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 filed January 19, 2024 has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
With respect to foreign language references with no translation of the document: “If no translation is submitted, the examiner will consider the information in view of the concise explanation and insofar as it is understood on its face, e.g., drawings, chemical formulas, English language abstracts, in the same manner that non-English language information in Office search files is considered by examiner in conducting searches.” See MPEP §609.04(a)(II) (D) and 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(ii).
Drawings
The drawings received January 19, 2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
The specification received January 19, 2024 has been reviewed for examination purposes.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 9 and 19 do not terminate with a “.”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 6 and 16 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.
Claims 6 and 16 are indefinite for while they recite a BET surface area range, neither the claims nor the specification set forth the standard for which these results are obtained. BET values are calculated based on variable including adsorptive gas, pressure range, etc. The general method might be standardized to an extent but the specific application is operator sensitive with respect to condition relied upon for results achieved. For example, non-patent literature has shown that reproducibility can vary widely without clear guidance to the specifics of an analysis using BET surface area (“How Reproducible are Surface Areas Calculated from the BET Equation?”). This reference shows that:
“The BET method was developed in the 1930s for open surfaces but is now the most widely used metric for the estimation of surface areas of micro-and mesoporous materials. Despite its widespread use, the calculation of BET surface areas causes a spread in reported areas, resulting in reproducibility problems in both academia and industry. To prove this, for this analysis,18 already-measured raw adsorption isotherms were provided to sixty-one labs, who were asked to calculate the corresponding BET areas. This round-robin exercise resulted in a wide range of values. Here, the reproducibility of BET area determination from identical isotherms is demonstrated to be a largely ignored issue, raising critical concerns over the reliability of reported BET areas”.
In the case of the instant Application, while the claims and disclosure cite a particular BET range 15.03-17.15 m2/g, neither the claims nor the specification provide any teachings as to the conditions to which the analysis is subjected to. Merely claiming the values without specifics to the conditions of the BET analysis leave the boundaries of the range unclear. The claim lacks reasonable certainty by not guiding a skilled artisan how to measured the claimed invention with enough clarity. The range may seem precise in number but is not clear and precise in meaning. Because BET results can vary markedly with adsorbate, temperature, pressure, degassing, etc., different skilled artisans in the art could measure the same material and yet get different measurements.
The claim recites a quantitative property but the measurement protocol is missing from the disclosure. BET is standardized in principle, yet the actual result is highly sensitive to the method choices and can vary materially. Ambiguity in the way the measurable claimed range is determined makes the claim indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kwon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0384517).
As to claim 1, Kwon discloses an all-solid-state battery comprising:
an anode current collector 10;
a coating layer 20 located on the anode current collector and comprising a layered carbon material (fibrous carbon layer network, paras. [0052]-[0054], Figs. 5a-5b), Example – para. [0089]);
a solid electrolyte layer 30 located on the coating layer 20;
a cathode active material layer 41 located on the solid electrolyte layer 30 and comprising a cathode active material configured to enable intercalation and deintercalation of lithium ions; and
a cathode current collector 42 located on the cathode active material layer 41, wherein the layered carbon material comprises at least one pore (Figs. 1, 2, 5a-5b).
As to claim 2, the layered carbon material can be carbon nanotubes paras. [0052]-[0054], Figs. 5a-5b), Example – para. [0089]).
As to claim 3, lithium ions are stored in a form of lithium metal in the porous network of the coating layer 20 (para. [0052]).
Claims 1-3 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhamu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0352869).
As to claim 1, Zhamu discloses an all-solid-state battery comprising:
an anode current collector 202;
a coating layer 204 located on the anode current collector and comprising a layered carbon material (graphene, graphene oxide, reduced graphene oxide paras. [0100] and examples);
a solid electrolyte layer 230 located on the coating layer 204;
a cathode active material layer 208 located on the solid electrolyte layer 230 and comprising a cathode active material configured to enable intercalation and deintercalation of lithium ions; and
a cathode current collector 206 located on the cathode active material layer 208, wherein the layered carbon material comprises at least one pore (Fig. 2).
Zhamu teaches that the electrolyte is preferably a solid electrolyte (para. [0155]). Zhamu teaches that what is shown in Fig. 2 is prior art but relies on that same conventional design as a basis for the battery of Zhamu.
Zhamu teaches that the anode layer 204 of the prior art is replaced by Zhamu with a graphene based material (para. [0100]) and graphene is formed of graphene sheets (layered) and has pores to host lithium therein.
As to claim 2, the layered carbon material can be graphene (para. [0100] and examples).
As to claim 3, lithium ions are stored in a form of lithium metal in the porous network of the coating layer 204 (para. [0100] and examples).
As to claim 8, the graphene material has at least 5 wt.% of various elements including Cl, Br and I (para. [0108]).
As to claim 9, as the graphene material is layered, there exists an array of graphene layers, each has at least 5 wt.% of various elements including Cl, Br and I. The layered graphene would have upper middle and lower graphene layers, each with the carbon material and minor amounts of elements including Cl, Br and I.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0384517) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhamu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0352869) and/or (Yang et al. “Lithium Plating and Stripping on Carbon Nanotube Sponge”).
Kwon teaches porous layer 20 but does not explicitly disclose an average pore diameter (D50) of the at least one pore is 30.08nm to 33.13nm.
Kwon teaches that the carbon layer is a porous structure. The “porous structure” as used herein refers to a porous material that is formed in a certain shape and includes plurality of shapes of pores (e.g., circular, or non-circular), holes, cavity (e.g., microcavity), labyrinth, channel or the like, whether formed uniformly or without regularity. Exemplary porous structure may include pores (e.g., closed or open pores) within a predetermined size within a range from sub-micrometer to micrometer size, which is measured by maximum diameter of the pores (para. [0015]).
The porous layer 20 is a layer that includes therein pores P, which serve as spaces for storing lithium that is precipitated during charging of the all-solid-state battery 1, and the pores P may be formed by a network in which a fibrous material 21 is interconnected in three dimensions (para. [0052]).
It would have been of routine optimization to tune/modify the pore dimensions of the carbon layer of Kwon to any suitable submicron range to effectively host lithium metal therein (sufficient plating stability and sufficient lithium accommodation in the pores). Zhamu teaches of carbon based coatings in lithium batteries wherein the carbon coating has an average pore size in the mesopore range 2-50nm. Zhamu teaches that pores in this range are of sufficient size to effectively host lithium metal therein. Yang also recognized sufficient lithium metal plating for carbon nanotubes in the range of 30-50nm (see lower left-hand column, last paragraph on page 495).
Tuning pore diameter of the carbon host layer of Kwon would have expectedly and obviously provided for sufficient pore size to host lithium metal particles in the carbon layer itself with sufficient transport in the carbon layer for hosting.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carbon layer of Kwon to have an average mesopore diameter (2-50nm range) as taught by Zhamu and/or Yang since it would have provided a pore size to the carbon layer sufficient to host lithium therein while also providing sufficient plating stability. Further selection of narrower values within the range of 5-50nm would have been of routine skill in the art and optimization therein to provide for good lithium hosting and plating stability in the carbon layer. 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 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0384517) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shao et al. (CN 116093316A).
Kwon teaches porous layer 20 but does not explicitly disclose a total pore volume of 0.114 cm3/g to 0.141 cm3/g.
Shao teaches of controlling a carbon layer to have a total pore volume in a range from 0.01-0.2 cm3/g as it was noted that it can improve battery performance. The pore volume is held to be of routine optimization within the skill of the ordinary worker in the art to provide sufficient lithium metal deposition in the porous layer 20 of Kwon. Tuning pore volume would have effectively balanced lithium storage space to while achieving sufficient electrode density and uniform lithium transport.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carbon layer of Kwon to have a total pore volume of 0.01 cm3/g to 0.2 cm3/g as taught by Shao, which includes 0-114-0.141 cm3/g as it would have effectively improved battery performance. Further selection of narrower values within the range of Shao would have been of routine skill in the art and optimization therein to provide for improved battery performance. 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 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0384517) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Uchida et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0265633).
Kwon teaches porous layer 20 but does not explicitly disclose a BET surface area of the coating from 15.03 m2/g to 17.15 m2/g.
Uchida teaches of layered graphene particles for use in battery systems wherein the layered graphene has a BET surface area in the range from 1-25m2/g (abstract). The property enhances the battery rate and cycle characteristics. Tuning of BET surface area would have provided sufficient surface area, enough to spread uniform lithium deposition over the coating layer while still achieving good contact stability between the solid electrolyte layer and the carbon layer thus achieving good electrochemical performance
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carbon layer of Kwon to have BET in the range of 1-25 m2/g, which includes 15-17 m2/g as it would have effectively enhanced the battery rate and cycle characteristics. Further selection of narrower values within the range of Uchida would have been of routine skill in the art and optimization therein to provide for enhanced the battery rate and cycle characteristics. 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 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0384517) as applied to claim 1 above.
Kwon teaches porous layer 20 but does not explicitly disclose a difference between a thickness of the coating layer in a charged state and a thickness of the coating layer in the discharged state is 5 mm or more.
As discussed above, to claims 1-3, Kwon discloses Kwon discloses an all-solid-state battery comprising an anode current collector 10; a coating layer 20 located on the anode current collector and comprising a layered carbon material (fibrous carbon layer network, paras. [0052]-[0054], Figs. 5a-5b), Example – para. [0089]); a solid electrolyte layer 30 located on the coating layer 20; a cathode active material layer 41 located on the solid electrolyte layer 30 and comprising a cathode active material configured to enable intercalation and deintercalation of lithium ions; and a cathode current collector 42 located on the cathode active material layer 41, wherein the layered carbon material comprises at least one pore (Figs. 1, 2, 5a-5b). The layered carbon material can be carbon nanotubes paras. [0052]-[0054], Figs. 5a-5b), Example – para. [0089]). Lithium ions are stored in a form of lithium metal in the porous network of the coating layer 20 (para. [0052]).
While Kwon does not explicitly teach of the dimension change, Kwon, having the same relative all-solid-state battery including the same carbon based coating layer between the anode current collector and solid electrolyte, would expectedly exhibit the same change in thickness between the charged and discharged state as a function of hosting and releasing lithium during cycling.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0352869) as applied to claim 1 above.
Zhamu does not explicitly teach of the average pore size in the range of claim 4.
Zhamu teaches of carbon based coatings in lithium batteries wherein the carbon coating has an average pore size in the mesopore range 2-50nm. Zhamu teaches that pores in this range are of sufficient size to effectively host lithium metal therein.
It would have been of routine optimization to modify the pore dimensions of the carbon layer of Zhamu to any suitable range but within 2-50nm to effectively host lithium metal therein (sufficient plating stability and sufficient lithium accommodation in the pores). Tuning pore diameter of the carbon host layer of Zhamu would have expectedly and obviously provided for sufficient pore size to host lithium metal particles in the carbon layer itself with sufficient transport in the carbon layer for hosting.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the graphene layer of Zhamu to have an average mesopore diameter (2-50nm range) as taught by Zhamu since it would have provided a pore size to the carbon layer sufficient to host lithium therein while also providing sufficient plating stability. Further selection of narrower values within the range of 5-50nm would have been of routine skill in the art and optimization therein to provide for good lithium hosting and plating stability in the carbon layer. 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 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0352869) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shao et al. (CN 116093316A).
Zhamu teaches of a porous carbon layer but does not explicitly disclose a total pore volume of 0.114 cm3/g to 0.141 cm3/g.
Shao teaches of controlling a carbon layer to have a total pore volume in a range from 0.01-0.2 cm3/g as it was noted that it can improve battery performance. The pore volume is held to be of routine optimization within the skill of the ordinary worker in the art to provide sufficient lithium metal deposition in the porous layer 20 of Zhamu. Tuning pore volume would have effectively balanced lithium storage space to while achieving sufficient electrode density and uniform lithium transport.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the graphene layer of Zhamu to have a total pore volume of 0.01 cm3/g to 0.2 cm3/g as taught by Shao, which includes 0-114-0.141 cm3/g as it would have effectively improved battery performance. Further selection of narrower values within the range of Shao would have been of routine skill in the art and optimization therein to provide for improved battery performance. 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 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0352869) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Uchida et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0265633).
Zhamu teaches porous carbon layer but does not explicitly disclose a BET surface area of the coating from 15.03 m2/g to 17.15 m2/g.
Uchida teaches of layered graphene particles for use in battery systems wherein the layered graphene has a BET surface area in the range from 1-25m2/g (abstract). The property enhances the battery rate and cycle characteristics. The property enhances the battery rate and cycle characteristics. Tuning of BET surface area would have provided sufficient surface area, enough to spread uniform lithium deposition over the coating layer while still achieving good contact stability between the solid electrolyte layer and the carbon layer thus achieving good electrochemical performance.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the graphene layer of Zhamu to have BET in the range of 1-25 m2/g, which includes 15-17 m2/g as it would have effectively enhanced the battery rate and cycle characteristics. Further selection of narrower values within the range of Uchida would have been of routine skill in the art and optimization therein to provide for enhanced the battery rate and cycle characteristics. 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 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0352869) as applied to claim 1 above.
Zhamu teaches porous carbon layer but does not explicitly disclose a difference between a thickness of the coating layer in a charged state and a thickness of the coating layer in the discharged state is 5 mm or more.
Zhamu discloses an all-solid-state battery comprising an anode current collector 202; a coating layer 204 located on the anode current collector and comprising a layered carbon material (graphene, graphene oxide, reduced graphene oxide paras. [0100] and examples); a solid electrolyte layer 230 located on the coating layer 204; a cathode active material layer 208 located on the solid electrolyte layer 230 and comprising a cathode active material configured to enable intercalation and deintercalation of lithium ions; and a cathode current collector 206 located on the cathode active material layer 208, wherein the layered carbon material comprises at least one pore (Fig. 2). Zhamu teaches that the electrolyte is preferably a solid electrolyte (para. [0155]). Zhamu teaches that what is shown in Fig. 2 is prior art but relies on that same conventional design as a basis for the battery of Zhamu. Zhamu teaches that the anode layer 204 of the prior art is replaced by Zhamu with a graphene based material (para. [0100]) and graphene is formed of graphene sheets (layered) and has pores to host lithium therein. The layered carbon material can be graphene (para. [0100] and examples). Lithium ions are stored in a form of lithium metal in the porous network of the coating layer 204 (para. [0100] and examples).
While Zhamu does not explicitly teach of the dimension change, Zhamu, having the same relative all-solid-state battery including the same carbon based coating layer between the anode current collector and solid electrolyte, would expectedly exhibit the same change in thickness between the charged and discharged state as a function of hosting and releasing lithium during cycling.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-15, 17-18 are allowed. Claim 19 is allowable for the same reasons, pending resolution of the objection to claim 19 above.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As to claims 10-15, 17-18 none of the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination, are held to reasonably teach, suggest or render obvious the method of manufacturing an all-solid-state battery at least claim 10 including the steps of preparing the particular claimed structure and applying a process of pressure of greater than 50 MPa but less than 200 MPa to the structure, wherein the coating layer comprises a layered carbon material comprising at least one pore.
According to the disclosure: Process pressure applied to press the structure may be greater than 50 MPa but less than 200 MPa.
When the process pressure is 50 MPa or less, adhesive force between the solid electrolyte layer 30 and the coating layer 12 is reduced and interfacial resistance is increased, and thereby, the electrochemical characteristics and life characteristics of the all-solid-state battery may be reduced. When the process pressure is 50 MPa or less, interfacial resistance between the solid electrolyte layer 30 and the coating layer 12 may be increased, the overpotential may be raised, and efficiency of the all-solid-state battery may be reduced.
When the process pressure is 200 MPa or more, excessive pressure is applied to the coating layer 12, and thereby, the pore volume, pore size, and BET surface area of the coating layer 12 may be reduced. That is, pores formed in the coating layer 12 may not be sufficient. Thereby, the capacity of the all-solid-state battery may be reduced.
Thus the particular claimed range, in the presence of the layered carbon material comprising at least one pore effectively maintains sufficient porosity, capacity along with sufficient adhesion and decreased overpotential.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0051933 discloses an all-solid-state lithium battery wherein the battery includes a lithium storing layer 2 and an anode active material layer 6 between layer 2 and the anode current collector 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGG CANTELMO whose telephone number is (571)272-1283. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am to 5pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at (571) 272-1453. 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.
/GREGG CANTELMO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights