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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-14, in regards to the three-dimensional surface roughness Sa have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, this feature is addressed by Badding in view of Kim, presented below.
Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the oxide particles form a structure in which the oxide particles are in surface contact with adjacent oxide particles while the pores are maintained between the oxide particles and the adjacent oxide particles, this feature is taught by Hu, who makes obvious the porosity of the thin-film sintered body as set forth above. Hu depicts the required structure in their figure 15b, which depicts the morphology of the porous garnet layer after sintering (“FIG. 15b exhibits the morphology of the porous garnet layer. The garnet grains are firmly sintered together”). Here, the structure as shown in Hu’s figure 15b, as well as their figure 3 C shows structure where oxide particles are in contact with adjacent oxide particles, while pores are also maintained between the oxide particles and the adjacent oxide particles, based on the structure of oblong joined spheres of the 3D garnet particles. Where Hu’s disclosure of porosity comprises this structure, and where Hu and Badding both teach the use of garnet solid electrolytes, the structure of Badding would therefore have the required structure wherein the oxide particles form a structure in which the oxide particles are in surface contact with adjacent oxide particles while the pores are maintained between the oxide particles and adjacent oxide particles.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badding (US 20210288352 A1), and further in view of Iyer (US 20170062873 A1), Kim (US 20200235379 A1), and Hu (US 20200313227 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Badding is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing structure which includes an oxide-based (Abstract, “A lithium-metal battery, includes: a substrate; a cathode disposed on the substrate; a garnet solid-state electrolyte disposed on the cathode;”) thin film (Paragraph 0007, “In one aspect, which is combinable with any of the other aspects or embodiments, a thickness of the discoloration layer is 1 nm to 50 nm”) sintered body (Paragraph 0045, “Two (2) wt. % excess of LiOH-H2O is added to compensate for lithium loss during the sintering process.”) for manufacturing a solid electrolyte (Paragraph 0035, “The present disclosure relates to solid-state Li-metal batteries based on garnet solid electrolytes.”) for a secondary battery (Paragraph 0076, “The cell is able to stably cycle for more than 5000 hrs at 0.3 mA*cm−2.”) comprising oxide particles (Paragraph 0045, “Cubic phase Li6.5La3Zr1.4Ta0.5O12 (LLZTO) is synthesized”).
However, in regards to the limitation of the instant Claim which requires structure where the oxide-based thin film sintered body has a surface roughness Ra ranging from 0.1 to 3 microns, where Ra is a two-dimensional surface roughness, Badding is silent in regards to the roughness of their invention’s solid electrolyte layer. Therefore, we look to Iyer, which is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing Li-stuffed garnet solid electrolyte materials (Abstract, “Setter plates are fabricated from Li-stuffed garnet materials having the same, or substantially similar, compositions as a garnet Li-stuffed solid electrolyte.”). Here, Iyer further discloses structure where their solid electrolyte is a sintered Li-stuffed garnet solid electrolyte that has a surface roughness from 1 micron to 4 microns (Paragraph 0102, “In some other examples, the sintered Li-stuffed garnet solid electrolyte has a surface roughness from 1.6 μm Ra to 2.2 μm Ra,”) where Ra is a two-dimensional surface roughness (Paragraph 0102, “wherein Ra is an arithmetic average of absolute values of sampled surface roughness amplitudes.”). Additionally, Iyer further discloses that high roughness can result in increased resistance in the battery (Paragraph 0041, “In other situations, inhomogeneities, cracks, and/or surface roughness can increase resistance at interfaces between the solid-state electrolyte and the corresponding positive and negative electrodes.”) and that this has the effect of reducing battery efficiency and power (Paragraph 0041, “This has the effect of reducing battery efficiency and power.”). Accordingly, where Iyer discloses that their roughness obviates these difficulties, and further discloses that these roughness’s are applied to garnet materials, as discussed above, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to apply the roughness of Iyer to the structure of Badding, thereby reading upon and making obvious the limitation of the instant claim which requires that the thin film sintered body has a surface roughness Ra ranging from 0.1 to 3 microns, wherein Ra is an arithmetical mean height of a surface.
Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires structure wherein the oxide-based thin film sintered body has a surface roughness Sa ranging from 1 to 2.25 microns, wherein Sa is a three-dimensional average roughness of a surface, Badding is silent in regards to the three-dimensional roughness Sa of their invention.
Therefore, we look to Kim, which is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing an oxide based film for a secondary battery (Abstract, “A lithium electrode and a lithium secondary battery including the same. The lithium electrode has a surface oxide layer”), where the film is a thin film, having a thickness of 10 to 50 nanometers (Paragraph 0019, “In addition, the surface oxide layer may have a thickness of 50 nm or less, and preferably 10 to 50 nm.”). Kim discloses that their thin film is evaluated in regards to a three dimensional average roughness of a surface Sa (Paragraph 0013, “the surface oxide layer has surface properties defined by the following Sa (arithmetic mean height of surface)”), specifically disclosing that Sa is preferably between 1 micron and 2 microns (Paragraph 0044, “In the present invention, Sa may be Sa≥1 μm, and preferably 1 μm≤Sa≤2 μm”). Kim discloses that when the roughness Sa is outside of said range, SEI formation may be difficult, and that conversely, and that said range is advantageous in forming a stable SEI (Paragraph 0044, “Satisfying the above-mentioned range is advantageous in forming a stable SEI, and when the value is outside the above-mentioned range, SEI formation may be difficult.”). SEI formation is a relevant and important parameter for secondary batteries comprising solid electrolytes, as SEI formation between the solid electrolyte and an anode forms a passivation layer, it would therefore be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to select a surface roughness Sa of 1 to 2 microns, which falls within the range of the instant claim, which requires a surface roughness Sa of 1 to 2.25 microns.
Additionally, in regards to the limitation of the instant claim which requires structure wherein the oxide-based thin film sintered body includes pores, having a porosity ranging from 10 to 70%, Badding is silent in regards to the porosity of their invention. Accordingly, we look to, Hu, which is an analogous art to the instant application. Here, Hu discloses structure which comprises a porous garnet solid electrolyte (Paragraph 0080, “Garnet Solid Electrolyte Fabrication”; Paragraph 0082, “Then it was sintered at 1050° C. for 1 h to obtain the porous-dense-porous garnet framework”). Here, Hu discloses structure where their porous garnet solid electrolyte has a porosity ranging from 20 to 70 percent, with a specific preferred value of approximately 50 percent (Paragraph 0073, “In fact, by adjusting the garnet tapes, the thickness of the porous garnet layer can be adjusted (e.g. 20-150 μm or larger), and its porosity is ˜50% (with other values for porosity such as between 20 and 70% for this or other suitable materials)”). Additionally, Hu discloses that this porosity provides appropriate room for hosting active materials, and further allows for differently sized active materials of various capacities to be used (Paragraph 0073, “thus providing appropriate room for hosting active materials of various capacities.”). Based on this, where a solid electrolyte’s capability to host active material is a desirable attribute, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to apply the solid electrolyte porosity of Hu to the invention of Badding, thereby reading upon and making obvious structure where the oxide-based thin film sintered body includes pores having a porosity ranging from 10 to 70 percent.
Additionally, Badding discloses structure wherein their colored garnet particles have structure such that they darken within the visible light range, as displayed in their figure 6. Accordingly, where the visible light range spans wavelengths from 380 nm to 700 nm, Badding discloses structure where the colored oxide particles are capable of absorbing light energy in a wavelength range from 10 to 1200 nm.
Additionally, the instant specification’s paragraph 0068, states “materials of all colors except perfect white that may reflect all light have light absorbing properties, and in some embodiments of the disclosed technology, oxide particles having light absorbing properties in the wavelength range of 10 to 1200 nm is included. When the light of the above wavelength is irradiated, the light other than the reflected light and the transmitted light is absorbed by the oxide particles and generates heat, thereby increasing the temperature of the oxide particles, and photo-sintering may increase the temperature to a high temperature in a short time at a heating rate of 104 to 107K/sec.”.
Here, where the structure of Badding depicts structure where the material darkens within the visible light range, the material therefore inherently is structured to absorb some portions of visible light. Additionally, where the material reflects visible light, it inherently must have band gap that corresponds to the visible light range, as further depicted in Badding’s figure 6, their solid electrolyte materials are capable of emitting visible light, which means that their invention must inherently have a band gap which corresponds to visible light, which falls within a range of 1.6 to 3.2 eV. Additionally, where an absorption of visible light results in an absorption of the energy of the light, said absorption therefore inherently increases the temperature of the material which absorbs the light, thereby inherently comprising structure which reads upon the instant claim.
Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the oxide particles form a structure in which the oxide particles are in surface contact with adjacent oxide particles while the pores are maintained between the oxide particles and the adjacent oxide particles, this feature is taught by Hu, who makes obvious the porosity of the thin-film sintered body as set forth above. Hu depicts the required structure in their figure 15b, which depicts the morphology of the porous garnet layer after sintering (“FIG. 15b exhibits the morphology of the porous garnet layer. The garnet grains are firmly sintered together”). Here, the structure as shown in Hu’s figure 15b, as well as their figure 3 C shows structure where oxide particles are in contact with adjacent oxide particles, while pores are also maintained between the oxide particles and the adjacent oxide particles, based on the structure of oblong joined spheres of the 3D garnet particles. Where Hu’s disclosure of porosity comprises this structure, and where Hu and Badding both teach the use of garnet solid electrolytes, the structure of Badding would therefore have the required structure wherein the oxide particles form a structure in which the oxide particles are in surface contact with adjacent oxide particles while the pores are maintained between the oxide particles and adjacent oxide particles.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Badding makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Badding discloses structure wherein the oxide particles are in contact with each other (Paragraph 0069, “thus a better contact between lithium metal and garnet and leading to lower interfacial resistance.”). Accordingly, where it is required that the contact area be equal to πxa and less than 3πr2, where r is a radius of a major axis of a contact surface, a is a radius of a minor axis of the contact surface, and 0.1r≤x≤3r, since the minor axis must have a length that is less than the major axis, this limitation will always be inherently satisfied by structure where there is a contact area between an oxide particle and another adjacent oxide particle. Accordingly, as Badding discloses contact between oxide particles, as discussed above, this further limitations of this claim are inherently satisfied.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Badding makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, as discussed above in regards to claim 1, Hu makes obvious structure wherein the oxide-based thin film sintered body includes pores, having a porosity of 50 percent (Paragraph 0073, “In fact, by adjusting the garnet tapes, the thickness of the porous garnet layer can be adjusted (e.g. 20-150 μm or larger), and its porosity is ˜50% (with other values for porosity such as between 20 and 70% for this or other suitable materials)”).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Badding makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Badding discloses structure wherein at least one of the oxide particles comprises a lithium element (Paragraph 0045, “Cubic phase Li6.5La3Zr1.4Ta0.5O12 (LLZTO) is synthesized”).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Badding makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Badding discloses structure wherein at least one of the oxide particles comprises a metal element other than lithium (Paragraph 0045, “Cubic phase Li6.5La3Zr1.4Ta0.5O12 (LLZTO) is synthesized”), disclosing lanthanum, zirconium, and tantalum.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Badding makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Badding discloses structure wherein the oxide particles include two or more types of oxide particles (Abstract, “such that the first portion has a lithium component and the second portion has a garnet component.”).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Badding makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Badding discloses structure wherein the oxide particles include one or more lithium-ion conductive oxide particles including a garnet compound (Abstract, “such that the first portion has a lithium component and the second portion has a garnet component.”).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Badding makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Badding discloses structure wherein at least one of the oxide particles is a lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide (Paragraph 0041, “In some examples, the solid-state electrolyte may include at least one of garnet (e.g., Li7La3Zr2O12 (LLZO),”).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Badding makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Badding discloses structure where their colored garnet particles darken within the visible light range, as displayed in their figure 6. Accordingly, where the visible light range spans wavelengths from 380 nm to 700 nm, Badding discloses structure where the colored oxide particles are capable of absorbing light energy in a wavelength range from 10 to 1200 nm.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Badding makes obvious the invention of Claim 11. Additionally, Badding discloses structure where the colored oxide particles include at least one of a transition metal element or a lanthanide element, disclosing lanthanum, tantalum, and zirconium (Paragraph 0045, “Cubic phase Li6.5La3Zr1.4Ta0.5O12 (LLZTO) is synthesized”).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Badding makes obvious the invention of Claim 11. Additionally, Badding discloses structure wherein the colored oxide particles include one or more kinds of oxide particles including at least one of tungsten, molybdenum, niobium, antimony, and cerium (Paragraph 0041, “In some examples, the solid-state electrolyte may include at least one of garnet (e.g., Li7La3Zr2O12 (LLZO), doped-LLZO (e.g., with Al, Mo, W, Nb, Sb, Ca, Ba, Sr, Ce, Hf, Rb, Ta, or combinations thereof),”).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Badding makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Badding discloses structure wherein the total thickness of their oxide-based thin film sintered body is 300 microns or less (Claim 11, ““The method of claim 9, wherein: a thickness of the discoloration layer is 1 nm to 50 nm; and a thickness of the modification coating layer is 1 nm to 50 nm.”).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badding (US 20210288352 A1), in view of Iyer (US 20170062873 A1), Kim (US 20200235379 A1), and Hu (US 20200313227 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in light of the teachings of Kim (US 20200083562 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Badding makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Badding does not explicitly disclose the present of binding energy peaks within the range of 50 to 60 eV, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) analysis. However, looking to Kim, which discloses the binding energies of 1s lithium electrons of an LLZO film that has undergone an XPS analysis (Paragraph 0031, “FIGS. 10A to 10C are graphs of intensity (arbitrary units, a.u.) versus binding energy (electron volts, eV), illustrating the results of Li 1s, C 1s, and O 1s X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) analysis of an LLZO film prepared according to Preparation Example 1, respectively;”), binding energy peaks which fall within the range of 50 to 60 eV are depicted in Kim’s figure 10A, presented below.
PNG
media_image1.png
388
421
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, where the work of Kim illustrates the binding energies of LLZO films, and the invention of Badding comprises LLZO films, the LLZO of Badding would therefore inherently comprise binding energy peaks within the range of 50 to 60 eV, thereby reading upon the limitation of the instant claim which requires said binding energy peaks.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN W ESTES whose telephone number is (571)272-4820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:30.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 5712721453. 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.W.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights