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 .
Claims 1-13 are pending and considered in the present Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 111430684), in view of Habazaki et al. (“High rate capability of carbon nanofilaments with platelet structure as anode materials for lithium ion batteries”, Electrochemistry Communications 8 (2006) 1275 - 1279; doi:10.1016/j.elecom.2006.06.012), hereinafter Chen and Habazaki.
Regarding Claim 1, Chen suggests an all-solid lithium secondary battery (see e.g., [0067]) comprising: a positive electrode active material layer (see e.g., examples, which disclose NCM622); a negative electrode active material layer (10, 11, see Figs. 1-2); and a solid electrolyte layer (see e.g., examples, which disclose Li6P5Cl electrolyte membrane) disposed between the positive electrode active material layer and the negative electrode active material layer. Chen suggests the negative electrode active material layer (10, 11) comprises carbon and silver nanoparticles thereon, but does not suggest the carbon is platelet carbon nanofibers (PCNF), see e.g., [0059, 0073]. However, Habazaki suggests the use of platelet carbon nanofibers as the anode material in a lithium ion battery in view of the high capacitance and high rate capability such materials offer, see e.g., title and abstract. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the carbon material of Chen is PCNF in view of the advantageously high capacitance and high rate capability the material offers to the lithium ion batteries.
Regarding Claim 2, Chen, as modified by Habazaki, suggests the silver nanoparticles are disposed on a surface of the platelet carbon nanofiber to allow uniform deposition of lithium, thereby preventing lithium dendrite generation, hence significantly improving cycle, rate, and safety performance, as suggested by Chen, see e.g., [0007].
Regarding Claims 3-4, Chen was modified by Habazaki to suggest PCNF; Habazaki suggests the PCNF material has an average diameter of 10 nm to 500 nm (e.g., 30 nm, 230 nm, see e.g., 3. Results and discussion on page 1276, Fig. 2-3 on page 1277) and an average length of 0.1 µm to 5 µm (e.g., “less than several micrometers”, and less than 50 µm, see e.g., 3. Results and discussion on page 1276, and Fig. 1(a). The values suggested in the prior art overlap with that claimed or are close; hence, a prima face case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Regarding Claim 11, Chen suggests the negative electrode active material layer has a thickness of 1 µm to 100 µm, i.e., 10 – 60 µm, see e.g., [0063].
Regarding Claim 12, Chen suggests the battery comprises a negative electrode current collector (i.e., copper metal layer 22); and a metal layer (i.e., lithium metal layer 21) disposed between the negative electrode active material layer (10, 11) and the negative electrode current collector (22) in a charged state, wherein the metal layer comprises lithium, see e.g., Figs. 1-2.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Habazaki in view of Baker et al. (US 2002/0102461), hereinafter Baker.
Regarding Claim 5, Chen does not disclose the specific surface area of the carbon material. However, Baker suggests platelet carbon nanofibers in the anode of a lithium ion battery; the surface area of the carbon material is ranges from 36-114 m2/g and exhibits sufficient charging values for lithium ion batteries, see e.g., abstract, [0030, 0037], and Tables 1-2. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the specific surface area of PCNF is between 10-150 m2/g with the expectation of achieving a lithium ion battery with workable charging values.
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Habazaki in view of Yang et al. (Ultrafine Silver Nanoparticles for Seeded Lithium Deposition toward Stable Lithium Metal Anode”, Adv. Mater. 2017, 29, 1702714; DOI: 10.1002/adma.201702714), hereinafter Yang.
Regarding Claims 7-8, while Chen suggests silver nanoparticles, an explicit suggestion of 1 nm to 100 nm is not disclosed; further, the amount of silver nanoparticles with respect to the total weight of the carbon material and silver nanoparticles is not disclosed. However, Yang suggests a lithium anode material comprising silver nanoparticles on the surface of carbon nanofibers, wherein the silver nanoparticle nanoparticles have an average particle diameter of 1 nm to 100 nm (e.g., 29-57 nm, or ~40 nm) and are included in an amount of 1 wt% to 40 wt% (e.g., 6 atom %, which is about 36 wt%) based on a total weight of the carbon nanofibers and the silver nanoparticles (e.g., Ag: 6 x 107.87u/6.022x1023 = 10.7476x10-22 g; C: 94 x 12.01u/6.022x1023 = 18.7469 x 10-22g; (10.7476x10-22 g/29.49 x 10-22g) x 100% = 36.439 wt% Ag), thereby enabling smooth, uniform lithium deposition which prevents lithium dendrite formation and results in a safe and long life lithium ion battery, see e.g., Abstract, Fig. 1, and page 1702714; see also Fig. 3-5). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the silver nanoparticles on the PCNF material have an average particle diameter of 1 nm to 100 nm and are included in an amount of 1 wt% to 40 wt% based on a total weight of the carbon nanofibers and the silver nanoparticles to enabling smooth, uniform lithium deposition which prevents lithium dendrite formation and results in a safe and long life lithium ion battery, as suggested by Yang.
