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 .
Claim Interpretation
For purposes of examination (especially with respect to Claims 1-13), the claimed term “metalloids” and the claimed phrase “metal elements” will be interpreted in accordance with the definitions outlined in [0028] of Applicant’s Specification as originally filed. Specifically, “metalloids” are interpreted as B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, and Te, and “metal elements” are interpreted as all group 1 to 12 elements other than hydrogen in the periodic table and all group 13 to 16 elements (other than B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te, C, N, P, O, S, and Se) in the periodic table.
Response to Amendment
Currently, the pending Claims are 1-14.
The examined Claims are 1-14, with Claims 9-14 being newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant mainly presents arguments versus the prior art rejections of record (Pages 6-9 of Remarks). While said arguments are acknowledged, they are not persuasive in view of the following:
Regarding Applicant’s “I” arguments (Page 6 of Remarks), the prior art rejection of Claim 1 establishes that both Sakai and Hoshi disclose solid electrolyte materials which are not only halide solid electrolyte materials, but halide solid electrolyte materials which each have an underlying and fundamental LiX crystal structure. While it is true that Hoshi’s compound B material itself is LiX, it would still have an underlying LiX crystal structure. Furthermore, if a given reference (e.g. Hoshi) discloses that a certain characteristic (e.g. crystallite size) of an LiX crystal structure provides a consequent benefit (e.g. improving lithium ion conductivity characteristics while reducing lithium ion conduction path obstructions), then it is entirely reasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that if said certain characteristic were also applied to, or otherwise exhibit by, another material which also has an LiX crystal structure, then said same consequent benefit would be realized. Therefore, Hoshi’s disclosure is considered to apply to Sakai’s halide solid electrolyte structure.
Regarding Applicant’s “II” arguments (Page 6 of Remarks), again, the prior art rejection of Claim 1 establishes that both Sakai and Hoshi disclose solid electrolyte materials which are not only halide solid electrolyte materials, but halide solid electrolyte materials which each have an underlying and fundamental LiX crystal structure. While it is true that Hoshi’s compound B material itself is LiX, it would still have an underlying LiX crystal structure. Furthermore, if a given reference (e.g. Hoshi) discloses that a certain characteristic (e.g. crystallite size) of an LiX crystal structure provides a consequent benefit (e.g. improving lithium ion conductivity characteristics while reducing lithium ion conduction path obstructions), then it is entirely reasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that if said certain characteristic were also applied to, or otherwise exhibit by, another material which also has an LiX crystal structure, then said same consequent benefit would be realized. Therefore, the proposed modification is not based on an unsupported assumption, but is instead based on the LiX crystal structure shared by each of Sakai and Hoshi, and how the crystallite size of said shared structure affects consequent performance characteristics.
Regarding Applicant’s “III” arguments (Page 7 of Remarks), again, the prior art rejection of Claim 1 establishes that both Sakai and Hoshi disclose solid electrolyte materials which are not only halide solid electrolyte materials, but halide solid electrolyte materials which each have an underlying and fundamental LiX crystal structure. While it is true that Hoshi’s compound B material itself is LiX, it would still have an underlying LiX crystal structure. Furthermore, if a given reference (e.g. Hoshi) discloses that a certain characteristic (e.g. crystallite size) of an LiX crystal structure provides a consequent benefit (e.g. improving lithium ion conductivity characteristics while reducing lithium ion conduction path obstructions), then it is entirely reasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that if said certain characteristic were also applied to, or otherwise exhibit by, another material which also has an LiX crystal structure, then said same consequent benefit would be realized. Therefore, Hoshi’s disclosure does reasonably establish obviousness of the claimed crystallite size limitation, especially considering the LiX crystal structure shared by each of Sakai and Hoshi, and how the crystallite size of said shared structure affects consequent performance characteristics.
Regarding Applicant’s “IV” arguments (Page 7 of Remarks), the prior art rejection of Claim 1 did not at any point state that the crystallite size of an LiX compound or an LiX-derived crystal framework “dictates” the crystallite size of a different halide solid electrolyte phase, such as that of Hoshi. Instead, it was argued if a given reference (e.g. Hoshi) discloses that a certain characteristic (e.g. crystallite size) of an LiX crystal structure provides a consequent benefit (e.g. improving lithium ion conductivity characteristics while reducing lithium ion conduction path obstructions), then it is entirely reasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that if said certain characteristic were also applied to, or otherwise exhibit by, another material which also has an LiX crystal structure, then said same consequent benefit would be realized.
Regarding Applicant’s “V” arguments (Page 8 of Remarks), it is noted that the unexpected results outlined by Applicant are in context of an Li3YBr2Cl4 solid electrolyte which is not explicitly the same material disclosed by either of Sakai and Hoshi, and therefore does not necessarily provide sufficient evidence to overcome the prior art rejections of record.
Therefore, the prior art rejections of record are maintained. Furthermore, new grounds of rejection are presented below (with respect to Claims 9-14) as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the Claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al. (WO 2019/135315, provided in the 10/25/23 IDS, and using the equivalent US 2020/0328453, also provided in the 10/25/23 IDS, for citation purposes), and further in view of Hoshi et al. (WO 2021/085235, and using the equivalent US 2022/0344708 for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 1, Sakai teaches a solid electrolyte material (“solid electrolyte material”) (Abstract). Sakai teaches that the solid electrolyte material is a halide solid electrolyte represented by the formula Li3YX6, where X is two or more of Cl, Br, and I (“halide solid electrolyte contains Li, at least one element selected from the group consisting of metalloids and metal elements other than Li, and at least one element selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, Br, and I”). ([0020]-[0023]).
Sakai does not explicitly teach that the halide solid electrolyte has a crystallite size greater than or equal to 40 nm.
However, it is first noted that Sakai teaches that the halide solid electrolyte has an LiX fundamental crystal structure (where X is two or more of Cl, Br, and I) which is in turn doped with yttrium cations ([0023]).
Furthermore, Hoshi teaches a solid electrolyte (Abstract). Hoshi teaches that the solid electrolyte comprises a compound A and a compound B, wherein compound B is represented by LiX, where X is at least one halogen ([0007]-[0008], [0024]). Hoshi teaches that the compound B has a crystallite size of 60 nm or less ([0009]). Hoshi teaches that controlling the crystallite size of the compound B to be such a small value helps improve lithium ion conductivity characteristics while reducing lithium ion conduction path obstructions ([0020]-[0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would ensure that the halide solid electrolyte of Sakai has a crystallite size of 60 nm or less, as taught by Hoshi, given that such a small crystallite size would help improve lithium conductivity characteristics while reducing lithium ion conduction path obstructions. It is noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 2, Sakai, as modified by Hoshi, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the halide solid electrolyte is represented by the formula Li3YX6, where X is two or more of Cl, Br, and I. Therefore, the halide solid electrolyte is “free of sulfur” given the absence of sulfur in said formula (it is also noted that [0026] of Sakai also described the absence of sulfur in the halide solid electrolyte).
Regarding Claim 3, Sakai, as modified by Hoshi, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the halide solid electrolyte is represented by the formula Li3YX6, where X is two or more of Cl, Br, and I (i.e. instantly claimed “Formula (1)” where “α1” is 3, “M1” is Y, “β1” is 1, “X1” is two or more of Cl, Br, and I, and “γ1” is 6).
Regarding Claim 4, Sakai, as modified by Hoshi, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 3, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 3), the halide solid electrolyte is represented by the formula Li3YX6, where X is two or more of Cl, Br, and I (i.e. instantly claimed “Formula (1)” where “α1” is 3, “M1” is Y, “β1” is 1, “X1” is two or more of Cl, Br, and I, and “γ1” is 6). Accordingly, the instantly claimed inequality is satisfied insofar as 6/3 = 2 (i.e. “γ1” divided by “α1” equals 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Sakai, as modified by Hoshi, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 3, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 3), the halide solid electrolyte is represented by the formula Li3YX6, where X is two or more of Cl, Br, and I (i.e. instantly claimed “Formula (1)” where “α1” is 3, “M1” is Y, “β1” is 1, “X1” is two or more of Cl, Br, and I, and “γ1” is 6). Accordingly, the instantly claimed inequalities are satisfied insofar as “α1” is 3, “β1” is 1, and “γ1” is 6.
Regarding Claim 6, Sakai, as modified by Hoshi, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 3, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 3), the halide solid electrolyte is represented by the formula Li3YX6, where X is two or more of Cl, Br, and I (i.e. instantly claimed “Formula (1)” where “α1” is 3, “M1” is Y, “β1” is 1, “X1” is two or more of Cl, Br, and I, and “γ1” is 6).
Regarding Claim 7, Sakai, as modified by Hoshi, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As illustrated in Figure 1, Sakai teaches a battery (“battery”) comprising a positive electrode (201) (“positive electrode”), an electrolyte layer (202) (“electrolyte layer”), and a negative electrode (203) (“negative electrode”) arranged in this order ([0072]-[0073]). Sakai teaches that at least one of said positive electrode, said electrolyte layer, and said negative electrode contains the solid electrolyte material therein ([0074]-[0076], [0091]).
Regarding Claim 14, Sakai, as modified by Hoshi, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the halide solid electrolyte is represented by the formula Li3YX6, where X is two or more of Cl, Br, and I (i.e. “Y” is a metal element other than Li). Furthermore, it is noted that while the instant Claim defines that the metalloids include the instantly claimed elements, the instant Claim does not explicitly require that the halide solid electrolyte explicitly includes a metalloid, let alone one of the instantly claimed metalloids.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al. (WO 2019/135315, provided in the 10/25/23 IDS, and using the equivalent US 2020/0328453, also provided in the 10/25/23 IDS, for citation purposes), and further in view of Hoshi et al. (WO 2021/085235, and using the equivalent US 2022/0344708 for citation purposes) and Lee et al. (US 2016/0156032).
Regarding Claim 8, Sakai, as modified by Hoshi, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 7, as previously described.
Sakai teaches that the positive electrode includes a positive electrode active material (“positive electrode active material”) ([0074]).
Sakai, as modified by Hoshi, does not explicitly teach that the positive electrode active material contains lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide.
However, it is first noted that Sakai teaches that the positive electrode active material is, for example, a lithium transition metal oxide such as lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide ([0080]).
Furthermore, Lee teaches a positive electrode active material in a positive electrode of a lithium secondary battery (Abstract). Lee teaches that lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide and lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide are each positive electrode active materials which have a layered structure and a high capacity ([0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would use, as the positive electrode active material of Sakai, as modified by Hoshi, lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide, as taught by Lee, given that lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide exhibits not only a layered structure (substantially similar to lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide), but also exhibits a high capacity (also substantially similar to lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide).
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al. (WO 2019/135315, provided in the 10/25/23 IDS, and using the equivalent US 2020/0328453, also provided in the 10/25/23 IDS, for citation purposes), and further in view of Hoshi et al. (WO 2021/085235, and using the equivalent US 2022/0344708 for citation purposes) and Gombotz et al. (“Fast Li Ion Dynamics in the Mechanosynthesized Nanostructured Form of the Solid Electrolyte Li3YBr6”).
Regarding Claim 9, Sakai, as modified by Hoshi, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Sakai, as modified by Hoshi, does not explicitly teach that the halide solid electrolyte has a crystallite size in accordance with the instantly claimed range.
However, Gombotz teaches yttrium-doped lithium halide solid electrolyte materials (Abstract). Gombotz teaches an embodiment of the material which has an average crystallite size of 6-10 nm (i.e. mechanosynthesized material), and an embodiment of the material which has an average crystallite size of greater than 90 nm (i.e. annealed material) (See “Results and Discussion – XRPD to Characterize the Long-Range Structure”). Gombotz teaches that said embodiment with a larger crystallite size provides for enhanced conductivity characteristics (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the halide solid electrolyte of Sakai, as modified by Hoshi, such that it has an average crystallite size (“a crystallite size”) of greater than 90 nm, as taught by Gombotz, given that such a modification would help provide for enhanced conductivity characteristics.
Regarding Claim 10, Sakai, as modified by Hoshi, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Sakai, as modified by Hoshi, does not explicitly teach that the halide solid electrolyte has a crystallite size in accordance with the instantly claimed range.
However, Gombotz teaches yttrium-doped lithium halide solid electrolyte materials (Abstract). Gombotz teaches an embodiment of the material which has an average crystallite size of 6-10 nm (i.e. mechanosynthesized material), and an embodiment of the material which has an average crystallite size of greater than 90 nm (i.e. annealed material) (See “Results and Discussion – XRPD to Characterize the Long-Range Structure”). Gombotz teaches that said embodiment with a larger crystallite size provides for enhanced conductivity characteristics (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the halide solid electrolyte of Sakai, as modified by Hoshi, such that it has an average crystallite size (“a crystallite size”) of greater than 90 nm, as taught by Gombotz, given that such a modification would help provide for enhanced conductivity characteristics.
Regarding Claim 11, Sakai, as modified by Hoshi, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Sakai, as modified by Hoshi, does not explicitly teach that the halide solid electrolyte has a crystallite size in accordance with the instantly claimed range.
However, Gombotz teaches yttrium-doped lithium halide solid electrolyte materials (Abstract). Gombotz teaches an embodiment of the material which has an average crystallite size of 6-10 nm (i.e. mechanosynthesized material), and an embodiment of the material which has an average crystallite size of greater than 90 nm (i.e. annealed material) (See “Results and Discussion – XRPD to Characterize the Long-Range Structure”). Gombotz teaches that said embodiment with a larger crystallite size provides for enhanced conductivity characteristics (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the halide solid electrolyte of Sakai, as modified by Hoshi, such that it has an average crystallite size (“a crystallite size”) of greater than 90 nm, as taught by Gombotz, given that such a modification would help provide for enhanced conductivity characteristics. It is noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 12, Sakai, as modified by Hoshi, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Sakai, as modified by Hoshi, does not explicitly teach that the halide solid electrolyte has a crystallite size in accordance with the instantly claimed range.
However, Gombotz teaches yttrium-doped lithium halide solid electrolyte materials (Abstract). Gombotz teaches an embodiment of the material which has an average crystallite size of 6-10 nm (i.e. mechanosynthesized material), and an embodiment of the material which has an average crystallite size of greater than 90 nm (i.e. annealed material) (See “Results and Discussion – XRPD to Characterize the Long-Range Structure”). Gombotz teaches that said embodiment with a larger crystallite size provides for enhanced conductivity characteristics (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the halide solid electrolyte of Sakai, as modified by Hoshi, such that it has an average crystallite size (“a crystallite size”) of greater than 90 nm, as taught by Gombotz, given that such a modification would help provide for enhanced conductivity characteristics. It is noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 13, Sakai, as modified by Hoshi, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Sakai, as modified by Hoshi, does not explicitly teach that the halide solid electrolyte has a crystallite size in accordance with the instantly claimed range.
However, Gombotz teaches yttrium-doped lithium halide solid electrolyte materials (Abstract). Gombotz teaches an embodiment of the material which has an average crystallite size of 6-10 nm (i.e. mechanosynthesized material), and an embodiment of the material which has an average crystallite size of greater than 90 nm (i.e. annealed material) (See “Results and Discussion – XRPD to Characterize the Long-Range Structure”). Gombotz teaches that said embodiment with a larger crystallite size provides for enhanced conductivity characteristics (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the halide solid electrolyte of Sakai, as modified by Hoshi, such that it has an average crystallite size (“a crystallite size”) of greater than 90 nm, as taught by Gombotz, given that such a modification would help provide for enhanced conductivity characteristics. It is noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
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 MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST M-F.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights