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 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto et al. (WO 2019/146295 A1; with reference to US 2020/0350562 A1 as a direct English translation) in view of Sakaguchi et al. (US 2008/0187836 A1) and Kim et al. (US 2020/0243848 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sugimoto discloses an electrode comprising a current collector (stainless steel) and an active material layer comprising an active material comprising Li, Ti, and O (Li4Ti5O12) and a solid electrolyte (Li3YBr2Cl2I2) (Sugimoto Example 4, [0203]-[0205] and [0220]-[0221]).
Sugimoto does not teach the use of an additional electrode active material comprising Mo and O. Sakaguchi is directed to a lithium-ion battery comprising lithium titanium oxide (Sakaguchi Abstract). Sakaguchi teaches that adding molybdenum dioxide to lithium titanium oxide anodes increases energy density without sacrificing cycle performance (Sakaguchi [0006]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add molybdenum dioxide (i.e. an active material comprising Mo and O) to the electrode of Sugimoto to improve energy density without sacrificing cycle performance.
Sakaguchi does not teach that the two active materials are provided in different active material layers. Kim is directed to a lithium-ion battery with an anode comprising two different active materials (Kim Abstract). Kim teaches that anodes with two different active materials demonstrate significantly improved capacity retention when the different materials are in different layers (Kim Examples 1 and 2) as opposed to mixed in the same layer (Kim Comparative Example 1) (Kim [0098]-[0117). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to separate the lithium titanium dioxide and molybdenum dioxide into separate layers in order to improve capacity retention.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, modified Sugimoto does not teach any particular order for the molybdenum layer, current collector, and lithium titanium oxide layer. However, there are only two ways to separate the two layers (CC-MO-LTO or CC-LTO-MO). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to try either of these two options.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, modified Sugimoto teaches the use of MoO2 (Sakaguchi [0006]).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, modified Sugimoto teaches the use of Li4Ti5O12 (Sugimoto [0203]).
Regarding claims 8-10, modified Sugimoto teaches the use of Li3YBr2Cl2I2 (Sugimoto Example 4).
Regarding claim 11, Li3YBr2Cl2I2 does not include sulfur.
Regarding claim 12, the electrode is used as an anode in a battery comprising a cathode (In metal) and an electrolyte layer (sulfide solid electrolyte) (Sugimoto [0209]-[0212]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Sugimoto teaches the use of Li3YBr2Cl2I2 (Sugimoto Example 4).
Claim(s) 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto in view of Sakaguchi and Kim as applied to claim 12 above, as evidenced by Ohara et al. ("Structural and electronic features of binary Li2S-P2S5 glasses," Scientific Reports 6:21302, February 2016), Villars ("Li3YBr6 Crystal Structure," Springer Materials, https://materials.springer.com/isp/crystallographic/docs/sd_1701612, 2011), and Villars ("Li4Ti5O12 (Li1.33Ti1.67O4, T = 1173 K) (Laumann,2011, Fd-3m O2) Crystal Structure [2]," Springer Materials, https://materials.springer.com/isp/crystallographic/docs/sd_1632094, 2011; hereinafter referred to as Laumann).
Regarding claims 13-15, modified Sugimoto does not explicitly teach that the thickness of the Mo-O layer must be 1-50% of the thickness of the cathodes. Modified Sugimoto teaches that the thickness of the cathode is 200 µm (Sugimoto [0210]), that the mass of the anode active material layer is half that of the electrolyte layer (Sugimoto [0209]) and that the electrolyte layer is at most 300 µm (Sugimoto [0180]). The density of the anode material is approximately 3g/cm3 (Ohara and Laumann), and the density of the sulfide electrolyte is approximately 2 g/cm3 (Villars), so the thickness of the anode layer is at most 100 µm (half the mass and 1.5 times the density gives a volume ratio of 3:1) and at least 10 µm (Sugimoto [0126]). The thickness ratio of the first active material layer to the second active material layer should be 90:10-10:90 (Kim [0069]), so the thickness of the MoO2 layer is approximately 1-90 µm, or 0.5-45% of the thickness of the cathode, which overlaps the ranges of the instant claims. 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). 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 value within the range of modified Sugimoto, including values within the range of the instant claims.
Regarding claim 16, modified Sugimoto does not teach that the capacity ratio of the MoO layer to the LTO layer is less than 0.4. Modified Sugimoto teaches that the thickness ratio of the first active material layer to the second active material layer should be 90:10-10:90 (Kim [0069]). LTO has a density of 3.47 g/cm3 and a specific capacity of 175 mAh/g, and molybdenum dioxide has a density of 6.44 g/cm3 and a specific capacity of 210 mAh/g (Sakaguchi [0006]), so the LTO layers will have approximately half the specific capacity of the MoO2 layers, for a capacity ratio range of 0.22-18, which overlaps the range of the instant claim. 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). 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 value within the range of modified Sugimoto, including values within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 17, modified Sugimoto teaches that the cathode may be any conventional cathode material, including Li(NiCoMn)O2 (Sugimoto [0127]-[0129]). 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 listed materials, including lithium nickel cobalt manganate.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto in view of Sakaguchi and Kim as evidenced by Ohara, Villars, and Laumann as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Hadidi et al. (US 2017/0373344 A1).
Regarding claim 18, modified Sugimoto does not teach the use of Li(Ni0.6Co0.2Mn0.2)O2 (i.e. NCM622). Modified Sugimoto uses Li(NiCoMn)O2 (i.e. NCM333) (see the rejection of claim 17 above). Hadidi is directed to materials for a lithium-ion battery (Hadidi Abstract). Hadidi teaches that both NCM622 and NCM333 are suitable cathode materials for lithium-ion batteries (Hadidi [0031]). NCM622 and NCM333 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 appropriate material, including NCM622, for the cathode active material of the battery of modified Sugimoto.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Whitacre et al. ("Dual active material composite cathode structures for Li-ion batteries," Journal of Power Sources 177(2), pp. 528-536, January 2008) is directed to lithium-ion batteries with mixed active materials (Whitacre Abstract).
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