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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejections have been maintained; therefore, this action is FINAL.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., repeating pulverization and low-temperature sintering to purposely deteriorate the crystallinity of the particle surface) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Examiner notes that this application is attempting to claim a very well-studied material (solid lithium-ion conductors) and the volumes of prior art, such as those references cited below, speak to the obviousness of the necessity to optimize the variables claimed (composition, crystallinity, density, porosity, and resultant lithium-ion conductivity).
Furthermore, the instant claims fail to establish criticality of the claimed ranges (by failing to be reasonable commensurate in scope with the results shown in the specification – see MPEP 716.02(d)) because the claims do not positively require the ceramic form of the lithium conductors in Table 4 which are the materials actually tested in the instant specification and the results cannot be taken to provide unexpected results for any lithium ion conductor which has the claimed property.
The claimed range of lithium-ion conductivity includes over four orders of magnitude (10-13 to 2x10-9), and the range lacks a criticality as noted above. The rejection is based on Kim et al. who teaches a variety of lithium-ion conductors, such as composites and core shell structures:
[0048] Unlike these, the electron conductors 210 and the lithium ion conductors 220 may be junctioned to each other. For example, the lithium ion conductors 220 may be connected to one side of the electron conductors 210. Alternatively, as shown in FIG. 3, the lithium ion conductors 220 and the electron conductors 210 may have a core/shell structure in which the electron conductors 210 surround the outer side of the lithium ion conductors 220.
Which may be coated with various binders in various amounts:
[0049] A binder may be provided between the electron conductors 210 and the lithium ion conductors 220. The mass of the binder may be 1 wt % to 15 wt % with respect to a total mass of the lithium composite anode. The binder may cross-link the electron conductors 210 and the lithium ion conductors 220, and raise adhesion between the metal film 100, and the electron conductors 210 and the lithium ion conductors 220. The binder may include a nonaqueous material or aqueous material. For example, the binder may include polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF), styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR), carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), alginate or polyacrylic acid (PAA). The binder may not be provided, if necessary.
Core-shell composite material lithium-ion conductors, or conductors coated or partially coated in a binder connected to electron conductors such as described by the prior art are maintained to either anticipate or obviate the claimed range of lithium ion conductivity as the composite materials of the prior art include low lithium ion conductivity components such as polymer binders or carbon coatings which will necessarily lower the lithium ion conductivity of the “lithium ion conductor” phase of the prior art (as the claim does not specify what may constitute the lithium-ion conductor).
Further, additional prior art cited below, such as Harada et al. (US Pub 2018/0277909 newly cited) teach various similar lithium phosphate glass ceramic materials to those of Kim et al. and that the materials may have an ionic conductivity within the claimed range:
[0056] The first Li-ion conductivity of the Li-ion conductive first inorganic solid particles is, for example, 1×10−10 S/cm or more at 25° C. As the first inorganic solid particles, inorganic solid particles having a garnet-type structure are preferably used because the inorganic solid particles have advantages such as high Li-ion conductivity, high reduction resistance, and a wide electrochemical window. Examples of the inorganic solid particles having a garnet-type structure include particles of a compound having a composition represented by a general formula of La5+xAxLa3−xM2O12 (A is one or two selected from the group consisting of Ca, Sr and Ba, or a combination of Ca, Sr and Ba, and M is Nb and/or Ta), a general formula of Li3M2−xL2O12 (M is Ta and/or Nb, and L is Zr), a general formula of Li7−3xAlxLa3Zr3O12, or a general formula of Li7La3Zr2O12. In the above general formulae, x is preferably from 0 to 0.5. Among these, Li6.25Al0.25La3Zr3O12 and Li7La3Zr2O12 have high ion conductivity and are electrochemically stable, can realize an excellent discharge performance and an excellent cycle life performance, and is advantageously electrochemically stable in an organic solvent even when being microparticulated.
Therefore, the properties as instantly claimed are taken to be present or at least obvious in view of the prior art of record (MPEP 2112.01 below). The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Relevant MPEP Sections
MPEP 2112.01 relating to Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The following is a section from the MPEP 2144.05 concerning the obviousness of ranges:
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 or 2) as being anticipated, or in the alternative, under by 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of Kim et al. (US Pub 2019/0074515 cited in IDS).
In regard to claim 1, Kim et al. teach a lithium metal negative electrode secondary battery (figure 4) comprising: a positive electrode 20; a separator 30; a negative electrode 10; and an electrolyte solution, wherein the electrolyte solution includes lithium ions (lithium salt), the separator is interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (paragraphs [0050-0055]),
the negative electrode includes a negative electrode base material (current collector – paragraph [0062]) and a lithium metal layer, the lithium metal layer includes a continuous phase and a dispersed phase, the continuous phase includes lithium metal (metal film 100), the dispersed phase includes a lithium-ion conductor (lithium ion conductors 220) such as Li2O—SiO2—TiO2—P2O5 (LSTP), Li4-xGe1-xPxS4 (LGPS), Li3xLa2/3-xTiO3 (LLTO), Li1+xTi2-xMx(PO4)3, Li3PS4- glass-ceramic, Li7P3S11 (paragraph [0047]) which are materials disclosed in the instant specification as having the claimed lithium-ion conductivity in a manner which anticipates the claimed lithium ion conductivity range (MPEP 2112.01 above – see Table 3 Nos. 16-21 in the instant specification for example), in the alternative, such particles are reasonably expected to have properties which obviate the claimed lithium-ion conductivity range (see MPEP 2144.05) absent evidence to the contrary.
PNG
media_image1.png
214
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 2 and 5, as noted above the lithium ion conductors 210 may be Li2O—SiO2—TiO2—P2O5 (LSTP – i.e. a lithium phosphate), Li4-xGe1-xPxS4 (LGPS), Li3xLa2/3-xTiO3 (LLTO), Li1+xTi2-xMx(PO4)3 (another lithium phosphate), Li3PS4- glass-ceramic and/or Li7P3S11 (paragraph [0047]).
In regard to claim 3, lithium metal negative electrode dispersed phase further includes a binder (such as 1 weight percent PVDF – paragraph [0049]) which necessarily results in a volume fraction of the binder relative to a sum of the lithium-ion conductor and the binder less than 0.2, in a manner which anticipates or obviates the claimed range.
In regard to claim 4, as the prior art teaches a mass content of the lithium-ion conductors 220 may be 20 to 80 weight percent of the composite anode, the prior art is reasonably expected to overlap the claimed ranges for an area of a cross section of the lithium metal layer occupied by the lithium metal and an area of the cross section of the lithium metal layer occupied by the lithium-ion conductor absent evidence to the contrary. As seen in annotated figure 2 above, the lithium-ion conductors are schematically shown to occupy an area ratio within the claimed range.
In regard to claim 6, lithium metal negative electrode secondary battery of the prior art is reasonably considered to be an anode-free battery as no additional anode material except for lithium metal is included, and when fully discharged will be essentially anode free.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure – Chang et al. (US Pub 2019/0214672) teaches an anodeless battery (title).
Schneider et al. (US Pub 2014/0057162 newly cited) teaches various glass ceramic lithium-ion conductors with relevant properties (paragraphs [0019-0024]).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Nicholas P D'Aniello whose telephone number is (571)270-3635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm 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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights