solid-state battery comprising:
a negative electrode current collector (claims 23+; [0154], throughout);
an intermediate layer disposed on the negative electrode current collector (The anode film serves as the claimed intermediate layer. [128+]);
a solid electrolyte layer disposed on the intermediate layer (throughout, [134]);
a positive electrode active material layer disposed on the solid electrolyte layer (throughout, [124]); and
a positive electrode current collector disposed on the positive electrode active material layer (claims 23+, also see [0070]).
the intermediate layer comprises a metal and a metal nitride (see for example [128]). The nanoparticles used for making the anode thin film are chosen from one or several metal nitrides, which have metals, including SixNy, Si3N4, SnxNy, Sn3N4, ZnxNy, Zn3N4, Li3-xNixN, Li3-xCoxN, Li3-xCuxN (if x+0, Ni3N, Co3N, and Cu3N). SiaSnbOyNz type oxynitrides meet the limitation of a metal nitride. A mixture of these materials reads upon the claim.
With regard to claim 2, these metals comprise one or more of zinc (Zn) and tin (Sn).
With regard to claims 3-4, the metal nitride comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of titanium nitride (TiN), aluminum nitride (AIN), cobalt (II) nitride (Co₃N₂), magnesium nitride (Mg₃N₂), silicon nitride (Si₃N₄), zinc nitride (Zn₃N₂), niobium nitride (NbN), copper (I) nitride (Cu₃N), and tin nitride (SnN). The nitrogen atom has an unshared electron pair.
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.
Claim(s) 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaben (US2014/0308576) as applied above.
With regard to claims 7-8, Gaben teaches an all-solid-state battery as described previously. Gaben teaches that the average size D.sub.50 of nanoparticles in the anode, cathode and/or solid electrolyte material is preferably less than 1 um, more preferably less than 100 nm, and even more preferably the nanoparticles are smaller than 50 nm and even better smaller than 30 nm [0058], which makes it possible to consolidate thin films thermally at a lower temperature. This teaching reads upon the limitations that the metal has a D50 particle size of about 30 nm to 1,000 nm. This teaching also reads upon the limitations that the metal nitride has a D50 particle size of about 10 nm to 200 nm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) MPEP 2144.05(I).
With regard to claim 9, Gaben does not teach that the intermediate layer comprises an amount of about 90 wt.% to 99 wt.% of the metal and the metal nitride; and an amount of about 1 wt.% to 10 wt.% of a binder, based on the total weight of the intermediate layer, however, Gaben does teach adding the intermediate layer material to a small amount of complexing agent (binder) and conductive material [0262; 0141, 0153, 0188] prior to depositing the mixture onto the current collector substrate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a very small amount of complexing agent in order to form the suspension taught in Gaben including an amount of about 1-10% in order to have a maximum amount active material and battery capacity.
With regard to claim 10, Gaben teaches the thickness of the anode and/or cathode film is less than 10 um and is preferably less than 5 um (see at least [0065] which reads on the intermediate layer having a thickness of about 0.5 µm to 20 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) MPEP 2144.05(I).
With regard to claim 5, Gaben teaches mixtures of nanoparticles (throughout, claim 34, figures 20-21, [0128]) that include various metal and metal nitride materials, but does not teach a specific mixture having a mass ratio of the metal to the metal nitride is about 1:9 to 5:5. In the case where the prior art teaches a mixture or materials, the relative amounts would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Generally, differences in amounts/concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05 (IIA)). It would have been obvious to try or obvious to arrive at the claimed invention by routine optimization as a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the combination of materials including metal nitrides including SixNy, Si3N4, SnxNy, Sn3N4, ZnxNy, Zn3N4, Li3-xNixN, Li3-xCoxN, Li3-xCuxN (if x+0, Ni3N, Co3N, and Cu3N) and SiaSnbOyNz would have a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range.
With regard to claim 6, Gaben teaches mixtures of nanoparticles materials, but does not teach a ratio (D₁/D₂) of a D50 particle size (D1) of the metal nitride to a D50 particle size (D₂) of the metal is about 0.2 to 0.5.
In the case of Gaben, where the teachings of the prior art have materials that can both be considered to be the metal and the metal nitride, one of the two would have to be smaller than the other. As noted, Gaben teaches that the average size D.sub.50 of nanoparticles in the anode is preferably less than 1 um, more preferably less than 100 nm, and even more preferably the nanoparticles are smaller than 50 nm and even better smaller than 30 nm [0058], which offers a variety of different particle sizes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a combination of larger and smaller particles to increase the packing density of the layer as taught for example in figure 20 of Gaben. Generally, differences in size will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such size is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable sizes by routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05 (IIA)). It would have been obvious to try or obvious to arrive at the claimed invention by routine optimization as a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the combination of materials including metal nitrides including SixNy, Si3N4, SnxNy, Sn3N4, ZnxNy, Zn3N4, Li3-xNixN, Li3-xCoxN, Li3-xCuxN (if x+0, Ni3N, Co3N, and Cu3N) and SiaSnbOyNz in different sizes, such as shown in Figure 20, would have a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range.
Citation of Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art teaches a variety of metal nitrides as current collector coating materials in batteries. Beck has a similar configuration of battery components, but does not include nitrides. Fujikawa teaches silicon and tin nitrides as intermediate layers. Sakamoto teaches inorganic nitride layers on electrodes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this or earlier communications should be directed to Mark Ruthkosky whose telephone number is (571)272-1291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from about 9-4:00. 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), http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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.
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785