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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-10 (i.e. Invention I) in the reply filed on 08/03/26 is acknowledged. Accordingly, non-elected Claims 11-14 are withdrawn from consideration.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the other surface." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites void ratios of the porous support and solid electrolyte layer “after the lamination and the pressure bonding.” However, the preamble of Claim 5 recites that the claimed battery is “formed of” the solid electrolyte laminated sheet of Claim 1. As recited in Claim 1, the void ratio of the porous support is 20% or more, and a void ratio of the solid electrolyte layer is smaller than the void ratio of the porous support. With respect to the porous support, the void ratio in Claim 1 is 20% or more, and the void ratio in Claim 5 is 15% or more (i.e. broader than 20% or more). Accordingly, Claim 5 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear how a battery (i.e. the battery of Claim 5) can be formed “of” (i.e. include/incorporate therein) a laminated sheet (i.e. the laminated sheet of Claim 1) when said laminated sheet is required to include a porous support exhibiting a void ratio of 20% or more, but in the battery the porous support is required to exhibit a different void ratio (i.e. 15% or more).
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.
Claims 1-2, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wachsman et al. (US 2014/0287305).
Regarding Claim 1, Wachsman teaches a solid state battery (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 3 (and the annotated Figure 3 below), Wachsman teaches that the battery comprises a discrete porous layer (“sheet-shaped porous support”) and a discrete solid electrolyte layer (“solid electrolyte layer”) formed on one surface of the discrete porous layer ([0023], [0041]-[0043]). Wachsman teaches that the discrete solid electrolyte layer is formed of (and therefore “contains”) an inorganic solid electrolyte having ion conductivity of lithium, sodium, and magnesium (each of which are metals “belonging to Group 1 or Group 2 in the periodic table”) ([0024], [0043], [0047]-[0050]). Wachsman teaches that the discrete porous layer is formed of (and therefore “internally contains”) an inorganic solid electrolyte having ion conductivity of lithium, sodium, and magnesium (each of which are metals “belonging to Group 1 or Group 2 in the periodic table”) ([0024], [0043], [0047]-[0050). Wachsman teaches that the discrete porous layer exhibits a porosity (“void ratio”) of 10%-90%, or more particularly, 30%-70% (“void ratio of the porous support is 20% or more”) ([0046]). Wachsman teaches that the discrete solid electrolyte layer exhibits a porosity which is less than the porosity of the discrete porous layer (“void ratio of the solid electrolyte layer is smaller than the void ratio of the porous support”) ([0041]).
PNG
media_image1.png
402
615
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Wachsman teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As illustrated in Figure 3 and the annotated Figure 3 (See Claim 1), the pores of the discrete porous layer exhibit various opening diameters, wherein none of said opening diameters are impeded/occupied by constituent particles of the discrete porous layer. Therefore, the constituent particles forming the discrete porous layer (i.e. constituent particles of the inorganic solid electrolyte having ion conductivity) are interpreted as being smaller than an opening diameter of the discrete porous layer.
Regarding Claim 4, Wachsman teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As illustrated in Figure 3 and the annotated Figure 3 (See Claim 1), a current collector (“negative electrode collector”) is positioned on a surface of the discrete solid electrolyte which is opposite to the one surface on which the discrete porous layer is formed.
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wachsman et al. (US 2014/0287305), and further in view of Honda et al. (JP 2008226666, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 2, Wachsman teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Wachsman does not explicitly teach that the constituent particles forming the discrete porous layer (i.e. constituent particles of the inorganic solid electrolyte having ion conductivity) are smaller than an opening diameter of the discrete porous layer.
However, Honda teaches a solid electrolyte structure for a solid-state battery (Abstract, [0001]). As illustrated in Figure 2, Honda teaches that the structure comprises a solid electrolyte compact body (2) and a solid electrolyte porous body (3) formed on a surface thereof ([0028]). Honda teaches that the solid electrolyte compact body has a substantially lower porosity as compared to that of the solid electrolyte porous body ([0036], [0066]). Honda teaches that the particle sizes of the solid electrolyte porous body and solid electrolyte porous body may be optimized based on desired porosity and/or density characteristics of the solid electrolyte structure ([0067]-[0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would optimize the particle sizes of the constituent particles forming the discrete porous layer of Wachsman (for example, such that they are particles smaller than an opening diameter of the discrete porous layer) based on desired porosity and/or density characteristics of the discrete porous layer, as taught by Honda, especially given that (1) said characteristics are consequently affected by the selection of particle size(s) and (2) such a modification would have only required routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success in view of the disclosure of Honda.
Regarding Claim 3, Wachsman teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Wachsman does not explicitly teach that the constituent particles forming the discrete porous layer (i.e. constituent particles of the inorganic solid electrolyte having ion conductivity) are include particles larger and smaller than an opening diameter of the discrete porous layer.
However, Honda teaches a solid electrolyte structure for a solid-state battery (Abstract, [0001]). As illustrated in Figure 2, Honda teaches that the structure comprises a solid electrolyte compact body (2) and a solid electrolyte porous body (3) formed on a surface thereof ([0028]). Honda teaches that the solid electrolyte compact body has a substantially lower porosity as compared to that of the solid electrolyte porous body ([0036], [0066]). Honda teaches that the particle sizes of the solid electrolyte porous body and solid electrolyte porous body may be optimized based on desired porosity and/or density characteristics of the solid electrolyte structure ([0067]-[0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would optimize the particle sizes of the constituent particles forming the discrete porous layer of Wachsman (for example, such that they include particles larger and smaller than an opening diameter of the discrete porous layer) based on desired porosity and/or density characteristics of the discrete porous layer, as taught by Honda, especially given that (1) said characteristics are consequently affected by the selection of particle size(s) and (2) such a modification would have only required routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success in view of the disclosure of Honda.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and rewritten to overcome all relevant rejections under 35 USC 112(b).
Claim 5 recites an all-solid state secondary battery formed of the solid electrolyte laminated sheet of Claim 1.
Among all other limitations, Claim 5 recites that a void ratio of the porous support after lamination and pressure bonding is 15% or more, and a void ratio of the solid electrolyte layer after lamination and pressure bonding is 10% or less.
Wachsman neither teaches nor suggests a secondary battery as instantly claimed insofar as Wachsman does not disclose porosity characteristics of the discrete porous layer and discrete solid electrolyte after lamination and pressure bonding. Furthermore, Honda does not cure the deficiencies of Wachsman.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST M-F.
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 5712707871. 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.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights