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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2021/28869 (JP ‘869) and either further evidenced by Yoshida (US 2023/0170522) or further in view of Lacivita et al (US 2023/0187635). The rejection over JP ‘869 is relying on the translation included with this office action. Note the paragraph numbers were added by the examiner for ease of reference and do not correspond to the paragraph numbers of the original JP ‘869 document.
With respect to claim 1, JP ‘869 discloses a solid electrolyte sheet comprising a nonwoven fabric (fiber aggregate support) with solid electrolyte particles disposed in an interior of the nonwoven fabric (par. 10 and the reference to “filling property” in par. 40). JP ‘869 discloses that the pore diameter of the material is not particularly limited but can include materials with an average pore size of 15 μm or less (par. 39).
Although JP ‘869 suggests the pores should be larger than the particles (par. 39) and that the solid electrolyte particles should fill the space (i.e. pores) of the support, which essentially urges the use of a ratio of greater than 1.0, JP ‘869 did not explicitly suggest the use of a ratio of 5.0 or more. Lacivita teaches an alternate solid electrolyte layer where solid electrolyte particles are pressed onto a support (analogous to JP ‘869) and teaches the use of particles between 0.01 to 20 μm and even admits this is not particularly limited. See par. 0041 and 0042. These particle sizes overlap the particle sizes of the present invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the use of smaller particles would more effectively be retained by the pores of JP ‘869 creating a solid electrolyte layer with greater density of solid electrolyte material (JP ‘869 par. 49). This is especially true as both JP ‘869 and Lacivita rely on pressing of the structures after the particles are deposited (Lacivita par. 0042, JP ‘869 par. 58) and the resulting structure will consist of a fused material regardless of how fine the particles start out.
Alternatively this 5.0 or more limitation is also obvious as evidenced by Yoshida. In particular, claim 1 does not require all particles be such that the ratio is 5.0 or more, but rather “a particle” meeting said condition. Yoshida evidences that milled solid electrolyte particles will have a particle size distribution and regardless of what average particle size is you end up with particles having radii approaching values much lower than the average particle size. See fig. 2 and the fact that when Yoshida shows an average particle size of 5 μm, they also have particles below the D10 for that particle that are less than 1 μm. Hence the presence of particle fines whether desired or not would inherently result in some particles meeting the claimed ratio.
With respect to claim 2, see JP ‘869 par. 37.
With respect to claim 3, see Lacivita par. 0041.
With respect to claim 4, JP ‘869 discloses sulfide electrolytes (par. 4 and 14).
With respect to claim 5, the electrolyte of JP ‘869 is for batteries containing the electrolyte discussed above as well as positive and negative electrodes (par. 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cho (US 2019/0372149) and Lee et al (US 2021/0202990) disclose alternate nonwoven supports for solid electrolytes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAJ K OLSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 AM - 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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714