DETAILED ACTION
Application 18/189230, “SOLID-STATE SECONDARY BATTERY AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SOLID-STATE SECONDARY BATTERY”, was filed with the USPTO on 3/24/23 and claims priority from a foreign application filed on 3/29/22.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action on the merits is in response to communication filed on 1/22/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/22/26 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant presents the following arguments.
In view of applicant’s amendment, the 112 rejection for lack of clarity has been withdrawn; however, art rejections remain as given below.
As to the 102 rejection over Yao, applicant argues that the rejection is deficient at least because Yao does not disclose that the second binder is different from the first and third binders. In response, this argument has been found persuasive, thus, the anticipation rejection has been withdrawn. However, the previously presented obviousness rejection over Yao in view of Kim has been maintained.
As to the obviousness rejection over a combination of Yao and Kim, the ceramic layer of Kim serves to suppress short circuits between the positive and negative electrodes and does not function as an electrolyte. Therefore, there is not motivation for the skilled artisan to apply the composition of the ceramic layer in Kim to the solid electrolyte in Yao. In response, the separator of Yao and the separator of Kim perform a similar function in that both physically separate the anode and cathode, via use of mechanically robust ceramic particles. Note the title and abstract of each publication, where both are characterized as being a “separator”. Although the ceramic particles of Kim are inert oxides (Kim paragraph [0074]), whereas the ceramic particles of Yao may be ion conducting sulfides (Yao paragraphs [0044, 0054]), both particles are still mechanically robust ceramic particles capable of mechanically separating the electrodes to prevent short circuiting. Therefore, the sulfide ceramic particles of Yao are understood to be analogous or comparable to the oxide ceramic particles of Kim. Applicant has filed the arguments without any evidence that would suggest that the benefit associated with Kim, relied on in the rejection for modification of the ceramic particles of Yao, would not be applicable to the ceramic particles of Yao which are also ceramic particles. Therefore, the argument that the difference in ceramic particle types would eliminate the possibility of improving the Yao invention by reducing binder within the separator layer by modifying the ceramic particles in view of Kim, is not found persuasive. Additionally, it is noted that Yao teaches that the separator comprises ion conducting material “in some examples” (paragraph [0055]), thus the scope of Yao appears to be broad in that the separator layer could include other types of non-sulfide or non ionically conducting materials if needed in order to reduce the binder content in view of Kim or otherwise desired by the skilled artisan as a matter of design choice.
Even if combining Yao and Kim were possible, the object of Kim is to reduce the amount of binder (paragraphs [0060, 0074]); therefore, the skilled artisan would not make only the second layer of Yao [the electrolyte layer] binder free. In response, Kim expressly discloses that the electrode layers may include a binder (e.g. paragraph [0044]); therefore, Kim would suggest to leave the first and third binder material of Kim [associated with electrode active materials] in place in the Yao-Kim combined embodiment described in the art rejections.
With respect to cancelled claim 2 [now written into claim 1], Yao paragraphs [0091] and [0095] describe regions 630 and 670 as bonded together by a binder. In response, this argument is moot as in the Yao-Kim embodiment, the binder associated with layers 630 and 670 has been replaced by modifying the surfaces of the ceramic particles to create a binding effect without a binder.
