DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
2. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “position determiner configured to determine the position of the inactive member on the solid electrolyte layer” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Applicant should cite support in the original written description for the basis of any amendments made to the drawings used as the basis to correct said issue. It is the position of the Examiner that the feature is not enabled given no structure whatsoever is taught in the instant application for said entity (see rejection below under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
4. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses no corresponding structure that accomplishes the function. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Claim 19 recites in part, “the inactive member comprises a position determiner configured to determine a position of the inactive member on the solid electrolyte layer.” A “positioner determiner” is a nonce or non-structural term having no specific structural meaning that is a substitute for “means,” and is modified by a “configured to” functionality statement see MPEP 2181). Accordingly, the italicized portion of the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; however, the disclosure is entirely silent as to the structure encompassed by the purported 112(f)/sixth paragraph invocation of said entity. Accordingly, the claim is a single means claim that recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function. Thus, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claim 6; claim 12; and claim 19 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.
A) Claim 6 recites the “carbonaceous material matrix is a lithium host.” The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear given it is not clear if the intent is to define that 1) the carbonaceous material matrix is a material capable of intercalating/deintercalating lithium ions; the matrix material by way of the pores formed allows for lithium (ions) to be held therein; and/or if the “lithium” that is being hosted is a failure to invoke proper antecedent basis to the metallic negative active material held in the carbonaceous material matrix from claim 1 that is now required to be lithium metal. Accordingly, the meaning of the claim is unclear rendering it indefinite.
B) Claim 12 defines, “a ratio (C1/C2) of a charging capacity C1 of the first negative active material to a charging capacity C2 of the positive active material layer is from about 0.001 to about 0.45.” The claim and the instant application are silent as to what testing parameters are utilized to achieve the charging capacity values/ranges as claimed for C1 and C2, wherein as would be immediately known to those having ordinary skill in the art, charging capacity is heavily influenced by the testing parameters used to measure the charging capacity such as the specific C-rate for the charge/discharge cycle, as well as maximum/minimum voltage utilized. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear because it is not known under what conditions these values are obtained for C1 and C2.
Furthermore, the claims recite “a charging capacity C1 of the first negative active material to a charging capacity C2 of the positive active material layer.” The claim recites a property for an entire layer without reciting within the claim or specification what is structurally required to meet this result-obtained limitation. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know from the claim terms what is structurally and or compositionally required to meet the feature claimed rendering the claim indefinite (see MPEP 2173.05(g)).
C) Claim 12 defines features related to a Raman spectrum but fails to disclose the excitation wavelength utilized to achieve said results, wherein as would be immediately recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art, the excitation wavelength utilized will alter the Raman signals received because scattering intensity is proportional to wavelength λ. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear because it is not known under what wavelength the obtained Raman spectrum for the the ID/IG ratio claimed is obtained at.
Additionally, other parameters that affect the obtained Raman spectrum include at least aperture conditions, laser power, curve fitting techniques as evidenced by, Farnsworth et al., “Raman Spectroscopy: A Key Technique in Investigating Carbon-Based Materials,” Spectroscopy, Vol. 36, Issue 8, Aug. 1, 2021 (copy provided). None of the testing parameters for the obtained Raman spectrum having the ratio range recited in the claim are disclosed in the instant application such that the conditions under which the observed Raman spectrum are obtained are not known, thereby rendering the claim indefinite as these parameters will effect the obtained Raman spectrum as set forth in the evidentiary reference cited (entire disclosure thereof relied upon).
Lastly, it is entirely unclear how a single ID/IG ratio is obtained for the entire negative electrode layer as claimed. ID/IG values are typically provided for a given material, wherein as evidenced by Kawai et al. (US 2009/0311599), the Raman spectrum of a mixed system of not less than two kinds is taught as meaningless (P113). The instant disclosure does not detail how a Raman spectrum is obtained for an entire negative electrode layer which is defined as including all of a negative current collector, a first negative active material layer, and a first protective layer. Accordingly, it is not clear how the claimed ID/IG ratio is obtained for the entire negative electrode layer as claimed.
D) Claim 19 recites in part, “the inactive member comprises a position determiner configured to determine a position of the inactive member on the solid electrolyte layer.” As detailed above, the language purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; however, the disclosure is entirely silent as to the structure encompassed by the purported 112(f)/sixth paragraph invocation of said entity. Accordingly, the claim is considered indefinite as it is not clear how to properly interpret the required structure necessary to meet “a positioner determiner” with the capability claimed that is presented as means-plus-function language but does not meet the requirements of this type of language (i.e., the corresponding structure(s) have to be disclosed in the specification).
Appropriate correction is required. The claims will be examined as best as possible for compact prosecution purposes.
Applicant should cite support in the original written description for the basis of any amendments made by way of specifically pointing out the support by paragraph number mapped to the new claim limitation (MPEP 2163, section 3(b); MPEP § 714.02; and MPEP § 2163.06):
With respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
"Applicant should ... specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."
A failure to cite specific support for amendments may result in a Notice of Non-Compliance with no new time period for reply.
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
8. Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 recites:
“wherein the carbonaceous material matrix comprises the first carbonaceous nanostructure arranged in a direction with respect to a surface of the negative current collector.”
Given the first carbonaceous nanostructure is a two or three-dimensional object, it will always be “arranged in a direction with respect to a surface of the negative current collector.” In other words, no matter how you arrange the first carbonaceous nanostructure, the feature will be met. Accordingly, the feature is non-limiting.
Claim 5 recites:
“wherein the carbonaceous material matrix comprises crystalline carbon, amorphous carbon, or a combination thereof.”
The claim recites all possible forms of carbonaceous material such that there are no other options. Accordingly, the claim is non-limiting as it recites all possible options.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
10. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Son et al. (US 2024/0178443).
The applied reference has a common assignee, and some common inventors (less all) with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claims 1-20, all the features presented in the claims are clearly anticipated by Son (entire disclosure relied upon).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. Rejection A: Claims 1-6, 11, 13-14, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (US 2019/0245210) in view of Su et al. (US 2018/0102543).
Regarding claim 1, Matsushita teaches an all-solid secondary battery (title, P10; P17, 78; Fig. 4; entire disclosure relied upon) comprising:
a cathode (“positive electrode”) layer (11, 14) (P17, 78; Fig. 4);
an anode (“negative electrode”) layer (12, 15- Fig. 4 or 1, 2, 3- Figs. 1, 3A, 3B- see P46-76, 81, 94-99); and a
solid electrolyte layer 13 between the positive electrode layer (11, 14) and the negative electrode layer [(12, 15)/(1, 2, 3)] (Fig. 3; P17, 78, 88, 100-102, 125-126), wherein,
the positive electrode layer (11, 14) comprises:
a cathode (“positive”) current collector 14; and
a cathode (“positive”) active material layer 11,
the solid electrolyte layer 13 comprises a sulfide-based solid electrolyte (P78, 88, 100-102, 125-126), and
the negative electrode layer [(12, 15)/(1, 2, 3)] comprises:
an anode (“negative”) current collector 15/1;
an anode (“first negative”) active material layer 12; and
a coating layer 3 (“first protective layer”) between the negative current collector 15/1 and the first negative active material layer 12, and
wherein,
the first negative active material layer 12 comprises a carbonaceous material [either: 1) the conductive material (P95) taught as carbon nanotube or carbon nanofiber (P92, 95, 99); and/or 2) carbon active material taught as hard carbon or soft carbon with an average particle size in the nanometer range – P96-98] and a metallic1 negative active material (P96), and
the carbonaceous material comprises a first carbonaceous nanostructure (either: 1) the conductive material (P95), with suitable examples of conductive material taught at P60 and P92 and including carbon nanotube, carbon nanofiber, graphene, fullerene such that the selection and implementation thereof as the specific taught conductive material of the negative active material layer 12 being prima facie obvious given the court has held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); MPEP § 2144.07), or 2) carbon active material taught as hard carbon or soft carbon with an average particle size in the nanometer range – P96-98), and
the coating layer 3 (“first protective layer”) comprises a second carbonaceous nanostructure (e.g.., carbon nanotube, carbon nanofiber, graphene, fullerene – P58-60, 130).
The only missing limitation of Matushita is that within the negative active material layer 12, the carbonaceous material is in the format of a carbonacoues material matrix with the metallic negative active material in the carbonaceoues material matrix.
In the same field of endeavor, Su teaches analogous art of a solid state secondary battery (P3) including a current collector and an anode active material layer (P37, 63), and that it is a known technique to provide the anode active material layer in the format of a graphene foam in which graphene sheets or platelets (NGPS) form a 3-D conductive network of interconnected graphene planes (i.e., “a carbonaceous matrix”) to support a metallic anode active material (P28, 34), the foam comprising pores (P29, 57) with the metallic anode active material lodged in the pores (P38; Fig. 1B; entire disclosure relied upon). Su teaches the layer exhibits a combination of exceptional thermal conductivity, electrical conductivity, mechanical strength, and elasticity unmatched by any anode layer commonly used in a lithium-ion battery (P36). Fig. 1B of Su is reproduced below for convenience:
PNG
media_image1.png
296
318
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to format the negative active material layer 12 of Matushita, taught as comprising carbonaceous material comprising a first carbonaceous nanostructure (e.g., graphene) and metallic negative active material (P92-99) in the format taught by Su in which the anode active material layer in the format of a graphene foam in which graphene sheets or platelets (NGPS) form a 3-D conductive network of interconnected graphene planes (i.e., “a carbonaceous matrix material comprising a first carbonaceous nanostructure”) to support a metallic anode active material (P28, 34), the foam comprising pores (P29, 57) with the metallic anode active material lodged in the pores (“a metallic negative active material in the carbonaceous material matrix”) (P38; Fig. 1; entire disclosure relied upon) given Su teaches that the anode active material layer exhibits a combination of exceptional thermal conductivity, electrical conductivity, mechanical strength, and elasticity unmatched by any anode layer commonly used in a lithium-ion battery (P36).
Regarding claim 2, Matsushita teaches wherein the first carbonaceous nanostructure comprises the conductive material (P95), with suitable examples of conductive material taught at P60 and P92 and including graphene (i.e., “comprises a two-dimensional carbonaceous nanostructure that comprises graphene”). Matsushita as modified by Su also teaches the first carbonaceous nanostructure is graphene (P28, 29, 34, 57; Fig. 1; entire disclosure relied upon).
Regarding claim 3, Matsushita as modified by Su teaches wherein the carbonaceous material matrix comprises the first carbonaceous nanostructure (graphene) “arranged in a direction with respect to a surface of the negative current collector” (i.e., there are no other possible options for the graphene to exist without meeting this limitation). It is noted that if chemically functionalized (GO) graphene plates are utilized, these are taught as providing chemical linking either face-to-face or edge-to-edge such that (at least some of) the first carbonaceous nanostructure (graphene) is arranged in a [specific] direction w/r/t to a surface of the negative current collector if this option is utilized for the matrix -forming material (P151-161).
Regarding claim 4, Matsushita as modified by Su teaches wherein the carbonaceous material matrix comprises the first carbonaceous nanostructure (graphene) (“irregularly arranged”) given the bimodal pore distribution (P57) which is a result of non-uniform distribution/arrangement of the first carbonaceous nanostructure (graphene) (see Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 5, Matsushita teaches wherein the carbonaceous material matrix comprises either: 1) the conductive material (P95) taught as carbon nanotube or carbon nanofiber (P92, 95, 99); and/or 2) carbon active material taught as hard carbon or soft carbon with an average particle size in the nanometer range – P96-98]. Matusuhita as modified by Su teaches graphene. The materials taught exemplify crystalline carbon (e.g., carbon nanotube) as well as amorphous carbon (e.g., soft carbon). Moreover, there are no other options available- either the carbon material is one or the other, or a mixture of both, such that the claim is not limiting.
Regarding claim 6, Matsushita as modified by Su teaches the carbonaceous material matrix comprises pores (P29, 57; Fig. 1B) with the metallic anode active material lodged in the pores (P38; Fig. 1; entire disclosure relied upon), and the carbonaceous material matrix (graphene) is a lithium host (i.e., it intrinsically can intercalate/deintercalated lithium; the pore network allows for lithium (ions) to migrate therein; and/or the matrix hosts the metallic active material particles).
Regarding claim 11, Matsushita as modified by Su teaches wherein an amount of the metallic negative active material is 0.5% to 99% by weight based on the total weight of the graphene foam (“carbonaceous material matrix”) and the metallic negative active material combined (P121). This provides a range overlapping with that claimed, wherein to demonstrate this, using the example of 5 wt% metallic negative material relative to 100 wt% carbonaceous matrix material, this calculates out to 4.75 wt% metallic negative material relative to the combined amounts. Accordingly, if this was done for the entire range taught by Su, this provides a range overlapping with that that claimed such that it is rendered prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 13, Matsushita teaches wherein the second carbonaceous nanostructure comprises graphene (“a two-dimensional carbonaceous nanostructure that comprises graphene”) (P60).
Regarding claim 14, Matsushita teaches wherein the coating layer 3 (“first protective layer”) comprises the second carbonaceous nanostructure arranged in a direction with respect to a surface of the negative current collector (intrinsic to the construct presented – the second carbonaceous nanostructure (e.g., graphene) must be “arranged in a direction with respect to a surface of the negative current collector”),
wherein the second carbonaceous nanostructure is arranged in a direction parallel to the surface of the negative current collector or in a direction protruding from the surface of the negative current collector (the claim recites all possible options such that this is a non-limiting feature), and
the second carbonaceous nanostructure (e.g., graphene), that is used in a proportion up to 90 volume % of the coating layer 3 (“first protective layer”) that has a preferable thickness range of 1-30 µm, is intrinsically “stacked in a thickness direction of the first protective layer” in a number of layers that would intrinsically either lie inside or overlap with the range of “up to 100 layers” given the “two-dimensional” nature of graphene having a “thickness” of only one atom carbon (=0.335 nm). There is no manner in which to configure the coating layer 3 (“first protective layer”) comprising graphene as the conductive agent in an amount of 90 vol% without meeting this feature such that it is intrinsic to the construct claimed.
Regarding claim 17, Matsushita teaches wherein the negative current collector comprises at least copper (Cu), titanium (Ti), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), zinc (Zn), aluminum (Al), chromium (Cr), or an alloy thereof (P49).
Regarding claim 20, Matsushita teaches wherein the positive active material layer comprises a positive active material (P85-87) including at least the examples of an oxide-based positive active material comprises a lithium transition metal oxide, a metal oxide, or a combination thereof, the lithium transition metal oxide comprises a lithium cobalt oxide, a lithium nickel oxide, a lithium nickel cobalt oxide, a lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide, a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide, a lithium manganate, a lithium iron phosphate, or a combination thereof, and the lithium oxide comprises an iron oxide, a vanadium oxide, or a combination thereof (P86).
13. Rejection B: Claims 1-9, 11, 13-14, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (US 2019/0245210) in view of Zhamu et al. (US 2012/0064409).
Regarding claim 1, Matsushita teaches an all-solid secondary battery (title, P10; P17, 78; Fig. 4; entire disclosure relied upon) comprising:
a cathode (“positive electrode”) layer (11, 14) (P17, 78; Fig. 4);
an anode (“negative electrode”) layer (12, 15- Fig. 4 or 1, 2, 3- Figs. 1, 3A, 3B- see P46-76, 81, 94-99); and a
solid electrolyte layer 13 between the positive electrode layer (11, 14) and the negative electrode layer [(12, 15)/(1, 2, 3)] (Fig. 3; P17, 78, 88, 100-102, 125-126), wherein,
the positive electrode layer (11, 14) comprises:
a cathode (“positive”) current collector 14; and
a cathode (“positive”) active material layer 11,
the solid electrolyte layer 13 comprises a sulfide-based solid electrolyte (P78, 88, 100-102, 125-126), and
the negative electrode layer [(12, 15)/(1, 2, 3)] comprises:
an anode (“negative”) current collector 15/1;
an anode (“first negative”) active material layer 12; and
a coating layer 3 (“first protective layer”) between the negative current collector 15/1 and the first negative active material layer 12, and
wherein,
the first negative active material layer 12 comprises a carbonaceous material [either: 1) the conductive material (P95) taught as carbon nanotube or carbon nanofiber (P92, 95, 99); and/or 2) carbon active material taught as hard carbon or soft carbon with an average particle size in the nanometer range – P96-98] and a metallic2 negative active material (P96), and
the carbonaceous material comprises a first carbonaceous nanostructure (either: 1) the conductive material (P95), with suitable examples of conductive material taught at P60 and P92 and including carbon nanotube, carbon nanofiber, graphene, fullerene such that the selection and implementation thereof as the specific taught conductive material of the negative active material layer 12 being prima facie obvious given the court has held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); MPEP § 2144.07), or 2) carbon active material taught as hard carbon or soft carbon with an average particle size in the nanometer range – P96-98), and
the coating layer 3 (“first protective layer”) comprises a second carbonaceous nanostructure (e.g.., carbon nanotube, carbon nanofiber, graphene, fullerene – P58-60, 130).
The only missing limitation of Matushita is that within the negative active material layer 12, the carbonaceous material is in the format of a carbonacoues material matrix with the metallic negative active material in the carbonaceoues material matrix.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhamu teaches analogous art of anode active materials held within an anode active material layer, and that the anode active materials may take the format of a nano graphene-enhanced particulate (see Fig. 3) with the metallic negative active material (P75) in the carbonaceous material matrix (Fig. 3), the carbonaceous material matrix comprising graphene sheets (“a first carbonaceous nanostructure”) (39-48, 71-72; entire disclosure relied upon). Zhamu teaches that by using the graphene-enhanced anode particulate, the anodes using said material achieve a high reversible specific capacity and high tap density (P59).
PNG
media_image2.png
542
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to utilize Zhamu’s nano graphene-enhanced particulate material for the anode active material within the negative electrode active layer of Matushita given Zhamu in order to provide the predictable results of achieving a high reversible specific capacity and high tap density (P59). Moreover, the court has held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 2, Matsushita teaches wherein the first carbonaceous nanostructure comprises the conductive material (P95), with suitable examples of conductive material taught at P60 and P92 and including graphene (i.e., “comprises a two-dimensional carbonaceous nanostructure that comprises graphene”). Matsushita as modified by Zhamu also teaches the first carbonaceous nanostructure is graphene (P28, 29, 34, 57; Fig. 1; entire disclosure relied upon).
Regarding claim 3, Matsushita as modified by Zhamu teaches wherein the carbonaceous material matrix comprises the first carbonaceous nanostructure (graphene) “arranged in a direction with respect to a surface of the negative current collector” (i.e., there are no other possible options for the graphene to exist without meeting this limitation).
Regarding claim 4, Matsushita as modified by Su teaches wherein the carbonaceous material matrix comprises the first carbonaceous nanostructure (graphene) (“irregularly arranged”) (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Matsushita teaches wherein the carbonaceous material matrix comprises either: 1) the conductive material (P95) taught as carbon nanotube or carbon nanofiber (P92, 95, 99); and/or 2) carbon active material taught as hard carbon or soft carbon with an average particle size in the nanometer range – P96-98]. Matusuhita as modified by Zhamu teaches graphene. The materials taught exemplify crystalline carbon (e.g., carbon nanotube) as well as amorphous carbon (e.g., soft carbon). Moreover, there are no other options available- either the carbon materials is one or the other, or a mixture of both, such that the claim is not limiting.
Regarding claim 6, Matsushita as modified by Zhamu teaches the carbonaceous material matrix (graphene) comprises pores (see Fig. 3), and the carbonaceous material matrix (graphene) is a lithium host (i.e., it can intercalate/deintercalated lithium; the pore network allows for lithium (ions) to migrate therein; and/or the matrix hosts the metallic active material particles).
Regarding claim 7, Matsushita teaches wherein the metallic negative active material comprises: a core that comprises a metal capable of forming an alloy or compound with lithium (e.g., Si, Sn, In, Al, Si-Al, etc.) (P96). Matushita fails to disclose the metallic negative active material takes the format of a core-shell construct in which a shell comprising a carbonaceous material is arranged along a surface of the core, and the core is the above taught metal capable of forming an alloy or compound with lithium; however, Zhamu teaches that the anode active material may take the format of a metallic particle of the same materials (P41-43) that has carbon, or graphite coated (i.e., “a shell”) or in contact with the anode active material particles (P50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the metallic negative active material of Matsushita such that it has a core of the above metal(s) coated with a carbon shell given Zhamu teaches the technique is known in the prior art, thereby providing the predictable results of protecting the metal core from oxidation, and increasing its lithium intercalation ability without using more costly metals.
Regarding claim 8, Matsushita teaches wherein the metallic negative active material comprises a metal capable of forming an alloy or compound with lithium including at least aluminum (Al), silicon (Si), tin (Sn), and combinations thereof (P96), and Matsushita as modified by Zhamu teaches the use of Si, Al, Bi, Sn, Zn, or a combination thereof (P41-44).
Regarding claim 9, Matsushita as modified by Zhamu teaches wherein the shell may comprise amorphous carbon (P50).
Regarding claim 11, Matsushita as modified by Su teaches wherein an amount of the metallic negative active material is at least 0.1% by weight, preferably at least 1% by weight and most typically less than 70% by weight based on the total weight of the particulate (P39). This provides a range overlapping with that claimed, wherein to demonstrate this, using the example of 5 wt% metallic negative material relative to 100 wt% carbonaceous matrix material (graphene), this calculates out to 4.75 wt% metallic negative material relative to the combined amounts. Accordingly, if this was done for the entire range taught by Zhamu, this provides a range overlapping with that that claimed such that it is rendered prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 13, Matsushita teaches wherein the second carbonaceous nanostructure comprises graphene (“a two-dimensional carbonaceous nanostructure that comprises graphene”) (P60).
Regarding claim 14, Matsushita teaches wherein the coating layer 3 (“first protective layer”) comprises the second carbonaceous nanostructure arranged in a direction with respect to a surface of the negative current collector (intrinsic to the construct presented – the second carbonaceous nanostructure (e.g., graphene) must be “arranged in a direction with respect to a surface of the negative current collector”),
wherein the second carbonaceous nanostructure is arranged in a direction parallel to the surface of the negative current collector or in a direction protruding from the surface of the negative current collector (the claim recites all possible options such that this is a non-limiting feature), and
the second carbonaceous nanostructure (e.g., graphene), that is used in a proportion up to 90 volume % of the coating layer 3 (“first protective layer”) that has a preferable thickness range of 1-30 µm, is intrinsically “stacked in a thickness direction of the first protective layer” in a number of layers that would intrinsically either lie inside or overlap with the range of “up to 100 layers” given the “two-dimensional” nature of graphene having a “thickness” of only one atom carbon (=0.335 nm). There is no manner in which to configure the coating layer 3 (“first protective layer”) comprising graphene as the conductive agent in an amount of 90 vol% without meeting this feature.
Regarding claim 17, Matsushita teaches wherein the negative current collector comprises at least copper (Cu), titanium (Ti), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), zinc (Zn), aluminum (Al), chromium (Cr), or an alloy thereof (P49).
Regarding claim 20, Matsushita teaches wherein the positive active material layer comprises a positive active material (P85-87) including at least the examples of an oxide-based positive active material comprises a lithium transition metal oxide, a metal oxide, or a combination thereof, the lithium transition metal oxide comprises a lithium cobalt oxide, a lithium nickel oxide, a lithium nickel cobalt oxide, a lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide, a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide, a lithium manganate, a lithium iron phosphate, or a combination thereof, and the lithium oxide comprises an iron oxide, a vanadium oxide, or a combination thereof (P86).
14. Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Rejection A as applied to at least claim 1 above;
and further in view of Jang et al. (US 2020/0365880).
Regarding claim 7, Matsushita teaches wherein the metallic negative active material comprises: a core that comprises a metal capable of forming an alloy or compound with lithium (e.g., Si, Sn, In, Al, Si-Al, etc.) (P96). Matushita as modified by Su teaches at least silicon particles (P39). Matushita and Su both fail to disclose the metallic negative active material takes the format of a core-shell construct in which a shell comprising a carbonaceous material is arranged along a surface of the core, and the core is the above taught metal capable of forming an alloy or compound with lithium.
Looking to known, analogous constructs of suitable negative active materials, Jang teaches analogous art of an anode active material comprising a core-shell construct in which analogous metallic materials (P24) are utilized as a core having a diameter of 0.5 nm to 100 nm (P26) that is coated with a shell that may be a carbonaceous nanostructure (e.g., graphene) or amorphous carbon (P21) having a thickness of 0.34 nm to 10 µm (P21; entire disclosure relied upon). Jang teaches the anode active material enables a lithium-ion battery having a high cycle life, high reversible capacity, and low irreversible capacity (P14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the taught metallic particles of Matushita/Su with the core-shell particles of Jang in order to provide the predictable, taught results of enabling a lithium-ion battery using said material to have a high cycle life, high reversible capacity, and low irreversible capacity (P14).
Regarding claim 8, Matsushita teaches wherein the metal comprises an alloy-forming element selected from at least silicon (Si), aluminum (Al), bismuth (Bi), tin (Sn), or a combination thereof (P96). Matushita as modified by Su teaches at least silicon particles (P39). Matushita in view of Jang teaches all the claimed options (P24).
Regarding claim 9, Matsushita as modified by Jang teaches wherein the shell comprises a third carbonaceous nanostructure (graphene), or the shell comprises amorphous carbon (P21).
Regarding claim 10, Matsushita as modified by Jang teaches the metallic materials (P24) are utilized as a core having a diameter of 0.5 nm to 100 nm (P26) that is coated with a shell that may be a carbonaceous nanostructure (e.g., graphene) or amorphous carbon (P21) having a thickness of 0.34 nm to 10 µm (P21; entire disclosure relied upon), thereby rendering the claimed ranges prima facie obvious.
15. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Rejection B as applied to at least claims 1 and 7 above,
and further in view of and further in view of Jang et al. (US 2020/0365880).
Regarding claim 10, Matsushita as modified by Zhamu teaches the metallic negative active material has a particle shape having a dimension smaller than 1 µm, preferably smaller than 100 nm (P48), thereby rendering the claimed range of 10-500 nm as prima facie obvious. Zhamu is silent as to the thickness of the shell (“50 nm or less”); however, looking to known, analogous constructs of core-shell negative active materials, Jang teaches analogous art of an anode active material comprising a core-shell construct in which analogous metallic materials (P24) are utilized as a core having a diameter of 0.5 nm to 100 nm (P26) that is coated with a shell that may be a carbonaceous nanostructure (e.g., graphene) or amorphous carbon (P21) having a thickness of 0.34 nm to 10 µm (P21; entire disclosure relied upon).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to look to known, analogous constructs for a suitable thickness range for the taught carbon shell of Matsushita as modified by Zhamu, and to select the taught range of 0.34 nm to 10 µm for the carbon shell thereof given Jang teaches an anode active material with the same construct and that this is a suitable thickness range for shell of the anode active material core-shell construct (P21, 26; entire disclosure relied upon).
16. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Rejection A as applied to at least claim 1 above; or
Rejection B as applied to at least claim 1 above,
and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0143412) and Zhamu et al. (US 2023/0057285) (hereinafter “Zhamu2”).
Regarding claim 12, Matsushita teaches wherein the first negative active material layer has a thickness of 0.1- 300 µm (P99), or 0.1- 100 µm (P99), thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness against the claimed overlapping therewith of 20 µm or less (MPEP § 2144.05), and the first negative active material layer may be free from a binder given Matushita teaches the anode active material contains at least an anode active material, and may further contain at least one of a solid electrolyte material, a conductive material, a binder, and a thickener, as required. Accordingly, in the instance the functionality of a binder is not required, its omission and the teaching of “at least one of” provides for the necessary teaching to arrive no binder may be utilized.
Matushita fails to explicitly teach a ratio (C1/C2) of a charging capacity C1 of the first negative active material to a charging capacity C2 of the positive active material layer is from about 0.001 to about 0.45.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches analogous art of an all-solid secondary battery including analogous components and that a charging capacity of the first anode active material layer is about 50% lower than the charge capacity of the cathode active material layer in order to balance cycle characteristics with the prevention of dendrite formation (P72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the charging capacity of the negative active material relative to the charging capacity of the active material layer in the range claimed that entirely lies inside the taught range of 50% or lower in order that the entire negative active material layer relative to the positive active material layer is within the range claimed in order to balance cycle characteristics with the prevention of dendrite formation (P72).
Furthermore regarding the claim, Matushita teaches the first negative active material layer has a thickness of 0.1- 300 µm (P99), or 0.1- 100 µm (P99), and the coating layer (“first protective layer”) has a thickness of 0.01 µm or more, and preferably 30 µm or less (P70). Matushita does not explicitly teach that a thickness of the first negative active material layer is greater than a thickness of the first protective layer; however, the ranges taught allow for such a construct, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to determine the optimum or workable ranges of each thickness value. Moreover, Zhamu23 teaches analogous art of a solid state battery including an anode 10 that includes the layers of a current collecting substrate 12, a lithium metal layer 144, a graphitic layer 16 (“first protective layer”), and a first anode active layer 18 (P73; Fig. 1A, reproduced below):
PNG
media_image3.png
250
211
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The first anode active material layer 18 includes carbon nanotubes (P75) (“first carbonaceous nanostructure”) along with anode active material metallic particles (P76), and the graphitic layer/film 16 (“first protective layer”) may include a layer of a graphene material (P77) (“a second carbonaceous nanostructure5”) that are formed by aggregating graphene sheets using compression that does not include binder (P90; Fig. 3A). Accordingly, a similar construct with the same layers in the same location is taught by Zhamu2, with the analogous graphitic layer/film 16 (“first protective layer”) lacking resin/binder. Zhamu teaches that the anode layer is typically 50-300 µm (more typically 100-200 µm) to give rise to a sufficient amount of current per unit electrode area (P65).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the thickness of the anode active material layer of Matushita to be within the narrower range of 50-300 µm (more typically 100-200 µm) as taught by Zhamu2 in order to provide the predictable results of giving rise to a sufficient amount of current per unit electrode area (P65). This provides for the thickness of the first negative active material layer (50-300 µm) to be greater than the thickness of the first protective layer (0.01 µm or more, and preferably 30 µm or less -P70).
Lastly, Matushita is silent as to, “a peak intensity ratio (ID/IG) of D-band peak intensity (ID) at about 1350 cm-1 derived from amorphous carbon to G-band peak intensity (IG) at about 1580 cm-1 derived from crystalline carbon in a Raman spectrum of the negative electrode layer is from about 0.01 to about 5” as claimed. This ratio reflects the type/amount of amorphous carbon materials relative to crystalline carbon in the negative electrode layer and would appear to be dependent upon the types and amounts of carbon materials (i.e., amorphous or crystalline) selected for each of:
the negative current collector (if carbon is utilized),
the carbonaceous material matrix that includes a first carbonaceous nanostructure,
the second carbonaceous nanostructure of the first protective layer, and
any other carbon materials found in the negative electrode layer (e.g., conductive additives, coating shells on the metallic negative active material, etc.).
Given Matushita teaches the options for both amorphous and crystalline materials for these entities, there will intrinsically be some D-band peak (characterizing the presence of amorphous carbon) and some G-band peak (characterizing the presence of crystalline carbon), wherein the selected amounts and types will dictate the ratio thereof (as best understood by the Examiner; see the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph regarding this limitation).
It is not clear whether the ID/IG ratio of Matushita’s negative electrode layer is in the range from “about 0.01 to about 5,” however, given the range appears to essentially cover all options (i.e., extremely low amounts of amorphous material relative to crystalline carbon at the lower bound of “about 0.01” and extremely high amounts of amorphous material relative to the crystalline carbon at the upper bound of “about 5”), the Examiner finds that the ratio range presented lacks any criticality as it covers both scenarios of low and high amounts of amorphous carbon relative to crystalline carbon, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to determine the appropriate amounts of and types of carbons for each of the above entities utilizing carbon within the negative electrode layer, and thus the correlated ID/IG ratio. Accordingly, in the absence of new or unexpected results fully commensurate in scope with the claimed construct, the determination of the types (amorphous and/or crystalline) and amounts of the materials comprising carbon within the negative electrode layer, and thus the resulting ID/IG ratio is considered an obvious expedient involving routine experimentation.
17. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Rejection A as applied to at least claim 1 above; or
Rejection B as applied to at least claim 1 above,
and further in view of Zhamu et al. (US 2023/0057285) (hereinafter “Zhamu2”).
Regarding claim 15, Matsushita teaches wherein the coating layer 3 (“first protective layer”) is directly on the negative current collector 1 (see Fig. 3B- P72, 74), and the coating layer 3 (“first protective layer”) is inert to the sulfide-based solid electrolyte (no materials taught for the coating layer 3 (“first protective layer”) chemically react with the sulfide-based solid electrolyte, nor is the coating layer 3 (“first protective layer”) in contact with the sulfide-based solid electrolyte such that it is capable of chemically reacting therewith), and
the first protective layer has a thickness of 0.01 µm or more, and preferably 30 µm or less (P70), thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness against the claimed range of “
2 µm or less” (MPEP § 2144.05).
Matsushita teaches the coating layer 3 (“first protective layer”) comprises a resin (P59), and does not include a teaching that the resin may be excluded such that the layer is free from a binder. It is noted that the goal of Matushita is to provide the coating layer with high electron conductivity (P69).
In the same field of endeavor, Zhamu26 teaches analogous art of a solid state battery including an anode 10 that includes the layers of a current collecting substrate 12, a lithium metal layer 147, a graphitic layer 16 (“first protective layer”), and a first anode active layer 18 (P73; Fig. 1A, reproduced below):
PNG
media_image3.png
250
211
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The first anode active material layer 18 includes carbon nanotubes (P75) (“first carbonaceous nanostructure”) along with anode active material metallic particles (P76), and the graphitic layer/film 16 (“first protective layer”) may include a layer of a graphene material (P77) (“a second carbonaceous nanostructure8”) that are formed by aggregating graphene sheets using compression that does not include binder (P90; Fig. 3A). Accordingly, a similar construct with the same layers in the same location is taught by Zhamu2, with the analogous graphitic layer/film 16 (“first protective layer”) lacking resin/binder.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to apply this known technique of providing a graphene layer without binder taught by Zhamu2 to the coating layer 3 (“first protective layer”) of Matushita including graphene in order to achieve the desired goal of Matushita of providing a layer with high electron conductivity given the absence of non-conductive resin, or to alternatively substitute the layer of a graphene material of Zhamu2 for the coating layer 3 (“first protective layer”) of Matushita in order to achieve the predicable results of increased electrical conductivity of the layer.
18. Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Rejection A as applied to at least claim 1 above; or
Rejection B as applied to at least claim 1 above,
and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0143412).
Regarding claim 16, Matsushita fails to disclose the all-solid secondary battery as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a second negative active material layer between the solid electrolyte layer 13 and the negative current collector (15/(1, 2, 3),
wherein the second negative active material layer is at one or more positions between the first negative active material layer 12 and the first protective layer 3 and between the first negative active material layer 12 and the solid electrolyte layer 13, and
the second negative active material layer comprises a metal layer comprising lithium or a lithium alloy.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches analogous art of an all-solid secondary battery including analogous components of a solid electrolyte layer 30, a negative current collector 21, and a negative active material layer 22 that is comprised of a mixture of first particles of carbonaceous anode active material including graphene and second particles formed of a metal including Au, Pt, Sn, Al (P63-67), wherein the negative active material layer 22 construct may be one of a carbonaceous material matrix with the metal particles within said matrix given the amount of the metal utilized may be as low as 8 wt% relative to the total weight of the mixture (P67). Lee further teaches there may be a second anode active material layer may be implemented between the first anode active material layer and the anode current collector 21 that is a metal layer comprising lithium or a lithium alloy (P74-76). The second anode active material serves as a lithium reservoir allowing for improved cycling characteristics of the secondary battery to be improved (P76).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide a second anode active material layer between the first anode active material layer and the anode current collector (15/(1/2/3) (including the first protective layer 3) of Matushita given Lee teaches the technique and construct are known in the prior art and provide the predictable, advantageous results of improving cycling characteristics of the secondary battery (P74-76).
Regarding claim 19, Matsushita fails to disclose teaches the all-solid secondary battery as claimed in claim 1, further comprising an inactive member on at least one side of the positive electrode layer,
wherein the inactive member is at side surfaces of the positive electrode layer to be around the positive electrode layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches analogous art of an all-solid secondary battery including analogous components of a positive electrode layer 10 (11, 12), wherein Lee teaches it is a known technique and construct to provide an inactive member 40 at side surfaces of the positive electrode layer 12 to be around the positive electrode layer 10 (11, 12) in order to prevent crack generation in the solid electrolyte layer (P27-39; Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the cathode layer (11, 14) of Matushita to have an inactive member 40 at side surfaces of the positive electrode layer 12 to be around the positive electrode layer 10 (11, 12) as taught by Lee in order to provide the predictable result of preventing crack generation in the solid electrolyte layer as taught by Lee (P27-39; Fig. 1).
19. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Rejection A as applied to at least claim 1 above; or
Rejection B as applied to at least claim 1 above,
and further in view of further in view of Herle et al. (US 2021/0126247).
Regarding claim 18, Matsushita teaches the configuration may be one in which the anode current collector takes the format of the Fig. 1 current collector (as outlined in the rejection above), and the cathode current collector may be a current collector containing a copper (Cu) element (P83), with other metals identified at P49-50 including at least titanium (Ti), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), zinc (Zn), and aluminum (Al). Accordingly, the cathode current collector may comprise a metal layer of the materials recited.
Matushita fails to disclose a construct in which the above metal layer is provided on at least one side of a base film comprising a polymer, the polymer comprising polyethylene-terephthalate (PET), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polybutyleneterephthalate (PBT), polyimide (PI), or a combination thereof.
In the same field of endeavor, Herle teaches analogous art of solid-state secondary batteries and that it is a known technique to provide the cathode current collector 140 as an aluminum layer deposited on a polymer substrate that is a polyethylene-terephthalate (PET) film (P34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the above current collector construct of Herle (PET film coated with aluminum) versus just a layer of aluminum for the current collector of Matsushita given the court has held the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP § 2144.07; Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)), the substitution providing the predictable results of implementation of a current collector that is less costly and is made of stronger and/or more flexible materials.
Conclusion
20. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Regarding anode/negative electrodes comprising a first protective layer intervening between a current collector and a negative active material layer:
Yushin (US 2020/0083542) teaches the following negative electrode construct including a current collector 204, a conductive interlayer 202 comprising first conductive additives, and electrode active material 201 comprising conductive materials:
PNG
media_image4.png
524
710
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Li et al. (US 2021/0119196) teaches an electrode plate that includes a current collector, an electrode active material layer, and intervening layers therebetween including a conductive primer layer containing conductive material.
See also: Sugimore et al. (US 2016/0351892) and Hao et al (US 2016/0211524).
Zhamu et al. (US 2023/0057285) is relied upon above as a secondary reference that could be used as a primary reference.
Regarding a matrix carbon material with metallic particles held therein with the matrix carbon material comprising carbonaceous nanostructures:
Zhamu et al (US 2021/0155484) teaches an anode that includes porous graphene balls comprised of graphene sheets that form a carbonaceous matrix material mixed with particles of a Li-attracting metal (Fig. 3A):
PNG
media_image5.png
156
362
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Mizutani (US 2017/0033352) teaches analogous art of an anode active material layer for a solid state battery including a first active material in the format of a carbonaceous matrix material 1a and a metallic negative active material 1a in the carbonaceous matrix material 1 (P22; abstract).
PNG
media_image6.png
236
442
media_image6.png
Greyscale
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA J BARROW whose telephone number is (571)270-7867. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am - 6pm CST.
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.
/AMANDA J BARROW/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
1 It is noted that Applicant defines the term “metal” as including metals and metalloids (P38 of the PGPUB).
2 It is noted that Applicant defines the term “metal” as including metals and metalloids (P38 of the PGPUB).
3 The Zhamu reference could be applied as a primary reference in the same manner as Matushita with no modifications necessary to meet claim 15.
4 The lithium metal layer is claimed in the instant application at claim 16 and addressed with other prior art, but it is noted that Zhamu also teaches this known construct.
5 It is noted other materials are taught including carbon nanotubes and carbon nano-fibers (P77).
6 The Zhamu reference could be applied as a primary reference in the same manner as Matushita with no modifications necessary to meet claim 15.
7 The lithium metal layer is claimed in the instant application at claim 16 and addressed with other prior art, but it is noted that Zhamu also teaches this known construct.
8 It is noted other materials are taught including carbon nanotubes and carbon nano-fibers (P77).
Prosecution Insights