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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 09/09/2025 is acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 12/10/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 08/21/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomizawa (US 20200403274 A1) in view of Umeyama (US 20170256788 A1) and further in view of Shirakata (US 20080096098 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tomizawa teaches all of the following elements:
A all-solid-state battery comprising (“FIG. 1 illustrates a schematic cross section of a basic structure of an all solid battery 100 in accordance with an embodiment.” Tomizawa [0016])
an anode current collector, an anode active material layer, (“When the all solid battery 100 is used as a secondary battery, one of the first electrode 10 and the second electrode 20 is used as a positive electrode and the other is used as a negative electrode. In the embodiment, as an example, the first electrode 10 is used as a positive electrode, and the second electrode 20 is used as a negative electrode.” Tomizawa [0017]) And “The first electrode 10 is provided on a first main face of the solid electrolyte layer 30. The first electrode 10 has a structure in which a first electrode layer 11 and a first electric collector layer 12 are stacked.” Tomizawa [0016])
a solid electrolyte layer, (“ As illustrated in FIG. 1, the all solid battery 100 has a structure in which a first electrode 10 and a second electrode 20 sandwich an oxide-based solid electrolyte layer 30.” Tomizawa [0016])
a cathode active material layer, and a cathode current collector (“When the all solid battery 100 is used as a secondary battery, one of the first electrode 10 and the second electrode 20 is used as a positive electrode and the other is used as a negative electrode. In the embodiment, as an example, the first electrode 10 is used as a positive electrode, and the second electrode 20 is used as a negative electrode.” Tomizawa [0017] and “The second electrode 20 is provided on a second main face of the solid electrolyte layer 30. The second electrode 20 has a structure in which a second electrode layer 21 and a second electric collector layer 22 are stacked. The second electrode layer 21 is on the solid electrolyte layer 30 side.” Tomizawa [0016])
that are sequentially stacked, (Tomizawa figure 1 depicts the two electrodes being sequentially stacked sandwiching a solid electrolyte layer.)
Tomizawa is silent on the following elements of claim 1:
wherein the cathode active material layer comprises: a first layer disposed on the cathode current collector and comprising a fiber-type conductive material and a particle- type conductive material;
and a second layer disposed on the solid electrolyte layer and comprising the fiber-type conductive material and the particle-type conductive material,
and wherein the first layer has a higher first amount of the fiber-type conductive material than a first amount of the particle-type conductive material,
and the second layer has a higher second amount of the particle-type conductive material than a second amount of the fiber-type conductive material.
Umeyama teaches the following elements of claim 1 that are not found in Tomizawa. Specifically, Umeyama teaches a cathode having two active material layers with two different conductive materials, and teaches combining fibrous and particulate conductive materials being used together:
wherein the cathode active material layer comprises: a first layer disposed on the cathode current collector (“The positive electrode includes a positive electrode current collector, a first positive electrode mixture layer that is provided on the positive electrode current collector,” Umeyama [0006] and “The first positive electrode mixture layer includes a first positive electrode active material and a first conductive material.” Umeyama [0006])
and comprising a fiber-type conductive material and a particle- type conductive material; (“the first conductive material may include a fibrous conductive material.” Umeyama [0008] and “The first conductive material 113b may further include a conductive material other than the fibrous conductive material. In this case, the first conductive material 113b is a mixture of the fibrous conductive material with the conductive material other than the fibrous conductive material. As the conductive material other than the fibrous conductive material, a compound which is known in the related art as a conductive material included in a positive electrode mixture layer for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery can be used. For example, acetylene black can be used.” Umeyama [0054]. In this case, the acetylene black would be the particle-type conductive material and the fibrous conductive material would be the fiber-type conductive material.)
and a second layer disposed on the solid electrolyte layer (“and a second positive electrode mixture layer that is provided on the first positive electrode mixture layer to face the separator.” Umeyama [0006]. And “The second positive electrode mixture layer includes a second positive electrode active material and a second conductive material.” Umeyama [0006]. In this case, by modifying the all solid battery of Tomizawa to include the cathode of Umeyama, the separator of Umeyama would be the solid electrolyte layer of Tomizawa.)
Umeyama is considered to be analogous to Tomizawa because they are both within the same field of secondary batteries containing positive electrode active materials and conductive agents. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the all solid secondary battery of Tomizawa to include the two-layered cathode of Umeyama, each having a different conductive material, in order to reduce the internal resistance of the secondary battery and therefore increase the output (“Accordingly, the internal resistance of the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery can be further suppressed to be low. Therefore, the output of the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery in a low SOC can be further improved.” Umeyama [0048]).
Umeyama is silent on the following elements of claim 1:
and a second layer disposed on the solid electrolyte layer and comprising the fiber-type conductive material and the particle-type conductive material,
and wherein the first layer has a higher first amount of the fiber-type conductive material than a first amount of the particle-type conductive material,
and the second layer has a higher second amount of the particle-type conductive material than a second amount of the fiber-type conductive material.
However, Shirakata teaches all of the elements of claim 1 that are not found in Umeyama or Tomizawa. Specifically, Shirakata teaches the usage of both particulate and fibrous conductive materials used as a mixture in a positive electrode, both in a ratio having higher amount of fibrous and having higher amount of particulate conductive materials.
and a second layer disposed on the solid electrolyte layer and comprising the fiber-type conductive material and the particle-type conductive material, (“The conductive agent of the positive electrode mixture layer comprises a mixture of lumped, or massive, carbon ("kaijo tanso") particles (hereinafter sometimes simply: carbon particles) and carbon fiber.” Shirakata [0023])
and wherein the first layer has a higher first amount of the fiber-type conductive material than a first amount of the particle-type conductive material, (Shirakata Table 1 example 4 teaches a cathode layer containing a higher proportion of carbon fiber (5%) to carbon black (3%). If this ratio were used in the first cathode layer of Umeyama, the limitation would be met.)
and the second layer has a higher second amount of the particle-type conductive material than a second amount of the fiber-type conductive material. (Shirakata Table 1 example 3 teaches a cathode layer containing a higher proportion of carbon black (5%) to carbon fiber (3%). If this ratio were used in the second cathode layer of Umeyama, the limitation would be met.)
Shirakata is considered to be analogous to Umeyama because they are both within the same field of secondary batteries and both relate to mixing fibrous and particulate type conductive agents in positive electrodes to improve characteristics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second cathode layers of Umeyama to have the ratios of particulate and fibrous type conductive materials of Shirakata in order to further reduce internal resistance and improve output (“Moreover, the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries of Example 1, 2, and 5 to 10, each of which employed a mixture of the carbon black and the carbon fiber as the conductive agent of the positive electrode mixture layer, exhibited significant improvements in capacity retention ratio over the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery of Comparative Example 1, which used only the carbon black as the conductive agent of the positive electrode mixture layer, when cycled repeatedly with a high current discharge at 10 A” Shirakata [0094]). Additionally, the mixture of conductive materials is known the art and has defined advantages, and would require a simple substitution of the second conductive material of Umeyama with the conductive material of Shirakata having a higher proportion of particulate to fibrous type conductive materials (as shown in Shirakata example 3), and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.). In this case, the predictable result would be a decrease in resistance of the positive electrode.
By modifying the all-solid secondary battery of Tomizawa with the two-layered cathode of Umeyama and conductive materials or Shirakata, the additional limitations of claims 3-5, 7, 10-11 would all be met without requiring and further modification or motivation.
Regarding claim 3, Tomizawa and Umeyama are silent on the following elements:
The all-solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein the first layer comprises an amount of about 60% to 90% by weight of the fiber-type conductive material and an amount of about 10% to 40% by weight of the particle-type conductive material based on a total amount of the fiber-type conductive material and the particle-type conductive material in the first layer.
However, Shirakata teaches all of the elements of claim 3 not found in the aforementioned references:
The all-solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein the first layer comprises an amount of about 60% to 90% by weight of the fiber-type conductive material and an amount of about 10% to 40% by weight of the particle-type conductive material based on a total amount of the fiber-type conductive material and the particle-type conductive material in the first layer. (Shirakata table 1 example 4 teaches a cathode layer containing a higher proportion of carbon fiber (5%) to carbon black (3%). In this case, there would be 62.5% fiber type conductive material and 37.5% particle type conductive material in the mixture, based on the total weight of fibrous and particle type conductive materials, which, if used in the first layer of Umeyama’s cathode, anticipates the claimed ranges.)
Regarding claim 4, Tomizawa and Umeyama are silent on the following elements:
The all-solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein the second layer comprises an amount of about 10% to 40% by weight of the fiber-type conductive material and an amount of about 60% to 90% by weight of the particle-type conductive material based on a total amount of the fiber-type conductive material and the particle-type conductive material in the second layer.
