DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits for 18/337,629, filed 6/20/2023, which claims priority to Korean application KR10-2022-0094829, filed 6/20/2022.
Claims 1-44 are pending; Claims 10-18, 31, 34, 37, 40, and 43 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 II, Claims 10-18, 31, 34, 37, 40, and 43, in the reply filed on 1/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following references, which are not currently applied in a rejection.
Zhao, et al. (J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 15042-15047): This reference teaches mixed-halide lithium anti-perovskites.
Liang, et al. (J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2020, 142, 7012-7022): This reference teaches superionic lithium-scandium-chloride compounds.
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 10-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helm, et al. (Chem. Mater. 2021, 33, 4773-4782, and the corresponding supplemental information), in view of Umeshbabu, et al. (ACP Applied Materials and Interfaces 2022, 14, 25448-25456).
In reference to Claim 10, Helm teaches a composition, Li2.4In0. 4Zr0.6Cl6, which is taught to be nanocrystalline and comprise a LiCl phase (Fig. S1 and associated text).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 10, of a lithium halide-based nanocomposite represented by Chemical Formula 2B, in which a nanosized compound of LiCl is dispersed in a halide compound of LiaM2X1b-dX2d.
There is reasonable basis to conclude that the LiCl impurity material in the composition of Helm is “nanosized,” because Helm teaches that the material of her invention is nanocrystalline (Fig. S1 and associated text).
Further, the composite preparation method of Helm is substantially identical to the method of the instant invention. Specifically, Helm teaches that the method of forming the materials of her invention include ball-milling for 99 15-minute cycles (i.e. a total of 371 hours of milling) (section 2.1, pages 4774-4775). Similarly, the instant specification comprises a ball-milling step at 600 rpm for 20 hours. Therefore, it appears that, during the processing of the electrolyte of Helm, the LiCl impurity component would be “nanosized.”
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 10, wherein, in Chemical Formula 2B, M2 is one or more selected from In and Zr, X is Cl, and a is in the range of 0.01 to 10, i.e. 2.4.
Helm does not teach that X1 and X2 are different from each other and are each independently Cl, Br, F, or I, that b is independently in the range of 0.01 to 10, and d is in the range of 0.01 to 4.
Instead, as described above, she teaches that the composition comprises only Cl.
To solve the same problem of providing a Li-halide-based solid electrolyte material comprising Zr, Umeshbabu teaches that an increase in Li conductivity occurs when F and Cl are used in combination in such materials (Fig. 5A, and associated text).
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 formed the material of Helm to have some of the Cl substituted with F, based on the disclosure of Umeshbabu a mixture of F and Cl ratio results in improved Li ion conductivity.
It is the Examiner’s position that the routine optimization of the lithium ion conductivity would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the claimed values of b and d recited in Claim 10 (with X1 and X2 a combination of F and Cl), without undue experimentation.
It is the Examiner’s position that the routine optimization of the lithium ion conductivity would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the claimed values of b and d recited in Claim 11 (with X1 and X2 a combination of F and Cl), without undue experimentation.
It is the Examiner’s position that the routine optimization of the lithium ion conductivity would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the conductivity values recited in Claim 16, without undue experimentation.
In reference to Claim 12, Helm teaches that, a portion of M2 is substituted with M3 to be a compound represented by LiaM21-eM3eX1b-dX2d, wherein M2, X1, X2, a, b, and d are the same as in Chemical Formula 2B, and M3 is the same as or different from M1 (which is Zr), wherein M3 is In, and e is in the range of 0.01 to 0.9 (i.e. 0.4).
In reference to Claim 14, Helm teaches that the material of her invention is nanocrystalline, and that the LiCl is an impurity phase (Fig. S1 and associated text).
It is the Examiner’s position that this disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 14, wherein the nanosized compound LiX, and the combination thereof is an in-situ grown compound and has a crystal size of less than or equal to about 100 nm.
It is noted that Claim 14 is considered a product-by-process claim.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
In reference to Claim 15, Helm teaches that the material of her invention is nanocrystalline, and that the LiCl is an impurity phase (Fig. S1 and associated text).
It is the Examiner’s position that this disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 15, wherein the nanosized compound, LiX, is formed in a network shape inside a halide compound (LiaM2X1b-dX2d) (i.e. is disperse within the halide compound).
In reference to Claim 17, modified Helm does not explicitly teach that the lithium halide-based nanocomposite has a glass-ceramic crystal structure.
However, she teaches that the material is nanocrystalline (Supplemental Fig. 1 and associated text). Helm further teaches that the material has broad XRD peaks and peaks associated with a LiCl phase (Supplemental Fig. 1).
The instant specification recognizes the presence of broad XRD peaks and the presence of a lithium halide peak as indicative of a glass-ceramic structure (paragraph [0129]).
Therefore, there is reasonable basis to conclude that the material of modified Helm has a glass-ceramic crystal structure.
In reference to Claim 18, modified Helm does not explicitly teach that the material of her invention has the NMR properties recited in Claim 18.
However, the instant specification states that these NMR properties are indicative of interfacial lithium ion conduction (paragraph [0130]).
Therefore, because modified Helm teaches a material that meets the limitations of Claim 10, and because she further teaches that the material of her invention is capable of lithium ion conduction (Fig. 7c and associated text), it is the Examiner’s position that the material of modified Helm has the properties recited in Claim 18.
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.).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helm, et al. (Chem. Mater. 2021, 33, 4773-4782, and the corresponding supplemental information), in view of Umeshbabu, et al. (ACP Applied Materials and Interfaces 2022, 14, 25448-25456), and further in view of Kwon (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0296691 A1).
In reference to Claim 31, Helm does not teach the positive electrode active material of Claim 31.
To solve the same problem of providing a solid state battery, Kwon teaches a positive electrode for a solid state electrode battery, comprising a core 112/113 including a composite metal oxide capable of reversible intercalation/deintercalation of lithium (Fig. 1, paragraphs [0035]-[0064]), and a shell 114 disposed on the core 112/113 (Fig. 1, paragraphs [0035] and [0066]).
Kwon teaches that the shell 114 is a lithium ion conductor (paragraph [0066]).
Kwon further teaches that the formation of a lithium ion conductor as a shell on the surface of the positive electrode active material of his invention provides the benefit of preventing diffusion of non-Li materials at the interface of the cathode particles and the electrolyte.
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 formed the lithium ion conductor shell of the material of Kwon from the lithium ion conductor of modified Helm, because Helm teaches that the lithium ion conductor material of her invention provides improved lithium conductivity (Helm, abstract).
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 31, wherein the positive electrode active material further comprises a shell disposed on the core and including the lithium halide-based nanocomposite, wherein the lithium halide-based nanocomposite is the lithium halide-based nanocomposite according to claim 10.
Claims 34, 37, 40, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helm, et al. (Chem. Mater. 2021, 33, 4773-4782, and the corresponding supplemental information), in view of Umeshbabu, et al. (ACP Applied Materials and Interfaces 2022, 14, 25448-25456), and further in view of Yamamoto, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0069342 A1).
In reference to Claim 34, modified Helm teaches a solid electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery comprising the lithium halide-based nanocomposite according to claim 10 (described fully above).
Modified Helm does not teach that the electrolyte comprises a sulfide-based solid electrolyte.
To solve the same problem of providing a solid state electrolyte for a lithium ion battery (Fig. 3), Yamamoto teaches that suitable electrolytes for a solid state battery include halide based electrolytes (as in modified Helm), sulfide-based electrolytes, and mixtures of electrolyte materials (paragraph [0222]).
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 a combination of a sulfide-based electrolyte and the lithium halide electrolyte material of modified Helm, based on the disclosure of Yamamoto that sulfide electrolytes and halide electrolytes may suitably be combined and used together in an electrolyte material.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 34, of a solid electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery comprising the lithium halide-based nanocomposite according to claim 10 and a sulfide-based solid electrolyte.
In reference to Claim 40, modified Helm does not teach the battery recited in Claim 40.
To solve the same problem of providing a solid state electrolyte for a lithium ion battery, Yamamoto teaches a solid state battery (Fig. 3) comprising a positive electrode 210 (paragraph [0205]), a negative electrode 30 (paragraphs [0187]-[0191]), and a solid electrolyte 220 between them (paragraph [0215]).
As described above, the solid electrolyte material of modified Helm corresponds to the solid electrolyte of Claim 34.
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 the electrolyte of modified Helm into the battery structure of Yamamoto, because one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have had a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating the electrolyte of Claim 34 into the generic battery structure of Yamamoto.
In reference to Claim 37, it is the Examiner’s position that the electrolyte of modified Helm can be considered to have two identical layers, each corresponding to a half-thickness of the electrolyte layer.
Therefore, modified Helm teaches a double-layer solid electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery comprising a solid electrolyte for a positive electrode including the lithium halide-based nanocomposite of claim 10.
Modified Helm does not teach that the electrolyte of his invention comprises and a solid electrolyte for a negative electrode disposed on the solid electrolyte for the positive electrode and including a sulfide-based solid electrolyte.
To solve the same problem of providing a solid state electrolyte for a lithium ion battery (Fig. 3), Yamamoto teaches that suitable electrolytes for a solid state battery include halide based electrolytes (as in modified Helm), sulfide-based electrolytes, and mixtures of electrolyte materials (paragraph [0222]).
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 a combination of a sulfide-based electrolyte and the lithium halide electrolyte material of modified Helm, based on the disclosure of Yamamoto that sulfide electrolytes and halide electrolytes may suitably be combined and used together in an electrolyte material.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 37, of a solid electrolyte for a negative electrode disposed on the solid electrolyte for the positive electrode and including a sulfide-based solid electrolyte.
Because Claim 37 does not require that the “solid electrolyte for a positive electrode” and the “solid electrolyte for a negative electrode” have different compositions, it is the Examiner’s position that the mixed electrolyte material of modified Helm in view of Yamamoto meets the limitations of both the “solid electrolyte for a positive electrode” and the “solid electrolyte for a negative electrode,” because both of these layers comprise both the material of Claim 10 and a sulfide electrolyte.
In reference to Claim 43, modified Helm does not teach the battery recited in Claim 43.
To solve the same problem of providing a solid state electrolyte for a lithium ion battery, Yamamoto teaches a solid state battery (Fig. 3) comprising a positive electrode 210 (paragraph [0205]), a negative electrode 30 (paragraphs [0187]-[0191]), and a solid electrolyte 220 between them (paragraph [0215]).
As described above, the solid electrolyte material of modified Helm corresponds to the solid electrolyte of Claim 37.
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 the electrolyte of modified Helm into the battery structure of Yamamoto, because one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have had a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating the electrolyte of Claim 37 into the generic battery structure of Yamamoto.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 43, of an all-solid-state battery comprising a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and the double-layer solid electrolyte of claim 37 between the positive electrode and negative electrode; wherein the positive electrode is disposed on the solid electrolyte for the positive electrode of the double-layer solid electrolyte, and the negative electrode is disposed on the solid electrolyte for the negative electrode of the double-layer solid electrolyte.
Claims 10-13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak, et al. (Advanced Energy Materials, 2021, 11, 2003190), in view of Umeshbabu, et al. (ACP Applied Materials and Interfaces 2022, 14, 25448-25456).
In reference to Claim 10, Kwak teaches a lithium halide-based nanocomposite, Li2+xZr1-xFexCl6, wherein x = 0.4, corresponding to a net composition of Li2.4Zr0.6Fe0.4Cl6 (Fig. 3a, described in the Experimental section on page 8).
Kwak teaches that this material is prepared by ball milling at 600 rpm for 10h in a ZrO2 vial with ZrO2 balls (Experimental section on page 8), and has an impurity phase of LiCl (paragraph 2, column 2, page 4).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that this disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 10, of a compound of LiCl is dispersed in a halide compound of LiaM2X1b-dX2d, wherein M2 is one or more selected from Zr and Fe, X is Cl, and a is in the range of 0.01 to 10.
While Kwak does not explicitly teach that the LiCl phase is nanocrystalline, there is reasonable basis to conclude that it has a nanocrystalline structure, because (1) the preparation method of the material of Kwak (i.e. ball milling at 600 rpm for 10h in a ZrO2 vial with ZrO2 balls, Experimental section on page 8) appears to be substantially identical to the method of the instant invention (which includes ball milling at 580-620 rpm for 9-11 hours, paragraph [0178]) in a ZrO2 vial with ZrO2 beads (paragraph [0185]).
Therefore, there is reasonable basis to conclude that the crystalline structure of the LiCl phase of Kwak is nanocrystalline.
Kwak does not teach that X1 and X2 are different from each other.
Instead, as described above, he teaches that the only halide incorporated into the material is Cl.
To solve the same problem of providing a Li-halide-based solid electrolyte material comprising Zr, Umeshbabu teaches that an increase in Li conductivity occurs when F and Cl are used in combination in such materials (Fig. 5A, and associated text).
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 formed the material of Kwak to have some of the Cl substituted with F, based on the disclosure of Umeshbabu a mixture of F and Cl ratio results in improved Li ion conductivity.
It is the Examiner’s position that the routine optimization of the lithium ion conductivity would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the claimed values of b and d recited in Claim 10 (with X1 and X2 a combination of F and Cl), without undue experimentation.
It is the Examiner’s position that the routine optimization of the lithium ion conductivity would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the claimed values of b and d recited in Claim 11 (with X1 and X2 a combination of F and Cl), without undue experimentation.
It is the Examiner’s position that the routine optimization of the lithium ion conductivity would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the conductivity values recited in Claim 16, without undue experimentation.
In reference to Claim 12, Kwak teaches that, a portion of M2 is substituted with M3 to be a compound represented by LiaM21-eM3eX1b-dX2d, wherein M2, X1, X2, a, b, and d are the same as in Chemical Formula 2B, and M3 is the same as or different from M1 (which is Zr), wherein M3 is Fe, and e is in the range of 0.01 to 0.9 (i.e. 0.4).
In reference to Claim 13, modified Kwak is silent regarding the vol% of the LiCl component of his invention.
However, he teaches that the amount of Li in the composition can be tuned in concert with the amount of Fe in the composition, in order to optimize Li conductivity (Supplemental Fig. S13, Fig. 3b).
He further teaches that the presence of too much LiCl phase has the detrimental effect of suppressing Li conductivity (paragraph 2, column 2, page 4, also shown in Supplemental Fig. S13 and Fig. 3b).
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 tuned the amount of LiCl in the composite of modified Kwak, in order to balance increased Li ion conductivity with the formation of an excess of an insulating LiCl phase.
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 relative amounts of LiCl and LiaM2X1b-dX2d recited in Claim 13, without undue experimentation.
In reference to Claim 15, Kwak teaches that the LiCl is an impurity phase that forms a segregated phase (paragraph 2, column 2, page 4).
It is the Examiner’s position that this disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 15, wherein the nanosized compound, LiCl, is formed in a network shape inside a halide compound (LiaM2X1b-dX2d) (i.e. is segregated within the halide compound).
In reference to Claim 17, modified Kwak does not explicitly teach that the lithium halide-based nanocomposite has a glass-ceramic crystal structure.
However, he teaches that the material has broad XRD peaks and peaks associated with a LiCl phase (Fig. 3a).
The instant specification recognizes the presence of broad XRD peaks and the presence of a lithium halide peak as indicative of a glass-ceramic structure (paragraph [0129]).
Therefore, there is reasonable basis to conclude that the material of modified Kwak has a glass-ceramic crystal structure.
In reference to Claim 18, modified Kwak does not explicitly teach that the material of his invention has the NMR properties recited in Claim 18.
However, the instant specification states that these NMR properties are indicative of interfacial lithium ion conduction (paragraph [0130]).
Therefore, because modified Kwak teaches a material that meets the limitations of Claim 10, and because he further teaches that the material of his invention is capable of lithium ion conduction (Fig. 3b and associated text), it is the Examiner’s position that the material of modified Kwak has the properties recited in Claim 18.
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.).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak, et al. (Advanced Energy Materials, 2021, 11, 2003190), in view of Umeshbabu, et al. (ACP Applied Materials and Interfaces 2022, 14, 25448-25456), and further in view of Kwon (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0296691 A1).
In reference to Claim 31, Kwak does not explicitly teach the positive electrode active material of Claim 31.
However, he teaches that the positive electrode active material of his invention is LiCoO2, and that electrolyte material is included in the positive electrode active material of his invention (Electrochemical characterization section, column 2, page 8).
To solve the same problem of providing a solid state battery, Kwon teaches a positive electrode for a solid state electrode battery, comprising a core 112/113 including a composite metal oxide capable of reversible intercalation/deintercalation of lithium (Fig. 1, paragraphs [0035]-[0064]), and a shell 114 disposed on the core 112/113 (Fig. 1, paragraphs [0035] and [0066]).
Kwon teaches that the shell 114 is a lithium ion conductor (paragraph [0066]).
Kwon further teaches that the formation of a lithium ion conductor as a shell on the surface of the positive electrode active material of his invention provides the benefit of preventing diffusion of non-Li materials at the interface of the cathode particles and the electrolyte.
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 formed the positive electrode active material of Kwak to have the structure of Fig. 1 of Kwon, comprising a core 112/113 including a composite metal oxide capable of reversible intercalation/deintercalation of lithium (Kwon, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0035]-[0064]), and a shell 114 disposed on the core 112/113 (Kwon, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0035] and [0066]).
Further, 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 formed the lithium ion conductor shell of the material of Kwon from the lithium ion conductor of modified Kwak, because Kwak teaches that the lithium ion conductor material of his invention provides excellent electrochemical performance and interfacial stability (Kwak, abstract).
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 31, wherein the positive electrode active material further comprises a shell disposed on the core and including the lithium halide-based nanocomposite, wherein the lithium halide-based nanocomposite is the lithium halide-based nanocomposite according to claim 10.
Claims 34, 37, 40, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak, et al. (Advanced Energy Materials, 2021, 11, 2003190), in view of Umeshbabu, et al. (ACP Applied Materials and Interfaces 2022, 14, 25448-25456), and further in view of Yamamoto, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0069342 A1).
In reference to Claim 34, modified Kwak teaches a solid electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery comprising the lithium halide-based nanocomposite according to claim 10 (described fully above).
Modified Kwak does not teach that the electrolyte comprises a sulfide-based solid electrolyte.
To solve the same problem of providing a solid state electrolyte for a lithium ion battery (Fig. 3), wherein the cathode material is LiCoO2 (Yamamoto, paragraph [0212]), as in Kwak (see Kwak, “Electrochemical Characterization” section, column 2, page 8) Yamamoto teaches that suitable electrolytes for a solid state battery include halide based electrolytes (as in modified Kwak), sulfide-based electrolytes, and mixtures of electrolyte materials (paragraph [0222]).
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 a combination of a sulfide-based electrolyte and the lithium halide electrolyte material of modified Kwak, based on the disclosure of Yamamoto that sulfide electrolytes and halide electrolytes may suitably be combined and used together in an electrolyte material.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 34, of a solid electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery comprising the lithium halide-based nanocomposite according to claim 10 and a sulfide-based solid electrolyte.
In reference to Claim 40, modified Kwak does not teach the battery recited in Claim 40.
To solve the same problem of providing a solid state electrolyte for a lithium ion battery, Yamamoto teaches a solid state battery (Fig. 3) comprising a positive electrode 210 (paragraph [0205]), a negative electrode 30 (paragraphs [0187]-[0191]), and a solid electrolyte 220 between them (paragraph [0215]).
As described above, the solid electrolyte material of modified Kwak corresponds to the solid electrolyte of Claim 34.
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 the electrolyte of modified Kwak into the battery structure of Yamamoto, because one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have had a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating the electrolyte of Claim 34 into the generic battery structure of Yamamoto.
In reference to Claim 37, it is the Examiner’s position that the electrolyte of modified Kwak can be considered to have two identical layers, each corresponding to a half-thickness of the electrolyte layer.
Therefore, modified Kwak teaches a double-layer solid electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery comprising a solid electrolyte for a positive electrode including the lithium halide-based nanocomposite of claim 10.
Modified Kwak does not teach that the electrolyte of his invention comprises and a solid electrolyte for a negative electrode disposed on the solid electrolyte for the positive electrode and including a sulfide-based solid electrolyte.
To solve the same problem of providing a solid state electrolyte for a lithium ion battery (Fig. 3), wherein the cathode material is LiCoO2 (Yamamoto, paragraph [0212]), as in Kwak (see Kwak, “Electrochemical Characterization” section, column 2, page 8) Yamamoto teaches that suitable electrolytes for a solid state battery include halide based electrolytes (as in modified Kwak), sulfide-based electrolytes, and mixtures of electrolyte materials (paragraph [0222]).
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 a combination of a sulfide-based electrolyte and the lithium halide electrolyte material of modified Kwak, based on the disclosure of Yamamoto that sulfide electrolytes and halide electrolytes may suitably be combined and used together in an electrolyte material.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 37, of a solid electrolyte for a negative electrode disposed on the solid electrolyte for the positive electrode and including a sulfide-based solid electrolyte.
Because Claim 37 does not require that the “solid electrolyte for a positive electrode” and the “solid electrolyte for a negative electrode” have different compositions, it is the Examiner’s position that the mixed electrolyte material of modified Kwak in view of Yamamoto meets the limitations of both the “solid electrolyte for a positive electrode” and the “solid electrolyte for a negative electrode,” because both of these layers comprise both the material of Claim 10 and a sulfide electrolyte.
In reference to Claim 43, modified Kwak does not teach the battery recited in Claim 43.
To solve the same problem of providing a solid state electrolyte for a lithium ion battery, Yamamoto teaches a solid state battery (Fig. 3) comprising a positive electrode 210 (paragraph [0205]), a negative electrode 30 (paragraphs [0187]-[0191]), and a solid electrolyte 220 between them (paragraph [0215]).
As described above, the solid electrolyte material of modified Kwak corresponds to the solid electrolyte of Claim 37.
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 the electrolyte of modified Kwak into the battery structure of Yamamoto, because one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have had a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating the electrolyte of Claim 37 into the generic battery structure of Yamamoto.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 43, of an all-solid-state battery comprising a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and the double-layer solid electrolyte of claim 37 between the positive electrode and negative electrode; wherein the positive electrode is disposed on the solid electrolyte for the positive electrode of the double-layer solid electrolyte, and the negative electrode is disposed on the solid electrolyte for the negative electrode of the double-layer solid electrolyte.
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 303-297-4684. 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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721