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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's traversal of the Restriction Requirement in the reply filed on 07/29/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims have been amended to include the previously indicated special technical feature is now present in the identified Groups I-III. This argument found persuasive because the special technical feature is now present in all independent claims.
The restriction requirement is withdrawn.
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) 1-21 and 22-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaben (US-20160013513-A1) in view of Sasaki (US-20240006691-A1), Utsuki et al. (US-20190288276-A1), Yoshioka et al. (US-20220231332-A1), with evidence from Lu et al. (Electrochemical Energy Reviews 5.3 (2022): 3), Seino et al. (US-20090159839-A1) and RawSource, “Bentonite (Montmorillonite Clay) | Bulk Supplier, CAS 1302-78-9,“ https://rawsource.com/product/bentonite/.
Regarding Claims 1, 4, and 5, Gaben teaches:
An all-solid-state battery, comprising (all-solid-state battery, see [0057]):
a stack including a solid electrolyte layer (a solid electrolyte conducting lithium ions, see [0058]),
and a positive electrode layer and a negative electrode layer disposed with the solid electrolyte layer interposed therebetween (anode and a cathode with insertion of lithium ions, separated by a solid electrolyte, see [0058]);
and a first packaging material layer and a second packaging material layer disposed with the stack interposed therebetween (see the indicated encapsulation layers 37 in annotated Fig. 8 below),
wherein the first packaging material layer or the second packaging material layer includes… and ceramic glass not including lithium (the encapsulation layer can suitably comprise a glass-ceramic, see [0049]).
However, Gaben is not particularly limited in the material used for the glass ceramics but does teach the glass ceramic can suitably be within the class of oxide, see [0049]. However, Gaben is silent toward the following limitations:
and ceramic glass not including lithium
(per Claim 4) wherein the ceramic glass not including lithium includes silicon (Si) oxide, boron (B) oxide, sodium (Na) oxide, barium (Ba) oxide, zinc (Zn) oxide, aluminum (Al) oxide, or a combination thereof.
(per Claim 5) wherein the ceramic glass not including lithium includes SiO2, B2O3, Na2O, BaO5, ZnO, Al2O3, or a combination thereof.
To solve the same problem of providing insulation materials in a battery (see [0022]), Utsuki teaches that insulating particles can suitably be a mixture of a glass ceramic and bentonite, see [0055] and [0058]-[0059]. Utsuki further teaches the glass ceramic can suitably be the following oxide based material ZnO-MgO-Al2O3-SiO2, see [0059]. Utsuki indicates ZnO-MgO-Al2O3-SiO2 is a suitably insulating glass ceramic material for use in a battery towards minimizing short circuits, see Utsuki -[0059]. However, the glass ceramic of Utsuki is located in an insulating layer 13 overlying the electrode mixture layer 12, see Fig. 1.
However, to solve the same problem of designing an all-solid-state battery with an exterior material 3 covering a surface of the battery element body (see Abstract and Fig. 1), Yoshioka provides the motivation of the exterior material 3 being insulative is desirable to suppress the suppressing short circuit of the solid-state battery, see [0053].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to used ZnO-MgO-Al2O3-SiO2 as the glass ceramic in the Gaben because Utsuki teaches this is a suitable insulating material in a battery that aids the prevention of short circuits which is shown by Yoshioka to be a desirable feature in exterior materials.
Gaben is silent toward:
wherein the first packaging material layer or the second packaging material layer includes bentonite-based clay,
Gaben teaches that the solid electrolyte can suitably be a sulfide based solid electrolyte, see [0078].
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have used a sulfide based solid electrolyte in the all-solid-state battery of Gaben’s invention because Gaben teaches this is a suitable solid electrolyte material.
To solve the same problem of designing an all-solid state battery, Sasaki teaches bentonite clay acts as a hydrogen sulfide absorbing material, see [0107] and [0108]. As evidence by Lu, sulfide based solid electrolytes suffer from release of toxic H2S which limits the production/practical application of sulfide solid electrolytes in all-solid-state batteries, see Abstract.
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have added bentonite into the encapsulation layers 37 of Gaben in order to absorb hydrogen sulfide when sulfide based solid electrolyte (rendered obvious above) as taught by Sasaki with evidence from Lu.
PNG
media_image1.png
784
1314
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Gaben does not teach:
wherein the bentonite-based clay is included in an amount of 10 to 70 volume % based on a total volume of the first packaging material layer or the second packaging material layer.
As rendered obvious above, modified Gaben in view of Sasaki adds bentonite clay as a hydrogen absorbing material to the encapsulation layer of Gaben. To solve the same problem of designing an all-solid state battery, Sasaki teaches bentonite clay acting as a hydrogen sulfide absorbing material is suitably added in the range of 0.3 to 30 mass %, see [0107] and [0108].
As evidenced by RawSource, bulk density of powdered bentonite clay ranges form 800-1100 kg/m3 (i.e., 0.8-1.1 g/cm3), see Pg2. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that because the bulk density of bentonite clay is about 1 g/cm3 there is at least some overlap between the claimed range and the range taught by Sasaki for the amount of bentonite clay added.
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have added the bentonite clay in an amount that overlaps the claimed range because Sasaki teaches this is a suitable amount to provide the function of hydrogen sulfide absorbing. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Gaben in view of Sasaki teaches:
wherein an average particle size of the bentonite-based clay is 1 µm to 5 µm.
Sasaki teaches the hydrogen sulfide absorbing material has a number average particle size of 0.1 μm or more and 15 μm or less, see [04108]
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the average particle size of the bentonite because Sasaki teaches that the overlapping particle size is a suitable size for hydrogen sulfide absorbing.
Regarding Claim 6, Gaben is silent toward:
wherein a glass transition temperature (Tg) of the ceramic glass not including lithium is 440 °C to 480 °C.
However, Gaben teaches that the choice of the encapsulation material is made to be resistant to high temperatures, and the battery can thus easily be assembled by soldering on electronic cards, without the appearance of glass transitions, see [0156].
As evidence by Seino, soldering methods applied to all-solid lithium batteries occur in the temperature range 230 to 290 °C, see [0008].
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have selected a ceramic glass with glass transition temperature above the range of 230 to 290 °C which overlaps the claimed range in order to soldering on electronic cards, without the appearance of glass transitions of the ceramic glass. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 7, Gaben in view of Sasaki does not necessarily teach:
wherein a volume ratio of the bentonite-based clay and the ceramic glass not including lithium is 10:90 to 70:30.
As rendered obvious above, modified Gaben in view of Sasaki adds bentonite clay as a hydrogen absorbing material to the encapsulation layer 37 of Gaben. To solve the same problem of designing an all-solid state battery, Sasaki teaches bentonite clay acting as a hydrogen sulfide absorbing material is suitably added in the range of 0.3 to 30 mass %, see [0107] and [0108].
Gaben additionally requires the follow advantageous properties for the ceramic-glass containing encapsulation layer; chemically stable, resist high temperatures and be impermeable to the atmosphere (barrier layers), see [0156].
The teachings of Gaben and Sasaki above indicate that the relative amount of bentonite clay and ceramic-glass is a result effective variable that controls that balances the amount of hydrogen sulfide absorption and desired mechanical and chemical properties of the encapsulation layer
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have optimized the relative amount of bentonite clay and ceramic-glass to balance the amount of hydrogen sulfide absorption and desired mechanical and chemical properties of the encapsulation layer.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the claimed “wherein a volume ratio of the bentonite-based clay and the ceramic glass not including lithium is 10:90 to 70:30,” without undue experimentation.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Gaben teaches:
wherein the all-solid-state battery further includes a first margin layer disposed on the same plane as the positive electrode layer and a second margin layer disposed on the same plane as the negative electrode layer, wherein the first margin layer or the second margin layer includes the bentonite-based clay, and the ceramic glass not including lithium (annotated Fig. 8 below shows that the encapsulation layer 37 is present in the claim position of the first and second margin layers).
PNG
media_image2.png
623
1335
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, modified Gaben does not teach:
wherein the bentonite-based clay is included in an amount of 10 to 70 volume% based on a total volume of the first margin layer or the second margin layer.
