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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakari et al. ("Highly Utilized Lithium Sulfide Active Material by Enhancing Conductivity in All-solid-state Batteries," Chemistry Letters 44(12), pp. 1664-1666, December 2015).
Regarding claim 1, Hakari discloses a composite cathode active material comprising Li2S, an alkali metal salt (LiI), a carbon-based material (vapor-grown carbon fibers) (Hakari p. 1665, second column), and the composite comprises a solid solution of Li2S and LiI (Hakari Fig. 2).
Hakari does not teach that the Li2S has a crystallite size less than 9.9 nm. Hakari teaches that Li2S particles less than 10 nm in composite cathodes promote reversible reactions (Hakari p. 1664, second column). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select crystallite sizes less than 10 nm, which overlaps the range of the instant claim, for the Li2S composite cathode material of Hakari in order to promote reversible reactions. 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).
Regarding claim 2, the alkali metal salt is LiI (Hakari p. 1665, second column).
Regarding claim 3, the molar ratio of Li2S to LiI is 80:20 (Hakari p. 1665, second column), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 4, the lattice constant d1 derived from the 111 plane using the peak at ~27° is approximately 5.8 Å, which falls within the range of the instant claim, and is larger than d2 for the unmodified Li2S (Hakari Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Li2S (first peak) has a FWHM of approximately 2°, which falls within the range of the instant claim, and which is greater than the FWHM of the unmodified Li2S (second peak) (Hakari Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, modified Hakari does not disclose the Moh's harness of the cathode materials. However, Applicant has indicated that the hardness of Li2S is about 0.6, LiI is about 2.0, and carbon nanofibers are about 1.5 ([0075]-[0077] of the instant application), each of which falls within the ranges of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, the particles in the composite have a size less than 10 µm (Hakari Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, the carbon-based material comprises carbon nanofibers at 10 wt% of the composite (Hakari p. 1665, second column), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, the composite comprises 40 parts Li2S, 10 parts LiI, and 10 parts VGCF (Hakari p. 1665, second column), each of which falls within the ranges of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 10, modified Hakari discloses a cathode comprising the active material mixed with a solid electrolyte (75Li2S*25P2S5) on a current collector (stainless steel disk) (Hakari p. 1665, second column).
Regarding claim 11, the cathode active material layer comprises 50 parts active material and 50 parts sulfide solid electrolyte, each of which falls within the ranges of the instant claim, and the carbon material is only in the cathode active material layer (Hakari p. 1665, second column).
Regarding claim 12, modified Hakari discloses an all-solid battery comprising the cathode, an electrolyte layer (75Li2S*25P2S5), and an anode (In foil) on a current collector (stainless steel disk) (Hakari p. 1665, second column).
Regarding claim 16, a second anode active material layer (Li foil) is placed between the first layer and the current collector (Hakari p. 1665, second column).
Regarding claim 17, the solid electrolyte is a sulfide-based solid electrolyte (75Li2S*25P2S5) (Hakari p. 1665, second column).
Regarding claim 18, the solid electrolyte is 75Li2S*25P2S5 (Hakari p. 1665, second column).
Claim(s) 13-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakari as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0069420 A1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Hakari does not teach the use of an anode active material comprising particles and a binder. Lee is directed to an improved solid-state battery (Lee [0028]). Lee discloses an anode active material layer comprising particles (carbon black and silver) with an average diameter less than 60 nm, which falls within the range of the instant claim, and a binder (Lee [0096]-[0097]), which may be used in addition to or instead of a metallic anode like that used by modified Hakari (Hakari p. 1665, 2nd column, first full paragraph; Lee [0089]-[0091]). The anode materials of Lee and modified Hakari are therefore art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose, and substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any conventional material for the anode, including the material of Lee.
Regarding claim 14, modified Hakari does not teach the use of an anode active material comprising particles and a binder. Lee discloses an anode active material layer comprising particles of amorphous carbon (carbon black) and a metal (silver) (Lee [0096]-[0097]), which may be used in addition to or instead of a metallic anode like that used by modified Hakari (Hakari p. 1665, 2nd column, first full paragraph; Lee [0089]-[0091]). The anode materials of Lee and modified Hakari are therefore art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose, and substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any conventional material for the anode, including the material of Lee.
Regarding claim 15, modified Hakari does not teach the use of an anode active material comprising particles and a binder. Lee discloses an anode active material layer comprising particles of amorphous carbon (carbon black) and a metal (silver) with 25% silver, which falls within the range of the instant claim (Lee [0096]-[0097]), which may be used in addition to or instead of a metallic anode like that used by modified Hakari (Hakari p. 1665, 2nd column, first full paragraph; Lee [0089]-[0091]). The anode materials of Lee and modified Hakari are therefore art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose, and substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any conventional material for the anode, including the material of Lee.
Regarding claim 20, modified Hakari does not teach the use of an inactive member on a side surface of the cathode. Lee teaches that adding an inactive member to a side surface of the cathode prevents cracks in the solid electrolyte (Lee [0030]-[0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add an inactive member to a side surface of modified Hakari to prevent cracks in the electrolyte.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakari in view of Lee as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Shon et al. (KR 20220151898 A, with reference to US 2024/0186528 A1 as a direct English translation).
Regarding claim 19, modified Hakari does not teach the use of a current collector comprising a metal layer on a base film. Shon is directed to an improved current collector for a secondary battery. Shon teaches that a current collector comprising a metal layer selected from a group including aluminum, copper, and iron (Shon [0076]) on a base film selected from a group including polypropylene (Shon [0046]) can reduce weight without sacrificing mechanical properties (Shon [0005]-[0006] and [0062]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a current collector comprising a metal layer on a polymer base film in order to reduce weight without sacrificing mechanical properties, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any of the materials listed, including polypropylene and copper.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhao et al. ("A review on anode for lithium-sulfur batteries: Progress and prospects," Chemical Engineering Journal 347, pp. 343-365, April 2018) is directed to anode materials for lithium-sulfur batteries.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A CORNO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/J.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights