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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/24/2026 has been entered.
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, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2020/0144599), in view of Kim (US 2020/0075930), and further in view of Choi (US 2018/0248195) and Ma (CN 112133921).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches an all-solid-state battery (1, Fig. 1, [0072]) comprising:
a negative electrode current collector (21, Fig. 1, [0085]);
an intermediate layer (22, Fig. 1, [0085]) disposed on the negative electrode current collector (Fig. 1) and comprising a carbon material ([0094]) and a metal capable of alloying with lithium ([0090], [0094]);
a solid electrolyte layer (30, Fig. 1, [0072]) disposed on the intermediate layer;
a positive electrode layer (12, Fig. 1, [0073]) disposed on the solid electrolyte layer (Fig. 1); and
a positive electrode current collector (11, Fig. 1, [0073]) disposed on the positive electrode layer (Fig. 1).
Lee does not teach wherein the positive electrode layer comprises a self-standing sheet layer formed by a network structure of entangled carbon nanotubes arranged, such that the network structure defines pores;
wherein a positive electrode material fills the pores of the self-standing sheet layer; and
wherein the positive electrode material comprises a positive electrode active material and a solid electrolyte.
However, Kim teaches the positive electrode layer comprises a self-standing sheet layer (3, Fig. 5, [0091], shown to be a sheet) formed by a network of carbon nanotubes ([0030], [0032]). The self-standing sheet layer is disclosed for the purpose of improving flexibility and adhesion ([0175]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the all-solid-state battery of Lee with the addition of the self-standing sheet layer of Kim, in order to increase the lifespan (Kim: [0176]) and energy density (Kim: [0177]) of the battery.
Lee, in view of Kim, does not teach the network structure of entangled carbon nanotubes arranged, such that the network structure defines pores;
wherein a positive electrode material fills the pores of the self-standing sheet layer; and
wherein the positive electrode material comprises a positive electrode active material.
However, Choi teaches a network structure (2b, Fig. 1) of entangled (Fig. 1, [0069]) carbon nanotubes (2b, Fig. 1, [0026]) arranged, such that the network structure defines pores (Fig. 1);
wherein a positive electrode material fills the pores (Fig. 1, [0061], 2a is shown to fill the pores defined by 2b); and
wherein the positive electrode material comprises a positive electrode active material ([0061], 2a is positive electrode active material). The carbon nanotube network structure is disclosed for the purpose of reducing charge transfer resistance ([0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carbon nanotube network structure of Kim to be entangled in order to form an electrical network across the entire positive electrode to improve output characteristics of the battery (Choi: [0026]).
Lee, in view of Kim, and further in view of Choi does not teach the positive electrode material (which fills the pores of the self-standing sheet layer) also comprises a solid electrolyte.
However, Ma the positive electrode material (which fills the pores of the self-standing sheet layer) also comprises a solid electrolyte (paragraph 56). The solid electrolyte is disclosed for the purpose of providing ion transmission channels for the charging and discharging of the battery while avoiding the addition of electrolyte (paragraph 56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the all-solid-state battery to disperse the sulfide solid electrolyte in the carbon nanotube network sheet in order to improve battery performance rate and safety (Ma: paragraph 56).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches the self-standing sheet layer comprises an oxygen-containing functional group on a surface thereof (Kim: [0030]).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches the oxygen-containing functional group comprises a hydroxyl group (-OH) (Kim: [0036]).
Regarding claim 5, Choi does not specifically teach the self-standing sheet layer has a specific surface area in a range of about 200 m2/g to 1,000 m2/g.
However, Choi teaches the specific surface area of the carbon nanotube network is in a range of 100 m2/g to 400 m2/g (Choi: [0073]), which overlaps the claimed range of 200 m2/g to 1,000 m2/g.
Therefore, although Choi does not teach the specific ranges, the ranges are obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would use any values in the ranges listed as they are significant according to Choi (Choi: [0073]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding claim 8, Ma teaches the positive electrode layer comprises:
an amount of about 0.5% to 5% by weight of the self-standing sheet layer based on the total weight of the positive electrode layer (Ma: paragraph 18, conductive agents include carbon nano-tubes; paragraph 22).
Ma does not specifically teach the positive electrode layer comprises:
an amount of about 75% to 90% by weight of the positive electrode active material; and
an amount of about 5% to 20% by weight of the solid electrolyte,
based on the total weight of the positive electrode layer.
However, Ma teaches the mass of the positive electrode active material for further modified Lee is 25% to 89.4% (paragraph 20), which overlaps the claimed range of 75% to 90%. Additionally, Ma teaches the mass of solid electrolyte for the for further modified Lee is 10% to 40% (paragraph 21), which overlaps the claimed range of 5% to 20%. Finally, Lee teaches the total mass of the positive electrode material layer is 100% (paragraphs 20-21).
Therefore, although Ma does not teach the specific ranges, the ranges are obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would use any values in the ranges listed as they are preferable according to Ma (paragraphs 20-22). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches the carbon material comprises amorphous carbon (Lee: [0094]), and the metal comprises gold (Au) (Lee: [0094]).
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches the battery is operable in a temperature range of about 15 °C to 25 °C (Lee: [0129]).
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2020/0144599), in view of Kim (US 2020/0075930), and further in view of Choi (US 2018/0248195) and Ma (CN 112133921), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of You (US 2019/0027755).
Regarding claim 4, modified Lee does not teach the self-standing sheet layer has a porosity in a range of about 60% to 80%.
However, You teaches the self-standing sheet layer (120, Fig. 1, [0061]) has a porosity in a range of about 60% to 80% ([0020]). The porosity is disclosed for the purpose of increasing adhesion of the electrode layer to the current collection ([0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the porosity of the carbon nanotube network to a range of 40% to 80% (You: [0020]) in order to prevent degrading performance and safety of the secondary battery (You: [0010]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lee does not teach the self-standing sheet layer has a thickness in a range of about 10 µm to 200 µm.
However, You teaches the self-standing sheet layer (120, Fig. 1, [0061]) has a thickness in a range of about 5 µm to 20 µm ([0028]), but not about 10 µm to 200 µm. The thickness is disclosed for the purpose of increasing adhesion of the electrode layer to the current collection ([0029], [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the carbon nanotube network (Choi: 2b) to a range of 5 to 20 micrometers as taught by You (You: [0028]) in order to avoid degrading performance and safety of the secondary battery (You: [0010]).
You does not specifically teach the self-standing sheet layer has a thickness in a range of about 10 µm to 200 µm.
However, You teaches the thickness of the carbon nanotube sheet may be 5 micrometers to 20 micrometers ([0028]), which overlaps the claimed range of 10 µm to 200 µm.
Therefore, although You does not teach the specific ranges, the ranges are obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would use any values in the ranges listed as they are preferable according to You ([0029], [0030]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 and 8-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to An Bach Phan whose telephone number is (571)272-7244. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-3 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, Len Tran can be reached at (571)272-1184. 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.
/AN PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights