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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2021/070301. Tanaka et al (US 20230261253) is taken as an English equivalent of WO ‘301. Regarding claims 1 and 14, Tanaka et al is directed to a fluorine ion secondary battery comprising a positive electrode layer, solid electrolyte layer, and negative electrode layer (abstract, [0035]). The positive electrode comprises copper (“first metal element”) ([0108]). The solid electrolyte layer comprises La0.95Ba0.05F2.95 (“first solid electrolyte material”) ([0125]), wherein any of La or Ba corresponds to the “second metal element.” The negative electrode layer comprises an anode active material comprising nanometer-sized aluminum particles (“simple substance of Al”) and modified aluminum fluoride (abstract). The Al would inherently function as a current collector as claimed. The negative electrode layer contains an ion conductive fluoride (“second solid electrolyte material”) comprising Ce0.95Ba0.05F2.95 or Ba0.6La0.4F2.4 ([0073]). Accordingly, any of the metals Ce, Ba, or La is the “third metal element.” Regarding the limitations that the second metal element and third metal element have lower fluorination potentials than the first metal element and aluminum, these relationships are met for the disclosed metals (see Figure 1 of Tanaka, reproduced below). Regarding claims 2-5, the second and third metal elements are La, Ba and/or Ce, and at least two of these are present in the first electrolyte and the second electrolyte. Regarding claim 6, the claim is considered to be anticipated because the Al active material particles would inherently have a surface where “Al is bared” as claimed. Furthermore, the particles would be in contact with the second solid electrolyte contained in the negative electrode, as the electrode is a mixture of that electrolyte and the Al particles. Claim 7 is also considered to be anticipated as there is no mention of an Al oxide film on the surface of the Al particles. Regarding claim 8, the particle size of the Al in Table 1 is 40 nm, which anticipates the claimed range. Regarding claim 9, in a completely discharged state the negative electrode potential would be lower than -1.1V vs. Pb/PbF2 (see Figure 1, top of Al /AlF3 point is lower than -1.1V, remaining metals La, Ce, Ba are even lower than Al). Regarding claim 10, the first metal element is Cu as noted above. Regarding claim 11, the content of the second solid electrolyte in the negative electrode is 70-90 wt%, which anticipates the claimed range. Regarding claim 12, the proportion of aluminum particles to the mass of the negative electrode is 1-25%, which anticipates the claimed range ([0082]). Regarding claim 13, in Table 1, the negative electrode is disclosed as comprising 200 weight parts Al, and two additions of second solid electrolyte (1680 weight parts and 1633 weight parts). The resulting weight ratio of second solid electrolyte : aluminum particles is 16.5, which anticipates the claimed range. Regarding claim 14, the step of forming a laminate of the layers to make the battery disclosed in [0130]. Regarding claim 15, the Al particles and the second solid electrolyte are pulverized and mixed in a ball mill ([0116], [0117]). Thus, the instant claims are anticipated.
PNG
media_image1.png
584
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-7, 9, 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ide (US 20200203761). Regarding claims 1 and 14, the reference is directed to a fluorine ion secondary battery comprising a cathode layer (positive electrode layer), solid electrolyte layer, and anode layer (negative electrode layer) ([0045]). The positive electrode comprises at least one metal element, which is preferably Cu, Fe, or Ag (“first metal element”) ([0039]). The solid electrolyte layer comprises Ce1-x-yLaxSryF3-y (“first solid electrolyte material”), wherein any of Ce, La, or Sr corresponds to the “second metal element.” The negative electrode layer comprises an anode active material that is preferably selected from Mg, MgFq, Al, AlFq, Ce, CeFq, Ca, CaFq, Pb, and PbFq ([0042]). The negative electrode layer preferably contains the above-noted solid electrolyte ([0041]). The solid electrolyte contained in the negative electrode layer corresponds to the “second solid electrolyte” and any of the metals Ce, La, or Sr is the “third metal element.” Regarding the limitation that the negative electrode includes particles of at least one of a simple substance of Al or an Al alloy, the limitation is considered to be anticipated by the reference because one skilled in the art would immediately envisage the use of Al particles in the negative electrode based on the disclosure of this limited list of preferred active materials. Accordingly, the limitation is anticipated. Further, the Al would inherently function as a current collector as claimed. Regarding the limitations that the second metal element and third metal element have lower fluorination potentials than the first metal element and aluminum, these relationships are met for the metals discussed above (see Figure 1 of Tanaka, reproduced above). Regarding claims 2-5, the second and third metal elements are Ce, La and Sr. All three of these are present in the first electrolyte and the second electrolyte. Regarding claim 6, the claim is considered to be anticipated because the Al active material particles would inherently have a surface where “Al is bared” as claimed. Furthermore, the particles would be in contact with the second solid electrolyte contained in the negative electrode, as the electrode is a mixture of that electrolyte and the Al particles. Claims 7 is also considered to be anticipated as there is no mention of an Al oxide film on the surface of the Al particles. Regarding claim 9, in a completely discharged state the negative electrode potential would be lower than -1.1V vs. Pb/PbF2 (Figure 1 of Tanaka, top of Al /AlF3 point is lower than -1.1V, remaining metals La, Ce, Sr are even lower than Al). Regarding claim 10, the first metal element is Cu, Fe, or Ag as noted above. Regarding claim 14, the step of forming a laminate of the layers would be carried out to make the battery disclosed in [0045]. Thus, the instant claims are anticipated.
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.
Claims 8, 11-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ide.
The reference is applied to claims 1-7, 9, 10 and 14 for the reasons stated above. However, the reference does not expressly teach the particle size of the Al particles (claim 8), the content of the second solid electrolyte or Al particles in the negative electrode (claims 11 and 12 respectively), or the mass ratio of second solid electrolyte to Al particles (claim 13). The reference further does not expressly teach a pulverization and mixing step of the Al particles with the second solid electrolyte as recited in claim 15.
However, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because the skilled artisan would recognize active material particle size as affecting particle surface area and electrochemical reactivity. It has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Thus, the skilled artisan could have readily used an aluminum particle size within the claimed range (50 nm or less).
Regarding the mass contents and ratio of the second solid electrolyte and the Al particles in the negative electrode layer, similar considerations apply. The skilled artisan would readily be able to ascertain the optimal amount of second solid electrolyte within the electrode, to promote adequate ion conductivity, without sacrificing the capacity provided by the Al active material (in [0043], the reference teaches that “also, the content of the active material in the anode layer is preferably larger from the viewpoint of the capacity”). The relative amounts of each could be readily optimized within the negative electrode. Thus, claims 11-13 are rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 15, which recites a pulverizing and mixing step of the Al particles and the second solid electrolyte, it is noted that the reference teaches ball milling in the formation of the second solid electrolyte. It would have been further obvious to perform ball milling on the mixture of the particles to form the negative electrode, as milling is a known method of mixing powders and controlling particle size. Thus, the limitation would be rendered obvious. Furthermore, the limitation reciting that the pulverizing and mixing bare the simple substance of Al on surfaces of the particles would be a natural result of performing the milling on the mixed particles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan Crepeau whose telephone number is (571) 272-1299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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 phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272-1700. Documents may be faxed to the central fax server at (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Jonathan Crepeau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
April 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights