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 § 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sotowa et al. (US 20190305293 A1) in view of Otoyama et al. (Optical microscopic observation of graphite composite negative electrodes in all-solid-state lithium batteries. Solid State Ionics 323 (2018): 123-129, see NPL documents for citation) and Kim et al. (Sheet-type Li6PS5Cl-infiltrated Si anodes fabricated by solution process for all-solid-state lithium-ion batteries. Journal of Power Sources 426 (2019): 143-150, see NPL documents for citation).
Regarding claim 1, Sotowa teaches an all solid state lithium ion battery including a solid electrolyte, a negative electrode and a positive electrode [Abstract]. The negative electrode includes a solid electrolyte, a negative electrode active material (which includes graphite) and a conductive additive [0027]. The solid electrolyte may be a sulfide-based solid electrolyte (argyrodites are a type of sulfide-based solid electrolyte) [0062]. The negative electrode is made by a press molding process [0036 and 0099].
Sotowa does not teach the feature “an A/B value is 0.1 or more and 0.8 or less where a percentage of the area of the carbon material to the area of a surface of the molded body is A(%) and a percentage of the area of the carbon material to the area of a cross-section of the molded body is B(%)”.
Otoyama teaches the preparation of an all solid state cell having a negative electrode comprising graphite and 75Li2S·25P2S5 glass particles as solid electrolyte (sulfide-based solid electrolyte) (same field of endeavor of Sotowa) [p. 124; par. 4 and 9 and Fig. 1a]. From Fig. 3a, an approximately even distribution of the graphite and the 75Li2S·25P2S5 glass particles is observed on the surface of the electrode (analogous to the feature A ~50%). It is taught that the cell using the x=50 electrode (as shown on Fig. 3a) showed the highest capacities of more than 250 mAh g−1 and homogeneous reaction distributions [p. 128; conclusions].
Kim teaches the preparation of cold pressed micro-Si electrodes, as an alternative to conventional materials such as graphite, having infiltrated argyrodite Li6PS5Cl [p. 144; par. 2 and 6]. The prepared micro-Si electrodes are intended to be anodes for all-solid-state lithium-ion batteries (same field of endeavor of Sotowa). From Fig. 2c an approximately even distribution of Si can be observed with respect to the total cross sectional area of the electrode (analogous to B feature ~100%). It is taught that the prepared electrodes with the referred feature allowed for the intimate ionic contact and favorable ionic pathways in the composite electrodes [p. 149; conclusions].
If Sotowa incorporates the analogous features A and B discussed for Otoyama and Kim above for a negative electrode having graphite as the active material the ratio A/B=~50%/~100%=~0.5 (within 0.1-0.8).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative-electrode material of Sotowa to include the feature “an A/B value is 0.1 or more and 0.8 or less where a percentage of the area of the carbon material to the area of a surface of the molded body is A(%) and a percentage of the area of the carbon material to the area of a cross-section of the molded body is B(%)”, because Otoyama teaches an analogous of feature A and that the cell using the electrode comprising such feature showed the highest capacities of more than 250 mAh g−1 and homogeneous reaction distributions. In addition, Kim teaches an analogous of feature B and that the prepared electrodes with the referred feature allowed for the intimate ionic contact and favorable ionic pathways in the composite electrodes.
Regarding claim 2, Sotowa, Otoyama and Kim teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From claim 1 discussion the feature “wherein the A/B value is 0.1 or more and 0.6 or less” is met.
Regarding claim 4, Sotowa, Otoyama and Kim teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From claim 1 discussion the feature “comprising only graphite as the negative-electrode active material “ is met.
Regarding the feature “wherein the A/B value is 0.1 or more and 0.4 or less” it can be considered similar to the modified negative electrode of Sotowa in claim 1, which have graphite as active material and a A/B ratio of approximately 0.5. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 6, Sotowa, Otoyama and Kim teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Sotowa further teaches that an electrode mixture (which may be the negative electrode) according to one embodiment of the present invention includes 35-45 parts by mass of the negative electrode active material, 45-55 parts by mass of the solid electrolyte, and 5-10 parts by mass of the conductive additive [0067]. In addition it is taught that any known binder may be used in order to maintain the shapes of the negative electrode and the positive electrode [0072]. Combining the above teachings, a negative electrode mixture having 45 parts by mass of the negative electrode active material, 50 parts by mass of the solid electrolyte, 4.70 parts by mass of the conductive additive and 0.30 parts by mass of a binder could be prepared.
Regarding claim 7, Sotowa, Otoyama and Kim teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Sotowa further teaches the assembly of its battery where the negative electrode, the solid electrolyte layer and the positive electrode were laminated on one another [0103]. Because Sotowa’s negative electrode was modified on claim 1, all the limitations of this claim are met.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sotowa et al. (US 20190305293 A1) in view of Otoyama et al. (Optical microscopic observation of graphite composite negative electrodes in all-solid-state lithium batteries. Solid State Ionics 323 (2018): 123-129, see NPL documents for citation) and Kim et al. (Sheet-type Li6PS5Cl-infiltrated Si anodes fabricated by solution process for all-solid-state lithium-ion batteries. Journal of Power Sources 426 (2019): 143-150, see NPL documents for citation) as applied to claim 1 above, further evidenced by of Zheng et al. (Hard carbon: a promising lithium-ion battery anode for high temperature applications with ionic electrolyte. RSC Advances 2.11 (2012): 4904-4912, see NPL documents for citation).
Regarding claim 3, Sotowa, Otoyama and Kim teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1, except where “only hard carbon is the negative-electrode active material”.
Zheng evidence that non-graphitizable (‘‘hard’’) carbons, as possible alternatives to graphitic carbon materials, have shown advantages of even higher reversible capacity and better cycling performance (same field of endeavor of Sotowa) [p. 4904; par. 1]. If graphite on Sotowa modified negative electrode is replaced by hard carbon all the recited limitations of this claim would be met.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode of Sotowa, Otoyama and Kim to include the feature where “only hard carbon is the negative-electrode active material”, because Zheng evidence that non-graphitizable (‘‘hard’’) carbons, as possible alternatives to graphitic carbon materials, have shown advantages of even higher reversible capacity and better cycling performance.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sotowa et al. (US 20190305293 A1) in view of Otoyama et al. (Optical microscopic observation of graphite composite negative electrodes in all-solid-state lithium batteries. Solid State Ionics 323 (2018): 123-129, see NPL documents for citation) and Kim et al. (Sheet-type Li6PS5Cl-infiltrated Si anodes fabricated by solution process for all-solid-state lithium-ion batteries. Journal of Power Sources 426 (2019): 143-150, see NPL documents for citation) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Aoki et al. (US 20170141395 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Sotowa, Otoyama and Kim teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1, except “wherein a layer containing a solid electrolyte is formed on a surface of the negative- electrode material”.
Aoki teaches the production of a negative electrode for an all-solid-state battery using turbostratic carbon and a solid electrolyte (same field of endeavor of Sotowa) [0009]. On its production method a carbonaceous material is coated with a solid state electrolyte, which may be a sulfide solid electrolyte material (argyrodites are a type of this electrolytes) [0013 and 0045]. From the above description , the feature “wherein a layer containing a solid electrolyte is formed on a surface of the negative- electrode material” can be considered met. Aoki teaches that an all-solid-state battery using a negative electrode for an all-solid-state battery obtained by its production method exhibits excellent input/ output properties [0019].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode of Sotowa, Otoyama and Kim to include the feature “wherein a layer containing a solid electrolyte is formed on a surface of the negative- electrode material”, because Aoki teaches a method for preparing a negative electrode with the referred feature and that an all-solid-state battery using it exhibits excellent input/ output properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GILBERTO RAMOS RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)272-2740. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/G.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 01/09/2026