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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 2 recites “ only a current collector to serve as a host to reduce group 1 or 2 elements on its surface during first and subsequent charges” . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the specification.
Claim 15 recites “wherein a secondary phase is positioned between the solid-state electrolyte and the cathode containing electroactive materials to improve the interfacial contact between the electroactive material of the cathode and the secondary phase”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 2 has been interpreted as follows:
The solid-state battery of claim 1 further comprising an anode comprising any material that can reversibly accommodate group 1 or group 2 elements, the base group 1 or group 2 element; or
the solid-state battery is assembled in device in the discharged state, wherein only a current collector to serve as a host to reduce group 1 or 2 elements on its surface during first and subsequent charges.
Claim 15 has been interpreted as follows:
The solid-state battery of claim 1, wherein a secondary phase is positioned between the solid-state electrolyte and the cathode containing electroactive materials to improve the interfacial contact between the electroactive material of the cathode and the solid electrolyte.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 5, 8, 11 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recites “ “that can reversibly accommodate group 1 or group 2”, which appears to be “that can reversibly accommodate group 1 or group 2 elements”. 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.
Claims 1-9, 11, 12 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2020/0144599A1 (Lee) in view of US2020/0028203A1(Yushin).
Regarding claims 1-9 and 17-19, Lee teaches a solid electrolyte battery comprises:
a cathode including a cathode current collector and a cathode active material layer; an anode current collector; the anodeless coating layer on the anode current collector; and a solid electrolyte disposed between the cathode active material layer and the anodeless coating layer, which meets an electrode stack.
Lee exemplifies that the solid electrolyte comprises argyrodite-type solid electrolyte is Li6PS5Cl ([0135] and [0140]), which is electrochemically active and meets the claimed electrolyte thus inherently the processibility, ionic conductivity and shear modulus.
Lee teaches that the anode may include amorphous carbon, gold (Au), platinum (Pt), zinc (Zn), etc., or a combination thereof ([0042]), wherein an anode active material layer was initially not present at the time of the manufacture of the battery, e.g., before a first charge, and the anodeless coating layer may be intercalated with lithium as the battery is charged ([0031]), which meets the claimed anode.
Lee teaches that the cathode comprises active material such as lithium sulfide and sulfur ([0076], which meets the claimed electrochemically active material from group 16 and reduced alkali-containing chalcogen compound, as well as a conductive material such as carbon black ([0084]), which meets the claimed conductive carbon material.
Lee does not teach the surface area of the cathode material from Group 16, neither the amount of lithium sulfide of claim 17.
Yushin teaches that Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) specific surface area (SSA) of the electrode particles is an important parameter, determining their electrochemical properties ([0062]), and nanoporous Li2S powder of surface area of 35 m2/g is beneficial for cathode performance at high current densities ([0064] and Fig. 4C), wherein the nanoporous Li2S powder is present in an amount of 90 wt.% (Fig. 4D), which meets the claimed surface area and amount of LixSy when x is 1 and y is 1 .
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the nanoporous Li2S powder of surface area of 35 m2/g of Yushin in the amount of about 90 wt.% in the cathode electrochemically active material of Lee. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teachings of Yushin that to do so would be beneficial for cathode performance at high current densities ([0064] and Fig. 4C).
Regarding claims 11-12, Lee exemplifies a solid electrolyte without polymeric compounds or solvent ([0140]).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Lee teaches that the cathode active material may be covered by a coating layer of Li2O-ZrO2 ([0080], which meets the claimed secondary phase.
Claim 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Yushin as applied to claims 1-9, 11, 12 and 15-19, and further in view of US2019/0044186A1 (Kim).
The combined teachings of Lee and Yushin are set forth above.
Neither Lee and Yushin teaches that the porosity of the solid electrolyte is less than 1%.
Kim teaches that solid electrolyte having porosity of 0.1 to 0.5% can provide resistance to dendrite formation ([0004] and [0095], wherein the solid electrolyte includes Li6PS5Cl ([0077]).
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the porosity of the solid electrolyte of Lee and Yushin to that of 0.1 to 0.5% of Kim . The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teachings of Kim that to do so would resist lithium dendrite ([0004]).
As to the processing method of claims 10 and 13, if there is any difference between the solid electrolyte of Lee, Yushin and Kim and the electrolyte of the instant claim(s) the difference would have been minor and obvious.
Claim 10 and 13 are viewed as product-by-process claims and hence the methods they are created by are not pertinent, unless applicant can show a different product is produced. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." See MPEP 2113.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Yushin as applied to claims 1-9, 11, 12 and 15-19, and further in view of US2014/0147746A1(Tanaka).
The combined teachings of Lee and Yushin are set forth above.
Neither Lee nor Yushin teaches connecting a plurality of electrode stacks in series to provide a cell voltage that is scalar multiple of the single-cell voltage.
Tanaka teaches that plural secondary batteries can be connected in series to ensure high output power ([0003]).
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to connect a plurality battery units of Lee and Yushin in series. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teachings of Tanaka that to do so would predictably provide high output power, i.e., a scalar multiple of the single-cell voltage.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Yushin as applied to claims 1-9, 11, 12 and 15-19 above, and further in view of US2020/0243899A1(Arthur).
The combined teachings of Lee and Yushin are set forth above.
Regarding claim 20, Lee further discloses suppressing the deposition and growth of lithium dendrites ([0004]).
Neither Lee nor Yushin teaches that the solid electrolyte comprises a secondary material that retards the metallic alkali growths from the anode to the cathode.
Arthur teaches an additive can be added to the solid electrolyte comprising Li, S, P and X(i.e., Cl)
to protect the electrolyte from reductive decomposition and resist dendrite formation ([0014] and [0063]).
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary art to include the additive of Arthur to the solid electrolyte of Lee and Yushin. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teachings of Arthur that to do so would predictably resist dendrite formation ([0014]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIQUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-7736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am -4:00 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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-2721302. 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.
/AIQUN LI/ Ph.D., Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766