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 .
Examiner’s Comments
The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the references as applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 111509222A in view of Nozue et al. (US 2019/0190057).
Regarding claims 1-3, CN ‘222 discloses a battery and a method of making thereof comprising a battery element including a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a solid electrolyte layer between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (claim 10), at least one of the positive electrode, the negative electrode, and the solid electrolyte layer includes a solid electrolyte of LiaM1-yCyX3+a+my, wherein 1≤a≤6, 0.1≤y≤1.0, m is the chemical between C and M price difference, C is selected at least one from In, Bi, Sb, Cu, Zr, Ag, Cs, Mg, Ca, Sr and Ba, and X is selected from one or more of F, Cl, Br and I (Abstract).
CN ‘222 and the claims differ in that CN ‘222 does not teach the exact same proportions as recited in the instant claims.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the compositional proportions taught by CN ‘222 overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effect filing date of the claimed invention to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that;
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Also, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, it has been held that the mere fact that a reference suggests a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of these combinations less obvious, citing Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804 (Fed. Cir. 1989). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Given that the instant claims provide a very broad genus giving rise to many possibly combinations, which are rendered obvious since CN’222 discloses a majority of the claimed elements.
Although CN ‘222 discloses a battery as presently claimed, CN ‘222 fails to disclose that the battery further comprises an exterior body, a housing space between the battery element and the exterior body has a moisture content of less than 1100 ppmv or less than 600 ppmv, and housing step has a dew point of lower than -20C and higher than -90C as presently claimed.
Nozue discloses a battery comprising an exterior body, wherein a moisture content in a housing space between the battery element and the exterior body is low as possible (moisture content is removed and humidity is absorbed (Abstract, [0039])), and assembling the housing is under a dew point of -30°C or lower [0059].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify CN ‘222’s battery to be place in a container with little to no moisture content as claimed and assembled in a housing step with a dew point of -30°C, as suggested by Nozue, in order to improve the battery lifetime [0010].
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020070955 in view of Nozue et al. (US 2019/0190057).
Regarding claims 1-3, WO ‘955 discloses a battery and a method of making thereof comprising a battery element including a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a solid electrolyte layer between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (claim 9), at least one of the positive electrode, the negative electrode, and the solid electrolyte layer includes a solid electrolyte of Li6-4aMaX6, wherein M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Zr, Hf, and Ti, X is a halogen element, and a is greater than 0 and less than 1.5. Specifically, WO ‘955 discloses Li2ZrCl6 as one example [0027].
Although WO ‘955 discloses a battery as presently claimed, WO ‘955 fails to disclose that the battery further comprises an exterior body, a housing space between the battery element and the exterior body has a moisture content of less than 1100 ppmv or less than 600 ppmv, and housing step has a dew point of lower than -20C and higher than -90C as presently claimed.
Nozue discloses a battery comprising an exterior body, wherein a moisture content in a housing space between the battery element and the exterior body is low as possible (moisture content is removed and humidity is absorbed (Abstract, [0039])), and assembling the housing is under a dew point of -30°C or lower [0059].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify WO ‘955’s battery to be place in a container with little to no moisture content as claimed and assembled in a housing step with a dew point of -30°C, as suggested by Nozue, in order to improve the battery lifetime [0010].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA N CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5835. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)272-1291. 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.
Linda Chau
/L.N.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights