DETAILED ACTION
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, 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.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. (US 2015/0096169) in view of Tsutsui et al. (WO 2020/136975), English equivalent US 2021/0305627.
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Hasegawa teaches a slurry for positive electrode for sulfide-based solid-state battery and method of manufacturing the same comprising:
kneading a positive electrode active material, a sulfide-based solid electrolyte, and a solvent (para 0078) to prepare a first electrode material;
further, before and/or after kneading, a dispersion means such as ultrasonic dispersion or the like may be used to make a composition in a slurry homogeneous (para 0078) to prepare a second electrode material;
preparing slurry containing the second electrode material;
coating the slurry on at least one surface of a base material (para 0079); and
a composite body is formed by the solid electrolyte adhering to a surface of the active material in the first step.
Hasegawa does not teach the dispersion means is adding dispersion promotion component to the first electrode active material, the dispersion promotion component promoting dispersion of the solid electrolyte in the solvent.
Tsutsui, directed to a battery material, teaches a dispersing agent, a compound having an imidazoline ring (para 0011).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add a dispersion agent to achieve the same as in Hasegawa, wherein the slurry with the dispersion agent it is possible to improve dispersibility in a battery material; moreover, suppress a decrease in ionic conductivity of a solid electrolyte, and thus the characteristics of a battery can be improved (para 0011).
Regarding claim 5, Tsutsui teaches solvents including tetralin (para 0047).
Regarding claim 6, Hasegawa teaches producing a sulfide-based solid-state battery (para 0098: Example 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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. With respect to claim 2, the prior art does not further teach storing the second electrode material. With respect to claim 3, the prior does not recognize SBR-based binder as a dispersion promotion component that promotes dispersion of the solid electrolyte in the solvent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS BARCENA whose telephone number is (571)270-5780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-5 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)272-3066. 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.
/CARLOS BARCENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723