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 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 01/12/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. A translation for this document has not been provided. This objection specifically refers to the Non-Patent Literature document titled “Office Action dated November 21, 2023 from German Office Action for German Application No. 10 2023 108 210.8”.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the dry process anode active material 420, sulfide electrolyte 422, and PTFE fibrils 424 in Fig. 9 [0052] as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Element 315 is referenced in the Fig. 4 and Fig.5 but is not mentioned in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1-2, 4 and 12, "calendaring" should be "calendering".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “arranging a first side of the sulfide electrolyte layer adjacent to a first side of the first dry process electrode layer” to specify the spatial relationship between elements. The specification defines the word “adjacent” to include both direct and indirect relationships (see Specification [0064]), such that the broadest interpretation of the claim limitation is interpreted as “arranging a first side of the sulfide electrolyte layer directly or indirectly adjacent to a first side of the first dry process electrode layer”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein first dry process electrode layer comprises a cathode electrode, and wherein the second dry process electrode layer comprises an anode electrode layer” to specify the arrangement of elements. Since the two electrodes are arranged with only one layer in-between, the terms “first” and “second” designations are interchangeable, such that the broadest interpretation of the limitation is interpreted as “one of the electrodes is a cathode and the other electrode is an anode”.
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.
Claims 4rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “sulfide electrolyte layer” in the body of the claim. The term “sulfide electrolyte layer” in claim 4 is used by the claim to mean “dry process electrode layer”. The term is indefinite because the term “sulfide electrolyte layer” also refers to another element of the invention. For examination purposes, the term ““sulfide electrolyte layer” in claim 4 is interpreted as “dry process electrode layer”.
The Markush groupings in claims 7 and 9 contain the members “lithiated metal oxide/sulfide” and “metal oxide/sulfide”, respectively. The terms are rendered indefinite because “oxide/sulfide” is ambiguous in this context. It is unclear if “/” means the compounds contain either “oxide or sulfide” or “oxide and sulfide”. For examination purposes, the term “oxide/sulfide” is interpreted as inclusive of “oxide or sulfide”.
Claims 5-6, 8, and 10-11 are rejected as containing the unclear language of the parent claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2020/0028156).
Claim 1: Zhang teaches a method for preparing an electrolyte layer supported by a dry process electrode layer [0008], the method comprising:
providing a stand-alone solid state electrolyte film (3) (Fig. 1) comprising sulfide electrolyte material (i.e. sulfide electrolyte layer) [0008, 0010, 0055, 0060];
providing an electrode film (2) (Fig. 1) (i.e. first dry process electrode layer) [0008, 0060];
arranging a first side of the sulfide electrolyte layer adjacent to a first side of the first dry process electrode layer (Fig. 1); and calendering the sulfide electrolyte layer and the first dry process electrode layer (Figs 5A and 5B) [0053] to compress (i.e. reduce the thickness of) the sulfide electrolyte layer [0008, 0060] to a predetermined thickness between 10 micrometers (µm) to100 µm [0058]). Zhang does not explicitly teach a sulfide electrolyte layer in the range of 5-50 µm. However, Zhang does teach the thickness of 10-100 µm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention to have used the overlapping portion of the range because Zhang teaches that they are within the desired and operative range of thickness. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Claim 2: Zhang teaches providing the sulfide electrolyte layer comprises:
preparing a mixture of a sulfide electrolyte and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) binder to create the sulfide electrolyte layer; and calendering the mixture one or more times to reduce a thickness of the sulfide electrolyte layer [0057].
Claim 3: Zhang teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the sulfide electrolyte comprises 75wt% to 99 wt% and the PTFE binder comprises 1wt% to 25wt% of the sulfide electrolyte layer [0057].
Claim 17: Zhang teaches a cathode electrode film acting as a substrate for the solid electrolyte layer [0088]. Zhang does not explicitly teach a layer on the other side of the electrolyte layer can also serve as a substrate. However, in the multi-layer embodiment wherein the solid electrolyte layer (3b) is arranged between the anode (20b) electrode and the cathode electrode (2b) (Fig. 7), the anode also serves as a substrate.
Claims 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang ‘156 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhong (WO 2023/055644).
Claim 4: Zhang ‘156 teaches the first dry process electrode layer comprises: a mixture of a sulfide electrolyte, Li2S-P2S5 (LPS) [0063], active material [0063], and PTFE binder [0066]. Zhang ‘156 does not explicitly teach a conductive additive in the composite electrode. However, Zhong ‘644 teaches a composite dry process electrode layer comprising a mixture of an electrolyte [0012, 0017], active material [0046], PTFE binder [0047] and a conductive additive [0046]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention to add a conductive additive to Zhang ‘156’s composite dry process electrode mixture to enhance the electrode’s conductivity and performance.
Claim 5: Zhang ‘156 teaches the active material is predominant in composite dry process electrode layer [0063]. Zhang ‘156 does not explicitly teach the relative concentrations of the sulfide electrolyte, active material, conductive additive, and PTFE binder in the sulfide electrode layer. However, Zhong ‘644 teaches that the electrode may contain 5wt% to 30wt% of the solid electrolyte [0012], 82wt% to 99wt% of the active material [0046], 0wt% to 10wt% of the conductive additive [0046]. Zhong ‘644 does not explicitly teach the relative weight of PTFE binder. However, based on the information above, the binder may be present greater than 0wt% and less than or equal to 10wt%. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to have made a sulfide electrode by Zhang ‘156 comprising contain 5wt% of the solid electrolyte, 90wt% of the active material, 4wt% of the conductive additive and 1wt% of the PTFE binder because Zhong ‘644 teaches that such a mixture makes a functional electrode.
Claim 6: Zhang ‘156 teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the active material comprises cathode active material layer [0061].
Claim 7: Zhang ‘156 teaches active materials including lithium cobalt oxide [0062].
Claims 8-9: Zhang ‘156 teaches sulfide dry process electrodes [0008, 0060]. Zhang ‘156 does not explicitly teach dry process anode electrodes. However, Zhong ‘644 teaches a dry process anode electrode comprising anode active material, graphite [0046]. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to have made a sulfide dry process anode electrode by Zhang ‘156’s process, wherein the electrode comprises graphite active material, because Zhong ‘644 teaches that such is an operative electrode.
Claim 10: Zhang ‘156 teaches pseudoquaternary sulfide Li2S-P2S5 [0051, 0055].
Claim 11: Zhang ‘156 teaches composite electrode active material composition [0064, 0063]. Zhang ‘156 does not explicitly teach a conductive additive in the electrode composite. Zhong ‘644 teaches the use of carbon black as a conductive additive. [0046]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention to add carbon black to Zhang ‘156’s composite dry process electrode mixture to enhance conductivity and performance of the electrode.
Claim 12: Zhang ‘156 teaches arranging a solid sulfide electrolyte layer between a dry process cathode electrode and a Li metal anode [0089, 0103]. Zhang ‘156 does not teach a method of preparing an electrolyte supported by dry process anode electrodes. However, Zhong '644 teaches arranging a second dry process electrode layer adjacent to a second side of the sulfide electrolyte layer, wherein the first dry process electrode layer comprises a cathode electrode layer, and wherein the second dry process electrode layer comprises an anode electrode layer [0036]. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to substitute the Li anode electrode in Zhang ‘156’s arrangement with a dry process anode to enhance mechanical strength and adhesion to the anode current collector.
Claims 13-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang ‘156 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gotlib et al. (US 20180175355).
Claims 13-16: Zhang ‘156 teaches attaching the sulfide electrolyte layer and the first dry process electrode layer to a current collector [0084]. Zhang does not teach using an electrically conductive adhesive in this process. However, Gotlib teaches laminating a dried electrode slurry layer (95) to a current collector (80) using electrically conductive adhesive (82) (Figs. 3A, 3B and 7) to enhance binding and improve the stack’s operation [0057, 0060]. Gotlib further teaches the electrically conductive adhesive comprises a polymeric binder (i.e., polymer) and electrically conductive particles (i.e., conductive filler) [0065], wherein the polymer is polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) [0065]; and the conductive filler is carbon black [0065].
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to have incorporated an electrically conductive adhesive layer containing a polymer such as PVDF, and a conductive filler such as carbon black, between the dry process electrode and the current collector in Zhang’s process in order to enhance binding and improve the stack’s operation.
Claim 18: Zhang ‘156 does not teach using polyethylene terephthalate (PET) as the substrate. However, Gotlib teaches battery systems comprising of PET separators (75) [0042, 0071] arranged between anode (95A) and cathode (95B) electrodes (Figs. 1C and 2) [0053], and the use liquid or polymeric solid electrolytes [0055]. Gotlib does not explicitly teach the arrangement of a solid electrolyte, however, if a solid was part of this assembly, it would have to be arranged between the PET separators and each electrode, such that the PET separator serves as a substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to have arranged a PET substrate adjacent to the solid sulfide electrolyte disposed in an electrode in Zhang’s method because Gotlib teaches that such is an operative configuration.
Claim 19: Zhang ‘156 teaches directly attaching one side the dry process cathode electrode layer to one side of a current collector (Fig. 7) [0087]. Zhang ‘156 does not teach using an electrically conductive adhesive in this process. However, Gotlib teaches attaching a dried electrode slurry layers (95) on one side of a current collector (80) using an electrically conductive adhesive (82) (Figs. 3B, 3C) [0040, 0057]. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to have attached one side of Zhang’s dry process electrode to one side of a current collector using an electrically conductive adhesive as depicted in Fig. 3C by Gotlib in order to enhance binding and improve the stack’s operation.
Claim 20: Zhang ‘156 does not teach attaching two dry process electrode layers to the same the current collector. However, Gotlib teaches a double-sided stack having a current collector (80) with dried electrode slurry layers (95) on either side, each attached using an electrically conductive adhesive (82) (Fig. 4C) [0040, 0069]. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to have assembled Zhang’s dry process electrodes and a current collector as depicted in Fig. 4C by Gotlib to maximize space usage.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mitchell et al. (US 20170098826) teaches a method of making energy storage devices wherein a dry process electrode [0022] may be attached to a current collector using an adhesive layer prior to calendering [0130, 0142]; wherein the adhesive layer comprises of a conductive filler such as graphite or a metal powder [0127] and thermoplastic polymers [0025, 0127].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINAH RUSERE whose telephone number is (571)272-9954. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/L.N.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1712
/MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights