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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 06/19/2023, 02/07/2024, 07/12/2024, and 07/17/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on 06/05/2023 were reviewed and are acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 06/05/2023 was reviewed and is acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “0.1 to 20 of a polymer binder” in lines 4-5 should be replaced with --0.1 to 20 percent of a polymer binder--.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is an extra “and” in line 5 which should be removed.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “and anode” in line 2 should be replaced with --an anode--.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Fluorine” in line 2 should be replaced with --fluorine--.
Claims 6 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims are recited as three sentences and include an extraneous “a polymer solid” in line 6 which should be removed.
Claims 8 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: there is an extra “and” in line 4 which should be removed.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/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.
The terms “increased cyclability” and “increased life” in claims 1 and 9 are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The term “increased” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Accordingly, the recited limitations “solid-state battery having increased cyclability and increased life” is considered indefinite.
Claims 1 and 9 recites the limitations “the battery” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “comprising an anode” in lines 2-3. It is unclear whether this is intended to be the same anode previously recited in line 2, or another separate and distinct anode. For purposes of this Office Action, it will be assumed that this is intended to be the same previously recited anode.
Claims 3 and 10 recites the limitations “the lithium powder” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nelson et al. (US 2005/0239917 A1; hereinafter “Nelson”).
Regarding claim 9, Nelson discloses a solid-state battery (Title; [0018]), the [solid-state] battery comprising a cathode ([0017]), [an] anode ([0017]), and a hybrid solid electrolyte (solid polymer electrolyte, [0018]), wherein the anode is formed by depositing a dry electrode mixture (see [0013] which describes allowing the inks to dry) comprised of an active component material (lithium, [0011]), a binder (e.g. polyimide polymer binder, [0012]) and a conductive material ([0014]) mixed with a prelithiation printable lithium composition (lithium inks, [0008]) comprising a lithium metal powder ([0011]), a polymer binder compatible with the lithium metal powder (e.g. polyimide polymer binder, [0012]), and a rheology modifier compatible with the lithium metal powder (e.g. carbonaceous materials, [0014], which reasonably reads on a rheology modifier, as evidenced by the Instant Specification, e.g. claim 11).
Regarding claim 10, Nelson discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Nelson further discloses that the lithium [metal] powder is stabilized lithium metal powder (absent a special definition of “stabilized”, it is submitted that the disclosed lithium metal powder is reasonably “stabilized” because Nelson uses the lithium metal powder to safely, i.e. stably, produce a lithium ink).
Regarding claim 11, Nelson discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Nelson further discloses that the rheology modifier is carbonaceous material ([0014]).
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson et al. (US 2005/0239917 A1; hereinafter “Nelson”) in view of Gao et al. (US 2005/0130043 A1; hereinafter “Gao”).
Regarding claim 1, Nelson discloses a solid-state battery (Title; [0018]), the [solid-state] battery comprising a cathode ([0017]), [an] anode ([0017]), and a hybrid solid electrolyte (solid polymer electrolyte, [0018]), comprising [the] anode formed by printing a printable lithium composition onto a current collector ([0011-0012]).
Nelson discloses a specific example of the lithium metal powder ink (Example 1, [0178]) which appears to have the following relative amounts:
Solution A - 26.5 g of polyimide (PI) dissolved in 106.5 g GBL
Solution B - 17.8 g LiTFSi salt dissolved in 71.2 g GBL
178 g of the mixture of equal masses = 89 g of solution A + 89 g of solution B
89 g solution A = 26.5 g PI/133 g total = x PI/89 g total
=17.7 g PI + 71.3 g GBL
89 g solution B = 17.8 g PI/89 g total = x salt/89 g total
= 17.8 g salt + 71.2 g GBL
Li solution composition:
37.9 g Li powder (4.6%)
26.5 g C (3.2%) (rheology modifier)
17.7 g PI (2.1%) binder
17.8 g salt (2.1%) (rheology modifier)
574 g GBL + 71.3 g GBL + 71.2 g GBL = 716.5 g GBL (88%)
Total 816.4 g
Accordingly, Nelson discloses b) 0.1 to 20 [percent] of a polymer binder (2.1%, as noted above) compatible with the lithium metal powder ([0012]), c) 0.1 to 30 percent of a rheology modifier (2.1%, as noted above) compatible with the lithium metal powder ([0014]), and d) 50 to 95 percent of a solvent (88%, as noted above) compatible with the lithium metal powder and with the polymer binder ([0013]).
Nelson discloses that the lithium metal powder is included at 4.6% (as noted above), and thus does not explicitly disclose 5 to 50 percent, nor that the solvent is a nonpolar solvent.
Nelson is analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely printable lithium metal powders.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the disclosed 4.6% is so close to the recited 5% that the skilled artisan would reasonably expect the disclosed lithium metal powder ink to exhibit the same properties as the Instant Invention (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Gao teaches lithium metal dispersions in electrodes (Title). Gao teaches that a solution of lithium metal powder can include e.g. mineral oil and/or other solvents which are inert or non-reactive with lithium ([0038]).
Gao is analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely printable lithium metal powders.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely utilize nonpolar mineral oil as the solvent for the lithium ink of Nelson as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known method for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Regarding claim 2, modified Nelson discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Nelson further discloses that the anode is formed by printing the printable lithium composition onto an anode current collector (Nelson: 0012])
Regarding claim 3, modified Nelson discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Nelson further discloses that the lithium [metal] powder is stabilized lithium metal powder (absent a special definition of “stabilized”, it is submitted that the disclosed lithium metal powder is reasonably “stabilized” because Nelson uses the lithium metal powder to safely, i.e. stably, produce a lithium ink).
Regarding claim 4, modified Nelson discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Nelson further discloses that the rheology modifier is carbonaceous material (Nelson: [0014]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 12-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The present invention is related to, inter alia, a solid-state battery comprising a hybrid solid electrolyte, wherein the hybrid solid electrolyte is PEO/LLTZO/LiTSFI (claim 5) or represented by a certain formula (claims 6 and 12).
Nelson et al. (US 2005/0239917 A1; hereinafter “Nelson”) is considered to be the closest relevant prior art to dependent claims 5-6 and 12. Nelson n view of Gao discloses most of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Nelson does not disclose, teach, fairly suggest, nor render obvious the recited specific hybrid solid electrolyte. To the contrary, Nelson explicitly discloses that the electrolyte may be a solid polymer electrolyte, and prefers a polymer matrix electrolyte ([0018-0019]), and thus there does not appear to be any reasonable basis for the skilled artisan to abandon the disclosure of Nelson and be directed towards the recited hybrid solid electrolyte because such a hybrid solid electrolyte is fundamentally different from the disclosed class of polymer electrolytes, i.e. polymer electrolytes utilize a solvent for ionic conduction vs. solventless crystalline solid electrolytes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Federici et al. (US 10,116,000 B1) discloses fabrication of flexible conductive items and batteries using modified inks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M ERWIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6am-3pm PDT.
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.
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 02/03/2026