DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits for 18/302,796, filed 4/19/2023, which is a continuation of PCT/JP2021/038802, filed 10/20/2021, which claims priority to Japanese application JP2020-177998, filed 10/23/2020.
Claims 1-12 are pending; Claims 1-10 are considered herein.
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 election without traverse of the invention of Group I, Claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 1/2/2026 is acknowledged.
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following references, which are not currently applied in a rejection.
Shen, et al. (Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 166 (14) A3182-A3188 (Year: 2019)): This reference teaches a composite cathode for an all solid state battery comprising nanoscale particulates an a polymer binder.
Lee, et al. (Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 164 (9) A2075-A2081 (Year: 2017)): This reference teaches a composite cathode for an all solid state battery comprising a dispersant and a polymer binder.
Bielefeld, et al. (J. Phys. Chem. C 2019, 123, 1626−1634 (Year: 2019)): This reference teaches simulations of the effects of particle size on composite cathodes for all-solid-state batteries.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a rotation radius α of the polymer binder .. and a median diameter D50 obtained…on a y-axis.” The metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite, at minimum because the units for D50 and α are not provided.
Claims 2-10 are indefinite, because of their dependence on Claim 1.
Claim 8 recites “the dispersion.” This limitation is indefinite, because there is no prior recitation of “a dispersion.” Therefore, it is unclear to what feature is referred by “the dispersion.”
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0004257 A1), as evidenced by Tanaka, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0003515 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, it is noted that Claim 1 is indefinite, as described above. The following rejections represent the Examiner’s best understanding of the indefinite claim limitations.
Kubo teaches an electrode composition (paragraphs [0083]-[0088]).
The composition of Kubo comprises an inorganic solid electrolyte having an ion conductivity of a metal belonging to Group 1 or Group 2 in the periodic table (i.e. a sulfide solid electrolyte, paragraph [0083]), an active material (paragraph [0083]), a polymer binder (paragraph [0088]), and a dispersion medium (paragraph [0083]).
Kubo does not teach that a linear polymer is necessarily contained to constitute the polymer binder.
However, he teaches that one of several suitable binders for use in the electrode of his invention includes PVDF (paragraph [0058]).
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 used PVDF as the binder in the electrode composition of Kubo, because Kubo teaches that this is a suitable material for the binder of his invention.
Using PVDF as the binder in the electrode composition of Kubo teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein a linear polymer (i.e. PVDF) is contained to constitute the polymer binder.
Kubo does not explicitly teach that the rotation radius of the polymer binder and the median diameters of each of the inorganic solid electrolyte and the active material are present within a region (provided that a boundary line is included) of a polygonal shape that has, as apices, a point A (50, 60), a point B (178, 4,600), a point C (85, 4,600), a point D (12, 2,000), and a point E (12, 60) in an orthogonal coordinate system in which the rotation radius a is on an x-axis and the median diameter D50 is on a y-axis.
However, he teaches that the molecular weight of the binder is 50,000-1,500,000 g/mol (paragraph [0060]), the average particle diameter of the solid electrolyte material is 0.1-50 microns (paragraph [0053]) and the average particle diameter of the electrode active material is 0.1-50 microns (paragraph [0087]).
The instant specification recognizes that suitable molecular weights of fluorinated binders are 150,000-1,200,000 g/mol (paragraph [0199]), suitable diameters of the solid electrolyte component of the electrode is 0.01-4.5 microns (paragraph [0097]), and that suitable diameters of the electrode active material are 0.01-10 microns (paragraph [0131]).
Evidentiary reference Tanaka teaches that the rotation radius of a polymer depends on the molecular weight and branched structure (paragraph [0065]).
Therefore, because the molecular weight of the linear binder of Kubo (i.e. 50,000-1,500,000 g/mol, paragraph [0060]) overlaps with the molecular weight recognized by the instant specification to be suitable for a linear binder (i.e. 150,000-1,200,000 g/mol, paragraph [0199]), the average particle diameter of the solid electrolyte material of Kubo (i.e. 0.1-50 microns, paragraph [0053]) overlaps with the average particle diameter of the solid electrolyte material recognized by the instant specification to be suitable (0.01-4.5 microns, paragraph [0097]), and the average particle diameter of the electrode active material of Kubo (i.e. 0.1-50 microns, paragraph ([0087]) overlaps with the average particle diameter of the electrode active material recognized by the instant specification to be suitable (i.e. 0.01-10 microns, paragraph [0131]), there is reasonable basis to conclude that the compositions envisioned by Kubo either anticipate or render obvious the combination of particle diameter and binder molecular weight that fall within the ranges recited in Claim 1.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In reference to Claim 5, Kubo teaches that the polymer binder is dissolved in the dispersion medium (paragraph [0057]).
In reference to Claim 6, Kubo does not teach that the active material necessarily has a silicon element as a constitutional element.
However, he teaches that some of several suitable materials for the cathode active material of his invention include silicon (paragraph [0085]).
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 used one of the Si-containing oxides of Kubo as the cathode active material of the invention of Kubo, because he teaches that these are suitable materials for this use.
Using one of the Si-containing oxides of Kubo as the cathode active material of the invention of Kubo teaches the limitations of Claim 6, wherein the active material has a silicon element as a constitutional element.
In reference to Claim 7, Kubo teaches that the inorganic solid electrolyte is a sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte (paragraphs [0083] and [0042]-[0054]).
In reference to Claim 9, Kubo teaches an electrode sheet 1 for an all-solid state secondary battery, comprising a layer formed of the electrode composition according to claim 1, on a surface of a base material 4 (Fig. 3, paragraph [0099]).
In reference to Claim 10, Kubo teaches an all-solid state secondary battery (Fig. 3) comprising, in the following order: a positive electrode active material layer 1; a solid electrolyte layer 3; and a negative electrode active material layer 2, wherein the positive electrode active material layer is a layer formed of the electrode composition according to claim 1 (paragraph [0099]).
In reference to Claims 1, 5-7, and 9-10, an alternate interpretation is applied.
In reference to Claim 1, it is noted that Claim 1 is indefinite, as described above. The following rejections represent the Examiner’s best understanding of the indefinite claim limitations.
Kubo teaches an electrode composition (paragraphs [0083]-[0088]).
The composition of Kubo comprises an inorganic solid electrolyte having an ion conductivity of a metal belonging to Group 1 or Group 2 in the periodic table (i.e. a sulfide solid electrolyte, paragraph [0083]), an active material (paragraph [0083]), a polymer binder (paragraph [0088]), and a dispersion medium (paragraph [0083]).
Kubo does not teach that a linear polymer is necessarily contained to constitute the polymer binder.
However, he teaches that one of several suitable binders for use in the electrode of his invention includes butadiene rubber (paragraph [0058]).
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 used butadiene rubber as the binder in the electrode composition of Kubo, because Kubo teaches that this is a suitable material for the binder of his invention.
Using butadiene rubber as the binder in the electrode composition of Kubo teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein a linear polymer (i.e. butadiene rubber) is contained to constitute the polymer binder.
Kubo does not explicitly teach that the rotation radius of the polymer binder and the median diameters of each of the inorganic solid electrolyte and the active material are present within a region (provided that a boundary line is included) of a polygonal shape that has, as apices, a point A (50, 60), a point B (178, 4,600), a point C (85, 4,600), a point D (12, 2,000), and a point E (12, 60) in an orthogonal coordinate system in which the rotation radius a is on an x-axis and the median diameter D50 is on a y-axis.
However, he teaches that the molecular weight of the binder is 50,000-1,500,000 g/mol (paragraph [0060]), the average particle diameter of the solid electrolyte material is 0.1-50 microns (paragraph [0053]) and the average particle diameter of the electrode active material is 0.1-50 microns (paragraph [0087]).
The instant specification recognizes that suitable molecular weights of the linear binders are 10,000-2,000,000 g/mol (paragraph [0199]), suitable diameters of the solid electrolyte component of the electrode is 0.01-4.5 microns (paragraph [0097]), and that suitable diameters of the electrode active material are 0.01-10 microns (paragraph [0131]).
Evidentiary reference Tanaka teaches that the rotation radius of a polymer depends on the molecular weight and branched structure (paragraph [0065]).
Therefore, because the molecular weight of the linear binder of Kubo (i.e. 50,000-1,500,000 g/mol, paragraph [0060]) overlaps with the molecular weight recognized by the instant specification to be suitable for a linear binder (i.e. 10,000-2,000,000 g/mol, paragraph [0199]), the average particle diameter of the solid electrolyte material of Kubo (i.e. 0.1-50 microns, paragraph [0053]) overlaps with the average particle diameter of the solid electrolyte material recognized by the instant specification to be suitable (0.01-4.5 microns, paragraph [0097]), and the average particle diameter of the electrode active material of Kubo (i.e. 0.1-50 microns, paragraph ([0087]) overlaps with the average particle diameter of the electrode active material recognized by the instant specification to be suitable (i.e. 0.01-10 microns, paragraph [0131]), there is reasonable basis to conclude that the compositions envisioned by Kubo either anticipate or render obvious the combination of particle diameter and binder molecular weight that fall within the ranges recited in Claim 1.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In reference to Claim 5, Kubo teaches that the polymer binder is dissolved in the dispersion medium (paragraph [0057]).
In reference to Claim 6, Kubo does not teach that the active material necessarily has a silicon element as a constitutional element.
However, he teaches that some of several suitable materials for the cathode active material of his invention include silicon (paragraph [0085]).
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 used one of the Si-containing oxides of Kubo as the cathode active material of the invention of Kubo, because he teaches that these are suitable materials for this use.
Using one of the Si-containing oxides of Kubo as the cathode active material of the invention of Kubo teaches the limitations of Claim 6, wherein the active material has a silicon element as a constitutional element.
In reference to Claim 7, Kubo teaches that the inorganic solid electrolyte is a sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte (paragraphs [0083] and [0042]-[0054]).
In reference to Claim 9, Kubo teaches an electrode sheet 1 for an all-solid state secondary battery, comprising a layer formed of the electrode composition according to claim 1, on a surface of a base material 4 (Fig. 3, paragraph [0099]).
In reference to Claim 10, Kubo teaches an all-solid state secondary battery (Fig. 3) comprising, in the following order: a positive electrode active material layer 1; a solid electrolyte layer 3; and a negative electrode active material layer 2, wherein the positive electrode active material layer is a layer formed of the electrode composition according to claim 1 (paragraph [0099]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0004257 A1), as evidenced by Tanaka, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0003515 A1), and further as evidenced by Feldhues, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0088690 A1).
In reference to Claim 2, Kubo as applied to Claim 1 teaches that the binder is a butadiene rubber.
Evidentiary reference Feldhues teaches that the SP of butadiene rubber is 17.1 MPa1/2 (Table 1).
This disclosure teaches that an SP value of the linear polymer is 16 to 20 MPa1/2.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0004257 A1), as evidenced by Tanaka, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0003515 A1), and further in view of Oura, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0148733 A1).
In reference to Claim 3, Kubo is silent regarding the adsorption rate of the polymer binder with respect to the active material in the dispersion medium of his invention.
Therefore, he does not explicitly teach the limitations of Claim 3.
To solve the same problem of providing a cathode dispersion for an all-solid-state battery, wherein the cathode dispersion comprises a PVDF binder, Oura teaches that the amount of PVDF binder should be optimized, in order to produce a cathode with desirable properties.
Specifically, he teaches that dispersing the PVDF binder evenly within a layer increases the binding points within the layer, thus increasing binding force (paragraph [0031]), while including too much PVDF binder causes a reduction in performance (paragraph [0051]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have been motivated to optimize the amount of PVDF in the cathode composition of Kubo, to balance the competing factors of appropriate binding force and good performance.
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 a composition that meets the limitations of Claim 3, without undue experimentation.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0004257 A1), as evidenced by Tanaka, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0003515 A1), in view of Yoon, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0164105 A1), and further as evidenced by Koltzenburg, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0030304 A1).
In reference to Claim 4, Kubo does not teach that the linear polymer contains a constitutional component having a functional group having a pKa of 8 or less.
To solve the same problem of providing a binder for an all-solid-state battery, Yoon teaches that both PVDF (which is the binder of Kubo) and carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) are suitable binders for use in forming a cathode for an all-solid-state battery (paragraph [0046]).
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 used carboxymethylcellulose as the binder in the composite cathode of Kubo, based on Yoon’s disclosure that both PVDF (which is the binder of Kubo) and carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) are suitable binders for use in forming a cathode for an all-solid-state battery (paragraph [0046]).
Evidentiary reference Koltzenburg teaches that carboxymethylcellulose has a pKa of 4 (paragraph [0124]).
Therefore, using carboxymethylcellulose as the binder in the composite cathode of Kubo teaches the limitations of Claim 4, wherein the linear polymer contains a constitutional component having a functional group having a pKa of 8 or less.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0004257 A1), as evidenced by Tanaka, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0003515 A1), in view of Makino, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0133717 A1).
In reference to Claim 8, it is noted that Claim 8 is indefinite, as described above. The following rejection represents the Examiners’ best understanding of the indefinite claim limitations.
Kubo is silent regarding the SP value of the dispersion. Therefore, he does not teach that the SP value of the dispersion is 14 to 24 MPa ½.
To solve the same problem of providing an all-solid-state battery comprising composite electrodes made by slurry casting (paragraph [0006]), Makino teaches that a suitable SP value of the solvent used in preparing such a material should be in the range of 15-25 MPa ½, in order to prepare films with excellent characteristics (paragraph [0228]).
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 selected the solvent of the cathode slurry of Kubo to have an SP value of 5-25 MPa ½, based on the disclosure of Makino.
Selecting the solvent of the cathode slurry of Kubo to have an SP value of 15-25 MPa ½ teaches the limitations of Claim 8, wherein the SP value of the dispersion is 14 to 24 MPa ½.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed range of 14 to 24 MPa ½ overlaps with the taught range of 15 to 25 MPa ½.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm ET
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. 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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721