As rendered obvious above, modified Gaben in view of Sasaki adds bentonite clay as a hydrogen absorbing material to the encapsulation layer of Gaben. To solve the same problem of designing an all-solid state battery, Sasaki teaches bentonite clay acting as a hydrogen sulfide absorbing material is suitably added in the range of 0.3 to 30 mass %, see [0107] and [0108].
As evidenced by RawSource, bulk density of powdered bentonite clay ranges form 800-1100 kg/m3 (i.e., 0.8-1.1 g/cm3), see Pg2. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that because the bulk density of bentonite clay is about 1 g/cm3 there is at least some overlap between the claimed range and the range taught by Sasaki for the amount of bentonite clay added.
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have added the bentonite clay in an amount that overlaps the claimed range because Sasaki teaches this is a suitable amount to provide the function of hydrogen sulfide absorbing. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 10, Gaben in view of Sasaki teaches the hydrogen sulfide absorbing material (bentonite as rendered obvious above) has a number average particle size of 0.1 μm or more and 15 μm or less which encompasses the following claimed range:
wherein an average particle size of the bentonite-based clay is 1 μm to 5 μm.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the overlapping portion of the claimed particle size because Saski teaches these are a suitable average particle size for the hydrogen sulfide absorbing material.
Regarding Claim 11 and 12, modified Gaben in view of Utsuki and Yoshioka teaches:
wherein the ceramic glass not including lithium includes silicon (Si) oxide, boron (B) oxide, sodium (Na) oxide, barium (Ba) oxide, zinc (Zn) oxide, aluminum (Al) oxide, or a combination thereof.
wherein the ceramic glass not including lithium includes SiO2, B2O3, Na2O, BaO5, ZnO, Al2O3, or a combination thereof.
The glass ceramic can suitably be the following oxide based material ZnO-MgO-Al2O3-SiO2, see Utsuki [0059].
Regarding Claim 13, Gaben is silent toward:
wherein a glass transition temperature (Tg) of the ceramic glass not including lithium of the first margin layer or the second margin layer is 440 °C to 480 °C.
However, Gaben teaches that the choice of the encapsulation material is made to be resistant to high temperatures, and the battery can thus easily be assembled by soldering on electronic cards, without the appearance of glass transitions, see [0156].
As evidence by Seino, soldering methods applied to all-solid lithium batteries occur in the temperature range 230 to 290 °C, see [0008].
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have selected a ceramic glass with glass transition temperature above the range of 230 to 290 °C which overlaps the claimed range in order to soldering on electronic cards, without the appearance of glass transitions of the ceramic glass. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 14, Gaben in view of Sasaki does not necessarily teach:
a volume ratio of the bentonite-based clay of the first margin layer or the second margin layer and the ceramic glass not including lithium of the first margin layer or the second margin layer is 10:90 to 70:30.
As rendered obvious above, modified Gaben in view of Sasaki adds bentonite clay as a hydrogen absorbing material to the encapsulation layer 37 of Gaben. To solve the same problem of designing an all-solid state battery, Sasaki teaches bentonite clay acting as a hydrogen sulfide absorbing material is suitably added in the range of 0.3 to 30 mass %, see [0107] and [0108].
Gaben additionally requires the follow advantageous properties for the ceramic-glass containing encapsulation layer; chemically stable, resist high temperatures and be impermeable to the atmosphere (barrier layers), see [0156].
The teachings of Gaben and Sasaki above indicate that the relative amount of bentonite clay and ceramic-glass is a result effective variable that controls that balances the amount of hydrogen sulfide absorption and desired mechanical and chemical properties of the encapsulation layer
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have optimized the relative amount of bentonite clay and ceramic-glass to balance the amount of hydrogen sulfide absorption and desired mechanical and chemical properties of the encapsulation layer.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the claimed “wherein a volume ratio of the bentonite-based clay and the ceramic glass not including lithium is 10:90 to 70:30,” without undue experimentation.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Gaben teaches that the battery produced by the disclosed invention produces secure batteries, without the risk of an internal short-circuit and having low self-discharges, see [0167].
wherein a capacity retention rate of the all-solid-state battery after 5 cycles is greater than or equal to 70%.
Additionally, because the structure of modified Gaben is substantially identical to the claimed all-solid-state battery it is reasonable to conclude that the claim property of “a capacity retention rate of the all-solid-state battery after 5 cycles is greater than or equal to 70%.” Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding Claim 16, Gaben teaches:
An all-solid-state battery, comprising (all-solid-state battery, see [0057]):
a stack including a plurality of solid electrolyte layers (a plurality of solid electrolyte layers 22 shown as stacked in Fig. 8, see [0049]),
and a plurality of positive electrode layers and negative electrode layers alternately disposed with the plurality of solid electrolyte layers interposed therebetween (a plurality of thin anode layers 21; a plurality of thin cathode layers 24; shown as alternately disposed with plurality of solid electrolyte layers 22 therebetween, see [0049] and Fig. 8);
a first packaging material layer and a second packaging material layer disposed with the stack interposed therebetween (see annotated Fig. 8 above);
and a first external electrode and a second external electrode disposed on one surface and the other surface of the stack and connected to the positive electrode layers and the negative electrode layers, respectively (terminals (electrical contacts) 35, 36 are added where the cathode, and anode, current collectors are exposed, see [0158] and Fig. 8),
wherein the first packaging material layer or the second packaging material layer includes… and ceramic glass not including lithium (the encapsulation layer can suitably comprise an oxide based glass-ceramic, see [0049]).
Gaben is not particularly limited in the material used for the glass ceramics but does teach the glass ceramic can suitably be within the class of oxide, see [0049]. However, Gaben is silent toward the following limitation:
and ceramic glass not including lithium
To solve the same problem of providing insulation materials in a battery (see [0022]), Utsuki teaches that insulating particles can suitably be a mixture of a glass ceramic and bentonite, see [0055] and [0058]-[0059]. Utsuki further teaches the glass ceramic can suitably be the following oxide based material ZnO-MgO-Al2O3-SiO2, see [0059]. Utsuki indicates ZnO-MgO-Al2O3-SiO2 is a suitably insulating glass ceramic material for use in a battery towards minimizing short circuits, see Utsuki -[0059]. However, the glass ceramic of Utsuki is located in an insulating layer 13 overlying the electrode mixture layer 12, see Fig. 1.
However, to solve the same problem of designing an all-solid-state battery with an exterior material 3 covering a surface of the battery element body (see Abstract and Fig. 1), Yoshioka provides the motivation of the exterior material 3 being insulative is desirable to suppress the suppressing short circuit of the solid-state battery, see [0053].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to used ZnO-MgO-Al2O3-SiO2 as the glass ceramic in the Gaben because Utsuki teaches this is a suitable insulating material in a battery that aids the prevention of short circuits which is shown by Yoshioka to be a desirable feature in exterior materials.
Gaben is silent toward:
wherein the first packaging material layer or the second packaging material layer includes bentonite-based clay,
Gaben teaches that the solid electrolyte can suitably be a sulfide based solid electrolyte, see [0078].
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have used a sulfide based solid electrolyte in the all-solid-state battery of Gaben’s invention because Gaben teaches this is a suitable solid electrolyte material.
To solve the same problem of designing an all-solid state battery, Sasaki teaches bentonite clay acts as a hydrogen sulfide absorbing material, see [0107] and [0108]. As evidence by Lu, sulfide based solid electrolytes suffer from release of toxic H2S which limits the production/practical application of sulfide solid electrolytes in all-solid-state batteries, see Abstract.
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have added bentonite into the encapsulation layers 37 of Gaben in order to absorb hydrogen sulfide when sulfide based solid electrolyte (rendered obvious above) as taught by Sasaki with evidence from Lu.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Gaben teaches:
wherein the all-solid-state battery further includes a plurality of margin layers respectively disposed on the same plane as the plurality of positive electrode layers and the plurality of negative electrode layers, and the margin layers include the bentonite-based clay and the ceramic glass not including lithium (see encapsulation layer 37 in annotated Fig. 8 above).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Gaben teaches that the battery produced by the disclosed invention produces secure batteries, without the risk of an internal short-circuit and having low self-discharges, see [0167].
wherein a capacity retention rate of the all-solid-state battery after 5 cycles is greater than or equal to 70%.
Additionally, because the structure of modified Gaben is substantially identical to the claimed all-solid-state battery it is reasonable to conclude that the claim property of “a capacity retention rate of the all-solid-state battery after 5 cycles is greater than or equal to 70%.” Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding Claim 19, Gaben teaches:
An all-solid-state battery, comprising (all-solid-state battery, see [0057]):
a stack including a solid electrolyte layer (a solid electrolyte conducting lithium ions, see [0058]),
and a positive electrode layer and a negative electrode layer disposed with the solid electrolyte layer interposed therebetween (anode and a cathode with insertion of lithium ions, separated by a solid electrolyte, see [0058]);
a first margin layer disposed on the same plane as the positive electrode layer; a second margin layer disposed on the same plane as the negative electrode layer; a first packaging material layer and a second packaging material layer disposed with the stack interposed therebetween (see annotated Figs. 8 above);
and a first external electrode and a second external electrode disposed on one surface and the other surface of the stack and connected to the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer, respectively (terminals (electrical contacts) 35, 36 are added where the cathode, and anode, current collectors are exposed, see [0158] and Fig. 8),
wherein the first margin layer or the second margin layer… ceramic glass not including lithium (the encapsulation layer can suitably comprise an oxide based glass-ceramic, see [0049]).
However, Gaben is not particularly limited in the material used for the glass ceramics but does teach the glass ceramic can suitably be within the class of oxide, see [0049]. However, Gaben is silent toward the following limitations:
and ceramic glass not including lithium
(per Claim 23) wherein the ceramic glass not including lithium includes silicon (Si) oxide, boron (B) oxide, sodium (Na) oxide, barium (Ba) oxide, zinc (Zn) oxide, aluminum (Al) oxide, or a combination thereof.
(per Claim 24) wherein the ceramic glass not including lithium includes SiO2, B2O3, Na2O, BaO5, ZnO, Al2O3, or a combination thereof.
To solve the same problem of providing insulation materials in a battery (see [0022]), Utsuki teaches that insulating particles can suitably be a mixture of a glass ceramic and bentonite, see [0055] and [0058]-[0059]. Utsuki further teaches the glass ceramic can suitably be the following oxide based material ZnO-MgO-Al2O3-SiO2, see [0059]. Utsuki indicates ZnO-MgO-Al2O3-SiO2 is a suitably insulating glass ceramic material for use in a battery towards minimizing short circuits, see Utsuki -[0059]. However, the glass ceramic of Utsuki is located in an insulating layer 13 overlying the electrode mixture layer 12, see Fig. 1.
However, to solve the same problem of designing an all-solid-state battery with an exterior material 3 covering a surface of the battery element body (see Abstract and Fig. 1), Yoshioka provides the motivation of the exterior material 3 being insulative is desirable to suppress the suppressing short circuit of the solid-state battery, see [0053].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to used ZnO-MgO-Al2O3-SiO2 as the glass ceramic in the Gaben because Utsuki teaches this is a suitable insulating material in a battery that aids the prevention of short circuits which is shown by Yoshioka to be a desirable feature in exterior materials.
Gaben is silent toward:
wherein the first margin layer or the second margin layer includes bentonite-based clay.
Gaben teaches that the solid electrolyte can suitably be a sulfide based solid electrolyte, see [0078].
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have used a sulfide based solid electrolyte in the all-solid-state battery of Gaben’s invention because Gaben teaches this is a suitable solid electrolyte material.
To solve the same problem of designing an all-solid state battery, Sasaki teaches bentonite clay acts as a hydrogen sulfide absorbing material, see [0107] and [0108]. As evidence by Lu, sulfide based solid electrolytes suffer from release of toxic H2S which limits the production/practical application of sulfide solid electrolytes in all-solid-state batteries, see Abstract.
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have added bentonite into the encapsulation layers 37 of Gaben in order to absorb hydrogen sulfide when sulfide based solid electrolyte (rendered obvious above) as taught by Sasaki with evidence from Lu.
Regarding Claim 20, modified Gaben does not teach:
wherein the bentonite-based clay is included in an amount of 10 to 70 volume % based on a total volume of the first packaging material layer or the second packaging material layer.
As rendered obvious above, modified Gaben in view of Sasaki adds bentonite clay as a hydrogen absorbing material to the encapsulation layer of Gaben. To solve the same problem of designing an all-solid state battery, Sasaki teaches bentonite clay acting as a hydrogen sulfide absorbing material is suitably added in the range of 0.3 to 30 mass %, see [0107] and [0108].
As evidenced by RawSource, bulk density of powdered bentonite clay ranges form 800-1100 kg/m3 (i.e., 0.8-1.1 g/cm3), see Pg2. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that because the bulk density of bentonite clay is about 1 g/cm3 there is at least some overlap between the claimed range and the range taught by Sasaki for the amount of bentonite clay added.
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have added the bentonite clay in an amount that overlaps the claimed range because Sasaki teaches this is a suitable amount to provide the function of hydrogen sulfide absorbing. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Gaben in view of Sasaki teaches:
wherein an average particle size of the bentonite-based clay is 1 µm to 5 µm.
Sasaki teaches the hydrogen sulfide absorbing material has a number average particle size of 0.1 μm or more and 15 μm or less, see [04108]
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the average particle size of the bentonite because Sasaki teaches that the overlapping particle size is a suitable size for hydrogen sulfide absorbing.
Regarding Claim 25, Gaben is silent toward:
wherein a glass transition temperature (Tg) of the ceramic glass not including lithium is 440 °C to 480 °C.
However, Gaben teaches that the choice of the encapsulation material is made to be resistant to high temperatures, and the battery can thus easily be assembled by soldering on electronic cards, without the appearance of glass transitions, see [0156].
As evidence by Seino, soldering methods applied to all-solid lithium batteries occur in the temperature range 230 to 290 °C, see [0008].
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have selected a ceramic glass with glass transition temperature above the range of 230 to 290 °C which overlaps the claimed range in order to soldering on electronic cards, without the appearance of glass transitions of the ceramic glass. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 26, modified Gaben is silent toward:
wherein a volume ratio of the bentonite-based clay and the ceramic glass not including lithium is 10:90 to 70:30.
As rendered obvious above, modified Gaben in view of Sasaki adds bentonite clay as a hydrogen absorbing material to the encapsulation layer 37 of Gaben. To solve the same problem of designing an all-solid state battery, Sasaki teaches bentonite clay acting as a hydrogen sulfide absorbing material is suitably added in the range of 0.3 to 30 mass %, see [0107] and [0108].
Gaben additionally requires the follow advantageous properties for the ceramic-glass containing encapsulation layer; chemically stable, resist high temperatures and be impermeable to the atmosphere (barrier layers), see [0156].
The teachings of Gaben and Sasaki above indicate that the relative amount of bentonite clay and ceramic-glass is a result effective variable that controls that balances the amount of hydrogen sulfide absorption and desired mechanical and chemical properties of the encapsulation layer
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have optimized the relative amount of bentonite clay and ceramic-glass to balance the amount of hydrogen sulfide absorption and desired mechanical and chemical properties of the encapsulation layer.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the claimed “wherein a volume ratio of the bentonite-based clay and the ceramic glass not including lithium is 10:90 to 70:30,” without undue experimentation.
Regarding Claim 27, modified Gaben teaches:
wherein the solid electrolyte layer includes a material different from the first packaging material layer and the second packaging material layer.
As rendered obvious above, the solid electrolyte layer includes a sulfide based solid electrolyte and ZnO-MgO-Al2O3-SiO2 is used as the glass ceramic.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kayla E Clary whose telephone number is (571)272-2854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 (PT).
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/K.E.C./
Kayla E. ClaryExaminer, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights