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 . 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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2022/0115690 A1), hereinafter “Choi,” in view of Yoon et al. (US 2024/0120486 A1), hereinafter “Yoon.”
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses an all-solid-state battery comprising:
an anode current collector, in this case the negative current collector (¶ [0036], Fig. 1, ref. no. 111);
an anode layer disposed on the anode current collector, in this case the negative active material layer (¶ [00363], Fig. 1, ref. no. 112);
a solid electrolyte layer disposed on the anode layer (¶ [0024], Fig. 1, ref. no. 12);
a cathode active material layer disposed on the solid electrolyte layer, in this case the positive active material layer (¶ [0054], Fig. 1, ref. no. 132); and
a cathode current collector, in this case the positive current collector (¶ [0054], Fig. 1, ref. no. 131);
wherein the anode layer comprises particles a metal capable of alloying with lithium, in this case metal particles are included in the negative active material layer (¶ [0042]).
Choi does not disclose the interparticular pores. However, Yoon teaches an all-solid-state battery comprising interparticular pores in the anode layer, in this case pores between the negative electroactive material particles (¶ [0058]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such interparticular pores would have allowed electrolyte penetration (see ¶ [0058]), which would in turn provide a pathway for the lithium ions traveling to and from the anode during battery charge and discharge, thus facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included interparticular pores in the anode layer in order to have facilitated improved battery operation.
Regarding claim 2, Choi further discloses that the metal comprises magnesium (mg), silver (Ag), zinc (Zn), bismuth (Bi), tin (Sn), or combinations thereof (¶ [0042]).
Regarding claim 3, Choi further teaches that the average particle size (D50) of the particles is 300 nm to 700 nm, in this case the metal particle size may be 5 nm or more to 800 nm or less (¶ [0043]) which would result in a D50 value that overlaps with the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, Choi further discloses spherical and elliptical particles, in this case spherical and oval (¶ [0041]), and there is no indication that this shape would somehow change.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “lithium metal is accommodated in the interparticular pores during charging of the all-solid-state battery” is a functional limitation. Applicant is reminded that “[a] claim containing a ‘recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).” M.P.E.P. § 2114 II. Here, Choi and Yoon teach all of the positively-recited structural limitations and the required connections between these components necessary to perform the functional limitations. Specifically, charging the all-solid-state battery would result in lithium being deposited within the interparticular pores. Thus, the claim is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “alloying between the particles and lithium occurs during charging of the all-solid-state battery” is a functional limitation. Applicant is reminded that “[a] claim containing a ‘recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).” M.P.E.P. § 2114 II. Here, Choi teaches all of the positively-recited structural limitations and the required connections between these components necessary to perform the functional limitations. Specifically, lithium alloying with the metal particles would necessarily occur during charging of the all-solid-state battery. Thus, the claim is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “lithium metal is deposited on a surface of the particles to thereby (i) increase a distance between the particles, (ii) enlarge the interparticular pores, and (iii) accommodate the lithium metal in the interparticular pores” is a functional limitation. Applicant is reminded that “[a] claim containing a ‘recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).” M.P.E.P. § 2114 II. Here, Choi and Yoon teach all of the positively-recited structural limitations and the required connections between these components necessary to perform the functional limitations. Specifically, the lithium deposition would necessarily occur during charging of the all-solid-state battery and would yield the three recited results. Thus, the claim is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Choi further teaches that the anode layer satisfies 2 ≤ T2/T1 ≤ 5.9, in this case the lithium deposition layer may after charging be 10 μm to 50 μm (¶ [0076] & [0078]) and the negative active material layer may have a thickness of 1 μm to 20 μm (¶ [0053]) which results in 0.16 ≤ T2/T1 ≤ 70. A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “intensity of peaks at 2θ = 32°±0.5°, 34°±0.5°, and 37°±0.5° based on X-ray diffraction analysis of the anode layer decreases with progress of charging and discharging” is a functional limitation. Applicant is reminded that “[a] claim containing a ‘recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).” M.P.E.P. § 2114 II. Here, Choi and Yoon teach all of the positively-recited structural limitations and the required connections between these components necessary to perform the functional limitations. Specifically, Choi teaches the same materials in the anode layer, which would exhibit the same peak intensities that would decrease during charging and discharging. Thus, the claim is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “intensity of peaks at 2θ = 36°±0.5° based on X-ray diffraction analysis of the anode layer increases with progress of charging and discharging” is a functional limitation. Applicant is reminded that “[a] claim containing a ‘recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).” M.P.E.P. § 2114 II. Here, Choi and Yoon teach all of the positively-recited structural limitations and the required connections between these components necessary to perform the functional limitations. Specifically, Choi teaches the same materials in the anode layer, which would exhibit the same peak intensities that would increase during charging and discharging. Thus, the claim is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 13, Choi discloses a method of performing charging and discharging of an all-solid-state battery at 25°C to 45°C, in this case the battery’s operating temperature is 25°C to 45°C (¶ [0031]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Choi and Yoon as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (US 2024/0282930 A1), hereinafter “Kwon.”
Regarding claim 5, Choi does not disclose that the anode layer is formed solely by the particles. However, Kwon teaches an anode active material particle comprising metal particles, in this case the core and shell comprising the metal particle (¶ [0039], Fig. 1). Kwon further teaches that this particle may be mixed with a binder and optional conductive additive (¶ [0086]), meaning that the active material layer also may not include these components. One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such an anode layer with only the particles would have yielded the predictable result of a functional solid-state battery anode. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the anode layer solely of the particles in order to have yielded the predictable result of a functional solid-state battery anode.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Choi and Yoon as applied to claim 1, above, and further as evidenced by Lim et al. (US 2024/0145677 A1), hereinafter “Lim.”
Regarding claim 6, Choi does not disclose the alloy of lithium and the metal. However, Lim teaches that the metals disclosed by Choi are capable of alloying with lithium (¶ [0208]). Thus the operation of the battery would necessarily yield lithium alloys with the metal particles of Sn, Zn, Bi, and Mg (see Choi ¶ [0042] & [0076]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 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 (571) 272-1481. 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.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights