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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7 and 8 of the applicant’s response, the applicant is arguing that the coating inside of the pores and the coating on the surface of the solid electrolyte particles are distinct claim elements, and that the examiner’s interpretation is improper because the examiner has presented a combination of references that has only one coating that extends along the surface of the electrolyte particles. This is not persuasive because the examiner’s proposed combination of Lee and Bai would necessarily involve two regions of coating. The examiner described the polymer coating as being “necessarily in the pores”, so the sections of coating in the pores is mapped to the “solid cross-linked polymer filling the pores”. The rest of the polymer coating which is coating the outside of the electrolyte particles maps to “a coating on an exterior”. While this division is not explicitly described, it is clear that there would be parts of the cross-linked polymer of Lee inside of the pores of the electrolyte of Bai, as well as parts that are merely on the surface of the electrolyte of Bai, which provides the claim elements that are being argued.
The applicant further does not specify a lack of continuity between the cross-linked polymer inside of the solid electrolyte particles and the cross-linked polymer on the outside of the solid electrolyte particles, so they may be connected like the two parts of the cross-linked polymer of the combination of Lee and Bai are as described above.
Finally, because the combination of Lee and Bai provides a POSS-MA prepolymer (Lee, [0094]) which is mixed with an initiator (Lee, [0010]), and core-shell particles with a porous shell made of LLZTO and LATP (Bai, [0019], the coating must fill the pores of the porous shell. This is because the same materials as those of the instant have been provided and polymerized in the same way as that of the instant [0021-22], so the result must be a porous shell where the pores are filled and the surface is coated by the cross-linked polymer.
For these reasons, the arguments regarding the combination of Lee and Bai not teaching POSS-MA of Lee in the pores and on the surface of the porous shell of the particles of Bai are not convincing and the rejections of claims 1-6 and 16-18 are maintained.
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.
Claims 1-4, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP-3407413-A1, Lee, in view of CN-115548431-A, Bai.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches an all-solid-state battery cell (Fig. 2A [0155] “a solid electrolyte”) comprising:
a cathode current collector ([0183]);
cathode active material adjacent the cathode current collector ([00183]);
an anode current collector ([0191] “substantially same manner as…”;
lithium metal adjacent the anode current collector ([0195]); and
a modified electrolyte layer (Fig. 2A, 23) between the lithium metal and the cathode active material (Fig. 2A, 23), the modified electrolyte layer comprising:
solid electrolyte particles ([0131]);
a solid cross-linked polymer (Lee, [0266], step [1]) formed from a gel prepolymer ([0266], step [2]) that is polymerized ([0266], step [14]), forming a coating on an exterior of each solid electrolyte particle ([266, step [13], including a solid electrolyte necessarily means that it will be coated in the polymer); and
an anode barrier layer [0157] comprising the solid cross-linked polymer adjacent the lithium metal [0157].
Additionally, Lee teaches the solid electrolyte particles may comprise LATP ([0131], line 2, (Na,Li)1+xTi2-xAlx(PO4)3.).
Lee does not teach each solid electrolyte particle has pores with the solid cross-linked polymer in the pores of the solid electrolyte.
However, Bai teaches a solid electrolyte core shell structure [n0011] comprising a porous outer shell formed from an oxide electrolyte material [n0010]. The outer shell protects the sulfide core from contacting air and degrading during manufacturing while maintaining high ionic conductivity [n0011]. Furthermore, Bai teaches the oxide electrolyte material may comprise a mixture of LLZTO and LATP [n0019].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to replace the LATP solid electrolyte particles of Lee with the core shell solid electrolyte of Bai to improve ease of manufacture while maintaining high ionic conductivity. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable chance of success in doing so because both Lee and Bai teach the solid electrolyte may comprise LATP, meaning it is a compatible material in the design of Lee.
Doing so would mean that the particles of Lee and Bai have pores.
Furthermore, the polymer of Lee and Bai would still form a coating on the exterior of the solid electrolyte particles, which reads on the limitation “solid cross-linked polymer in the pores of the solid electrolyte” of the instant claim 1 because the pores are still a part of the exterior.
Regarding claim 2, Lee and Bai teach the gel prepolymer comprises a methacrylate monomer (Lee, [0266], step [9], vi)
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Lee and Bai teach the methacrylate monomer is polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane-methacrylate (POSS-MA) (Lee, [0266], step [9], vi, “polyhedral oligomeric silsequioxane with an acrylate group), which contains silicon.
Regarding claim 16, Lee and Bai teach an all-solid-state battery cell (Lee, Fig. 2A [0155] “a solid electrolyte”), comprising:
a cathode (Lee, Fig. 2A, 21);
a lithium metal anode (Lee, Fig. 2A, 22); and
a modified electrolyte layer between the lithium metal anode and the cathode (Lee, Fig. 2A, 23), the modified electrolyte layer comprising:
solid electrolyte particles (Lee, [0131]); and
a solid cross-linked polymer (Lee, [0266], step [1]) formed from a gel prepolymer ([0266], step [2]) that is polymerized ([0266], step [14]),
Additionally, Lee teaches the solid electrolyte particles may comprise LATP ([0131], line 2, (Na,Li)1+xTi2-xAlx(PO4)3.).
Lee does not teach each solid electrolyte particle has pores with the solid cross-linked polymer in the pores of the solid electrolyte.
However, Bai teaches a solid electrolyte core shell structure [n0011] comprising a porous outer shell formed from an oxide electrolyte material [n0010]. The outer shell protects the sulfide core from contacting air and degrading during manufacturing while maintaining high ionic conductivity [n0011]. Furthermore, Bai teaches the oxide electrolyte material may comprise a mixture of LLZTO and LATP [n0019].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to replace the LATP solid electrolyte particles of Lee with the core shell solid electrolyte of Bai to improve ease of manufacture while maintaining high ionic conductivity. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable chance of success in doing so because both Lee and Bai teach the solid electrolyte may comprise LATP, meaning it is a compatible material in the design of Lee.
Doing so would mean that the particles of Lee and Bai have pores.
Furthermore, the polymer of Lee and Bai would still form a coating on the exterior of the solid electrolyte particles, which reads on the limitation “solid cross-linked polymer impregnated in pores of the solid electrolyte particles” of the instant claim 16 because the pores are still a part of the exterior.
Lee and Bai teach the solid cross-linked polymer is a physical barrier between lithium metal and the solid electrolyte particles, because it coats the particles and necessarily comes in between them and the lithium metal.
Lee and Bai does not teach the solid cross-linked polymer has a lower lithium ion conductivity than the solid electrolyte particles.
However, Lee and Bai teach the same cross-linked polymer and solid electrolyte particles as that of the instant (instant claims POSS-MA, teaches solid electrolyte particles may be LLZO [0021]).
Therefore, the solid cross-linked polymer of Lee and Bai must have lower lithium ion conductivity than the solid electrolyte particles, because the relative relationship of the lithium ion conductivity of two sets of identical materials is the same.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Lee and Bai teach the methacrylate monomer is polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane-methacrylate (POSS-MA) (Lee, [0266], step [9], vi, “polyhedral oligomeric silsequioxane with an acrylate group), which contains silicon.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP-3407413-A1, Lee, CN-115548431-A, Bai and in further view of US-20170162862-A1 (T).
Regarding claim 11, Lee and Bai teach a modified electrolyte layer (Lee, 2A, 23) for an all-solid-state battery cell (Lee,[0155] “a solid electrolyte”), the modified electrolyte layer comprising:
a first layer (Lee, Fig.2A, 23) comprising solid electrolyte particles (Lee, [0131]) and a solid cross-linked polymer (Lee, [0266], step [1]) formed from a gel prepolymer (Lee, [0266], step [2]) that is polymerized (Lee, [0266], step [14]); and
a second layer (Lee, [0157]) comprising the solid cross-linked polymer as an anode barrier layer (Lee, [0157]) on a surface of the first layer configured to face a lithium anode (Lee, [0157]).
Additionally, Lee teaches the solid electrolyte particles may comprise LATP ([0131], line 2, (Na,Li)1+xTi2-xAlx(PO4)3.).
Lee does not teach each solid electrolyte particle has pores with the solid cross-linked polymer in the pores of the solid electrolyte.
However, Bai teaches a solid electrolyte core shell structure [n0011] comprising a porous outer shell formed from an oxide electrolyte material [n0010]. The outer shell protects the sulfide core from contacting air and degrading during manufacturing while maintaining high ionic conductivity [n0011]. Furthermore, Bai teaches the oxide electrolyte material may comprise a mixture of LLZTO and LATP [n0019].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to replace the LATP solid electrolyte particles of Lee with the core shell solid electrolyte of Bai to improve ease of manufacture while maintaining high ionic conductivity. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable chance of success in doing so because both Lee and Bai teach the solid electrolyte may comprise LATP, meaning it is a compatible material in the design of Lee.
Doing so would mean that the particles of Lee and Bai have pores.
Lee and Bai do not teach that the gel prepolymer has a viscosity low enough to impregnate the pores.
T teaches a solid electrode comprising porous particles that are impregnated with an ion conductive viscous liquid that is polymerized and cross-linked [0029]. T teaches that in order to accomplish this, the viscosity of the oligomers (which make up the liquid) must be adjusted to be low enough [0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to adjust the viscosity of the gel-prepolymer of Lee and Bai in order to allow it to fill the pores of the particles of Bai. It would have been obvious to do because T teaches this is a value that must be optimized in order to achieve the desired effect.
Furthermore, the polymer of Lee and Bai would still form a coating on the exterior of the solid electrolyte particles, which reads on the limitation “solid cross-linked polymer is impregnated in pores of the solid electrolyte particles in the first layer” of the instant claim 11 because the pores are still a part of the exterior.
Regarding claim 12, Lee and Bai teach the methacrylate monomer is polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane-methacrylate (POSS-MA) (Lee, [0266], step [9], vi, “polyhedral oligomeric silsequioxane with an acrylate group).
Claims 5, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP-3407413-A1, Lee, in view of CN-115548431-A, Bai, and in further view of EP-3136475-A1, Ryu.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the teachings of Lee and Bai are explained in the rejections of claims 1 and 2.
Lee and Bai do not teach the gel prepolymer further comprises a stable radical for electronic conductivity, nor that the stable radical is a nitroxide radical.
However, Ryu teaches a lithium metal battery (Abstract) with an additive comprising TEMPO [0032]. The additive is included because it decreases interfacial resistance between the surface of the lithium metal anode and the protective layer and improves lithium ion mobility [0034]. Ryu also teaches an anode protective layer comprising a polymer which may be POSS with an acryl group ([0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to add the TEMPO additive of Ryu to the gel prepolymer of Lee and Bai to achieve the benefit of decreasing interfacial resistance between the lithium metal anode and the polymerized gel prepolymer. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention
would have had a reasonable expectation that the TEMPO would perform the same in Lee and Bai because POSS-MA was an option for the polymer of Ryu.
TEMPO comprises a stable nitroxide radical as well as a stable radical, therefore Lee, Bai and Ryu teach all of the requirements of claims 5 and 6.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP-3407413-A1, Lee, CN-115548431-A, Bai, US-20170162862-A1 (T) and in further view of EP-3136475-A1, Ryu.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the teachings of Lee, Bai, and T are explained in the rejection of claim 11.
Lee, Bai and T do not teach the gel prepolymer further comprises a stable radical for electronic conductivity, nor that the stable radical is a nitroxide radical.
However, Ryu teaches a lithium metal battery (Abstract) with an additive comprising TEMPO [0032]. The additive is included because it decreases interfacial resistance between the surface of the lithium metal anode and the protective layer and improves lithium ion mobility [0034]. Ryu also teaches an anode protective layer comprising a polymer which may be POSS with an acryl group ([0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to add the TEMPO additive of Ryu to the gel prepolymer of Lee, Bai and T to achieve the benefit of decreasing interfacial resistance between the lithium metal anode and the polymerized gel prepolymer. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention
would have had a reasonable expectation that the TEMPO would perform the same in Lee, Bai, and T because POSS-MA was an option for the polymer of Ryu.
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 LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI whose telephone number is (571)272-6917. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M..
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.
/LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights