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 Status
Applicant’s election of group II pertaining to claims 8-16 with traversed is acknowledged. For reasons explained below, applicant’s traverse is not persuasive. As a result, claims 1-7 and 17-20 are withdrawn. Claims 8-16 are addressed in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 8-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites a film fabricated by a hot-pressing process. Claim 8 also recites a removable binder holding the film together. Lastly, claim 8 recites that before the hot-pressing which allegedly fabricates the film, the binder is removed. If the film is fabricated during the hot-pressing process, then it does not exist before the hot pressing process, and the binder cannot perform the function of holding the film together before the hot-pressing process. If the binder is removed before the film is created during the hot-pressing process, then it cannot perform the function of holding the film together after the hot-pressing process has been completed. Appropriate correction is required.
For the purpose of examination, it shall be interpreted that if binder is present in the material that is to become the separator film during the hot-pressing process, and is removed before the hot-pressing process, then the limitation of “removable binder holding the film together” shall be met.
Claims 9-16 rejected based off of dependency from claim 8.
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yersak (US 20210050619 A1).
Regarding claim 8-11 and 14-16, Yersak discloses a method for producing an electrochemical cell [0049], the method comprising:
providing a solid-state electrolyte (SSE) (title), the SSE a glass formed by a glass forming system (the instant application discloses that a glass former and a glass modifier may collectively be referred to as a glass forming system [0043]. [0046] discloses that examples of the glass former include one or more of P-2S5, SnS2, GeS2, B2S3, or SiS2, SiO-2, GeO2, P2O5, B2O3, and Al2O3, while [0047] discloses that the glass modifier includes, for example, Li2S, Na2S, Li2O, Na2O. Yersak discloses the same concept, disclosing a solid state electrolyte formed by a glass former and a glass modifier (abstract), the glass former and the glass modifier containing the same materials disclosed by the instant application ([0008]-[0010] for the glass former, [0012]-[0013] for the glass modifier), thus reading on the claimed glass forming system. [0094] discloses an example in which the glass forming system, for example, comprises P2S5 and P2O5 as glass formers and Li2S as a glass modifier, all formers and modifiers used by the instant application), and comprising a separator film ([0052] discloses that the solid-state electrolyte is prepared as a relatively thin layer, and as a result could reasonably be interpreted as a film) and a 1-10 wt. % removable binder holding the film together ([0081] discloses a thermally removable protective sacrificial binder layer is present in the electrolyte. [0056] discloses that the wt. % of the binder in the electrolyte may range from about 0 to 10 wt. %, encompassing the claimed range), the film fabricated by a hot-pressing process ([0024] discloses a step of hot-pressing the solid-state electrolyte in the green state to convert it into a working state, thus reading on the film being fabricated by a hot-pressing process) and removing the binder from the film prior to the hot-pressing process by utilizing a pre-heat treatment ([0082] discloses that the sacrificial binder 120 is removed prior to the electrolyte being processed and consolidated into its final working form (via hot pressing step discussed above and disclosed in [0024]) by, for example, a hot pressing step (preceding the hot pressing step disclosed by [0024] which forms the electrolyte into its working form. [0092] also discloses embodiments wherein the binder is removed by applying heat or subatmospheric pressure to the SSE), thus reading as a pre-heat treatment).
Yersak does not discloses the crystallization activation energy or glass transition temperature of the SSE. However, since the SSE is formed using the same materials as the instant application (Yersak discloses the same glass former and glass modifier materials that comprise the glass forming system as the instant application), and because crystallization activation energy and glass transition temperature are properties determined by the molecular composition of a particular material, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would expect the SSE of Yersak to exhibit a glass transition temperature and a crystallization activation energy within the claimed range. 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." See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02.
Regarding claim 9, Yersak discloses the method of claim 8. While Yersak does not explicitly disclose that the pre-heat treatment produces less than 70 volume% devitrification of a glass solid-state electrolyte (Yersak discloses an embodiment wherein the sacrificial binder is removed while the electrolyte is in a green state [0092], with [0086]-[0087] disclosing an embodiment wherein the electrolyte particles are heated to induce crystallization before then. As a result, since crystallization happens before binder removal, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the pre-heat treatment would be expected to produce less than 70 volume% devitrification, with most of the devitrification having happened prior to the pre-heat treatment.
Regarding claim 10, Yersak discloses the method of claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose the length of time the pre-heat treatment takes. However, as discussed in the claim 8 rejection above, Yersak discloses the same electrolyte as the instant application, including the same glass forming system materials, same sacrificial binder, and same pre-heat treatment step. Because the same materials are used, including the same sacrificial binder, a same or overlapping temperature can feasibly be used for the pre-heat treatment step, despite the instant application not explicitly disclosing a pre-heat treatment step temperature. Because all these conditions are the same as or overlapping that of the instant application, it would be expected by a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the length of time for the pre-heat treatment stem needed to remove the sacrificial binder would be the same as or overlapping the claimed range of less than 20 minutes, thus meeting the claimed limitation. 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." See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02.
Regarding claim 11, Yersak discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the pre-heat treatment leaves less than 30 wt.% residue ([0092] discloses that after the degradation of the sacrificial electrolyte, the binder breaks down into easily removable materials and the SSE remains substantially free of residues).
Regarding claim 14, Yersak discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the film is a green film ([0087] discloses that the solid-state electrolyte is formed in a green state) such that is it unconsolidated at room temperature with a porosity of less than 40 volume% ([0055] discloses that when in a green and unconsolidated state, normal porosity is, for example, between 10 and 40 volume %).
Regarding claim 15, Yersak discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the film is a standalone film that is 10-150 microns thick ([0068] discloses that the SSE has a thickness of, according to one embodiment, greater than or equal to 10 µm to less than or equal to about 200 µm, overlapping and encompassing the claimed range. Further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely select a thickness from amongst the portion of the range that overlaps with the claimed range because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05(1)).
Regarding claim 16, Yersak discloses the method of claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose that an Ea of the SSE is greater than 200 kJ/mol. However, since the SSE is formed using the same materials as the instant application (Yersak discloses the same glass former and glass modifier materials that comprise the glass forming system as the instant application), and because Ea is a property determined by the properties and composition of a particular material, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would expect the SSE of Yersak to exhibit an Ea within the claimed range. 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." See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yersak (US 20210050619 A1) in view of Ota (US 20120115035 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Yersak discloses the method of claim 8, but does not disclose the pre-heat treatment comprises dissolving the binder by utilizing a solvent that has a polarity less than 0.3 as defined according to water such that the solvent does not react with the film. Yersak does however disclose dissolving the sacrificial binder in a solvent [0091] and then removing the solvent by heating the SSE ([0091] and [0087]), and discloses a list of acceptable solvents including, for example, ethyl acetate, toluene, hexane, and benzene, all of which are solvents having a polarity of less than 0.3 as defined according to water and, because Yersak uses the same electrolyte material as the instant application, would be expected to not react with the film. While Yersak does not explicitly disclose removing the solvent and the sacrificial binder during the same pre-heat treatment step, this is a practice that is known in the art and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
For example, Ota discloses a process in which an electrode paste for a battery is heated during one step to remove both binder and solvent together at the same time [0120]. As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the binder and solvent of Yersak could be removed at the same time during a single pre-heating step. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find this obvious to do as a matter of routine selection between known methods of solvent/binder removal, and additionally would be motivated to do so because performing a single heating step rather than separate heating steps to remove the binder and solvent would result in a simplified process with less overall steps.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yersak (US 20210050619 A1) in view of Shin (US 20210280842 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Yersak discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the pre-heat treatment does not comprise utilizing a solvent ([0091] discloses that the solvent is removed from the solvent/sacrificial binder solution, leaving the binder to remain after the solvent is removed. As a result, when the pre-heat treatment is conducted to remove the binder, the solvent has already been removed, and the pre-heat treatment does not comprise utilizing a solvent).
Yersak does not disclose that providing the SSE comprises a spray deposition process. However, using a spray deposition process to provide SSE’s is known in the art with known benefits and would have been obvious to do for the invention of Yersak. For example, Shin discloses a spray deposition process [0018] for forming a solid electrolyte [0018]. Yersak further discloses that the spray deposition method enables the formation of an electrolyte film having excellent bonding characteristics and that is uniformly formed to have a desired thickness. Further, [0066] discloses that the solid electrolyte is constructed from the same materials as the solid electrolyte of Yersak, including an embodied Li-2S P2S5 glass ceramic electrolyte.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the spray deposition method of forming the solid electrolyte disclosed by Shin can be used to form the electrolyte of Yersak. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this in order to obtain a method that enables the formation of an electrolyte film having excellent bonding characteristics enables it to be uniformly formed to have a desired thickness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s traversal of the restriction requirement has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant argues that claims 1-7 and 8-16 include the same limitations but for the hot pressing method, which is immaterial to the product claims. Examiner holds that the method and the product claims still hold a sufficiently different scope that a search burden is present, as the method claims require the additional limitation of the hot-pressing step, and would require different search methods. Additionally, examiner sees no reason the product of claim 1 could not be made with a method other than a hot-pressing method, nor has applicant argued that to be the case. For these reasons, the restriction requirement is maintained.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being relevant to the claimed invention but not relied upon:
Badding (US 20190207252 A1) discloses the benefits of conducting a separate heating step to remove the binder.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACKARY R COCHENOUR whose telephone number is (703)756-1480. The examiner can normally be reached 1-9:00PM ET.
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.
/ZACKARY RICHARD COCHENOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752