Applicant’s specification indicates that the present invention provides a benefit of reducing the occurrence of grain boundaries thereby suppressing the occurrence of cracking of a solid electrolyte layer, an effect neither described nor suggested by the cited art. In response, it has been held that “[t]he reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant.” (MPEP 2144 IV). Additionally, it has been held that “The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious.” (MPEP 2145 II). Here, the combination suggests modifying the ceramic particles such that they adhere to one another, thereby reducing the amount of binder required in the battery. This obvious modification may also lead to applicant noted advantage, but this discovery alone is insufficient to overcome the prima face case of obviousness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yao (US 2023/0011811) and Kim (US 2020/0194760)
Regarding claim 1, Yao teaches solid-state secondary battery (e.g. Fig. 7 [see also the Examiner’s Modified Figure 7 below]; paragraph [0048]) comprising:
a negative electrode layer (item 620);
a positive electrode layer (item 660); and
a solid electrolyte layer (items 630, 640, 670 and 680 together form a solid electrolyte layer. The solid electrolyte layer comprises an electrolyte-anode composite portion 640, a homogeneous electrolyte portion 630-670, and an electrolyte-cathode composite portion 680),
the solid electrolyte layer containing a binding material (the portions 630 and 670 each contain “a second binder material”; the portion 640 contains the “a second binder material” and also contains “a first binder material” due to the anode mixture extending into the portion 640; the portion 680 contains the “a second binder material and also contains “a third binder material” due to the cathode mixture extending into the portion 680; see paragraph [0007] for reference to the “a first binder material”, “a second binder material”, and “a third binder material”; for the purposes of the rejections, the “first binder material” and the “third binder material” of Yao are interpreted to read on the claimed “a binding material”, the “second binder material” of Yao is not interpreted to read on the claimed “a binding material” noting that claim 1 uses the transitional term “comprising”) ,
the binding material being contained in a greater amount on a side closer to the negative electrode layer and a side closer to the positive electrode layer than sides closer to the center in thickness directions in the solid electrolyte layer (as to the Yao electrolyte layer, portion 640 is readable on “a side closer to the negative electrode layer”, portion 680 is readable on “a side closer to the positive electrode layer”, and portions 630 and 670 are readable on “sides closer to the center in thickness directions”; since the “first binder material” and “third binder material” of Yao are interpreted to read on the “a binding material” of claim 1, the binding material is contained in a greater amount in the sides closer to the electrodes [portions 640 and 680] than sides closer to the center [items 630 and 670] which do not contain any of the first/third binder material of Yao, read on the claimed “a binding material”).
PNG
media_image1.png
669
1109
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yao further teaches wherein the solid electrolyte layer (including portions 640,630,670,680) is provided with central regions where the binding material is not contained on the sides closer to the center in the thickness directions (the portions 630 and 670 are central regions which do not include the “a first binder material” or “a third binder material” of Yao, which are read on the claimed “a binding material”, thus the central regions do not contain the claimed “a binding material”).
However, the central regions 630/670 of Yao do contain “a second binder material” (see paragraph [0007]) and therefore, Yao does not appear to teach where the central regions are “binding-material-free-regions”.
In the battery art, Kim teaches that a conventional battery separator may comprise ceramic particles and a polymeric binder, but that such a polymer-binder containing structure is associated with problems such as difficulty in manufacture, requirement for excessive binder, and decrease in the amount of ceramic materials (paragraphs [0005-0006]). As a solution, Kim teaches configuring the ceramic particles to bond to one another without a polymer binder (paragraph [0007]), thereby improving adhesion between ceramic particles, reducing required amount of polymeric binder for the lithium battery, and improving price competitiveness of the battery (paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the battery of Yao by configuring the solid electrolyte particles to bind to one another via a surface treatment, rather than via the second binder material, for the benefit of improving adhesion between ceramic particles, reducing required amount of polymeric binder for the lithium battery, and improving price competitiveness of the battery as taught by Kim.
In this case, the separator of Kim would possess the claimed structure wherein the central regions are “binding-material-free-regions” since the second binder material, which is the only binder material in the central regions 630 and 670 is eliminated.
Regarding claim 3, Yao and Kim remain as applied to claim 1. The Yao-Kim combined embodiment further teaches wherein the solid electrolyte layer includes:
a first layer that is a layer closer to the side closer to the negative electrode layer or the side closer to the positive electrode layer in the solid electrolyte layer (see Examiner’s Modified Fig. 7 where electrolyte portions 640 or 680 are layers closer to the negative and positive electrodes, respectively); and
a second layer that is a layer closer to each of the sides closer to the center in the thickness directions in the solid electrolyte layer (see Examiner’s Modified Fig. 7 where electrolyte portions 630 and 670 are layers closer to the center in the thickness direction), and
a contained amount of the binding material in the first layer is greater than a contained amount of the binding material in the second layer (the layers 640/680 include Yao’s “first binder material” and “second binder material” which are read on the “a binding material”, whereas, in the combined embodiment the layers 630 and 670 do not contain any binding material), and
a contained amount of the binding material in at least either of the first layer and the second layer varies in such a manner that the contained amount of the binding material increases toward the side closer to the negative electrode layer or the side closer to the positive electrode layer (for portions 640 and 680, readable on the “first layer” of claim 3, the binder material content is increased close to the adjacent electrode and is lower towards the central portion 630/670 which contain no binder in the combined embodiment).
Regarding claim 4, Yao teaches a method of manufacturing a solid-state secondary battery including electrode layers and a solid electrolyte layer (e.g. Fig. 7 or Examiner’s Modified Fig. 7; see also paragraph [0048]), the method comprising coating an electrode composite material containing a binding material onto a solid electrolyte layer (paragraphs [0051, 0138]).
Claim 4 further requires that the solid electrolyte layer does not contain the binding material. This limitation is obvious in view of Kim, since Kim teaches omitting the binder of the separator layer, and instead configuring the ceramic particles thereof to bond to one another via surface treatment. See the rejection of claim 1 for more detail on the modification of Yao in view of Kim, such that the second binder of Yao is omitted.
Regarding claim 6, Yao and Kim remain as applied to claim 1. The Yao-Kim combined embodiment suggests a battery structure wherein comprising portions 620 and 640 which include a first binder material, portions 630 and 670 which do not include any binder material in view of Kim, and portions 680 and 660 which include a third binder material. See the rejection of claim 1 for more detail.
Yao does not explicitly state that the first binder material and the third binder material, together mapped to the claimed “a binding material”, are a single type of binding material.
However, Yao paragraphs [0056-0057] suggests that the cathode and the anode of the battery may be formed using the same species of binder, such as PVDF.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a single type of binding material, such as PVDF, as both the first binding material and third binding material of Yao, since PVDF would be expected to be effective in either electrode. It is noted that this rejection is crafted in an obviousness type format because it is not immediately clear that the materials suggestion of Yao paragraphs [0056-0057] is the same embodiment as the embodiments (e.g. Yao Fig. 7) relied on in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yao (US 2023/0011811), Kim (US 2020/0194760), Farmer (US 2010/0291444) and Chen (US 2019/0319240)
Regarding claim 5, Yao and Kim remain as applied to claim 4. Yao does not appear to teach wherein the coating is performed using dip coating.
In the battery art, Farmer teaches that any of the two electrode layers and the electrolyte layer may be formed by conventional methods, which includes dip-coating (paragraphs [0056-0064]).
In the battery art, Chen teaches that dip coating may be particularly desirable, such as in terms of smoothness, for depositing a layer, and that dip coating may be performed in multiple dips or at varying speed to control thickness (paragraphs [0248-0249]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to perform the coating process of Yao using dip coating since i) this is a one of a small number of conventionally employed electrode deposition techniques disclosed by Farmer, and ii) Chen teaches that additional advantages may be associated with use of dip coating, such as desirable morphology and thickness control.
Relevant or Related Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, though not necessarily pertinent to applicant’s invention as claimed.
Ohta (US 2021/0020895) solid electrolyte battery made using dip method for depositing electrode;
Hatayama (US 2021/0273295) multilayer separator with a binder free layer;
Ji (US 2022/0013862) separator comprising inorganic particles or alternatively, inorganic particles and organic binder.
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 JEREMIAH R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9 AM-5 PM (EST).
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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached on (571)270-7078. 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.
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723