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 .
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nam et al. (KR 20170008539 A).
Regarding claim 1, Nam discloses a solid electrolyte material (paragraph 0009) comprising lithium, tantalum, boron, phosphorus, and oxygen as constituent elements (paragraphs 0055, 0115). Nam does not explicitly disclose that a peak position of a peak having the maximum peak intensity among an 11B-NMR peak is in the range of -15.0 to -5.0 ppm.
However, It is deemed that the claimed 11B-NMR peak is an inherent characteristic and/or property of the specifically disclosed positive active material. In this respect, MPEP 2112 sets forth the following:
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In the instant case, Nam discloses all of the necessary constituents of the claimed solid electrolyte. Further, the claimed solid electrolyte is produced in a substantially identical method to that of Nam (see instant application specification paragraphs 0033-0109). The claimed configuration is produced by a pulverization step of the raw materials for 2 to 48 hours, which is taught by Nam (Nam paragraph 0126). Nam discloses the pulverization of raw materials using a mill to form a lithium ion conductor powder (Nam paragraphs 0028-0034) and a powder of a tantalum doped oxide (Nam paragraph 0036), which are added and mixed together (Nam paragraphs 0024, 0026). The electrolyte of the instant application utilizes raw materials including a lithium compound such as Li2O or LiOH hydrate, a tantalum compound such as Ta2O5, a boron compound such as B2O3, and a compound including a phosphorous atom, all of which are disclosed by Nam (Nam paragraphs 0024, 0103). The claimed electrolyte material undergoes a firing step at a temperature of 500 to 900 °C for a total time of 12 to 144 hours to yield a sintered electrolyte (instant specification paragraphs 0106-0109). Additionally, the electrolyte material is fired as a molded body by applying a pressure of 100 to 400 MPa. The solid electrolyte material disclosed by Nam is fired as a formed pellet by applying a pressure of 2 tons/cm2 (Nam paragraphs 0040, 0151, equivalent to approximately 196 MPa) and is sintered at 700 to 1050 °C for 3 to 15 hours (Nam paragraphs 0041-0042, overlapping the parameters of the instant application). Nam discloses a solid electrolyte material comprising all of the claimed constituents of the instant application that is produced by a substantially identical method including the steps and raw materials used to make the claimed configuration. Therefore, Nam anticipates the inherent characteristic of the claimed solid electrolyte.
Regarding claim 2, Nam discloses the limitations of claim 1. Nam further discloses that the solid electrolyte material is amorphous (paragraph 0011).
Regarding claim 7, Nam discloses the limitations of claim 1. Nam further discloses that the solid electrolyte material comprises one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Bi, Nb, Zr, Ga, Sn, Hf, W, Si, and Ge as a constituent element (paragraphs 0016-0017, 0024, 0100).
Regarding claim 8, Nam discloses the limitations of claim 1. Nam further discloses a solid electrolyte obtained by using the solid electrolyte material (paragraph 0011).
Regarding claim 9, Nam discloses the limitations of claim 1. Nam further discloses a solid electrolyte which is a sintered body of the solid electrolyte material (paragraph 0040).
Regarding claim 11, Nam discloses the limitations of claim 8. Nam further discloses an all-solid-state battery (paragraph 0108), comprising: a positive electrode having a positive electrode active material; a negative electrode having a negative electrode active material; and a solid electrolyte layer between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (paragraphs 0045, 0056), wherein the solid electrolyte layer comprises the solid electrolyte (paragraph 0045).
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.
Claims 3-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al. (KR 20170008539 A).
Regarding claims 3-6, Nam discloses the limitations of claim 1. Nam is silent regarding a content of the tantalum element being 10.6 to 16.6 atomic %, a content of the boron element being 0.1 to 5.0 atomic %, and a content of the phosphorus element is 5.3 to 8.8 atomic %.
Nam further discloses that the amorphous lithium ion conductor which comprises the boron and phosphorous elements (paragraph 0055) and the tantalum containing oxide are mixed at a weight ratio of 3:100 to 15:100 (paragraph 0060). The reference teaches that the materials are mixed at the disclosed ratios to improve ionic conductivity and ensure the effect of the amorphous lithium ion conductor (paragraphs 0062-0063). Nam is clearly teaching that the relative amounts of the materials are result effective variables that control the ionic conductivity of the resulting electrolyte.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the recited amounts of tantalum, boron, and phosphorous by modifying the amounts of the constituent-containing compounds disclosed by Nam because has been held by the courts that optimization of a results effective variable is not novel. In re Boesch, 617 F2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Nam discloses the claimed constituents in the lithium ion conductor and tantalum containing oxide which could routinely be optimized to reach the claimed atomic percentages by controlling the amounts of the compounds that are mixed to achieve the desired ionic conductivity.
Regarding claim 10, Nam discloses the limitations of claim 1. Nam further discloses a method for producing the solid electrolyte (paragraph 0082) comprising a step of firing the solid electrolyte material at 500 to 900°C (paragraph 0041, 700 to 1050 °C, overlapping the claimed range. 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al. (KR 20170008539 A) in view of Mimura et al. (US 20180277891 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Nam discloses the limitations of claim 11. Nam is silent regarding the positive electrode active material comprising one or more compounds selected from the group consisting of LiM3PO4, LiM5VO4, Li2M6P2O7, LiVP2O7, Lix7Vy7M7z7, Li1+x8Alx8M82-x8(PO4)3, LiNi1/3Col/3Mn1/3O2, LiCoO2, LiNiO2, LiMn2O2, Li2CoP2O7, Li3V2(PO4)3, Li3Fe2(PO4)3, LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4, and Li4Ti5O12, M3 is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Mn, Co, Ni, Fe, Al, Ti, and V, or two elements V and O, M5 is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Fe, Mn, Co, Ni, Al, and Ti, M6 is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Fe, Mn, Co, Ni, Al, Ti, and V, or two elements V and O, 2≤x7<4, 1≤y7≤3, O≤z7≤1, 1≤y7+z7≤3, and M7 is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Ti, Ge, Al, Ga, and Zr, and 0≤x8≤0.8, and M8 is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Ti and Ge.
Mimura discloses an all solid state secondary battery (Mimura paragraph 0047, figure 1) comprising a solid electrolyte (Mimura paragraph 0084-0090). Mimura further discloses that the positive electrode active material may be LiCoO2, LiNi1/3Col/3Mn1/3O2, LiFePO4, Li3Fe2(PO4)3, Li2FeP2O7, or Li3V2(PO4)3 (Mimura paragraphs 0310-0313). The reference teaches that the resulting positive electrodes have high conductivity and discharge capacity retention (Mimura paragraph 0525). Mimura and Nam are analogous because they both disclose all solid state batteries comprising similar solid electrolytes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery disclosed by Nam to include the active material disclosed by Mimura. Doing so would provide have high conductivity and discharge capacity retention.
Regarding claim 13, Nam discloses the limitations of claim 11. Nam is silent regarding wherein the positive electrode active material comprises one or more compounds selected from the group consisting of LiM3PO4, LiM5VO4, Li2M6P2O7, LiVP2O7, Lix7Vy7M7z7, Li1+x8Alx8M82-x8(PO4)3, (Li3-a9x9+(5-b9)y9M9x9)(V1-y9M10y9)O4, LiNb2O7, Li4Ti5O12, Li4Ti5PO12, TiO2, LiSi, and graphite, M3 is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Mn, Co, Ni, Fe, Al, Ti, and V, or two elements V and O, M5 is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Fe, Mn, Co, Ni, Al, and Ti, M6 is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Fe, Mn, Co, Ni, Al, Ti, and V, or two elements V and O, 2≤x7≤4, 1≤y7≤3, 0≤z7≤1, 1≤y7+z7≤3, and M7is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Ti, Ge, Al, Ga, and Zr, 0≤x8≤0.8, and M8 is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Ti and Ge, and M9 is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Mg, Al, Ga, and Zn, M10 is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Zn, Al, Ga, Si, Ge, P, and Ti, 0≤x9≤1.0, 0≤y9≤0.6, a9 is an average valence of M9, and b9 is an average valence of M10.
Mimura discloses an all solid state secondary battery (Mimura paragraph 0047, figure 1) comprising a solid electrolyte (Mimura paragraph 0084-0090). Mimura further discloses that the negative electrode active material can comprise Li4Ti5O12, lithium, graphite, or lithium alloys (Mimura paragraphs 0322-0327). The reference teaches that using Li4Ti5O12 provides excellent high-speed charging and discharging characteristics and the deterioration of electrodes is suppressed, whereby it becomes possible to improve the service lives of lithium ion secondary batteries (Mimura paragraph 0327). Mimura and Nam are analogous because they both disclose all solid state batteries comprising similar solid electrolytes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery disclosed by Nam to include the negative active material disclosed by Mimura. Doing so would provide excellent high-speed charging and discharging characteristics and suppress the deterioration of electrodes.
Regarding claim 14, Nam discloses the limitations of claim 8. Nam further discloses an all soli state battery (paragraph 0108), comprising: a positive electrode having a positive electrode active material; a negative electrode having a negative electrode active material; and a solid electrolyte layer between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (paragraphs 0045, 0056), wherein the solid electrolyte layer comprises the solid electrolyte (paragraph 0045). Nam is silent regarding wherein the positive electrode and the negative electrode comprise the solid electrolyte.
Mimura discloses an all solid state secondary battery (Mimura paragraph 0047, figure 1) comprising a solid electrolyte (Mimura paragraph 0084-0090). Mimura further discloses that the all solid state battery includes a solid electrolyte layer between a positive active material layer and a negative active material layer (Mimura paragraph 0047, figure 1). The reference teaches that the solid electrolyte is included in the positive and negative active material layers, and that it can improve the ion conductivity (Mimura paragraph 0051). Mimura and Nam are analogous because they both disclose all solid state batteries comprising similar solid electrolytes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery disclosed by Nam to include the solid electrolyte in the active material layers as disclosed by Mimura for the purpose of improving ion conductivity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN T LUSTGRAAF whose telephone number is (571)272-0165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
/B.T.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/STEPHAN J ESSEX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727