However, Shirakata teaches all of the elements of claim 4 not found in the aforementioned references:
The all-solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein the second layer comprises an amount of about 10% to 40% by weight of the fiber-type conductive material and an amount of about 60% to 90% by weight of the particle-type conductive material based on a total amount of the fiber-type conductive material and the particle-type conductive material in the second layer. (Shirakata table 1 example 3 teaches a cathode layer containing a higher proportion of carbon black (5%) to carbon fiber (3%). In this case, there would be 62.5% particle type conductive material and 37.5% fiber type conductive material in the mixture, based on the total weight of fibrous and particle type conductive materials, which, if used in the second layer of Umeyama’s cathode, anticipates the claimed ranges.)
Regarding claim 5, Tomizawa is silent on the following elements:
The all-solid-solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein the cathode active material layer has a thickness of about 100 μm to 350 μm.
However, Umeyama teaches all of the elements of claim 5 that are not found in Tomizawa:
The all-solid-solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein the cathode active material layer has a thickness of about 100 μm to 350 μm. (“The first positive electrode mixture paste and the second positive electrode mixture were sequentially applied to opposite surfaces of Al foil (positive electrode current collector, thickness: 15 μm) such that an end of the Al foil in a width direction thereof was exposed. The application amount of each of the first positive electrode mixture paste and the second positive electrode mixture was adjusted such that a thickness ratio (t.sub.2/T×100) of the second positive electrode mixture layer was a value shown in Table 1 of FIG. 4. Next, these positive electrode mixture pastes were dried. An electrode obtained as described above was rolled using a rolling mill. In this way, a positive electrode (thickness: 120 μm, width: 117 mm, length: 6150 mm) was obtained.” Umeyama [0067]. In this case, the positive electrode has a thickness of 120 μm, which anticipates the claimed range.)
Regarding claim 7, Tomizawa is silent on the following elements:
The all-solid-solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein the first layer has a thickness of about 50 μm to 150 μm.
However, Umeyama teaches all of the elements of claim 7 that are not found in Tomizawa:
The all-solid-solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein the first layer has a thickness of about 50 pm to 150 pm. (The thickness of Umeyama’s positive electrode is 120 μm, and the ratio of the second layer to the first is 0.2 [Umeyama fig. 4 table 1]. Therefore, the thickness of the first layer would be 96 μm, which anticipates the claimed range.)
Regarding claim 10, Tomizawa is silent on the following elements:
The all-solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein the first layer further comprises a binder, and the amount of the binder satisfies Equation 1: [Equation 1] an amount of the binder in the first layer [% by weight] = 2 [% by weight] - the first amount of the fiber-type conductive material [% by weight] based on a total amount of the fiber- type conductive material and the particle-type conductive material in the first layer/100.
However, Umeyama teaches all of the elements of claim 10 not found in Tomizawa. Specifically, Umeyama teaches the usage of a binder within the claimed range in the first cathode active material layer:
The all-solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein the first layer further comprises a binder, and the amount of the binder satisfies Equation 1: [Equation 1] an amount of the binder in the first layer [% by weight] = 2 [% by weight] - the first amount of the fiber-type conductive material [% by weight] based on a total amount of the fiber- type conductive material and the particle-type conductive material in the first layer/100. (“It is preferable that the content of each of the first positive electrode active material 113a, the first conductive material 113b, and the first binder in the first positive electrode mixture layer 113 is the content which is known in the related art as the content of each of a positive electrode active material, a conductive material, and a binder in a positive electrode mixture layer for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery. For example, it is preferable that the first positive electrode mixture layer 113 includes 85 mass % to 98 mass % of the first positive electrode active material 113a, 0.5 mass % to 10 mass % of the first conductive material 113b, and 0.5 mass % to 5 mass % of the first binder.” Umeyama [0055]. In this case, if there is 62.5% of fiber type conductive material based on a total amount of conductive material—as taught by Shirakata and described in claim 3-- the claimed equation would require there to be 2-0.625% = 1.375% binder by weight in the first layer. This is within the range taught by Umeyama of 0.5-5% by mass of the binder.
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.5-5% by weight of binder in the first cathode active material layer encompasses the claimed value of 1.375% by weight of binder for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, Tomizawa is silent on the following elements:
The all-solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein the second layer further comprises a binder, and the amount of the binder satisfies Equation 2: [Equation 2] an amount of the binder in the second layer [% by weight] = 2 [% by weight] - the second amount of the fiber-type conductive material [% by weight] based on a total amount of the fiber-type conductive material and the particle-type conductive material in the second layer/100.
However, Umeyama teaches all of the elements of claim 11 not found in Tomizawa. Specifically, Umeyama teaches the usage of a binder within the claimed range in the second cathode active material layer:
The all-solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein the second layer further comprises a binder, and the amount of the binder satisfies Equation 2: [Equation 2] an amount of the binder in the second layer [% by weight] = 2 [% by weight] - the second amount of the fiber-type conductive material [% by weight] based on a total amount of the fiber-type conductive material and the particle-type conductive material in the second layer/100. (“It is preferable that the content of each of the first positive electrode active material 113a, the first conductive material 113b, and the first binder in the first positive electrode mixture layer 113 is the content which is known in the related art as the content of each of a positive electrode active material, a conductive material, and a binder in a positive electrode mixture layer for a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery. For example, it is preferable that the first positive electrode mixture layer 113 includes 85 mass % to 98 mass % of the first positive electrode active material 113a, 0.5 mass % to 10 mass % of the first conductive material 113b, and 0.5 mass % to 5 mass % of the first binder. The same shall be applied to the content of each of the second positive electrode active material 213a, the second conductive material 213b, and the second binder in the second positive electrode mixture layer 213.” Umeyama [0055]. In this case, if there is 37.5% of fiber type conductive material based on a total amount of conductive material in the second cathode layer—as taught by Shirakata and described in claim 4-- the claimed equation would require there to be 2-0.375% = 1.625% binder by weight in the first layer. This is within the range taught by Umeyama of 0.5-5% by mass of the binder.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.5-5% by weight of binder in the first cathode active material layer encompasses the claimed value of 1.625% by weight of binder for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomizawa (US 20200403274 A1) in view of Umeyama (US 20170256788 A1) and further in view of Shirakata (US 20080096098 A1) and further in view of Seol (US 20180159131 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Tomizawa, Umeyama, and Shirakata are silent on the following elements:
The all-solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein specific surface area of the fiber-type conductive material is equal to or less than one quarter of specific surface area of the particle-type conductive material.
However, Seol teaches all of the elements of claim 2 that are not found in the aforementioned references. Specifically, Seol teaches a mixture of fibrous and particulate type conductive materials, which have the desired ratio of specific surface area:
The all-solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein specific surface area of the fiber-type conductive material is equal to or less than one quarter of specific surface area of the particle-type conductive material. (“Furthermore, the carbon nanofibers may have a specific surface area of 2 m2/g to 20 m2/g” Seol [0050] and “Specifically, the particulate conductive agent usable in the present invention may be primary particles having an average particle diameter (D.sub.50) of 10 nm to 45 nm and a specific surface area of 40 m2/g to 170 m2/g,” Seol [0039]. In this case, if the specific surface area of the fibrous conductive material were 10 m2/g or less and the specific surface area of the particulate conductive material were 40 m2/g or more, then the limitations of claim 2 would be met.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of the specific surface area of the fibrous conductive material to the particulate conductive material, from 0.5 (in the case where the fiber type conductive material has a specific surface area of 20 m2/g and the particulate type conductive material has a specific surface area of 40 m2/g) to 0.012 (In the case where the fiber type conductive material has a specific surface area of 2 m2/g and the particulate type conductive material has a specific surface area of 170 m2/g) overlaps the claimed range of 0.25 or less for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Seol is considered to be analogous to Umeyama and Shirakata as it is within the same field of positive electrode mixtures containing fibrous and particulate type conductive materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mixtures of conductive materials of Shirakata to include materials with the specific surface areas of Seol in order to reduce resistance both initially and over time (Seol table 6 shows that example 1, which contains conductive agents meeting the claimed ranges [particulate conductive agent with 58 m2/g specific surface area and fibrous with 13 m2/g], has both a lower initial resistance and a lower resistance after 6 weeks than the comparative example, which only contains a fibrous conductive material.)
9. Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomizawa (US 20200403274 A1) in view of Umeyama (US 20170256788 A1) and further in view of Shirakata (US 20080096098 A1) and further in view of Li (US 20170092943 A1)
Regarding claim 6, Tomizawa, Umeyama, and Shirakata are silent on the following elements:
The all-solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein the ratio (dl/d2) of a thickness (dl) of the first layer to a thickness (d2) of the second layer is in a range of about 0.5 to 1.
However, Li teaches all of the elements of claim 6 that are not in the aforementioned references. Specifically, Li teaches a positive electrode with two active material layers having the desired thickness ratio:
The all-solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein the ratio (dl/d2) of a thickness (dl) of the first layer to a thickness (d2) of the second layer is in a range of about 0.5 to 1. (“Preferably, in the above-mentioned positive electrode, the thickness of the first active material layer is 0.1˜200 μm, further preferably, the thickness of the first active material layer is 0.5˜100 μm, furthermore preferably, the thickness of the first active material layer is 5˜50 μm.” Li [0019] and “Preferably, in the above-mentioned positive electrode, the thickness of the second active material layer is 0.1˜250 μm, further preferably, the thickness of the second active material layer is 0.5˜200 μm, furthermore preferably, the thickness of the second active material layer is 50˜100 μm.” Li [0026]. In the preferred embodiments of Li, the thickness ratio of the first and second active material layers overlaps the claimed range—for example, if both layers had a thickness of 50 μm, the ratio would be 1, which is within the claimed range.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.05-1 for the ratio of thickness between the first and second positive electrode active material layers encompasses the claimed range of 0.5-1. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Li is considered to be analogous to Umeyama because they are both within the same field of lithium batteries containing two cathode active material layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cathode layers of Umeyama to be of the thickness ratio of Li because the thicknesses of Li are known in the art and it would not be novel to adjust the thickness to that of something already known in the art. Using the thickness of Li would be a known method of producing a two-layered cathode in the art, and combining elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions is a considered to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP 2143.I.A).
The additional limitations of claim 8 would be met by using the thickness of the second layer of Li, and therefore no further modifications or motivation is necessary.
Regarding claim 8, Tomizawa, Umeyama, and Shirakata are silent on the following elements:
The all-solid-solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein the second layer has a thickness of about 50 pm to 200 pm.
However, Li teaches all of the elements of claim 6 that are not in the aforementioned references. Specifically, Li teaches a positive electrode having a second layer within the claimed thickness range:
The all-solid-solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein the second layer has a thickness of about 50 μm to 200 μm. (“Preferably, in the above-mentioned positive electrode, the thickness of the second active material layer is 0.1˜250 μm, further preferably, the thickness of the second active material layer is 0.5˜200 μm, furthermore preferably, the thickness of the second active material layer is 50˜100 μm.” Li [0026].)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.5-200 μm for the thickness of the second positive active material layer encompasses the claimed range of 50-200 μm. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomizawa (US 20200403274 A1) in view of Umeyama (US 20170256788 A1) and further in view of Shirakata (US 20080096098 A1) and further in view of Dale (US 20170179492 A1)
Regarding claim 9, Tomizawa, Umeyama, and Shirakata are silent on the following limitations:
The all-solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein the cathode active material layer comprises no bonding interface between the first layer and the second layer.
However, Dale teaches all of the elements of claim 9 that are not found in the aforementioned references. Specifically, the instant specification teaches that the lack of a bonding interface between the first and second layer is a result of applying the second active material layer slurry to the first before the drying of the first (“The present disclosure applies the second slurry on the
first layer to form the second layer before the first layer is dried to prevent the bonding interface being formed between the first layer and the second layer.” Instant spec, page 21 line 8). Dale teaches a method of producing a two layered positive that also includes adding the second slurry before the first is dried.
The all-solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein the cathode active material layer comprises no bonding interface between the first layer and the second layer. (“The method can further include coating the first active material layer 12 with a second active material slurry to form the second active material layer 24. This can occur before actuating in step 204, before heating in step 206” Dale [0031])
Dale is considered to be analogous to Umeyama because it is within the same field of positive electrode materials containing a first and second active material layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode of Umeyama to be produced via the method of Dale in order to create a battery with increased structural integrity (“Structural integrity of the separator 16 can be further assured with a second active material layer 24 formed between the first active material layer 12 and the separator 16, as illustrated in FIG. 3.” Dale [0023]) Additionally, the method of Dale is known in the art and therefore one skilled in the art would be capable of using this method to produce the two-layered cathode of Umeyama containing the conductive material ratios of Shirakata.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET whose telephone number is (571)272-0156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm except for the first Friday of bi-week.
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, NICHOLAS SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752