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 Objections
Claims 5, 10, 16 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 5 and 16 recite “or combination thereof”, which appears to be “or combinations thereof”.
Claims 10 and 20 recite the formula Li7-cLa3(Zr2-c,Nc)O12, which appears to be Li7-cLa3(Zr2-cNc)O12. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 10, 17 and 20 are 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.
Claims 6 and 17 improperly recite the Markush group in the form of “selected from A, B and C”, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which members of the group are part of the claimed invention. A proper Markush groups may be recited as "...selected from the group consisting of A, B and C" or "...selected from A, B or C." See MPEP § 2173.05(h).
Regarding claims 10 and 20 , the phrase "e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2021/0119203A1 (Kim) in view of CN112242561A (Wu), which is listed in Applicant’s information disclosure statement.
Regarding claims 1, 4-8, 12 and 15-19, Kim teaches a an all-solid secondary battery including:
a cathode layer including a cathode active material, an anode layer, and a solid electrolyte layer including a solid electrolyte and disposed between the cathode layer and the anode layer ([0008]-[0011]), wherein the anode comprises lithium metal ([0071]), the cathode layer may include a cathode current collector, the cathode active material layer, and an electrolyte which may be different from the solid electrolyte in the solid electrolyte layer ([0104] and [0115]), wherein the cathode layer may be soaked with a liquid electrolyte of a lithium salt such as LiPF6, Li(CF3SO2)2N , i.e., LiTFSI, and an ionic liquid or a fused salt consisting of only ions([0117]), which meets an interlayer disposed on the cathode.
Kim does not teach the electrolyte soaked in the cathode layer is a deep-eutectic-solvent based electrolyte, the presence of N-methyl acetamide, and the molar ratio of LITFSI to N-methyl acetamide
Wu teaches that an eutectic solvent based electrolyte comprises a lithium salt and an amide compound in a molar ratio of 1:1 to 1:10 has the advantage of incombustibilty, high conductivity, large electrochemical window and long cycle life(Abstract), wherein the lithium salt is LiTFSI ([0031] and [0033]), the amide compound includes N-methyl acetamide ([0034]).
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to soak the cathode layer of the Kim with the eutectic solvent electrolyte of Wu. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teachings of Wu that to do so would predictably provide high conductivity, large electrochemical window and long cycle life(Abstract), and further since it has been held that it is prima facie obviousness to use a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, a liquid electrolyte consisting of only ions. See MPEP 2144.06(II) and 2144.07; In re Fout, 675 F2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); Sinclair & Carroll Co v Interchemical Corp, 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 227 F2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Ryco, Inc v Ag-Bag Corp, 857 F2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed Cir 1988).
Regarding claims 2, 3, 13 and 14, Kim teaches that the cathode active material comprises lithium cobalt oxide (LCO), lithium nickel cobalt oxide, lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (NCA), lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (NCM) LiNixCoyMnzO2, wherein 0<x<1, 0<y<1, 0<z<1, and x+y+z=1 , and /or lithium iron phosphate ([0107] and [0110]), which meets the claimed cathode.
Regarding claims 9, 10 and 20, Kim teaches that the solid electrolyte may be a garnet-type solid electrolyte Li3+xLa3Zr2−aMaO12 (M-doped LLZO), exemplified as Li6.5La3Zr1.5Ta0.5O12 ([0132] and [0146]), which meets the claimed solid electrolyte (iii).
Regarding claims 11-12, with respect to the cathode/SSE interfacial resistance and the cycling stability , Kim and Wu teaches the same cathode and solid electrolyte as the instantly claimed, absent evidence to the contrary, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable basis to expect the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the cathode/SSE interfacial resistance and the cycling stability, would naturally arise and be achieved by the cathode and solid electrolyte of Kim and Wu under similar conditions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIQUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-7736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am -4:00 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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-2721302. 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.
/AIQUN LI/ Ph.D., Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766