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 07/14/2023, 02/06/2024, 10/02/2024, 11/11/2024, and 09/04/2025 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 07/14/2023 were reviewed and are acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 07/14/2023 was reviewed and is acceptable.
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) 13-14 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the binder” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-10, 13-15, 17-22, and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukasawa et al. (US 2017/0077498 A1; hereinafter “Fukasawa”) in view of Lin et al. (US 2022/0216505 A1; hereinafter “Lin”).
Regarding claim 1, Fukasawa discloses an anode layer (12) for use in an electrochemical cell (Title) comprising:
an anode active material comprising silicon (silicon particle, [0023]) having an average particle size of less than 1 mm (preferably 10 nm to 150 nm, [0043], which falls within the recited range); and
a carbon-based conductive additive (carbonaceous material/conductive agent 22, [0048]),
wherein the anode layer is characterized by the formation of a plurality of vertical cracks (cracks 13, [0025]; also as shown in Figs 2 and 10) having a thickness of less than or equal to 10 mm (preferably 0.5 mm to 10 mm at a maximum, [0029], which falls within the recited range).
With respect to “after a first cell cycle or a series of conditioning cycles”, in accordance with MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. "The patentability of a product, i.e.----, does not depend on its method of production, i.e.----." In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985). Because patentability of product claims are based on the product’s structure, and Fukasawa discloses the claimed structure, the process limitations are not afforded patentable weight since such limitations do not appear to provide the claimed product with patentably distinct structure.
Fukasawa gives an example of the anode layer comprising 0.6 g of negative active material, 0.1 g of graphite powder, and 16 wt% polyimide binder (Example 1, [0163]), but does not explicitly disclose what ratio of active material to binder is used, i.e. if 1 L or 1 mL of solvent is used, and therefore does not explicitly disclose that the anode active material is present in an amount of greater than or equal to 40% by weight of the anode layer. Fukasawa further discloses that the electrolyte may be an inorganic solid electrolyte ([0105]).
Lin teaches an all solid state lithium ion battery (Title). Lin teaches that solid state electrolytes can replace conventional organic liquid electrolytes, which are generally flammable and toxic ([0004]). Lin teaches that, in such a battery, the electrode comprises a 3 dimensional like networking structure in which active materials, conducting agent, lithium salt, and ceramic nanoparticles are homogeneously distributed throughout the network ([0024]). Lin teaches that preferred anode active materials are silicon based materials ([0025]), which should typically be included at 60 to 96 wt% ([0034]).
Fukasawa and Lin are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely anodes for lithium ion batteries.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely design the battery of Fukasawa as an all solid state lithium ion battery, with the reasonable expectation that such a design would be less flammable and less toxic, as suggested by Lin. It would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan that the anode active material should be included in an amount between 60 to 96 wt%, as suggested by Lin, and which falls within the recited range.
Regarding claim 2, modified Fukasawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Fukasawa further discloses that the distance between each of the plurality of cracks is greater than or equal to 2 mm (Fukasawa: see [0032] which describes that at least two cracks 13 (which have a maximum width of 10 mm) exist per 100 mm width of the layer, and which equates to ~80 mm spacing, and which falls within the recited range).
With respect to “after the first cell cycle or the series of conditioning cycles”, in accordance with MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. "The patentability of a product, i.e.----, does not depend on its method of production, i.e.----." In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985). Because patentability of product claims are based on the product’s structure, and Fukasawa discloses the claimed structure, the process limitations are not afforded patentable weight since such limitations do not appear to provide the claimed product with patentably distinct structure.
Regarding claims 3-5, modified Fukasawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
With respect to “wherein a stack pressure…is applied…”, in accordance with MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. "The patentability of a product, i.e.----, does not depend on its method of production, i.e.----." In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985). Because patentability of product claims are based on the product’s structure, and Fukasawa discloses the claimed structure, the process limitations are not afforded patentable weight since such limitations do not appear to provide the claimed product with patentably distinct structure.
Regarding claim 6, modified Fukasawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Fukasawa further discloses that the silicon has an average particle size of less than 300 nm (Fukasawa: preferably 10 nm to 150 nm, [0043], which falls within the recited range).
Regarding claim 7, modified Fukasawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Fukasawa further discloses that the carbon based conductive additive is present in an amount from about 0% to about 15% by weight of the anode layer (Lin: 1 to 15 wt%, [0034], which falls within the recited range).
Regarding claim 8, modified Fukasawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Fukasawa further discloses that the carbon based conductive additive is present in an amount of about 1 to 15 wt% (Lin: [0034]), and therefore does not explicitly disclose an amount from about 0% to about 5% by weight of the anode layer.
However, before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges (1 to 15 wt% significantly overlaps 0 to 5 wt%) because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 9, modified Fukasawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Fukasawa further discloses a solid state electrolyte material (Lin: ceramic nanoparticles, [0024]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Fukasawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Fukasawa further discloses that the solid state electrolyte material is present in an amount from about 0% to about 50% by weight of the anode layer (Lin: 0.1 to 5 wt%, [0034], which falls within the recited range).
Regarding claim 13, modified Fukasawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Fukasawa further discloses that [a] binder is present in an amount from about 0% to about 20% by weight of the anode layer (Lin: 0 to 15 wt%, [0034], which falls within the recited range).
Regarding claim 14, modified Fukasawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Fukasawa further discloses that the binder is present in an amount of about 0 to 15 wt% (Lin: [0034]), and therefore does not explicitly disclose an amount from about 4% to about 5% by weight of the anode layer.
However, before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges (0 to 15 wt% significantly overlaps 4 to 5 wt%) because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 15, modified Fukasawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Fukasawa further discloses that the binder comprises one or more styrene based thermoplastics (Fukasawa: styrene butadiene rubber (SBR), [0052]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Fukasawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Fukasawa further discloses that the anode layer is coated on a current collector (Fukasawa: current collector 11, as shown in Figs 2 and 10).
Regarding claim 18, modified Fukasawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Fukasawa further discloses that the current collector comprises copper (Fukasawa: copper, [0055]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Fukasawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Fukasawa further discloses that the anode layer has a thickness from about 1 mm to about 100 mm (Fukasawa: more preferably 10 mm to 100 mm, [0036], which falls within the recited range).
Regarding claim 20, modified Fukasawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Fukasawa discloses that the anode layer has a thickness of 10 mm to 100 mm (Fukasawa: [0036]), and therefore does not explicitly disclose a thickness from about 10 mm to about 50 mm.
However, before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges (10 to 100 mm significantly overlaps 10 to 50 mm) because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, modified Fukasawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Fukasawa further discloses that the anode active material Is present in the anode layer in an amount between 60 to 96 wt% (Lin: [0034]) and therefore does not explicitly disclose an amount from about 40% to about 85% by weight of the anode layer (claim 21), nor about 40% to about 60% (claim 22).
However, before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges (60 to 96% significantly overlaps 40 to 85%, and touches 40% to 60%) because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 24, modified Fukasawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Fukasawa further discloses a method of making the recited anode layer (Fukasawa: [0072-0075]) comprising:
a) mixing a silicon, at least one binder material, and a solvent to form a slurry (Fukasawa: [0073]);
b) casting the slurry onto a substrate (Fukasawa: [0074]); and
c) drying the slurry to form the anode layer (Fukasawa: [0074]).
However, modified Fukasawa does not explicitly disclose including a solid electrolyte material in the mixing step.
Lin teaches an all solid state lithium ion battery (Title). Lin teaches that, in such a battery, the electrode comprises a 3 dimensional like networking structure in which active materials, conducting agent, lithium salt, and ceramic nanoparticles are homogeneously distributed throughout the network ([0024]).
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the anode layer should include solid electrolyte material, i.e. ceramic nanoparticles, as suggested by Lin.
Accordingly, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to incorporate a solid electrolyte material in the mixing step so as to include the material in the completed anode layer.
Regarding claim 25, Fukasawa discloses an anode layer (12) for use in an electrochemical cell (Title) comprising:
an anode active material comprising silicon (silicon particle, [0023]) having an average particle size of less than 1 mm (preferably 10 nm to 150 nm, [0043], which falls within the recited range); and
a carbon-based conductive additive (carbonaceous material/conductive agent 22, [0048]),
wherein the anode layer is characterized by the formation of a plurality of vertical cracks (cracks 13, [0025]; also as shown in Figs 2 and 10) having a thickness of less than or equal to 10 mm (preferably 0.5 mm to 10 mm at a maximum, [0029], which falls within the recited range).
With respect to “after a first cell cycle or a series of conditioning cycles”, in accordance with MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. "The patentability of a product, i.e.----, does not depend on its method of production, i.e.----." In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985). Because patentability of product claims are based on the product’s structure, and Fukasawa discloses the claimed structure, the process limitations are not afforded patentable weight since such limitations do not appear to provide the claimed product with patentably distinct structure.
Fukasawa gives an example of the anode layer comprising 0.6 g of negative active material, 0.1 g of graphite powder, and 16 wt% polyimide binder (Example 1, [0163]), but does not explicitly disclose what ratio of active material to binder is used, i.e. if 1 L or 1 mL of solvent is used, and therefore does not explicitly disclose that the anode active material is present in an amount of greater than or equal to 40% by weight of the anode layer, nor that the anode layer further comprises a solid electrolyte material. Fukasawa further discloses that the electrolyte may be an inorganic solid electrolyte ([0105]).
Lin teaches an all solid state lithium ion battery (Title). Lin teaches that solid state electrolytes can replace conventional organic liquid electrolytes, which are generally flammable and toxic ([0004]). Lin teaches that, in such a battery, the electrode comprises a 3 dimensional like networking structure in which active materials, conducting agent, lithium salt, and ceramic nanoparticles are homogeneously distributed throughout the network ([0024]). Lin teaches that preferred anode active materials are silicon based materials ([0025]), which should typically be included at 60 to 96 wt% ([0034]).
Fukasawa and Lin are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely anodes for lithium ion batteries.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely design the battery of Fukasawa as an all solid state lithium ion battery, with the reasonable expectation that such a design would be less flammable and less toxic, as suggested by Lin. It would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan that the anode active material should be included in an amount between 60 to 96 wt%, as suggested by Lin, and which falls within the recited range. It would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan that the anode layer should include solid electrolyte material, i.e. ceramic nanoparticles, as suggested by Lin.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukasawa et al. (US 2017/0077498 A1; hereinafter “Fukasawa”) in view of Lin et al. (US 2022/0216505 A1; hereinafter “Lin”), as applied to claim 9 above, in further view of Gokhale (US 2021/0265618 A1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Fukasawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Fukasawa discloses that the solid state electrolyte material may be a lithium metal oxide (Lin: e.g. LLZO, [0030]), but does not disclose a sulfide solid state material.
Gokhale teaches solid state lithium batteries (Title). Gokhale teaches that examples of materials employed as solid state electrolytes include sulfide compounds, e.g. LGPS, LPS, or garnet structure oxides, e.g. LLZO ([0013]).
Gokhale is analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely solid state lithium batteries.
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 a sulfide solid electrolyte from amongst the group of obvious variants of appropriate solid electrolytes, as suggested by Gokhale.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukasawa et al. (US 2017/0077498 A1; hereinafter “Fukasawa”) in view of Lin et al. (US 2022/0216505 A1; hereinafter “Lin”), as applied to claim 15 above, in further view of Burdynska et al. (US 2021/0194039 A1; hereinafter “Burdynska”).
Regarding claim 16, modified Fukasawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Fukasawa discloses that the binder may be e.g. a styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) (Fukasawa: [0052]), but does not explicitly disclose that the binder may be styrene butadiene styrene block copolymer (SBS).
Burdynska teaches functionalized polymeric binders for electrolytes and electrodes (Abstract). Burdynska teaches that a first polymer component of the functionalized binder may be e.g. SBS, SIS, SEBS, SBR, EDPM, or PS ([0005]).
Burdynska is analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely solid state lithium batteries.
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 SBS from amongst the group of obvious variants of appropriate binder polymers, as suggested by Burdynska.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukasawa et al. (US 2017/0077498 A1; hereinafter “Fukasawa”) in view of Lin et al. (US 2022/0216505 A1; hereinafter “Lin”), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Mochizukj et al. (US 2021/0284541 A1; hereinafter “Mochizukj”).
Regarding claim 23, modified Fukasawa discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Fukasawa discloses silicon particles as the anode active material (Fukasawa: [0023]), but does not disclose a surface area of said silicon particles, and therefore does not explicitly disclose a surface area of about 1 m2/g to about 50 m2/g.
Mochizukj teaches silicon fine particles (Title). Mochizukj teaches that the silicon fine particles have a surface area of 19 to 25 m2/g ([0101-0114]).
Mochizukj is analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely silicon active materials for lithium batteries.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the silicon particles of modified Fukasawa must necessarily have a surface area, and would thus find it obvious that a range of 19 to 25 m2/g is an appropriate surface area range, as suggested by Mochizukj, and which falls within the recited range.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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:
The present invention is related to, inter alia, an anode layer comprising a solid state electrolyte material present in an amount of about 25% to about 50% by weight of the anode layer.
Lin et al. (US 2022/0216505 A1; hereinafter “Lin”) is considered to be the closest relevant prior art to dependent claim 11. Fukasawa in view of Lin discloses most of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Lin does not disclose, teach, fairly suggest, nor render obvious the recited content range of about 25 to 50%. To the contrary, Lin explicitly discloses that the ceramic nanoparticles, i.e. solid electrolyte, should be included in a range of 0.1 to 5 wt% ([0034]), and thus there does not appear to be any reasonable basis for the skilled artisan to abandon the teachings of Lin and be directed towards an amount at least 5 times greater, as recited.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Shimizu et al. (US 2020/0212450 A1) discloses a solid state battery.
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 02/24/2026