Regarding Claims 6 and 9, Chen, as modified by Habazaki and Yang (see rejection of claims 7-8), suggests an amount of silver nanoparticles with respect to the total weight of the carbon material and silver nanoparticles is 36 wt% which suggests the platelet carbon nanofibers are included in an amount of 50 wt% to 98 wt% (i.e., if silver is included at 6 atomic %, carbon is present at 94 % atomic assuming the total is 100%; thus, C: 94 x 12.01u/6.022x1023 = 18.7469 x 10-22g; (18.7469 x 10-22 g/29.49 x 10-22g) x 100% ≈ 63.57 wt% carbon, which falls within the claimed range), and a weight ratio of the platelet carbon nanofibers to the silver nanoparticles of about 64:36, which overlaps with that claimed and/or is close, hence a prima facie case of obviousness exists. "[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382. One of ordinary skill in the art would reach the claimed range through nothing more than routine experimentation to determine where in the disclosed range is the optimum or workable range. Finally, absent evidence of criticality, the ratio suggested in the prior art renders the instant claims unpatentable (see e.g., MPEP 2144.05, I., and II. A., In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931, 934, 24 USPQ 52, 55 (CCPA 1934), etc.).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, and Habazaki, in view of Yoshiro et al. (US 2020/0373609, of record), hereinafter Yoshiro.
Regarding Claim 10, Chen, as modified by Habazaki, does not suggest the negative electrode active material layer includes binder. However, the use of binder in the negative electrode active material layer is known for stabilizing the layer on the current collector, see e.g., [0068] of Yoshiro. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include binder in the negative electrode active material layer to stabilize the layer on the current collector, as suggested by Yoshiro.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2019/0157723, of record) in view of Habazaki (“High rate capability of carbon nanofilaments with platelet structure as anode materials for lithium ion batteries”, Electrochemistry Communications 8 (2006) 1275 - 1279; doi:10.1016/j.elecom.2006.06.012), Yang et al. (Ultrafine Silver Nanoparticles for Seeded Lithium Deposition toward Stable Lithium Metal Anode”, Adv. Mater. 2017, 29, 1702714; DOI: 10.1002/adma.201702714), hereinafter Suzuki, Habazaki and Yang.
Regarding Claims 1-2, and 12, Suzuki suggests an all solid state lithium secondary battery (1) comprising a positive electrode active material layer (e.g., 10 in Fig. 1; 11, 12 in Fig. 2; 510, 520 in Fig. 8, etc.), a negative electrode active material layer (e.g., 22 in Figs. 1-2; 320 in Fig. 8, etc.), a solid electrolyte layer (e.g., 30 in Figs. 1-2; 400 in Fig. 8, etc.) therebetween, wherein a negative electrode current collector (e.g., 21 in Fig. 1-2, Ni foil, [0137-0138]; 310 in Fig. 8, etc.) is coated with the negative electrode active material layer (e.g., 22, 320). The negative electrode active material layer (22, 320) is formed by mixing active materials (e.g., a carbon material and silver nanoparticles, wherein the silver nanoparticles are disposed on the carbon material, see e.g., [0179-0180, 182-0183]) with binder to form an anode slurry and coating said slurry on the current collector (21). A metal layer (e.g., 23, 330) is disposed between the negative electrode active material layer (e.g., 22, 320) and the negative electrode current collector (e.g., 21, 310) in a charges state, wherein the metal layer comprises lithium, see e.g., Figs. 2, and 8, and [0190].
Suzuki does not suggest the carbon material in the negative electrode material layer comprises platelet carbon nanofibers (PCNF). However, Yang suggests silver nanoparticles on the surface of carbon nanofibers enables uniform lithium formation, avoiding lithium dendrite formation, see e.g., abstract and pages 1702714-1702715; Habazaki suggests the use of platelet carbon nanofibers as anode materials in lithium ion batteries in view of their high capacitance and high rate capability, see e.g., abstract. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the carbon material in the negative electrode material layer of Suzuki includes PCNF with silver nanoparticles on the surface thereof with the expectation of safety (in view of the uniform lithium deposition), high capacitance, and high rate performance, as suggested by Yang and Habazaki.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, Habazaki, and Yang in view of Hong (KR20090117195), hereinafter Hong.
Regarding Claim 13, as detailed under the rejection of claim 1, Suzuki suggests the negative electrode active material layer (22, 320) is formed by mixing active materials (e.g., a carbon material and silver nanoparticles, wherein the silver nanoparticles are disposed on the carbon material, see e.g., [0179-0180, 182-0183]) with binder to form an anode slurry and coating said slurry on the current collector (21), thereby suggesting the claimed second step. Suzuki does not suggest the first step wherein the mixture comprising silver nanoparticles and the carbon material is formed by reducing silver ions in a mixture of silver ions and carbon material to produce a dry mixed powder of silver nanoparticles disposed on the carbon. However, Hong suggests a simple, inexpensive polyol based process for uniformly decorating carbon materials with silver nanoparticles, thereby allowing full scale commercialization, pages 7-8/29. Hong suggests uniform attachment of silver nanoparticle to the carbon material silver is achieved by reducing silver ions in a mixture of silver ions and carbon material to produce a dry mixed powder of silver nanoparticles disposed on the carbon, see e.g., pages 10-12/29. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the silver nanoparticles disposed on the surface of the PCNF carbon materials of Suzuki (as suggested by Habazaki and Yang) are formed by a polyol based process involving reducing silver ions in a mixture of silver ions and PCNF material to produce a dry mixed powder of silver nanoparticles disposed on the PCNF provided the polyol based process is simple, inexpensive, enables uniform dispersion of the silver nanoparticles on the carbon material, and allows for full scale commercialization, as suggested by Hong.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729