DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/16/23 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 8/16/23 has been considered.
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, 4-6, 8, 9, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US Publication 2021/0202981) in view of Sasaki (US Patent 10,727,490).
Regarding claim 1, the Park et al. reference discloses a battery comprising a unit cell comprising an anode, a cathode, and a solid electrolyte layer (examples) between the anode and the cathode. Anode current collector and cathode current collector are positioned on each side of the anode and cathode, respectively (foil; P34) and a pressurizing pad layer positioned between a current collector of one unit and another current collector of another unit. The Park et al. reference discloses pressurizing pad layer is porous positioned between the current collector of one unit cell and another current collector of another unit but is silent in explicitly disclosing if the current collectors are non-porous. However the Sasaki reference discloses the current collectors can be non-porous or porous, therefore, it would have been obvious to provide non-porous current collector disclosed by the Sasaki reference for the current collectors of the Park et al. reference since it is known to have non-porous current collectors for the anode, cathode and separator battery configuration. The substitution of known equivalent structures involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Fout 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Susi 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). When a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result. KSR v. Teleflex
As a result, the claimed pressurized pad layer positioned on each side of the unit cell and comprising n non-porous upper layer, a non-porous lower layer and a porous core layer positioned between the upper and lower layer are disclosed.
Regarding claim 4, the Park et al. reference discloses the pressurized core layer can be porous or non-porous. The porous core layer can be about 1 g/cc and a non-porous can be about 2.8 g/cc which would result in a porosity of about 64%.
Regarding claim 5, the Park et al. reference discloses the pressurizing pad layer is configured to press the unit cell.
Regarding claim 6, the Park et al. reference discloses the pressurizing pad layer comprises at least one material selected from the group consisting of a silicone-based material, a rubber-based material, a polymer material, and combinations thereof (P25).
Regarding claim 8, the Park et al. reference discloses wherein the pressurizing pad layer has a total thickness in a range of 1 to 10 mm (P26).
Regarding claim 9, the Park et al. reference discloses wherein the pressurizing pad layer is arranged in a horizontal direction above and below the unit cell based on the cross section of the unit cell (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Park et al. reference disclose the claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. The modified Park et al. reference is silent in specifying the thickness of each of the upper and lower layers is within 30% of the total thickness of the pressurizing pad layer. However, the Park et al. reference disclose the pressurized core layer can be about 0.5 mm. The Park et al. reference further discloses pressurized core layer can be of differing material, density, shape, size, and/or thickness. The amount, specification, placement of layer can be optimized based on the types of cell system. The Sasaki reference discloses the current collector can be 30 microns. The Sasaki reference adds if the current collector is less than 1 micron, the mechanical strength is insufficient, when it exceeds 30 microns, the energy density of the battery decreases. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed value through process optimization, since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable values involve only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Park et a. reference disclose the claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. The Park et al. reference is silent in disclosing the thickness of the core layer is within 80% of the total thickness of the pressurizing pad layer. However, the Park et al. reference discloses that the pressurizing core layer can comprise multiple layers. The Park et al. reference also discloses the layer can comprise differing materials, density, shape, size, and/or thickness. The amount, specification, placement of layers can be optimized based on the types of cell system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed value through process optimization, since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable values involve only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 13, the Park et al. reference discloses further comprising a housing (claimed support stacked; which maintains a certain pressure range on the cells, Abstract) on the pressurizing core layer.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US Publication 2021/0202981) in view of Sasaki (US Patent 10,727,490) in as evidence by Burshtain et al. (US Patent 10,367,121).
Regarding claim 2 and 3, the Park et al. in view of Sasaki reference (herein’ referred to as modified Park et al. reference) discloses the claimed invention above and further incorporated herein. The modified Park discloses that silicon carbon active material for the anode but is silent in disclosing the cell is configured to comprise a lithium electrodeposition layer is formed on a surface of the anode during discharge and and the battery is contracted by the lithium electrodeposition layer. However, as evidence by the Burshtain reference disclose anodes with carbon and silicon will form a lithium electrodeposition layer (SEI layer) to protect the anode. The formation of SEI causes expansion and contraction of the battery. Therefore, the anode comprising silicon and carbon would inherently teach a lithium electrodeposition layer formation on a surface of the anode during discharge and contracted by the lithium electrodeposition layer which would cause the pressurizing core contraction.
Regarding claim 7, the Park et al. reference disclsoses the cell thickness is bigger than the thickness of the pressurized core (Fig 1 and 2). The Burshtain et al. reference discloses dentritic layer (SEI) formation is in nanometers or a particle thickness at the initial discharging (Fig. 2a). That is, it would have been inherent to have the formation of the SEI lithium deposition layer to be smaller than any component of the battery at discharge since the initial discharge would result in a formation layer that comprises particle thickness (See Fig. 2a). As a result, the unit cell is configured such that a lithium electrodeposition layer is formed on a surface of the anode during discharge, and the pressurizing pad layer has a thickness A that satisfies the condition of Formula 1: B ≤ A ≤ C, wherein B is the thickness of the lithium electrodeposition layer, and C is the thickness of the unit cell is taught.
Regarding claim 10, the modfied Park et al. reference discloses the invneiton above and further incorporated herein. The Park et al. is silent in explicitly teaching the thickness of the pressurzing core is larger than areas of each of the anode, the cathode and the solid electrolyte layer. However, the Park et al. reference teaches that the pressurized core layer (spring member) can be of differing material, density, shape, size, and/or thickness. The amount, specification, placement of spring layers can be optimized based on the types of cell system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed value through process optimization, since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable values involve only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN OI CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5162. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at 5712728760. 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.
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752