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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claim 1 and cancelled claims 2 and 7. Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-13 are pending and considered in the present Office action.
The rejections of the claims are withdrawn in view of the amendments. However, upon further consideration a new ground of rejection is necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument that Chen fails to disclose the silver nanoparticles on a surface of the carbon material because the silver nanoparticles are “infiltrated” into the active material layer are not persuasive. Chen describes the silver nanoparticles are “infiltrated” into the carbon material by physical vapor deposition; the physical vapor deposition process deposits silver nanoparticles on a surface of the carbon material, thereby satisfying the claim.
Applicant’s arguments that Habazaki’s platelet structure carbon nanotfilaments are used in a lithium ion battery including liquid electrolyte, and are not suggested for use in an all solid battery, are not persuasive. First, Chen appreciates an all solid battery from the standpoint of improving energy density. Second, Chen appreciates carbon materials from the standpoint of the high capacity such materials offer. Habazaki has recognized that platelet carbon nanofibers are carbon structures offering various advantages with respect to battery characteristics, including high capacity and additionally high rate capability, which are features Chen would appreciate in an all solid battery. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for Chen’s all solid state battery to utilize platelet carbon nanofibers because these carbon structures are expected to provide the high capacity Chen seeks, and from the standpoint of obtaining a high energy density solid state battery with high rate capability, as suggested by Habazaki.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 8-9, 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), and 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 Chen, Habazaki, and Yang (all of record).
Regarding Claim 1 and 8, 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.
Chen suggests silver nanoparticles, but does not disclose the nanoparticles are 1 nm to 100 nm; 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 between 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.
Chen, as modified by Habazaki, suggests the silver nanoparticles are disposed (deposited, [0023]) 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 Claims 6 and 9, Chen, as modified by Habazaki and Yang (see rejection of claims 1, and 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.).
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, Habazaki, and Yang in view of Baker et al. (US 2002/0102461, of record), 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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Habazaki, and Yang 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) 10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Habazaki, and Yang in view of Hong (KR20090117195, of record), and Suzuki et al. (US 2019/0157723, of record), hereinafter Hong and Suzuki.
Regarding Claims 10 and 13, Chen suggests a method of preparing an all solid state secondary battery comprising a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material layer on a negative electrode current collector wherein the active layer is formed by physical vapor deposition (PVD). Chen does not suggest the active layer is formed through a slurry including a dry mixed powder formed by reducing silver ions in a mixture of silver ions and platelet carbon nanofibers, such that the active layer includes binder. However, according to Hong, PVD is one of many known methods to form silver coated carbon materials; as an alternative, Hong suggests another 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 Chen (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.
Moreover, Suzuki presents an alternative method for forming an anode active layer on a current collector suitable for an all solid state battery. Suzuki suggests forming an anode active layer on a current collector by coating the current collector with a slurry comprising active material and binder; the active layer is stabilized on the current collector because the binder prevents the anode active layer from detaching from the current collector, and the binder prevents aggregation of the active material when coating the current collector, see e.g., [0009-0010, 0081, 0101-0102, 0112]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form the anode active layer by way of a slurry comprising binder provided the method is known, there is no change in the electrodes function for the battery, and the combination yields nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395); moreover, the slurry method offers the advantage of a binder, which stabilizes the active layer on the current collector because the binder prevents the anode active layer from detaching from the current collector, and the binder prevents aggregation of the active material when coating the current collector, as suggested by Suzuki.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights