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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claims 1, and 5, cancelled claims 2-4, and added new claims 6-11.
The 102 and 103 rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendments. However, upon further consideration a new ground of rejection is necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki, Jia, and Fujii, as evidenced by Tsuchida (US 2013/0177821), hereinafter Iwasaki, Jia, Fujii, and Tsuchia.
Regarding Claims 1, 5-7, 10, Iwasaki suggests an all-solid-state battery comprising an electrode layer, wherein the electrode layer includes an active material and a sulfide solid electrolyte, see e.g., [0008,0042, 0049-0051, 0133]. The D50 of the sulfide solid electrolyte is from 0.05 µm to 5 µm (or 0.1 µm to 1.5 µm), [0064]. Iwasaki appreciates the sulfide based solid electrolyte in the cathode electrode layer from the standpoint of forming an ion conduction path, achieving low reaction resistance, and reduced internal resistance in a battery ([0049, 0055]), but does not further elaborate on the abundance ratio of a skeleton structure unit in the solid electrolyte. However, Jia discloses a sulfide solid electrolyte (e.g., HT-CP, CP-HT, HP, see Fig. 4) having high ion conductivity (e.g., CP-HT has an ion conductivity of 1.82 mS/cm, which as evidenced by Tsuchida is a high ion conductivity suitable for use in a cathode ([0060-0061])). Jia suggests the sulfide solid electrolyte includes various units including C1 (i.e., PS43- unit), C2 (i.e., P2Sx unit), and C3 (i.e., POx unit), see e.g., Fig. 4. For example, the CP-HT sample includes the PS43- unit (C1) at about 69-72%, which overlaps with the claimed range (i.e., 67%-72% in claim 1), the content of the P2Sx unit (C2, which includes P2S7 and P2S6) is about 25-27% which either overlaps with the claimed range (e.g., 10-25% in claim 1), or does not overlap with that claimed (i.e., 19%-24%) but is close (e.g., 25% is close to the claimed 24% in claim 10), thereby suggesting C2/C1 (e.g., 25/72) of about 0.3472, which overlaps with that claimed (0.34 in claim 1), or is close.
Jia does not suggest the presence of POx. However, Fujii suggests the presence of P-O is advantageous because it acts as a glass network former; the amount of P-O with respect to the total amount of P is about 15-30% (thereby overlapping with the claimed range of 7-15% in claim 1) from the viewpoint of forming a network former and lithium ion conductivity, [0082-0083]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the sulfide electrolyte of Jia includes POx in an amount of 7-15% with the expectation of forming a glass network former and considering lithium ion conductivity, as suggested by Fujii.
The values suggested in the prior art either overlap with that claimed, or when they don’t overlap, they are very close to that claimed, hence a prima facie case of obviousness has been established, MPEP 2144.05.
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the sulfide solid electrolyte suggested by Jia and Fujii with the expectation of securing an ion conduction path, achieving low reaction resistance, and reduced internal resistance in a battery, in view of the high ion conductivity the sulfide solid electrolyte possesses (as evidence by Tsuchida).
Claim(s) 8-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki, Jia, Fujii and Tsuchida further in view of Osada (US 20190356017), hereinafter Osada.
Regarding Claims 8-9 and 11:
With respect to Claim 11, Iwasaki suggests the sulfide solid electrolyte has a D50 between 0.1 micron to 1.5 micron (see rejection of claim 7 above), and Iwasaki suggests the content of the P2Sx unit (C2, which includes P2S7 and P2S6) is about 25-27%, which does not overlap with the claimed range (e.g., 19-24%), but is close (e.g., 25% is close to the claimed 24%), thus obvious (MPEP 2144.05).
With respect to Claims 8-9 and 11, Iwasaki does not explicit disclose the specific surface area of the sulfide solid electrolyte. However, Osada suggests a solid electrolyte particle in the electrode layer having a D50 of 0.1 micron to 50 microns ([0009, 0016, 0085]); the preferred specific surface area of these particles is between 10-35 m2/g to balance ion conductivity and heat generation of the electrode layer comprising the solid electrolyte, [0074-0077]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the sulfide solid electrolyte has a specific surface area between 4-40 m2/g (or 8-32 m2/g) with the expectation of balancing ion conductivity and heat generation of the electrode layer.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 pm.
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 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights