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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office Action based on Application 18/237,248 filed 08/23/2023 by Yong Guk Gwon, Min Sun Kim, Yong Seok Choi, and Young Jin Nam.
Claims 1-20 are previously pending, of those claims, claims 11-19 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to non-elected subject matter. Claims 1-10 and 20 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-10 and 20 in the reply filed on 06/16/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MINEYA (US 2023/0061385 A1) in view of KONISHI (US 2021/0305576 A1).
With respect to claims 1 and 20. MINEYA teaches a battery 100 which includes a positive electrode 220, a negative electrode 210, and an electrolyte layer 13 (paragraph 0043). The battery 100 is an all-solid-state battery (paragraph 0098). The negative electrode active material layer 11 includes a first layer 150 and a second active material layer 160 (paragraph 0062). The first active material layer 150 may include a solid electrolyte 33 (paragraph 0071). The second layer 160 may similarly include a solid electrolyte (paragraph 0071). Both the first and second active material layers 150 and 160 include the active material 32 (Figure 2 and paragraphs 0062 and 0070). The layer 150 also include the active material 31 (paragraph 0062).
The negative electrode material layer 11 is taken to be the claimed cathode. The Examiner notes that either of the positive electrode or negative electrode may be considered the cathode, based on whether the battery is in the state of charge or discharge.
MINEYA teaches the negative electrode material layer 11 may include a conductive additive, which may include carbon fibers (paragraph 0097). MINEYA therefore teaches the negative electrode may include the carbon fibers, which are taken to be the claimed fibrous carbon materials, but does not explicitly teach that the plurality of carbon fibers form a network comprising pores and the active material is disposed in the pores.
KONISHI teaches an electrode for an all-solid-state battery (paragraph 0002). The electrode preferably contains fibrous carbon as a conductive auxiliary (paragraph 0048). The fibrous carbon may be carbon nanotubes (paragraph 0049). The fibrous carbon forms a conductive network between the active material particles and between conductive auxiliaries (paragraph 0050). Therefore the stress generated during electrode fabrication is decreased, and the output characteristics and lifespan can be improved (paragraph 0050).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated form the conductive additive of MINEYA to be in the form of conductive network containing the active material particles as taught by KONISHI, as KONISHI teaches that this structure is beneficial in order to increase the output characteristics of the battery.
With respect to claim 2. KONISHI teaches the fibrous carbon may be carbon nanotubes (paragraph 0049).
With respect to claim 3. MINEYA teaches that the thickness of the negative electrode 210 may have a thickness of 10-500 microns (paragraph 0090). The thickness of the first and second active material layer may have the same thickness (paragraph 0073). Therefore the thickness of the first layer has an overlapping range with the claimed amount of 5-40 microns. See MPEP 2144.05(I). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
With respect to claim 4. KONISHI teaches the specific surface area of the fibrous carbon is in the range of 90 m2/g to 350 m2/g (paragraph 0052). Therefore the surface area has an overlapping range with the claimed amount of100-750 m2/g. See MPEP 2144.05(I). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
With respect to claim 8. MINEYA teaches The first and second layers 150 and 160 include an active material and solid electrolyte (paragraphs 0062, 0070-0071). The negative electrode active material layer 11 may contain a binder for the purposes of improving the adhesion between particles (paragraph 0096). This binder is taken to be the claimed first and second binder. The Examiner notes that the claims support the interpretation that the first and second binders are the same binder (see claims 9 and 10).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MINEYA (US 2023/0061385 A1) in view of KONISHI (US 2021/0305576 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of PARK (US 2024/0136502 A1.
Claim 5 is dependent upon claim 1, which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of MINEYA and KONISHI. However, neither MINEYA nor KONISHI explicitly teaches the total pore volume of the network.
PARK teaches a positive electrode for a lithium-sulfur battery (abstract). The composite includes a porous carbonaceous material having a pore volume (abstract). The carbonaceous material then may have a total pore volume of larger than 2.0 cm3/g and less than 4.5 cm3/g (paragraph 0044). This range of the pore volume is taken to lead to good durability (paragraph 0044).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to form the pore volume of MINEYA and KONISHI to be within the range of PARK, as this is a combination of known prior art element in order to achieve predictable results, as PARK teaches such a range is beneficial to the durability of the electrode.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MINEYA (US 2023/0061385 A1) in view of KONISHI (US 2021/0305576 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of LASHMORE (US 2012/0315539 A1).
Claim 6 is dependent upon claim 1 which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of MINEYA and KONISHI. However, neither MINEYA nor KONISHI teaches the tensile strength of the network is between 2.5-50 MPa.
LASHMORE teaches a battery including a sheet of carbon nanotubes (abstract). The tensile strength of the carbon nanotubes of the non-woven sheet is 40 MPa (paragraph 0055).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to form the carbon material of MINEYA and KONISHI to have a tensile strength of the sheet of carbon nanotubes of LASHMORE, as this is a combination of known prior art elements in order to achieve predictable results.
Claim 7 is dependent upon claim 1 which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of MINEYA and KONISHI. Neither MINEYA nor KONISHI explicitly teaches the electron conductivity of the network.
LASHMORE teaches a battery including a sheet of carbon nanotubes (abstract). LASHMORE further teaches the electrical conductivity of the SWCNT sheet is 10^6 S/m (paragraph 0080).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to form the carbon material of MINEYA and KONISHI to have the electron conductivity as taught by LASHOMRE, as this is a combination of known prior art elements in order to achieve predictable results.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MINEYA (US 2023/0061385 A1) in view of KONISHI (US 2021/0305576 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of ZHANG (US 2020/0028156 A1).
Claims 9-10 are dependent upon claim 8 which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of MINEYA and KONISHI. MINEYA teaches the use of a binder for the electrode, such as PTFE, but not a fibrillized PTFE.
ZHANG teaches a method for preparing an electrode (abstract). The electrodes may be for a solid state battery (abstract). The electrode may include a binder, such as a fibrillized binder (paragraph 0063). The binders of PTFE may be fibrillzed (paragraph 0065).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the first and second binders of MINEYA for the fibrillzed PTFE of ZHANG, as this is a simple substation of one known prior art element for another in order to achieve predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN G JELSMA whose telephone number is (571)270-5127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 AM to 4:00 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/JONATHAN G JELSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights