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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 2 and 3 are cancelled.
Claims 1, and 4-13 are rejected.
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.
Claims 1, 4-8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 20130065131 A1, “Hwang”).
Regarding claim 1, Hwang discloses a negative active material for an all solid-state battery (see [0042] “a rechargeable lithium battery includes a negative electrode including a negative active material, a positive electrode including a positive active material, and a non-aqueous electrolyte”), the negative active material comprising: an aggregated material of amorphous carbon having pores therein and in which primary particles are aggregated (see abstract “amorphous carbon”); and metal nanoparticles filling in the pores (see abstract “metal nanoparticles dispersed inside the pores”), wherein the metal nanoparticles include Ag, Au, Zn, Al, Mg, Ge, Cu, In, Ni, Bi, Pt, Pd, or a combination thereof (see [0028] “Al, Ga, In, Pb, As, Sb, Ag, or combinations thereof. In some embodiments, the element Y may be, for example, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Ra, Sc, Y, La, Ti, Zr, Hf, V, Nb, Ta, Cr, Mo, W, Tc, Re, Fe, Ru, Os, Co, Rh, Ir, Ni, Pd, Pt, Cu, Ag, Au, Zn, Cd, B, Ge, P, As, Sb, Bi, S, Se, Te, Po, or combinations thereof.”), and wherein the metal nanoparticles have an average size of about 15 nm to about 80 nm (see [0025] “The average particle diameter of the metal nanoparticles dispersed inside the pores is preferably not be greater than about 500 nm, and in consideration of processing and economical aspects, the average particle diameter may be from at least about 100 nm to about 500 nm. However, the metal nanoparticles may be used if their minimal average particle diameter is at least equal to or greater than 10 nm”).
Regarding claim 4 and claim 5, Hwang discloses the negative active material of claim 1 and further discloses wherein a mixing ratio of the aggregated material of amorphous carbon and the metal nanoparticles (see [0026] “The content of the metal nanoparticles may be from about 5 to about 30 wt % based on the total weight of the negative active material” & see [0031] “The content of the amorphous carbon may be from about 10 to about 15 wt % based on the total weight of the negative active material, and the content of the crystalline carbon may be from about 55 to about 85 wt % based on the total weight of the negative active material. When the content of the amorphous carbon falls in the range, a negative active material composite of metal and a carbon-based material may be obtained.”) which overlaps the claimed range of 99:1 to 70:30 by weight as required by claim 4 and overlaps the claimed range of 99:1 to 75:25 by weight as required by claim 5.
Hwang discloses a range of 5 to about 30 wt%, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1 to 30 by weight, as required by claim 4 & overlaps with the claimed range of 1 to 25 by weight, as required by claim 5. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Hwang discloses a range of 55 to about 85 wt%, which overlaps with the claimed range of 99 to 70 by weight, as required by claim 4 and overlaps the claimed range of 99 to 75 by weight, as required by claim 5. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Regarding claim 6, Hwang disclsoes the negative active material of claim 1 and further discloses wherein: the negative active material is an active material prepared by mixing an aggregated material of amorphous carbon having pores inside and in which primary particles are aggregated with metal nanoparticles to prepare a mixture; and heat-treating the mixture at a temperature of a melting point of the metal nanoparticles or higher (see abstract “negative active material for a rechargeable lithium battery” & “metal nanoparticles dispersed inside the pores; and amorphous carbon inside the pores”
see [0038] “acquired product and a precursor of amorphous carbon are mixed and undergo a heat treatment to prepare a core-shell-type negative active material”).
Regarding the method limitations recited in claim 6 “wherein: the negative active material is an active material prepared by mixing an aggregated material of amorphous carbon having pores inside and in which primary particles are aggregated with metal nanoparticles to prepare a mixture; and heat-treating the mixture at a temperature of a melting point of the metal nanoparticles or higher” & claim 7 “wherein the heat treatment is performed at a temperature of about 1,000 °C or less”, the Office notes that even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F. 2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process). See MPEP § 2113.
Regarding claim 7, Hwang discloses the negative active material of claim 6 and further discloses heat treatment at a temperature which overlaps the claimed range (see [0040] “The heat treatment may be performed at a temperature of from about 800 to about 1200 °C”).
Hwang discloses a range of about 800 to about 1200 °C which overlaps with the claimed range of about 1000 °C or less, as required by claim 4 and overlaps the claimed range of 99 to 75 by weight, as required by claim 5. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Regarding claim 8, Hwang discloses an all solid-state battery comprising: a negative electrode including a current collector and a negative electrode layer on one side of the current collector; a positive electrode; and a solid electrolyte between the negative electrode and the positive electrode (see abstract “negative active material for a rechargeable lithium battery” & see [0042] “a rechargeable lithium battery includes a negative electrode including a negative active material, a positive electrode including a positive active material, and a non-aqueous electrolyte” & see [0043] “The negative electrode includes a current collector and a negative active material layer formed on the current collector. The negative active material layer includes the negative active material prepared according to an embodiment, a binder and selectively a conductive material”).
Regarding claim 13, Hwang discloses the negative active material of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the metal nanoparticles include Ag (see [0028] “Ag”).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 20130065131 A1, “Hwang”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chao et al. (US 10535878 B2, “Chao”) and Zhu et al. (Y. Zhu, Y. Mo, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2020, 59, 17472).
Regarding claim 9, Hwang discloses the battery of claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the solid electrolyte is a sulfide solid electrolyte.
Chao teaches electrolyte composition LiaMPbSc (LMPS) in col. 5 lines 38-46 “dopant configuration of the LiaMPbSc (LMPS) [M=Si, Ge, and, or, Sn] containing material. Merely by way of example, the invention has been applied to solid state battery cells, although there can be other applications. In some examples, M is selected from Si, Ge, Sn, or combinations thereof. In some other examples, M is selected from Si, Sn, or combinations thereof.”). Chao teaches the LMPS material & increasing ionic conductivity (see col. 5 lines 56-58).
Zhu teaches Li10GeP2S12 and Li9.54Si1.74P1.44S11.7Cl0.3 (see P17472 par. 1 “Among these materials, sulfide solid electrolytes show exceptionally high ionic conductivity (for example, 25 mScm-1 at room temperature for Li9.54Si1.74P1.44S11.7Cl0.3) and desirable mechanical properties of high deformability”). Zhu teaches solid-state batteries (see abstract).
Hwang and Zhu are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries.
Hwang and Chao are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries.
Therefore, 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 incorporate the electrolyte composition LiaMPbSc (LMPS), as suggested by Chao (see col. 5 lines 38-46) into the battery of Hwang because doing so increases the ionic conductivity, as suggested by Chao (see col. 5 lines 56-58) & Zhu (see P17472 par. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Hwang discloses the battery of claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the solid electrolyte is LiaMbPcSdAe, in which a, b, c, d and e are each independently 0 or more and 12 or less, M is Ge, Sn, Si, or a combination thereof, and A is F, Cl, Br, or I.
Chao teaches electrolyte composition LiaMPbSc (LMPS) in col. 5 lines 38-46 “dopant configuration of the LiaMPbSc (LMPS) [M=Si, Ge, and, or, Sn] containing material. Merely by way of example, the invention has been applied to solid state battery cells, although there can be other applications. In some examples, M is selected from Si, Ge, Sn, or combinations thereof. In some other examples, M is selected from Si, Sn, or combinations thereof.”). Chao teaches the LMPS material & increased ionic conductivity (see col. 5 lines 56-58).
Hwang and Chao are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries.
Therefore, 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 incorporate the electrolyte composition LiaMPbSc (LMPS), as suggested by Chao (see col. 5 lines 38-46) into the battery of Hwang because doing so increases the ionic conductivity, as suggested by Chao (see col. 5 lines 56-58) & Zhu (see P17472 par. 1).
Further regarding the limitation wherein the solid electrolyte is LiaMbPcSdAe, in which a, b, c, d and e are each independently 0 or more and 12 or less, M is Ge, Sn, Si, or a combination thereof, and A is F, Cl, Br, or I, Zhu teaches Li10GeP2S12 and Li9.54Si1.74P1.44S11.7Cl0.3 (see P17472 par. 1 “Among these materials, sulfide solid electrolytes show exceptionally high ionic conductivity (for example, 25 mScm-1 at room temperature for Li9.54Si1.74P1.44S11.7Cl0.3) and desirable mechanical properties of high deformability”). Zhu teaches solid-state batteries (see abstract).
Therefore, 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 incorporate an electrolyte composition of Li9.54Si1.74P1.44S11.7Cl0.3 as suggested by Zhu (see P17472 par. 1) into the electrolyte of Hwang because doing so improves the ionic conductivity as suggested by Zhu (see P17472 par. 1).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 20130065131 A1, “Hwang”) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Chao et al. (US 10535878 B2, “Chao”).
Regarding claim 11, Hwang discloses the battery of claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the negative electrode further includes a lithium deposition layer, after charging.
Chao teaches lithium deposition layer in col. 11 lines 11-14 “the anode region comprises a major active region comprising lithium” & “the anode region is created in situ by plating lithium from the cathode during the first charging cycle, among other techniques”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the battery of Hwang includes plating of lithium (see Chao col. 11 lines 11-14) “during the first charging cycle” (see Chao col. 11 lines 13-14) because Hwang discloses a similar battery structure as the current invention and would exhibit similar properties upon first cycle charging including in situ plating of lithium, as suggested by Chao (see col. 11 lines 13-14).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 20130065131 A1, “Hwang”) in view of Chao et al. (US 10535878 B2, “Chao”) as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Ogata et al. (US 11069897 B2, “Ogata”).
Regarding claim 12, Hwang discloses the battery of claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the lithium deposition layer has a thickness of about 10 µm to about 50 µm.
Ogata teaches thickness of a buffer layer (see col. 3 lines 31-43 describes thickness between “100 nm and 30 µm thick” & “thickness of buffer layer 104 may be selected to not substantially increase the volume or weight of the battery cell 100. Specifically, the thicker buffer layer 104 is, the lower the energy and power density of battery cell 100 may be. Therefore, a thickness of buffer layer 104 may be selected to achieve a balance between energy/power density and ability to avoid swelling.”). Ogata teaches batteries (see title “solid-state battery”).
Hwang and Ogata are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries.
Ogata teaches a range of 100 nm to 30 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 10 µm to about 50 µm. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
This makes the obvious range 100 nm (equivalent to 0.1 µm) to 30 µm.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see P6-P7 par 1, filed 07/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 20200411843 A1, “Song”) in view of Wu et al. ("Sodiophilically graded gold coating on carbon skeletons for highly stable sodium metal anodes", SMALL, vol. 16, no. 40, September 2, 2020, page 2003815) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hwang et al. (US 20130065131 A1, “Hwang”).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10, 11 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, 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.
/S.A.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights