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 .
Election/Restrictions
2. Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-12, drawn to a dry cathode film, classified in H01M4/364.
II. Claim 13-20, drawn to a dry cathode and all-solid secondary battery, classified in H01M10/056.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have materially different design as a dry cathode film is not a dry cathode and further does not require a cathode current collector. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Group I would require search in at least H01M4/364 as well as a unique keyword search. Group II would not be searched in the same way as Group I and would instead require a search in H01M10/056 as well as a unique keyword search.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
During a telephone conversation with Daniel Salgado on 07/21 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-12. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/31/2024, 04/14/2025, 07/18/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
5. Regarding claim 10, the recitation “wherein the dry binder comprises a fibrillized binder” in claim 10, lines 1-2, the dry binder is being interpreted as being a dry fibrillized binder.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 9, the recitation “the sulfide-based solid electrolyte” in claim 9, line 9 should read “the dry sulfide-based solid electrolyte”. 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.
7. Claims 1-12 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.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “a lithium salt (Li.sub.aX.sub.b), and a carbonaceous material (C), the composite is represented by Li.sub.2S—Li.sub.aX.sub.b—C (wherein 1≤a≤5 and 1≤b≤5), and X is I, Br, Cl, F, H, O, Se, Te, N, P, As, Sb, Al, B, OCl, PF.sub.6, BF.sub.4, SbF.sub.6, AsF.sub.6, ClO.sub.4, AlO.sub.2, AlCl.sub.4, NO.sub.3, CO.sub.3, BH.sub.4, SO.sub.4, BO.sub.3, PO.sub.4, NCl, NCl.sub.2, BN.sub.2” in claim 1, lines 7-12 is indefinite because the b in the formula for the lithium salt of Li.sub.aX.sub.b is given a value of 1 to 5, however some of the possible components of X already include a subscript so it is unclear if the subscript b is in addition to the subscript already included on the possible components of X or the included subscript is b. Further in the case that the subscript b and the subscript included on X is one and the same, it is unclear how PF.sub.6, SbF.sub.6, and AsF.sub.6 can be X when b is 1 to 5. For examination purposes the aforementioned recitation will be interpreted as ““a lithium salt (Li.sub.aX.sub.b), and a carbonaceous material (C), the composite is represented by Li.sub.2S—Li.sub.aX.sub.b—C (wherein 1≤a≤5 and 1≤b≤5), and X is I, Br, Cl, F, H, O, Se, Te, N, P, As, Sb, Al, B, OCl, PF, BF, SbF, AsF, ClO, AlO, AlCl, NO, CO, BH, SO, BO, PO, NCl, BN”.
Regarding claim 3, the recitation “the ternary compound comprises Li.sub.3OCl, LiPF.sub.6, LiBF.sub.4, LiSbF.sub.6, LiAsF.sub.6, LiClO.sub.4, LiAlO.sub.2, LiAlCl.sub.4, LiNO.sub.3, Li.sub.2CO.sub.3, LiBH.sub.4, Li.sub.2SO.sub.4, Li.sub.3BO.sub.3, Li.sub.3PO.sub.4, Li.sub.4NCl, Li.sub.5NCl.sub.2, Li.sub.3BN.sub.2” in claim 3, lines 5-6 is indefinite because in claim 1 the subscript b of the formula for the lithium salt is recited as 1 to 5, however LiPF.sub.6, LiSbF.sub.6, and LiAsF.sub.6 all include subscripts of b greater than 5 so it is unclear how these compounds can be the lithium salt when they include subscripts b which do not fall within the range determined in claim 1. For examination purposes the aforementioned recitation will be interpreted as “the ternary compound comprises Li.sub.3OCl, LiBF.sub.4, LiClO.sub.4, LiAlO.sub.2, LiAlCl.sub.4, LiNO.sub.3, Li.sub.2CO.sub.3, LiBH.sub.4, Li.sub.2SO.sub.4, Li.sub.3BO.sub.3, Li.sub.3PO.sub.4, Li.sub.4NCl, Li.sub.5NCl.sub.2, Li.sub.3BN.sub.2”.
Regarding claim 8, the recitation “the composite particles” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim as composite particle have not been previously introduced in the claim. For examination purposes the aforementioned recitation will be interpreted as “particles of the composite”.
Regarding claim(s) 2, 4-7, and 9-12, the claim(s) is/are rejected as they depend from, and therefore incorporate the claimed subject matter from claims rejected under this statute.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (Pub. No. US 20210175494 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Huang teaches a dry cathode film (positive electrode, see [0024], see [0064] the positive electrode sheet was molded) comprising: a dry cathode active material (sulfur-based positive electrode active material, see [0024]); a dry sulfide-based solid electrolyte (solid electrolyte, see [0024], see [0029] the solid electrolyte is added to the composition, see [0071] and Table 2 Example 1 gives a specific example of using a sulfide solid electrolyte); and a dry binder (binder, see [0024], see [0032] where a binder is used in the composition), wherein the dry cathode active material (sulfur-based positive electrode active material, see [0024]) comprises a composite (see [0018] the components are mixed together via ball milling, therefore it is the examiners position the mixture of the materials is a composite) of Li.sub.2S (Li.sub.2S, see [0017]), a lithium salt (Li.sub.aX.sub.b) (second lithium compound, see [0017], see [0010] where the second compound is a lithium salt), and a carbonaceous material (C) (conductive carbon material, see [0017]), the composite (see [0018] the components are mixed together via ball milling, therefore it is the examiners position the mixture of the materials is a composite) is represented by Li.sub.2S—Li.sub.aX.sub.b—C (see [0057] and Table 1 shows specific examples where the materials used are Li2S-LiI-C, therefore being a composite mixed together by ball milling it is the Examiner’s position the composite is represented by Li.sub.2S—Li.sub.aX.sub.b—C) (wherein 1≤a≤5 and 1≤b≤5) (a is 1 and b is 1-3, see [0010] the second compounds), and X is I (LiI, see [0010], see Table 1 gives specific examples), Br (LiBr, see [0010]), Cl, F, H, O, Se, Te, N, P, As, Sb, Al, B, OCl, PF.sub.6, BF.sub.4, SbF.sub.6, AsF.sub.6, ClO.sub.4, AlO.sub.2, AlCl.sub.4, NO.sub.3 (LiNO.sub.3, see [0010]), CO.sub.3, BH.sub.4, SO.sub.4, BO.sub.3, PO.sub.4, NCl, NCl.sub.2, BN.sub.2, or a combination thereof. See 112 rejection above for interpretation.
Regarding claim 3, Huang teaches wherein the lithium salt (second lithium compound, see [0017], see [0010] where the second compound is a lithium salt) is a binary compound or a ternary compound, wherein the binary compound comprises LiI (LiI, see [0010], see Table 1 gives specific examples), LiBr (LiBr, see [0010]), LiCl, LiF, LiH, Li.sub.2O, Li.sub.2Se, Li.sub.2Te, Li.sub.3N, Li.sub.3P, Li.sub.3As, Li.sub.3Sb, Li.sub.3Al.sub.2, LiB.sub.3, or a combination thereof, and the ternary compound comprises Li.sub.3OCl, LiPF.sub.6, LiBF.sub.4, LiSbF.sub.6, LiAsF.sub.6, LiClO.sub.4, LiAlO.sub.2, LiAlCl.sub.4, LiNO.sub.3 (LiNO.sub.3, see [0010]), Li.sub.2CO.sub.3, LiBH.sub.4, Li.sub.2SO.sub.4, Li.sub.3BO.sub.3, Li.sub.3PO.sub.4, Li.sub.4NCl, Li.sub.5NCl.sub.2, Li.sub.3BN.sub.2, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 4, Huang teaches wherein a molar ratio of the Li.sub.2S (Li.sub.2S, see [0017]) to the lithium salt (second lithium compound, see [0017], see [0010] where the second compound is a lithium salt) is from about 50:50 to about 95:5 (91:9, see math calculation below) in the composite (see [0018] the components are mixed together via ball milling, therefore it is the examiners position the mixture of the materials is a composite).
Math Calculation: see Table 1, Example 1 where Li.sub.2S and LiI are in a weight ratio of 70:20, the molar mass of Li.sub.2S is 45.95 g/mol, the molar mass of LiI is 133.85 g/mol. Calculations will be based on a 100 gram sample so 70 grams of Li.sub.2S and 20 grams of LiI.
Moles of Li.sub.2S: 70/45.95 = 1.52
Moles of LiI: 20/133.85 = 0.149
Total moles = 1.52+0.149 = 1.669
Molar ratio: 1.52/1.669 *100 = 91 and 0.149/1.669 *100 = 9, therefore ratio is 91:9
Regarding claim 6, Huang teaches wherein the carbonaceous material (conductive carbon material, see [0017]) comprises a fibrous carbonaceous material (carbon nanotubes, see Table 1, in Example 1 shows a specific example of using carbon nanotubes), the fibrous carbonaceous material (carbon nanotubes, see Table 1, in Example 1 shows a specific example of using carbon nanotubes) comprises a carbon nanostructure (carbon nanotubes, it is the Examiner’s position that Carbon nanotubes have a carbon nanostructure, that structure being a nanotube), wherein the carbon nanostructure (carbon nanotubes, it is the Examiner’s position that Carbon nanotubes have a carbon nanostructure, that structure being a nanotube) comprises carbon nanofibers, carbon nanotubes (carbon nanotubes, see Table 1, in Example 1 shows a specific example of using carbon nanotubes), carbon nanobelts, carbon nanorods, or a combination thereof, and an amount of the carbonaceous material (conductive carbon material, see [0017]) is from about 1 wt % to about 20 wt % (10-15 wt%, see [0014]) based on a total weight of the composite (see [0018] the components are mixed together via ball milling, therefore it is the examiners position the mixture of the materials is a composite).
Regarding claim 7, Huang teaches wherein the composite (see [0018] the components are mixed together via ball milling, therefore it is the examiners position the mixture of the materials is a composite) comprises about 50 parts by weight to about 80 parts by weight (70 wt%, see [0011]) of the Li.sub.2S (Li.sub.2S, see [0017]), about 1 part by weight to about 40 parts by weight (15-20 wt%, see [0012]) of the lithium salt (second lithium compound, see [0017], see [0010] where the second compound is a lithium salt), and about 1 part by weight to about 20 parts by weight (10-15 wt%, see [0014]) of the carbonaceous material (conductive carbon material, see [0017]), based on 100 parts by weight of the composite (see [0018] the components are mixed together via ball milling, therefore it is the examiners position the mixture of the materials is a composite).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
11. Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrowsky et al. (Pub. No. US 20220006071 A1) in view of Hakari et al. (Advanced Functional Materials, 2022).
Regarding claim 1, Petrowsky teaches a dry cathode film (dry electrode film, see [0121], see [0043] where the dry electrode film is a cathode electrode film) comprising: a dry cathode active material (dry active material, see [0121]); a dry sulfide-based solid electrolyte (dry solid electrolyte additive, see [0121]) and a dry binder (binder, see [0122]), but fails to teach wherein the dry cathode active material comprises a composite of Li.sub.2S, a lithium salt (Li.sub.aX.sub.b), and a carbonaceous material (C), the composite is represented by Li.sub.2S—Li.sub.aX.sub.b—C (wherein 1≤a≤5 and 1≤b≤5), and X is I, Br, Cl, F, H, O, Se, Te, N, P, As, Sb, Al, B, OCl, PF.sub.6, BF.sub.4, SbF.sub.6, AsF.sub.6, ClO.sub.4, AlO.sub.2, AlCl.sub.4, NO.sub.3, CO.sub.3, BH.sub.4, SO.sub.4, BO.sub.3, PO.sub.4, NCl, NCl.sub.2, BN.sub.2, or a combination thereof. See 112 rejection above for interpretation.
However, Hakari teaches a dry cathode active material (Li.sub.2S-LiI-C composite, see [pg. 2, para. 1], see [pg. 1, para. 2] where Li.sub.2S-LiI is an active material and the composite is used in its place in the experimentation, therefore it is the Examiner’s position the composite is an active material) comprises a composite (Li.sub.2S-LiI-C composite, see [pg. 2, para. 1]) of Li.sub.2S (Li.sub.2S, see [pg. 3, para. 3]), a lithium salt (Li.sub.aX.sub.b) (Li salts, see [pg. 3, para. 2], see [pg. 2, para. 1] gives specific example of using LiI), and a carbonaceous material (C) (C, see [pg. 3, para. 2], see [pg. 10, para. 2] where the specific example of the carbon material is carbon fiber), the composite (Li.sub.2S-LiI-C composite, see [pg. 2, para. 1]) is represented by Li.sub.2S—Li.sub.aX.sub.b—C (Li.sub.2S-LiI-C composite, see [pg. 2, para. 1]) (wherein 1≤a≤5 and 1≤b≤5) (a and b is 1, see [pg. 2, para. 1]), and X is I (LiI, see [pg. 2, para. 1]), Br, Cl, F, H, O, Se, Te, N, P, As, Sb, Al, B, OCl, PF.sub.6, BF.sub.4, SbF.sub.6, AsF.sub.6, ClO.sub.4, AlO.sub.2, AlCl.sub.4, NO.sub.3, CO.sub.3, BH.sub.4, SO.sub.4, BO.sub.3, PO.sub.4, NCl, NCl.sub.2, BN.sub.2, or a combination thereof, wherein the composite (Li.sub.2S-LiI-C composite, see [pg. 2, para. 1]) of Li.sub.2S (Li.sub.2S, see [pg. 3, para. 3]) comprises about 50 parts by weight to about 80 parts by weight (50 parts by weight, see math calculations below) of the Li.sub.2S (Li.sub.2S, see [pg. 3, para. 3]), about 1 part by weight to about 40 parts by weight (33 parts by weight, see math calculations below) of the lithium salt (Li salts, see [pg. 3, para. 2], see [pg. 2, para. 1] gives specific example of using LiI), and about 1 part by weight to about 20 parts by weight (17 parts by weight, see math calculations below) of the carbonaceous material (C, see [pg. 3, para. 2], see [pg. 10, para. 2] where the specific example of the carbon material is carbon fiber), based on 100 parts by weight of the composite (Li.sub.2S-LiI-C composite, see [pg. 2, para. 1]) of Li.sub.2S (Li.sub.2S, see [pg. 3, para. 3]).
Math Calculations: See [pg. 10, para. 2] of Hakari where LiI and Li.sub.2S are mixed in a ratio of 30:20, and then mixed with carbon in a ratio of 50:10, therefore the ratio of Li.sub.2S to LiI to Carbon is 30:20:10. The total amount is 60 parts by weight.
Convert to parts per 100 parts by weight: 30/60*100 = 50, 20/60*100 = 33, and 10/60*100 = 17 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of Li.sub.2S, LiI, and C respectively.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Petrowsky to substitute the dry active material taught by Petrowsky for the Li.sub.2S-LiI-C composite made using the preparation method and materials taught by Hakari as an art effective equivalent sulfur based cathode active material to fully utilize Li.sub.2S (see [pg. 2, para. 1] of Hakari) and exhibit high OOVs and ionic conductivities (see Abstract on pg. 1 of Hakari]). Further Petrowsky teaches that modifications can be made (see [0157] of Petrowsky), and further Petrowsky teaches wherein the cathode active material is a sulfide based material (see [0079] of Petrowsky).
Regarding claim 2, Petrowsky in view of Hakari teaches wherein the composite (Li.sub.2S-LiI-C composite, see [pg. 2, para. 1] of Hakari, see modifications above) further comprises a solid solution (Li.sub.2S-Li salt composites, see [pg. 10, para. 2] of Hakari where the method of making the composite includes ball milling Li.sub.2S and LiI in a planetary mixer at 510 rpm for 10 hours making a composite of the Li.sub.2 and lithium salt) of Li.sub.2S (Li.sub.2S, see [pg. 3, para. 3] of Hakari, see modifications above) and the lithium salt (Li salts, see [pg. 3, para. 2], see [pg. 2, para. 1] gives specific example of using LiI, see Hakari, see modifications above), but is silent to wherein sizes of Li.sub.2S crystallites obtained in an X-ray diffraction (XRD) spectrum of the composite are 20 nm or less.
However, Petrowsky in view of Hakari teaches substantially the same materials methods for manufacture of the composite; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the range of crystallite size of the prior art to overlap the claimed crystallite size range if measured, or at least be close enough that substantially the same properties are expected. Therefore the claimed range is found to be obvious over the suggestion of the prior art.
Regarding claim 3, Petrowsky in view of Hakari teaches wherein the lithium salt (Li salts, see [pg. 3, para. 2], see [pg. 2, para. 1] gives specific example of using LiI, see Hakari, see modifications above) is a binary compound or a ternary compound, wherein the binary compound comprises LiI (LiI, see [pg. 2, para. 1], of Hakari, see modifications above), LiBr, LiCl, LiF, LiH, Li.sub.2O, Li.sub.2Se, Li.sub.2Te, Li.sub.3N, Li.sub.3P, Li.sub.3As, Li.sub.3Sb, Li.sub.3Al.sub.2, LiB.sub.3, or a combination thereof, and the ternary compound comprises Li.sub.3OCl, LiPF.sub.6, LiBF.sub.4, LiSbF.sub.6, LiAsF.sub.6, LiClO.sub.4, LiAlO.sub.2, LiAlCl.sub.4, LiNO.sub.3, Li.sub.2CO.sub.3, LiBH.sub.4, Li.sub.2SO.sub.4, Li.sub.3BO.sub.3, Li.sub.3PO.sub.4, Li.sub.4NCl, Li.sub.5NCl.sub.2, Li.sub.3BN.sub.2, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 4, Petrowsky in view of Hakari teaches wherein a molar ratio of the Li.sub.2S (Li.sub.2S, see [pg. 3, para. 3], of Hakari, see modifications above) to the lithium salt (Li salts, see [pg. 3, para. 2], see [pg. 2, para. 1] gives specific example of using LiI, see Hakari, see modifications above) is from about 50:50 to about 95:5 (81:19 parts by weight, see math calculations below) in the composite (Li.sub.2S-LiI-C composite, see [pg. 2, para. 1]) of Li.sub.2S (Li.sub.2S, see [pg. 3, para. 3] of Hakari, see modifications above).
Math Calculations: see above and [pg. 10, para. 2] of Hakari where the ratio of Li.sub.2S to LiI is 30:20. Molar mass of Li.sub.2S is 45.95 g/mol, molar mass of LiI is 133.85 g/mol. For calculations the parts by weight are assumed to be grams.
Moles of Li.sub.2S: 30/45.95 = 0.653
Moles of LiI: 20/133.85 = 0.149
Molar ratio: 0.653/(0.653+0.149)*100 = 81, 0.149/(0.653+0.149)*100 = 19
Regarding claim 5, Petrowsky in view of Hakari is silent as to wherein the lithium salt and the carbonaceous material each have a Mohs hardness greater than the Li.sub.2S, and the lithium salt and the carbonaceous material each have a Mohs hardness of 0.7 or more.
However, Petrowsky in view of Hakari teaches substantially the same method and materials for manufacture; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the range of the hardness of the Li.sub.2S, LiI, and carbon material to overlap the claimed hardness range if measured, or at least be close enough that substantially the same properties are expected. Therefore the claimed range of the lithium salt and carbonaceous material having a hardness greater that the Li.sub.2S and having a hardness of 0.7 or more is found to be obvious over the suggestion of the prior art.
Regarding claim 7, Petrowsky in view of Hakari teaches wherein the composite (Li.sub.2S-LiI-C composite, see [pg. 2, para. 1] of Hakari, see modifications above) comprises about 50 parts by weight to about 80 parts by weight (50 parts by weight, see math calculations above, see modifications above) of the Li.sub.2S (Li.sub.2S, see [pg. 3, para. 3] of Hakari, see modifications above), about 1 part by weight to about 40 parts by weight (33 parts by weight, see math calculations above, see modifications above) of the lithium salt (Li salts, see [pg. 3, para. 2], see [pg. 2, para. 1] gives specific example of using LiI, see Hakari, see modifications above), and about 1 part by weight to about 20 parts by weight (17 parts by weight, see math calculations above, see modifications above) of the carbonaceous material (C, see [pg. 3, para. 2], see [pg. 10, para. 2] where the specific example of the carbon material is carbon fiber, see Hakari, see modifications above), based on 100 parts by weight of the composite (Li.sub.2S-LiI-C composite, see [pg. 2, para. 1] of Hakari, see modifications above).
Regarding claim 8, Petrowsky in view of Hakari teaches wherein sizes of the composite (Li.sub.2S-LiI-C composite, see [pg. 2, para. 1] of Hakari, see modifications above) particles (Li.sub.2S-Li-halide-C contained particles of sub-micrometer to several micrometers, see [pg. 4, para. 2] of Hakari, see modifications above) are 10 μm or less (see [pg. 4, para. 2] of Hakari the Li.sub.2-Li-halid-C composites contained particles of sub-micrometer to several micrometers in size as shown in supporting information, further as evidenced by the Fig. S5 of Li.sub.2S-LiI-C of *supporting information the particles sizes appear to be less than 5 micrometers in size), and an amount of the composite (Li.sub.2S-LiI-C composite, see [pg. 2, para. 1], of Hakari, see modifications above) is from about 50 wt % to about 80 wt % (about 70 weight % to about 90 weight %, see [0080], note the claim limitation is “about 80 wt%” therefore is it the Examiner’s position that about 90 wt% is within the claimed range) based on a total weight of the dry cathode film (dry electrode film, see [0121], see [0043] where the dry electrode film is a cathode electrode film).
*Additional Evidence provided by Supporting Information document of Hakari.
Regarding claim 10, Petrowsky in view of Hakari teaches wherein the dry binder (binder, see [0122]) comprises a fibrillized binder (fibrillizable binder, see [0122]), the dry binder (binder, see [0122]) comprises a fluorine-based binder (polytetrafluoroethylene, see [0122] where the binder is polytetrafluoroethylene), the dry binder (binder, see [0122]) has a glass transition temperature (T.sub.g) of about 15° C. to about 130° C. (114.85oC, as evidenced by [0048] of *Zhong), and an amount of the dry binder is from about 0.1 wt % to about 5 wt % (1.5 weight % to 5 weight %, see [0080]) based on a total weight of the dry cathode film (dry electrode film, see [0121], see [0043] where the dry electrode film is a cathode electrode film).
*Additional Evidence provided by Zhong (Pub. No. US 20230108113 A1), see [0048] of Zhong the glass transition temperature of PTFE is 114.85oC.
Regarding claim 11, Petrowsky in view of Hakari teaches wherein the dry cathode film (dry electrode film, see [0121], see [0043] where the dry electrode film is a cathode electrode film) is a self-standing film (self-supporting film, see [0043]), the dry cathode film (dry electrode film, see [0121], see [0043] where the dry electrode film is a cathode electrode film) is free from a residual processing solvent (no solvent addition or removal, see [0121] therefore there is no residual processing solvent), and the dry cathode film (dry electrode film, see [0121], see [0043] where the dry electrode film is a cathode electrode film) has a thickness of about 50 μm to about 500 μm (50 to 150 microns, see [0125]).
12. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrowsky et al. (Pub. No. US 20220006071 A1) in view of Hakari et al. (Advanced Functional Materials, 2022) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (Pub. No. US 20210175494 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Petrowsky in view of Hakari teaches wherein the carbonaceous material (C, see [pg. 3, para. 2], see [pg. 10, para. 2] where the specific example of the carbon material is carbon fiber, see Hakari, see modifications above) comprises a fibrous carbonaceous material (see [pg. 10, para. 2] where the specific example of the carbon material is carbon fiber, see Hakari, see modifications above), and an amount of the carbonaceous material (C, see [pg. 3, para. 2], see [pg. 10, para. 2] where the specific example of the carbon material is carbon fiber, see Hakari, see modifications above) is from about 1 wt % to about 20 wt % (17 parts by weight, see math calculations and modifications above) based on a total weight of the composite (Li.sub.2S-LiI-C composite, see [pg. 2, para. 1], see Hakari, see modifications above) but fails to teach the fibrous carbonaceous material comprises a carbon nanostructure, wherein the carbon nanostructure comprises carbon nanofibers, carbon nanotubes, carbon nanobelts, carbon nanorods, or a combination thereof.
However, Huang teaches the carbonaceous material (conductive carbon material, see [0017]) comprises a fibrous carbonaceous material (carbon nanotubes, see Table 1, in Example 1 shows a specific example of using carbon nanotubes), the fibrous carbonaceous material (carbon nanotubes, see Table 1, in Example 1 shows a specific example of using carbon nanotubes) comprises a carbon nanostructure (carbon nanotubes, it is the Examiner’s position that Carbon nanotubes have a carbon nanostructure, that structure being a nanotube), wherein the carbon nanostructure (carbon nanotubes, it is the Examiner’s position that Carbon nanotubes have a carbon nanostructure, that structure being a nanotube) comprises carbon nanofibers, carbon nanotubes (carbon nanotubes, see Table 1, in Example 1 shows a specific example of using carbon nanotubes), carbon nanobelts, carbon nanorods, or a combination thereof.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Petrowsky in view of Hakari to substitute the carbon fiber as taught by Hakari for carbon nanotubes as taught by Huang as an art effective equivalent carbon material for forming a Li.sub.2S-Li-salt-C composite material (see [0018] of Huang the components are mixed together via ball milling, therefore it is the examiners position the mixture of the materials is a composite) and to exhibit a high specific capacity and high operating voltage (see [0008] of Huang). Further Petrowsky in view of Hakari teaches that modifications can be made (see [0157] of Petrowsky).
13. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrowsky et al. (Pub. No. US 20220006071 A1) in view of Hakari et al. (Advanced Functional Materials, 2022) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jung et al. (Pub. No. WO 2022173099 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Petrowsky in view of Hakari teaches wherein the dry sulfide-based solid electrolyte (dry solid electrolyte additive, see [0121]) comprises at least one selected from among Li.sub.2S—P.sub.2S.sub.5 (Li.sub.2S-P.sub.2S.sub.5, see [0124]), Li.sub.2S—P.sub.2S.sub.5—LiX, wherein X is a halogen, Li.sub.2S—P.sub.2S.sub.5—Li.sub.2O, Li.sub.2S—P.sub.2S.sub.5—Li.sub.2O—LiI, Li.sub.2S—SiS.sub.2, Li.sub.2S—SiS.sub.2—LiI, Li.sub.2S—SiS.sub.2—LiBr, Li.sub.2S—SiS.sub.2—LiCl, Li.sub.2S—SiS.sub.2—B.sub.2S.sub.3—LiI, Li.sub.2S—SiS.sub.2—P.sub.2S.sub.5—LiI, Li.sub.2S—B.sub.2S.sub.3, Li.sub.2S-P.sub.2S.sub.5—Z.sub.mS.sub.n, wherein m and n are positive numbers and Z is Ge, Zn, or Ga, Li.sub.2S—GeS.sub.2, Li.sub.2S—SiS.sub.2—Li.sub.3PO.sub.4, Li.sub.2S—SiS.sub.2—Li.sub.pMO.sub.q, wherein p and q are positive numbers and M is P, Si, Ge, B, Al, Ga, or In, Li.sub.7-xPS.sub.6-xCl.sub.x, wherein 0≤x≤2, Li.sub.7-xPS.sub.6-xBr.sub.x, wherein 0≤x≤2, and Li.sub.7-xPS.sub.6-xI.sub.x, wherein 0≤x≤2, but fails to teach the sulfide-based solid electrolyte comprises an argyrodite-type solid electrolyte, the argyrodite-type solid electrolyte comprises at least one selected from among Li.sub.6PS.sub.5Cl, Li.sub.6PS.sub.5Br, and Li.sub.6PS.sub.5I, and the argyrodite-type solid electrolyte has a density of about 1.5 g/cc to about 2.0 g/cc.
However, Jung teaches wherein the dry sulfide-based solid electrolyte (sulfide-based solid electrolyte, see [0043], see [0071] where the solid electrolyte of the positive active material layer is the same as the solid electrolyte layer) comprises at least one selected from among Li.sub.2S—P.sub.2S.sub.5, Li.sub.2S—P.sub.2S.sub.5—LiX, wherein X is a halogen, Li.sub.2S—P.sub.2S.sub.5—Li.sub.2O, Li.sub.2S—P.sub.2S.sub.5—Li.sub.2O—LiI, Li.sub.2S—SiS.sub.2, Li.sub.2S—SiS.sub.2—LiI, Li.sub.2S—SiS.sub.2—LiBr, Li.sub.2S—SiS.sub.2—LiCl, Li.sub.2S—SiS.sub.2—B.sub.2S.sub.3—LiI, Li.sub.2S—SiS.sub.2—P.sub.2S.sub.5—LiI, Li.sub.2S—B.sub.2S.sub.3, Li.sub.2S-P.sub.2S.sub.5—Z.sub.mS.sub.n, wherein m and n are positive numbers and Z is Ge, Zn, or Ga, Li.sub.2S—GeS.sub.2, Li.sub.2S—SiS.sub.2—Li.sub.3PO.sub.4, Li.sub.2S—SiS.sub.2—Li.sub.pMO.sub.q, wherein p and q are positive numbers and M is P, Si, Ge, B, Al, Ga, or In, Li.sub.7-xPS.sub.6-xCl.sub.x, wherein 0≤x≤2 (Li7-xPS6-xClx, 0≤x≤2, see [0049]), Li.sub.7-xPS.sub.6-xBr.sub.x, wherein 0≤x≤2 (Li7-xPS6-xBrx, 0≤x≤2, see [0049]), and Li.sub.7-xPS.sub.6-xI.sub.x, wherein 0≤x≤2 (Li7-xPS6-xIx, 0≤x ≤2, see [0049]), the sulfide-based solid electrolyte (sulfide-based solid electrolyte, see [0043]) comprises an argyrodite-type solid electrolyte (argyrodite-type solid electrolyte, see [0043] the solid electrolyte is argyrodite type), the argyrodite-type solid electrolyte (argyrodite-type solid electrolyte, see [0043] the solid electrolyte is argyrodite type) comprises at least one selected from among Li.sub.6PS.sub.5Cl (Li6PS5Cl, see [0091] gives a specific example of using Li6PS5Cl), Li.sub.6PS.sub.5Br, and Li.sub.6PS.sub.5I, and the argyrodite-type solid electrolyte (argyrodite-type solid electrolyte, see [0043] the solid electrolyte is argyrodite type) has a density of about 1.5 g/cc to about 2.0 g/cc (1.5 to 2.0 g/cc, see [0050], note in [0050] it is referred to as azirodite-type solid electrolyte, however this appears to be a typographical error and is intended to say argyrodite-type solid electrolyte).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Petrowsky in view of Hakari such that the dry solid electrolyte additive is argyrodite type sulfide solid electrolyte of Li6PS5Cl with a density of 1.5 to 2.0 g/cc as taught by Jung as an art effective equivalent sulfur based ion conductor (see [0091] where Li6PS5Cl is a solid ion conductor and sulfur based) to reduce the internal resistance of the all solid state battery (see [0050] of Jung). Further Petrowsky in view of Hakari teaches that modifications can be made (see [0157] of Petrowsky).
14. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrowsky et al. (Pub. No. US 20220006071 A1) in view of Hakari et al. (Advanced Functional Materials, 2022) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jung et al. (Pub. No. WO 2022173099 A1) in view of
Regarding claim 12, Petrowsky in view of Hakari fails to teach wherein the dry cathode film has a tensile strength of about 500 kPa to about 5000 kPa, and the dry cathode film has a surface resistivity of 70 Ω/sq or less.
However, Petrowsky teaches wherein the dry binder (binder, see [0122]) comprises a fibrillized binder (fibrillizable binder, see [0122]), the dry binder (binder, see [0122]) comprises a fluorine-based binder (polytetrafluoroethylene, see [0122] where the binder is polytetrafluoroethylene), the dry binder (binder, see [0122]) has a glass transition temperature (T.sub.g) of about 15° C. to about 130° C. (114.85oC, as evidenced by [0048] of *Zhong), and an amount of the dry binder is from about 0.1 wt % to about 5 wt % (1.5 weight % to 5 weight %, see [0080]) based on a total weight of the dry cathode film (dry electrode film, see [0121], see [0043] where the dry electrode film is a cathode electrode film).
*Additional Evidence provided by Zhong (Pub. No. US 20230108113 A1), see [0048] of Zhong the glass transition temperature of PTFE is 114.85oC.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Petrowsky in view of Hakari such that the dry binder is PTFE in 1.5 to 5 wt% as Petrowsky teaches it is known in the art to do so. Further Petrowsky in view of Hakari teaches that modifications can be made (see [0157] of Petrowsky).
Further, Jung teaches wherein the dry sulfide-based solid electrolyte (sulfide-based solid electrolyte, see [0043], see [0071] where the solid electrolyte of the positive active material layer is the same as the solid electrolyte layer) comprises Li.sub.7-xPS.sub.6-xCl.sub.x, wherein 0≤x≤2 (Li7-xPS6-xClx, 0≤x≤2, see [0049]), Li.sub.7-xPS.sub.6-xBr.sub.x, wherein 0≤x≤2 (Li7-xPS6-xBrx, 0≤x≤2, see [0049]), and Li.sub.7-xPS.sub.6-xI.sub.x, wherein 0≤x≤2 (Li7-xPS6-xIx, 0≤x ≤2, see [0049]), the sulfide-based solid electrolyte (sulfide-based solid electrolyte, see [0043]) comprises an argyrodite-type solid electrolyte (argyrodite-type solid electrolyte, see [0043] the solid electrolyte is argyrodite type), the argyrodite-type solid electrolyte (argyrodite-type solid electrolyte, see [0043] the solid electrolyte is argyrodite type) comprises at least one selected from among Li.sub.6PS.sub.5Cl (Li6PS5Cl, see [0091] gives a specific example of using Li6PS5Cl), Li.sub.6PS.sub.5Br, and Li.sub.6PS.sub.5I, and the argyrodite-type solid electrolyte (argyrodite-type solid electrolyte, see [0043] the solid electrolyte is argyrodite type) has a density of about 1.5 g/cc to about 2.0 g/cc (1.5 to 2.0 g/cc, see [0050], note in [0050] it is referred to as azirodite-type solid electrolyte, however this appears to be a typographical error and is intended to say argyrodite-type solid electrolyte).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Petrowsky in view of Hakari such that the dry solid electrolyte additive is argyrodite type sulfide solid electrolyte of Li6PS5Cl with a density of 1.5 to 2.0 g/cc as taught by Jung as an art effective equivalent sulfur based ion conductor (see [0091] where Li6PS5Cl is a solid ion conductor and sulfur based) to reduce the internal resistance of the all solid state battery (see [0050] of Jung). Further Petrowsky in view of Hakari teaches that modifications can be made (see [0157] of Petrowsky).
Therefore, as Petrowsky in view of Hakari in view of Jung teaches substantially the same method and materials for manufacture; therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the range of tensile strength and surface resistivity of the dry cathode film as taught by Petrowsky in view of Hakari in view of Jung to overlap the claimed tensile strength and surface resistivity ranges if measured, or at least be close enough that substantially the same properties and performance is expected. Therefore, the claimed range of tensile strength and surface resistivity is found to be obvious over Petrowsky in view of Hakari in view of Jung.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS CALEB MARROQUIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00 EST.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/DOUGLAS C MARROQUIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights