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(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/11/2023, 08/28/2025, and 03/17/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8, 11-14, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga (US 20210184253 A1) in view of Byeon et al (Electrochem 2021, 2(3), 452-471) and Zhang et al (ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2022 14 (14), 16204-16213).
Regarding claim 1, Koga teaches the following elements:
A positive electrode for an all-solid-state rechargeable battery, (“A battery according to the second embodiment includes a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte layer between the positive electrode and the negative electrode.” Koga [0098])
the positive electrode comprising: a current collector; and a positive electrode active material layer on the current collector, (“Referring to FIG. 3, a battery 3000 includes a positive electrode including a positive electrode active material layer 301 and a current collector 303;” Koga [0151]. Koga Figure 3 depicts the positive electrode active material layer being formed on the current collector.)
wherein: the positive electrode active material layer includes a positive electrode active material and a solid electrolyte, (“FIG. 2 is a cross-sectional view of a battery 2000 according to the second embodiment. Referring to FIG. 2, the battery 2000 according to the second embodiment includes a positive electrode 201, a negative electrode 203, and an electrolyte layer 202. The positive electrode 201 includes positive electrode active material particles 204 and the solid electrolyte 1000 according to the first embodiment.” Koga [0099])
the solid electrolyte includes: sulfide solid electrolyte particles, (“To increase the ionic conductivity of the solid electrolyte 1000, the second solid electrolyte material may contain at least one selected from the group consisting of a sulfide, an oxide, and a halide.” Koga [0053] and “ A solid electrolyte according to a first embodiment contains first particles consisted of a first solid electrolyte material and second particles consisted of a second solid electrolyte material.” Koga [0011])
Koga is silent on the following elements of claim 1:
and a lithium-metal-phosphate on a surface of the sulfide solid electrolyte particles,
and in an X-ray diffraction analysis of the solid electrolyte, a full width at half maximum of a main peak is less than or equal to about 0.160.
However, the combination of Byeon et al and Zhang et al would render obvious the usage of a lithium metal phosphate as a surface modifying agent in order to stabilize the sulfide electrolyte instability. Specifically, Byeon teaches that there are interface and interphase issues among sulfide solid electrolytes, specifically, that they lack stability and offer lower ionic conductivity at room temperature (“Many SSEs display lower ionic conductivity at room temperature when compared to liquid electrolytes.” Byeon page 1 paragraph 2 line 10) as well as that they have unstable interphases which can lead to operational failure (“Sulfide SSEs have an intrinsically narrow electrochemical stability window, which results in undesired (electro)chemical reactions between the sulfide SSE and electrodes during battery cycling [19], forming unstable interphases. Such interphase formation leads to operation failures of ASSBs.” Byeon page 2 paragraph 2 line 4.) Zhang teaches that LiZr2(PO4)3 is a promising surface modifier that improves both ionic conductivity and structural stability in a positive electrode active material (“In this work, we introduce the NASICON-structured LiZr2(PO4)3 (LZP), an ion conductor for lithium ion, to modify the surface of LCO by a wet-chemical method. Such a surface modification improves lithium-ion diffusion between the interface of LCO and electrolyte and restrains the O3 to H1-3 phase transition. As a result, the optimized LCO with 1 wt % coating (denoted as LCO@LZP-1%) demonstrates enhanced electrochemical performance in both half-cell and full-cell.” Zhang abstract). While examiner notes that LZP is taught by Zhang as a surface modifier for a cathode active material rather than a surface modifier for a solid electrolyte particle, the teachings of Byeon at al demonstrate a problem that Zhang presents a solution for. Both articles cite an issue of ionic conductivity and stability, and therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Zhang to modify a sulfide solid electrolyte particle with a lithium metal phosphate in order to achieve improve ionic conductivity and improve stability.
Regarding the limitation about full width half max, the instant specification teaches that a sulfide solid electrolyte particle of Li6PS5Cl is modified with LZP in order to produce a surface coated material that has the desired characteristics (“The secondarily fired
powder was pulverized and sieved, to obtain sulfide solid electrolyte particles of
Li6PS5Cl. This obtained sulfide solid electrolyte particles had a size (D50) of 0.85 pm. [00178] 100 parts by weight of the prepared sulfide solid electrolyte particles and 0.25
parts by weight of lithium-zirconium-phosphate (LZP; LiZr2(PO4)3) having D50 of 0.15
pm and being amorphous as a result of X-ray diffraction analysis (as a coating agent)
were mixed with the Henschel mixer.” Instant spec [00177]). Zhang et al teaches that in order to sufficiently surface modify a particle with LZP, an “appropriate” amount of substrate particles were added prior to mixing (“To acquire LCO@LZP, stoichiometric LiNO3, NH4H2PO4, and Zr(NO3)4·5H2O were dissolved in 100 mL of ethanol solution and stirred continuously for 6 h. Then, appropriate LCO powder was added to the milky suspension and transferred into 80 °Coil bath with continuous agitation.” Zhang experimental paragraph 1 line 4). This would inform someone of ordinary skill in the art that the ratio of LZP to modified-particle is a result-effective variable that would be obvious to optimize. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to optimize the ratio of LZP and sulfide solid electrolyte in order to optimize the results of improved ionic conductivity and stability, and thus have a full-width half max as claimed.
Based on all of the above, examiner finds that the teachings of Byeon and Zhang would provide sufficient motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to surface modify a sulfide solid electrolyte with a lithium metal phosphate and to adjust the parameters such that the full width half max would be within the claimed range.
Byeon and Zhang are considered to be analogous to Koga because they are all related to positive electrode materials and solid electrolytes to be used in lithium batteries. Koga even provides teachings regarding the inclusion of multiple solid electrolyte materials together, including both sulfides and phosphates, in order to improve characteristics (“Examples of the solid electrolyte materials further include lithium-containing metal oxides, lithium-containing metal nitrides, lithium phosphate” Koga [0042], “to increase the ionic conductivity of the solid electrolyte 1000, the second solid electrolyte material may contain at least one selected from the group consisting of a sulfide, an oxide, and a halide.” Koga [0053] and “The third solid electrolyte material may have lower crystallinity than the second solid electrolyte material. When the third solid electrolyte material has lower crystallinity than the second solid electrolyte material, the particle boundary layer 103 effectively functions as a connection layer that connects particles to each other.” Koga [0059]) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sulfide solid electrolyte particles in the positive electrode active layer of Koga with LZP based on the combined teachings of Byeon and Zhang in order to improve ionic conductivity and increase stability of the sulfide solid electrolyte particles, which would in turn improve the overall characteristics of the battery.
Regarding claim 2, modified Koga would meet all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Koga teaches all of the additional limitations of claim 2.
The positive electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein, in the lithium- metal-phosphate, the metal is Al, B, Ca, Ce, Cr, Fe, Mg, Mo, Nb, Si, Sn, Sr, Ta, V, W, or Zr. (By modifying the sulfide solid electrolyte particles of Koga with LZP, as described above in claim 1, this limitation would be met, as LZP contains Zr as the metal.)
Regarding claim 5, modified Koga would meet all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Koga teaches all of the additional limitations of claim 5. Specifically, Koga teaches the desirability of including an amorphous material in its solid electrolyte mixture in order to achieve improved characteristics
The positive electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein the lithium-metal- phosphate is amorphous. (“The third solid electrolyte material may be amorphous. When the third solid electrolyte material is amorphous, the particle boundary layer 103 effectively functions as a connection layer that connects particles to each other. Such compaction of the particles under high pressure to form the solid electrolyte 1000 prevents or reduces structural defects, such as delamination. As a result, the solid electrolyte has a high effective ionic conductivity.” Koga [0060] Based on the modifications provided in claim 1, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an amorphous lithium-metal phosphate [specifically LZP] in order to further achieve these results. Since the modified solid electrolyte particle would be surface coated in the lithium-metal phosphate, it would be obvious to use an amorphous surface modifier if the goal is to have an amorphous solid electrolyte particle.)
Regarding claim 6, modified Koga would meet all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Koga teaches all of the additional limitations of claim 6.
The positive electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sulfide solid electrolyte particles include an argyrodite-type sulfide. (“to increase the ionic conductivity of the solid electrolyte 1000, the first solid electrolyte material may contain an argyrodite sulfide. The argyrodite sulfide has an inherently high ionic conductivity.” Koga [0050] and “The solid electrolyte material was a crystalline glass powder of argyrodite sulfide solid electrolyte Li.sub.6PS.sub.5Cl.” Koga [0172])
Regarding claim 7, modified Koga would meet all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Koga teaches all of the additional limitations of claim 7.
The positive electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein an average particle diameter (D50) of the solid electrolyte is about 0.1 um to about 5.0 um. (“The first particles 101 and the second particles 102 may have an average particle size of about 0.1 micrometers or more and 10 micrometers or less. The average particle size refers to particle size D50” Koga [0064] and “As described above, the first particles 101, the second particles 102, and the particle boundary layer 103 are all consisted of a solid electrolyte material.” Koga [0035])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.1-10um for the particle size d50 of the solid electrolyte material encompassed the claimed range of 0.1-5um for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, modified Koga would meet all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Koga teaches all of the additional limitations of claim 8.
The positive electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein an average particle diameter (D50) of the sulfide solid electrolyte is about 0.1 um to about 2.0 um. (“The first particles 101 and the second particles 102 may have an average particle size of about 0.1 micrometers or more and 10 micrometers or less. The average particle size refers to particle size D50” Koga [0064] and “As described above, the first particles 101, the second particles 102, and the particle boundary layer 103 are all consisted of a solid electrolyte material.” Koga [0035])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.1-10um for the particle size d50 of the solid electrolyte material encompassed the claimed range of 0.1-2um for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, modified Koga would meet all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Koga teaches all of the additional limitations of claim 11.
The positive electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the positive electrode active material is in the form of particles, and the particles do not include a buffer layer. (“The positive electrode 201 includes positive electrode active material particles 204” Koga [0099]. There is no mention of a buffer layer in Koga, and therefore it is assumed that the particles to not include a buffer layer.)
Regarding claim 12, modified Koga would meet all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Koga teaches all of the additional limitations of claim 12.
The positive electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein the positive electrode active material includes a lithium cobalt oxide, lithium nickel oxide, a lithium nickel cobalt oxide, a lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide, a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide, a lithium nickel manganese oxide, a lithium manganese oxide, a lithium iron phosphate, or a combination thereof. (“Examples of the positive electrode active material include lithium-containing transition metal oxides,” Koga [0102] and “The positive electrode 201 may contain, as a positive electrode active material, at least one selected from Li(NiCoAl)O.sub.2 and LiCoO.sub.2. “ Koga [0103]. The teachings of Koga would render obvious the selection of a material that meets the limitations of claim 12.)
Regarding claim 13, modified Koga would meet all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Koga teaches all of the additional limitations of claim 13.
The positive electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the positive electrode active material includes a lithium nickel oxide represented by Chemical Formula 1, a lithium cobalt oxide represented by Chemical Formula 2, a lithium iron phosphate compound represented by Chemical Formula 3, or a combination thereof, [Chemical Formula 1] Lia1Nix1M1y1M21-x1-y1O2 in Chemical Formula 1 and M1 and M2 are each independently Al, B, Ba, Ca, Ce, Co, Cr, Cu, F, Fe, Mg, Mn, Mo, Nb, P, S, Si, Sr, Ti, V, W, or Zr, [Chemical Formula 2] Lia2Cox2M31-x2O2 in Chemical Formula 2, 0.9<a2<1.8,0.6<x2<1, and M3 is Al, B, Ba, Ca, Ce, Cr, Cu, F, Fe, Mg, Mn, Mo, Nb, P, S, Si, Sr, Ti, V, W, or Zr, and [Chemical Formula 3] Lia3Fex3M4(1-x3)P04 in Chemical Formula 3,0.9<a3<1.8,0.6<x3<1, and M4 is Al, B, Ba, Ca, Ce, Co, Cr, Cu, F, Fe, Mg, Mn, Mo, Nb, P, S, Si, Sr, Ti, V, W, or Zr. (“Examples of the positive electrode active material include lithium-containing transition metal oxides,” Koga [0102] and “The positive electrode 201 may contain, as a positive electrode active material, at least one selected from Li(NiCoAl)O.sub.2 and LiCoO.sub.2. “ Koga [0103]. In this case, since the M3 of chemical formula 2 can be present in an amount of 0, in the case where Co is at a molar quantity of 1, the LiCoO2 material taught by Koga would meet the limitation. Thus, the teachings of Koga would render obvious the selection of a material that meets the limitations of claim 13.)
Regarding claim 14, modified Koga would meet all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Koga teaches all of the additional limitations of claim 14.
The positive electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein an average particle diameter (D50) of the positive electrode active material is about 3 pm to about 25 pm. (“The positive electrode active material was a powder of layered LiNiCoAl composite oxide represented by chemical formula LiNi.sub.0.8Co.sub.0.15Al.sub.0.05O.sub.2. The layered LiNiCoAl composite oxide had an average particle size of about 5 micrometers.” Koga [0173]. The particle size of 5um for the positive electrode active material would anticipate the claimed range.)
Regarding claim 16, modified Koga would meet all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Koga teaches all of the additional limitations of claim 16.
An all-solid-state rechargeable battery, comprising: the positive electrode as claimed in claim 1; a negative electrode; and a solid electrolyte layer between the positive electrode and the negative electrode. (“The battery 2000 is, for example, an all-solid lithium secondary battery.” Koga [0099] and “the battery 2000 according to the second embodiment includes a positive electrode 201, a negative electrode 203, and an electrolyte layer 202.” Koga [0099])
Regarding claim 17, modified Koga would meet all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Koga teaches all of the additional limitations of claim 17.
The all-solid-state rechargeable battery as claimed in claim 16, wherein the negative electrode includes a current collector and a negative electrode active material layer or a negative electrode catalyst layer on the current collector. (“a battery 3000 includes a positive electrode including a positive electrode active material layer 301 and a current collector 303; a negative electrode including a negative electrode active material layer 302 and a current collector 303; and an electrolyte layer 304 between the positive electrode and the negative electrode.” Koga [0151])
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga (US 20210184253 A1) in view of Byeon et al (Electrochem 2021, 2(3), 452-471) and Zhang et al (ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2022 14 (14), 16204-16213), and further in view of Li et al (Journal of Energy Chemistry 60 (2021) 32–60)
Regarding claim 3, modified Koga would meet all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. The teachings of Koga, Byeon, and Zhang do not explicitly teach that the surface modifying LZP would be in a range of 0.01-3%. However, Li et al teaches that the amount of surface modifier would be a result effective variable, and that surface modification layers must be thin and uniform to avoid undesirable effects, which would encourage one of ordinary skill in the art to use the smallest amount possible (“The slurry process is similar to the one for conventional LIBs, which is an effective way to fabricate thin SE layers and electrode sheets” Li page 17 column 1 lines 11-13, “Composition optimization and morphology controlling are aimed at building a favorable ion–electron network in electrodes, thereby increasing the capacity and cycling performance of ASLBs. Coating solid electrolyte onto electrode particles is another efficacious way to ensure intimate interfacial contact and good ionic conduction. Li page 13 column 1 lines 3-10). Essentially, what Li teaches is that it is within the realm of routine optimization to alter the thickness/amount of a surface modifier in order to achieve optimal results within the scope of positive electrode active materials and solid electrolytes. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would see that the amount of lithium metal phosphate used to surface modify a solid electrolyte particle would be a result effective variable and would be obvious to adjust/optimize.
The positive electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein the lithium-metal- phosphate is included in the solid electrolyte in an amount of about 0.01 wt% to about 3 wt%, based on a total weight of the solid electrolyte. (See above for reasoning for why the amount of lithium-metal phosphate would be a result effective variable, and thus would be obvious to optimize, and therefore anticipate the range provided in the claim limitation. Barring unexpected results, it would be obvious to optimize the amount to be within the claimed parameters.)
No further modification or motivation would be required to meet the additional limitations of claim 4.
Regarding claim 4, modified Koga would meet all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. The teachings of Li would render obvious the usage of lithium-metal phosphate in the amount required by the limitations of claim 4. See above in claim 3 for reasoning.
The positive electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein the lithium-metal- phosphate is included in the solid electrolyte in an amount of about 0.01 wt% to about 0.8 wt%, based on a total weight of the solid electrolyte. (See above for reasoning for why the amount of lithium-metal phosphate would be a result effective variable, and thus would be obvious to optimize, and therefore anticipate the range provided in the claim limitation. Barring unexpected results, it would be obvious to optimize the amount to be within the claimed parameters.)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga (US 20210184253 A1) in view of Byeon et al (Electrochem 2021, 2(3), 452-471) and Zhang et al (ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2022 14 (14), 16204-16213), and further in view of Tsutsui (US 20210305627
Regarding claim 9, modified Koga teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Koga is silent on the following elements of claim 9:
The positive electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein a value of (D90- D10)/D50 in a particle size distribution for the solid electrolyte is greater than about 1 and less than or equal to about 5.
However, Tsutsui teaches all of the elements of claim 9 that are not found in Koga:
The positive electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein a value of (D90- D10)/D50 in a particle size distribution for the solid electrolyte is greater than about 1 and less than or equal to about 5. (“In the battery material, each of the particle size distribution of particles of the solid electrolyte and the particle size distribution of particles of the active material has sharp peaks. For example, in each of the particle size distribution of particles of the solid electrolyte and the particle size distribution of particles of the active material, the value (D90−D10)/D50 may be less than or equal to 3.0, or may be less than or equal to 2.0. The lower limit of (D90−D10)/D50 is not particularly limited, and for example, is 0.5.” Tsutsui [0063]. The particle distribution range of Tsutsui anticipates the range of claim 9, and thus meets the limitation.)
Tsutsui and Koga are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of all-solid batteries containing positive electrode layers with solid electrolyte particles present in them. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solid electrolyte particles of Koga to have the particle distribution of Tsutsui in order to achieve high dispersibility of the solid electrolyte particles (“According to an aspect of the present disclosure, it is possible to provide a battery material which has excellent dispersibility and is suitable for improving ionic conductivity in batteries.” Tsutsui [0006]. Table 2 on page 7 shows examples 2 having a smaller (D90-D10)/D50 compared to comparative examples, and Tsutsui proceeds to state that by uniformly dispersing the solid electrolyte particles, ionic conductivity can be increased and characteristics can be improved (“That is, in the battery material according to the embodiment, particles are uniformly dispersed. Furthermore, in the battery material according to the embodiment, the content of the compound A in a battery component can be easily decreased. Therefore, a decrease in ionic conductivity can be suppressed, and a battery having good battery characteristics can be realized.” Tsutsui [0101]). Thus, based on the teachings of Tsutsui, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a particle size distribution which meets the limitations of claim 9.
Claim(s) 10, 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga (US 20210184253 A1) in view of Byeon et al (Electrochem 2021, 2(3), 452-471) and Zhang et al (ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2022 14 (14), 16204-16213), and further in view of Yun (KR 20180010122A, US 20220069301 A1 used as translation)
Regarding claim 10, modified Koga teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Koga is silent on the following elements of claim 10:
The positive electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein the solid electrolyte is included in the positive electrode active material layer in an amount of about 0.5 wt% to about 35 wt%, based on a total weight of the positive electrode active material layer.
However, Yun teaches all of the elements of claim 10 that are not found in Koga:
The positive electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein the solid electrolyte is included in the positive electrode active material layer in an amount of about 0.5 wt% to about 35 wt%, based on a total weight of the positive electrode active material layer. (“85 wt % of the obtained positive active material, 13.5 wt % of a lithium argyrodite-type solid electrolyte Li.sub.6PS.sub.5Cl, 1.0 wt % of a binder, 0.4 wt % of carbon nanotube conductive material, and 0.1 wt % of a dispersing agent were added to an isobutyl isobutyrate (IBIB) solvent, and 2 mm zirconia balls were added thereto and then, stirred with a Thinky mixer to prepare a slurry. The slurry was coated on a positive current collector and then, dried to manufacture a positive electrode.” Yun [0152]. In this example, the quantity of solid electrolyte included in the positive electrode active material layer, 13.5 % anticipates the claimed range.)
Yun is considered to be analogous to Koga because they are both within the same field of all-solid secondary batteries containing sulfide solid electrolytes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrolyte layer of Koga having solid electrolyte particles to have a wt% of particles as taught by Yun as this is clearly a standard in the art, and it would be within the ambit of one of ordinary skill to include a weight percent of a material in a quantity known in the art. Additionally, the battery of Yun is shown to have improved characteristics, which further support this modification (“The positive active material for an all-solid-state battery according to an embodiment and an all-solid-state battery including the same may exhibit excellent or suitable cycle-life characteristics while realizing high capacity and/or high energy density.” Yun [0025])
By modifying Koga to include the positive electrode layer makeup and quantities of Yun, including the amount of binder and conductive material, which would also be obvious to include for the same reasons as above, the additional limitations of claim 15 would be met without any further modification or motivation.
Regarding claim 15, modified Koga teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Koga is silent on the following elements of claim 15:
The positive electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein the positive electrode active material layer includes: about 50 wt% to about 99.5 wt% of the positive electrode active material, about 0.5 wt% to about 35 wt% of the solid electrolyte, about 0 wt% to about 10 wt% of a binder, and about 0 wt% to about 5 wt% of a conductive material, based on a total weight of the positive electrode active material layer.
However, Yun teaches all of the elements of claim 15 that are not found in Koga:
The positive electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein the positive electrode active material layer includes: about 50 wt% to about 99.5 wt% of the positive electrode active material, about 0.5 wt% to about 35 wt% of the solid electrolyte, about 0 wt% to about 10 wt% of a binder, and about 0 wt% to about 5 wt% of a conductive material, based on a total weight of the positive electrode active material layer. (“85 wt % of the obtained positive active material, 13.5 wt % of a lithium argyrodite-type solid electrolyte Li.sub.6PS.sub.5Cl, 1.0 wt % of a binder, 0.4 wt % of carbon nanotube conductive material, and 0.1 wt % of a dispersing agent were added to an isobutyl isobutyrate (IBIB) solvent, and 2 mm zirconia balls were added thereto and then, stirred with a Thinky mixer to prepare a slurry. The slurry was coated on a positive current collector and then, dried to manufacture a positive electrode.” Yun [0152]. In this example, the quantity of positive active material, solid electrolyte, binder, and conductive material all anticipate the claimed ranges, and thus meet all of the limitations of claim 15.)
Regarding claim 18, modified Koga teaches all of the elements of claim 16, as shown above. Koga is silent on the following elements of claim 18:
The all-solid-state rechargeable battery as claimed in claim 16, wherein the negative electrode includes: a current collector, a negative electrode catalyst layer on the current collector, and a lithium metal layer formed during initial charging between the current collector and the negative electrode catalyst layer.
However, Yun teaches all of the elements of claim 18 that are not found in Koga:
The all-solid-state rechargeable battery as claimed in claim 16, wherein the negative electrode includes: a current collector, a negative electrode catalyst layer on the current collector, and a lithium metal layer formed during initial charging between the current collector and the negative electrode catalyst layer. (“Referring to FIG. 4B, the precipitation-type negative electrode 400′ may include the current collector 401 and a negative electrode catalyst layer 405 disposed on the current collector. The rechargeable lithium battery having this precipitation-type negative electrode 400′ is initially charged in absence of a negative active material, and a lithium metal with high density and/or the like (e.g., a lithium alloy) is precipitated between the current collector 401 and the negative electrode catalyst layer 405 during the charge to form a lithium metal layer 404, which may work as a negative active material.” Yun [0121])
Yun is considered to be analogous to Koga because they are both within the same field of all-solid secondary batteries containing sulfide solid electrolytes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode having a current collector and an active material layer of Koga by substituting the negative active layer for a negative catalyst layer and a lithium metal layer in order to improve characteristics of the battery (“When the negative electrode catalyst layer 405 includes the metal and the carbon material, the metal and the carbon material may be, for example, mixed in a weight ratio of about 1:10 to about 2:1. The precipitation of the lithium metal may thus be effectively promoted and improve characteristics of the all-solid-state battery.” Yun [0125])
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga (US 20210184253 A1) in view of Byeon et al (Electrochem 2021, 2(3), 452-471) and Zhang et al (ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2022 14 (14), 16204-16213), and further in view of Sugiyo (US 20210367265 A1)
Regarding claim 19, modified Koga teaches all of the elements of claim 16, as shown above. Koga is silent on the following elements of claim 19:
The all-solid-state rechargeable battery as claimed in claim 16, wherein: the solid electrolyte layer includes a solid electrolyte, and an average particle diameter (D50) of the solid electrolyte included in the positive electrode is smaller than an average particle diameter (D50) of the solid electrolyte included in the solid electrolyte layer.
However, Sugiyo teaches all of the elements of claim 19 that are not found in Koga. Specifically, Sugiyo teaches a positive electrode layer which contains solid electrolyte particles, and a solid electrolyte layer which contains solid electrolyte particles which have a larger diameter than those in the positive electrode layer.
The all-solid-state rechargeable battery as claimed in claim 16, wherein: the solid electrolyte layer includes a solid electrolyte, and an average particle diameter (D50) of the solid electrolyte included in the positive electrode is smaller than an average particle diameter (D50) of the solid electrolyte included in the solid electrolyte layer. (“Disclosed is an all-solid-state battery including a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a solid electrolyte layer interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode. At least one of the positive electrode and the negative electrode contains first solid electrolyte particles. The solid electrolyte layer contains second solid electrolyte particles having ion conductivity. An average particle diameter D1 of the first solid electrolyte particles, and an average particle diameter D2 of the second solid electrolyte particles satisfy D2>D1.” Sugiyo abstract)
Sugiyo is considered to be analogous to Koga because they are both within the same field of all solid secondary batteries containing solid electrolyte particles in a positive electrode layer as well as a separate solid electrolyte layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solid electrolyte particles of Koga to have first and second diameters, where the solid electrolyte particles in the solid electrolyte layer are larger than those in the positive electrode layer, in order to improve ion-conductivity and reduce warpage (“In the all-solid-state battery, high ion-conductivity in the solid electrolyte layer can be secured, and warpage of the solid electrolyte layer can be suppressed.” Sugiyo [0018] and “in the present embodiment, the average particle diameter D2 of the second solid electrolyte particles contained in the solid electrolyte layer is larger than the average particle diameter D1 of the first solid electrolyte particles contained in the electrode. Alternatively, the average particle diameter d2 of the second solid electrolyte particles used as a material of the solid electrolyte layer is larger than the average particle diameter d1 of the first solid electrolyte particles used as a material of the electrode. In a dry process, by increasing the flowability of the second solid electrolyte particles, the packing density in the solid electrolyte layer can be increased. High ion conductivity therein can be thus secured. In addition, unevenness in density of the second solid electrolyte particles in the solid electrolyte layer can be suppressed. Warpage of the solid electrolyte layer can be thus suppressed.” Sugiyo [0027])
No further modification or motivation would be required to meet the additional limitations of claim 20.
Regarding claim 20, modified Koga teaches all of the elements of claim 16, as shown above. Koga is silent on the following elements of claim 20:
The all-solid-state rechargeable battery as claimed in claim 19, wherein: the average particle diameter (D50) of the solid electrolyte included in the positive electrode is about 0.5 pm to about 2.0 pm,
and the average particle diameter (D50) of the solid electrolyte included in the solid electrolyte layer is about 2.1 pm to about 5.0 pm.
However, Sugiyo teaches all of the elements of claim 19 that are not found in Koga:
The all-solid-state rechargeable battery as claimed in claim 19, wherein: the average particle diameter (D50) of the solid electrolyte included in the positive electrode is about 0.5 pm to about 2.0 pm, (“The average particle diameter D1 is, for example, 0.01 μm or more and 10 μm or less.” Sugiyo [0032])
and the average particle diameter (D50) of the solid electrolyte included in the solid electrolyte layer is about 2.1 pm to about 5.0 pm. (“In a preferred embodiment, the average particle diameter D2 is 1 μm or more and 50 μm or less” Sugiyo [0031])
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7, 9, rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent application No. 18/379350. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they contain all of the exact same limitations, other than the fact that the instant application specifically requires a positive electrode, wherein the solid electrolyte of both applications is present in the positive electrode active layer. See below for a comparison of the claims:
Instant claim 1. A positive electrode for an all-solid-state rechargeable battery, the positive electrode comprising: a current collector; and a positive electrode active material layer on the current collector, wherein: the positive electrode active material layer includes a positive electrode active material and a solid electrolyte, the solid electrolyte includes: sulfide solid electrolyte particles, and a lithium-metal-phosphate on a surface of the sulfide solid electrolyte particles, and in an X-ray diffraction analysis of the solid electrolyte, a full width at half maximum of a main peak is less than or equal to about 0.160.
Reference application claim 1. A solid electrolyte, comprising: sulfide solid electrolyte particles and lithium-metal-phosphate on a surface of the sulfide solid electrolyte particles; wherein in an X-ray diffraction analysis of the solid electrolyte, a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of a main peak is less than or equal to about 0.160.
Instant claim 2. The positive electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein, in the lithium- metal-phosphate, the metal is Al, B, Ca, Ce, Cr, Fe, Mg, Mo, Nb, Si, Sn, Sr, Ta, V, W, or Zr.
Reference application claim 2. The solid electrolyte as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the lithium-metal-phosphate includes a metal, and the metal is Al, B, Ca, Ce, Cr, Fe, Mg, Mo, Nb, Si, Sn, Sr, Ta, V, W, or Zr.
Instant claim 3. The positive electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein the lithium-metal- phosphate is included in the solid electrolyte in an amount of about 0.01 wt% to about 3 wt%, based on a total weight of the solid electrolyte.
Reference application claim 3. The solid electrolyte as claimed in claim 1, wherein the lithium-metal-phosphate is included in an amount of about 0.01 wt % to about 3 wt % based on a total weight of the solid electrolyte.
Instant claim 4. The positive electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein the lithium-metal- phosphate is included in the solid electrolyte in an amount of about 0.01 wt% to about 0.8 wt%, based on a total weight of the solid electrolyte.
Reference application claim 4. The solid electrolyte as claimed in claim 1, wherein the lithium-metal-phosphate is included in an amount of about 0.01 wt % to about 0.8 wt % based on a total weight of the solid electrolyte.
Instant claim 5. The positive electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein the lithium-metal- phosphate is amorphous.
Reference application claim 5. The solid electrolyte as claimed in claim 1, wherein the lithium-metal-phosphate is amorphous.
Instant claim 6. The positive electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sulfide solid electrolyte particles include an argyrodite-type sulfide.
Reference application claim 6. The solid electrolyte as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sulfide solid electrolyte particles include an argyrodite-type sulfide.
Instant claim 7. The positive electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein an average particle diameter (D50) of the solid electrolyte is about 0.1 um to about 5.0 um.
Reference application claim 7. The solid electrolyte as claimed in claim 1, wherein an average particle diameter (D50) of the solid electrolyte is about 0.1 μm to about 5.0 μm.
Instant claim 9. The positive electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein a value of (D90- D10)/D50 in a particle size distribution for the solid electrolyte is greater than about 1 and less than or equal to about Reference application claim 8. The solid electrolyte as claimed in claim 1, wherein a value of (D90 D10)/D50 in a particle size distribution for the solid electrolyte is greater than about 1 and less than or equal to about 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET whose telephone number is (571)272-0156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm except for the first Friday of bi-week.
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, NICHOLAS SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights