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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 06/05/2023 and 03/27/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanada (JP 2011198596 A) in view of Ueno et al. (US 2012/0115028 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sanada discloses a solid-state secondary battery comprising an active material layer in which a plurality of active material particles are deposited in a layer thickness direction (Figure 2; first and second active material layers 12a and 12b; [0011] active material contains particles having a large specific surface area), the active material particles having a particle portion ([0011] particle portions for the active material particles); an electrolyte layer that performs transfer of active material ions with the active material particles (Figure 2; [0020] solid electrolyte layer 13); and a current collector layer that performs transfer of electrons with the active material particles (Figure 2; [0028] current collector 11),
wherein the active material layer has, in the layer thickness direction, a first region where a specific surface area of the active material particles is lower than that in another region in the layer thickness direction ([0011] the second active material may have a specific surface area smaller than that of the first active material; the second active material layer is read as the first region as the second active material has a lower specific surface area of the active material particles).
Sanada further discloses wherein the active material layers have a three dimensional structure having irregularities ([0024]), however, is explicitly silent with respect to a plurality of projecting portions that project from the particle portion in a plurality of directions.
Ueno discloses an all solid state battery having a plurality of active material layers and is within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Ueno discloses a first and second active material layers 12a and 12b that are provided having a particulate shape and having irregular extensions that extend out from sides of the active material (Figure 1 active material particles 1; [0034]).
PNG
media_image1.png
394
601
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of Ueno to modify the shape Sanada’s active material particles to have a particulate shape with irregular extension portions that extend out from the active material particles as taught by Ueno as a simple change in shape of the active material particles. Sanada already discloses wherein the active material can have an irregular shape. Ueno is provided to further disclose that the active material can have a particulate shape along with irregular protrusions that is seen in Figure 1. A skilled artisan would have found it obvious through the similar teachings of Ueno and Sanada to change the shape of the active material particles of Sanada to have the shape shown and taught by Ueno as a simple change in shape. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 2, modified Sanada discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Sanada further discloses wherein the first region extends in a layer direction of the active material layer (Figure 2 within the stacking direction of the active material).
Regarding claim 3, modified Sanada discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Sanada further discloses wherein the surface area of the active material layers are different wherein the first layer having a higher specific surface area than the second active material layer ([0011]). Sanada is silent the respect to the first region includes a region where at least one of a tensile stress or a shear stress in a layer direction is concentrated compared with another region in the layer thickness direction, however, this is deemed to be inherent and is rendered obvious as the surface area of the active materials are different along a thickness direction thus the tensile stress and/or shear stress will be different along the thickness direction as well as stress= force /Area, thus the changing surface area will result in a different stress within the thickness region of the active material absent unexpected results or criticality. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02.
Regarding claim 4, modified Sanada discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Sanada further discloses wherein the first region includes a position at which the active material particles are in contact with the electrolyte layer or the current collector layer (Figure 2; the first region containing a lower specific surface area is the second active material layer and the second active material layer contacts the solid electrolyte 13).
Regarding claim 5, modified Sanada discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Sanada further discloses wherein the active material layer has, in the layer thickness direction, a first region where a specific surface area per one particle of the active material particles is lower than that in another region in the layer thickness direction ([0011] the second active material may have a specific surface area smaller than that of the first active material; the second active material layer is read as the first region as the second active material has a lower specific surface area of the active material particles).
Regarding claim 6, modified Sanada discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Sanada further discloses wherein the active material particles contain at least one of lithium cobalt oxide and cobalt lithium phosphate ([0023] positive electrode active material can contain a Lithium cobaltate (LiCoO2)). While Sanada discloses wherein the negative electrode contains the active material layer while the lithium cobalt oxide is provided in the positive electrode active material, a lithium cobalt oxide is a known material and can be used for the active material of electrodes and thus can be used as the active material for the active material layers 12a and 12b. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 7, modified Sanada discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Sanada further discloses wherein the electrolyte layer is a solid electrolyte layer (Figure 2; [0024] solid electrolyte layer 13).
Regarding claim 8, modified Sanada discloses all the claim limitations of claim 7. Sanada discloses a solid electrolyte layer, however, is silent with respect to wherein the solid electrolyte layer contains an oxide based solid electrolyte containing a metal oxide.
Ueno discloses an all solid state battery having a plurality of active material layers and is within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Ueno discloses wherein the solid electrolyte material used in the solid state battery can be made of an oxide based material that can contain a metal ([0035-0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to use a metal based solid electrolyte material taught by Ueno for the solid electrolyte material of Sanada as a selection of a known solid electrolyte material. Thus all the claim limitations of claim 8 are rendered obvious through the combination. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nagayama (JP 2006210003 A)- discloses an electrode for battery wherein the active material layers 15/13 comprises three layers having different particle diameters and can comprise a solid electrolyte.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 pm EST.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights