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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 35 USC 119(a)-(d) or (f).
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted 3/18/2024 and 3/18/2024 have been received and considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-11, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. WO-2021261558-A1 (US-20230253614-A1 used as translation and cited in PTO-892) (hereinafter “Suzuki”).
Regarding Claims 1-6, Suzuki discloses a solid ion conductor compound (solid electrolyte) according to formula (1) (see abstract and paragraphs [0030]-[0044]) (see comparison of formulas below).
PNG
media_image1.png
723
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Formula 1 of Suzuki
PNG
media_image2.png
553
590
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
218
586
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Formula 1 of Instant Application
Suzuki further discloses a solid ion conductor compound with the formula Li2ZrPO4Cl3 (see paragraphs [0096]-[0100] and Table 10 Example 52). This a species of the claimed genus formula of Claims 1-6 (with k=4, m=-3, n=1, o=0, p=1, and q=2) and therefore anticipates the claimed Formula 1.
Regarding Claims 1 and 10, Suzuki discloses the solid ion conductor compound of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Suzuki further discloses a solid ion conductor compound with the formula Li2ZrN0.1Cl5.9 (see paragraphs [0096]-[0100] and Table 11 Example 72). This a species of the claimed genus formula of Claims 1 and 10 (with k=4, m=-1.2, n=1, o=0, p=0.1, and q=0.4) and therefore anticipates the claimed formula of Claims 1 and 10.
Regarding Claim 7, Suzuki discloses the solid ion conductor compound of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Suzuki further discloses a solid ion conductor compound with the formula Li2ZrPO4Cl3 (see paragraphs [0096]-[0100] and Table 10 Example 52). This a species of the claimed genus Formula 2 of Claim 7 (see below) (with k=4, m=-3, n=1, o=0, p=1, q=2, h=0, and i=0) and therefore anticipates the claimed Formula 2.
PNG
media_image4.png
414
573
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 3. Formula 2 of Instant Application
Regarding Claim 8, Suzuki discloses the solid ion conductor compound of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Suzuki further discloses a solid ion conductor compound with the formula Li2ZrPO4Cl3 (see paragraphs [0096]-[0100] and Table 10 Example 52). This a species of the claimed genus Formula 3 of Claim 8 (see below) (with k=4, m=-3, n=1, o=0, p=1, q=2, h=0, i=0, and j=0) and therefore anticipates the claimed Formula 3.
PNG
media_image5.png
414
575
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 4. Formula 3 of Instant Application
Regarding Claim 11, Suzuki discloses the solid ion conductor compound of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Suzuki further discloses the solid electrolyte has a crystalline phase (see paragraph [0048]). It is also noted that the solid ion conductor compound would necessarily have at least one of a crystalline and a non-crystalline phase.
Regarding Claims 15-16, Suzuki discloses the solid ion conductor compound of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Suzuki further discloses a method of preparing the aforementioned solid ion conductor compound of claim 1, the method comprising:
providing a mixture comprising a halide compound comprising an M element, a halide compound comprising an M′ element, and a compound comprising a Z anion, wherein the M element is at least one alkali metal, the M′ element is at least one of a divalent metal, a trivalent metal, a tetravalent metal, a pentavalent metal, or a hexavalent metal, and the Z anion is at least one of a trivalent anion (see paragraphs [0045]-[0048] and [0096]-[0099] and Tables 1-6); and
treating the mixture in a solid phase (powder) to prepare the solid ion conductor compound (see paragraphs [0045]-[0048] and [0096]-[0099]),
wherein the treating of the mixture in a solid phase to prepare the solid ion conductor compound comprises ball milling the mixture in a dry and inert (argon) atmosphere (see paragraphs [0045]-[0048] and [0096]-[0099]).
Regarding Claim 18, Suzuki discloses the solid ion conductor compound of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Suzuki further discloses an electrochemical cell (solid electrolyte battery) (see paragraphs [0052]-[0056]) comprising:
a positive electrode layer comprising a positive active material layer comprising a positive active material (see paragraphs [0059]-[0063]);
a negative electrode layer comprising a negative active material layer comprising a negative active material (see paragraphs [0072]-[0074]); and
a solid electrolyte layer between the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer and comprising a solid electrolyte (see paragraphs [0052]-[0055]),
wherein at least one of the positive electrode layer, or the solid electrolyte layer comprises the solid ion conductor compound of the aforementioned claim 1 (see paragraphs [0052]-[0055] and [0059]).
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 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakai et al. US-20200328457-A1 (hereinafter “Sakai”) and Asano et al. US-20190088995-A1 (hereinafter “Asano”).
Regarding Claim 9, Suzuki discloses the solid ion conductor compound of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Suzuki is silent on wherein the solid ion conductor compound has diffraction peaks at diffraction angles of 16°2θ±0.5°2θ, 30°2θ±0.5°2θ, 32°2θ±0.5°2θ, 42°2θ±0.5°2θ, and 50°2θ±0.5°2θ, when analyzed by an X-ray diffraction using CuKα radiation.
However, in the same field of endeavor of solid ion conductors (solid electrolytes) (see abstract), Sakai discloses a halide solid ion conductor compound having diffraction angles 2θ of 15.1° to 15.8°, 27.3° to 29.5°, 30.1° to 31.1°, 32.0° to 33.7°, 39.0° to 40.6°, and 47.0° to 48.5° to achieve a high lithium ion conductivity (see paragraphs [0020]-[0021] and [0028]-[0031]).
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of solid ion conductors (solid electrolytes) (see abstract), Asano discloses a solid ion conductor compound with diffraction angle 2θ values of 25° to 28°, 29° to 32°, 41° to 46°, 49° to 55°, and 51° to 58° to achieve a higher lithium ion conductivity (see paragraphs [0032]-[0036]).
The teachings of Sakai and Asano overlap and render obvious the claimed diffraction peaks at diffraction angles of 16°2θ±0.5°2θ, 30°2θ±0.5°2θ, 32°2θ±0.5°2θ, 42°2θ±0.5°2θ, and 50°2θ±0.5°2θ.
Further, based on the teachings of Sakai and Asano, the diffraction angles are viewed as result effective variables to achieve a higher lithium ion conductivity. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the solid ion conductor compound of Suzuki wherein the solid ion conductor compound has diffraction peaks at diffraction angles of 16°2θ±0.5°2θ, 30°2θ±0.5°2θ, 32°2θ±0.5°2θ, 42°2θ±0.5°2θ, and 50°2θ±0.5°2θ, when analyzed by an X-ray diffraction using CuKα radiation, as disclosed by Sakai and Asano, in order to achieve a higher lithium ion conductivity.
Regarding Claim 13, Suzuki discloses the solid ion conductor compound of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Suzuki is silent on wherein the solid ion conductor compound has a and c lattice constants, which are greater than a and c lattice constants of a solid ion conductor compound not comprising the trivalent anion represented by Z.
However, Sakai discloses appropriate lattice constants of solid ion conductor compounds can achieve high Li ion conductivity and can realize a high-performance battery when anions are introduced in Fig. 2 (see paragraph [0024]).
Additionally, Asano discloses improved lithium ion conductivity can be achieved by appropriate lattice constants (see paragraphs [0031] and [0043]-[0044]).
As such, a skilled artisan would be motivated to achieve a higher lattice constant when including an anion in the solid ion conductor compound of Suzuki.
It is also noted that the published instant specification discloses that the inclusion of a trivalent anion such as PO4 increases the a and c lattice constants (see paragraphs [0104]-[0105] and [0216] and of the published instant specification), and as such including a trivalent anion such as PO4 in the solid ion conductor compound as taught by Suzuki would necessarily increase the a and c lattice constants.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the solid ion conductor compound of Suzuki wherein the solid ion conductor compound has a and c lattice constants, which are greater than a and c lattice constants of a solid ion conductor compound not comprising the trivalent anion represented by Z, as disclosed by Sakai and Asano, in order to achieve high Li ion conductivity and realize a high-performance battery.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakai.
Regarding Claim 12, Suzuki discloses the solid ion conductor compound of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Suzuki is silent on wherein the solid ion conductor compound comprises a crystal belonging to a P3-m1 space group.
However, Sakai discloses using a solid ion conductor with a crystal structure represented by a space group P3-m1 so that a solid ion conductor having higher lithium ion conductivity may be realized (see paragraphs [0024] and [0034]-[0035]). As such, a skilled artisan would recognize that a crystal structure belonging to a P3-m1 space group is an appropriate and known crystal structure for use in solid ion conductors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the solid ion conductor compound of Suzuki wherein the solid ion conductor compound comprises a crystal belonging to a P3-m1 space group, as disclosed by Sakai, as it is an appropriate and known crystal structure for use in solid ion conductors to realize a higher lithium ion conductivity.
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki.
Regarding Claim 14, Suzuki discloses the solid ion conductor compound of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Formula (1) of Suzuki can simplify to the claimed formulas when A is Li, E is at least one of Y and Zr, G is PO4, and X is Cl as the range of subscripts of Formula (1) of Suzuki overlap with the subscripts of the claimed formulas (see paragraphs [0030]-[0044]). As such, Formula (1) of Suzuki overlaps and renders obvious the claimed formulas.
Regarding Claim 20, Suzuki discloses the electrochemical cell of claim 18 (see rejection of claim 18 above). The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). As such, the electrochemical cell of Suzuki is capable of having a discharge capacity is maintained at about 93 percent or greater for 20 cycles, as compared with an initial discharge capacity, when charging and discharging at 0.1 C in a range of about 2.5 volts to about 4.2 volts.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Nose et al. US-20190051890-A1 (hereinafter “Nose”).
Regarding Claim 17, Suzuki discloses the method of claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16 above). Suzuki further discloses wherein the ball milling is performed for a first period of time (see paragraphs [0096] and [0098]).
Suzuki is silent on wherein the ball milling further comprises a rest period of time after the first period of time, wherein the first period of time and the rest period of time are repeated.
However, in the same field of endeavor of mechanical milling (see abstract), Nose discloses a cycle of mechanical milling for 1 hour at weighing table rotation speed of 500 rpm and 15 minutes at rest was repeated to obtain a solid electrolyte (see paragraphs [0083], [0090], [0092], and [0113]). A skilled artisan would recognize this as a known and effective method to crush/blend materials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Suzuki wherein the ball milling further comprises a rest period of time after the first period of time, wherein the first period of time and the rest period of time are repeated, as disclosed by Nose, as it is a known and effective method to crush/blend materials.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki as applied to claim 18 above and further in view of Jordy et al. WO-2021255111-A1 (US-20230275222-A1 used as translation and cited in PTO-892) (hereinafter “Jordy”).
Regarding Claim 19, Suzuki discloses the electrochemical cell of claim 18 (see rejection of claim 18 above). Suzuki further discloses the positive active material layer comprises a positive active material represented by LiNix′Coy′Mnz′O2 wherein 0<x′<1, 0<y′<1, 0<z′<1, and x′+y′+z′=1, and the negative active material layer comprises a lithium metal (metallic lithium) (see paragraphs [0060]-[0061] and [0073]-[0074]). Suzuki also discloses solid ion conductor may be coating film (see paragraph [0032]).
Suzuki is silent on wherein the solid electrolyte layer comprises a sulfide solid electrolyte.
However, in the same field of endeavor of solid ion conductor compounds (solid electrolytes) (see abstract), Jordy discloses sulfide solid electrolytes can be appropriately used with halogenated solid ion conductor compound coatings (see paragraphs [0016], [0292], [0299]-[0300], [0304]-[0324], and [0336]-[0344]).
Jordy additionally discloses high ionic conductivity values combined with the ductility and the limited density of solid sulfide electrolytes make solid sulfide electrolytes candidates for the first generations of all-solid batteries which can compete with the energy densities of current Li-ion batteries with liquid electrolytes (see paragraph [0292]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrochemical cell of Suzuki wherein the solid electrolyte layer comprises a sulfide solid electrolyte, as disclosed by Jordy, in order to achieve a high energy density.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY L KLINE whose telephone number is (703)756-1729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/S.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights