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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application
Claim 20 is withdrawn in the application
Examiner’s Comment
To improve clarity for the groupings listed in Claims 5, 9-10, 14-15, and 18-19, it would be beneficial to use the standard Markush grouping language of “selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" (MPEP 2173.05(h)).
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-19, drawn to a solid secondary battery, classified in H01M 4/136
II. Claim 20, drawn to a method of manufacturing a solid secondary battery, classified in H01M 10/052.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process such as by a simultaneous milling of the M2S, the alkali salt, and the inorganic electronic-conductive structure as opposed to a sequential milling process.
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:
the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
--the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
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.
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.
During a telephone conversation with John Mihelcic on 04/16/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of a solid secondary battery, claims 1-19. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 and 10-19 of copending Application No. 18/497,764 (reference application) hereinafter ‘764. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding Claim 1, ‘764 claims a cathode layer; an anode layer; and a solid electrolyte layer between the cathode layer and the anode layer, wherein the cathode layer comprises a cathode current collector and a cathode active material layer on at least one surface of the cathode current collector, the cathode active material layer comprises a composite cathode active material, and the composite cathode active material comprises a composite of M2S, an alkali metal salt, and an inorganic electronic-conductive structure, and wherein M is an alkali metal, the alkali metal is Li or Na, and the inorganic electronic-conductive structure has an electronic conductivity of 1×10-3 siemens per centimeter (S/cm) or more (claim 1)
Regarding Claim 3, ‘764 claims an amount of the inorganic electronic-conductive structure is in a range of about 1 part by weight to about 20 parts by weight with respect to about 100 parts by weight of the composite (claim 3). This overlaps with the claimed range of about 1 part by weight to about 30 parts by weight with respect to about 100 parts by weight of the composite. When there is sufficient overlap and specificity of the prior art range, then the claimed range is anticipated by the prior art (MPEP 2131.03.II).
Regarding Claim 4, ‘764 claims the inorganic electronic-conductive structure has a length of about 1 micrometer (μm) to about 50 μm and a thickness of about 0.01 μm to about 10 μm, and the M2S has a size of about 0.1 nm to about 10 μm (claim 5). The inorganic electronic-conductive structure has a one-dimensional structure or a two-dimensional structure (claim 6).
Regarding Claim 5, ‘764 claims the inorganic electronic-conductive structure comprises: a transition metal sulfide; a sulfide of at least one metal of metals of Groups 3 to 5 of the periodic table, or a combination thereof; at least one metal selected from among titanium, vanadium, chromium, manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel, copper, zinc, niobium, tantalum, molybdenum, and tungsten; or a combination thereof, and wherein the inorganic electronic-conductive structure further comprises: at least one metal oxide selected from among VO2, ReO2, CrO2, SnO2, TiO2, ZrO2, Al2O3, TeN, TiN, TiO, TiOx (wherein 0.75<x<1.45), TinO2n-1 (wherein 4<n<10), ReO3, CrO3, and VO3; and at least one metal material selected from among ZrS2, FeS, FeS2, CuS, Cu2S, CuS2, Cu9S8, Cu7S4, CoS, CoS2, Co3S4, Co9S8, NiS, NiS2, Ni9S8, Ni3S2, VS, VS2, V2S3, V2S5, VS4, NbS2, NbS3, NbS4, NbS5, Nb2S3, Nb2S5, TaS2, TaS3, TaS4, TaS5, Ta2S3, Ta2S5, Cr2S3, CrS3, MoS2, MoS3, MoS4, WS2, WS3, WS4, WS5, MnS, Mn2S3, TiS2, NiNb3S6, Cu2MoS4, and Cu4Mo6S8, or a combination thereof (claim 6).
Regarding Claim 6, ‘764 claims in an X-ray diffraction (XRD) spectrum of the composite cathode active material, a first diffraction angle of each of a first peak appearing at a diffraction angle (2θ) of about 14.5°±0.5°, a second peak appearing at a diffraction angle (2θ) of about 32.5°±0.5°, and a third peak appearing at a diffraction angle (2θ) of about 58.5°±0.5° in the composite is less than a second diffraction angle of each of a fourth peak appearing at a diffraction angle (2θ) of about 14.5°±0.5°, a fifth peak appearing at a diffraction angle (2θ) of about 32.5°±0.5°, and a sixth peak appearing at a diffraction angle (2θ) of about 58.5°±0.5° in an XRD spectrum of MoS2 used to prepare the composite, respectively, and an intensity of the first peak appearing at a diffraction angle (2θ) of about 14.5°±0.5° is less than an intensity of the fourth peak appearing at a diffraction angle (2θ) of about 14.5°±0.5° in the XRD spectrum of the MoS2 used to prepare the composite (claim 7).
Regarding Claim 7, ‘764 claims in an X-ray diffraction (XRD) spectrum of the composite, a first lattice constant (d1) derived from a seventh peak appearing at a diffraction angle (2θ) of 27°±2.0° corresponding to a (111) crystal plane of the M2S is larger than a second lattice constant (d2) derived from an eighth peak appearing at a diffraction angle (2θ) of about 27°±2.0° corresponding to a (111) crystal plane of the M2S in an XRD spectrum of the M2S used to prepare the composite, and wherein a size of the first lattice constant (d1) is 5.78 angstrom (Å) or more (claim 8)
Regarding Claim 8, ‘764 claims a particle size of the M2S is less than or equal to a particle size of the alkali metal salt, a particle size of the inorganic electronic-conductive structure is greater than a particle size of each of a lithium sulfide and the alkali metal salt, and the particle sizes of the inorganic electronic-conductive structure, the alkali metal salt, and the M2S gradually decrease in order of the inorganic electronic-conductive structure, the alkali metal salt, and the M2S (claim 4).
Regarding Claim 9, ‘764 claims the cathode active material layer further comprises a solid electrolyte, and wherein the solid electrolyte comprises a sulfide-based solid electrolyte, an oxide-based solid electrolyte, a polymer solid electrolyte, or a combination thereof, and an amount of the solid electrolyte is in a range of about 10 parts by weight to about 60 parts by weight, with respect to 100 parts by weight of the cathode active material layer (claim 10).
Regarding Claim 10, ‘764 claims the alkali metal salt is a lithium salt or a sodium salt and is a binary compound or a ternary compound, and wherein the binary compound comprises: LiI, LiBr, LiCl, LiF, LiH, Li2O, Li2Se, Li2Te, Li3N, Li3P, Li3As, Li3Sb, Li3Al2, LiB3, or a combination thereof; or NaI, NaBr, NaCl, NaF, Na2O, Na2Se, Na3N, Na3P, Na3As, Na3Sb, Na3Al2, NaB3, or a combination thereof, the ternary compound comprises Li3OCl, LiPF6, LiBF4, LiSbF6, LiAsF6, LiClO4, LiAlO2, LiAlCl4, LiNO3, Li2CO3, LiBH4, Li2SO4, Li3BO3, Li3PO4, Li4NCl, Li5NCl2, Li3BN2, or a combination thereof or comprises Na3OCl, NaBF4, NaPF6, NaAsF6, NaClO4, NaNO3, NaAlO2, NaAlCl4, NaNO3, Na2CO3, NaBH4, Na2SO4, Na3BO3, Na3PO4, Na4NCl, Na5NCl2, Na3BN2, or a combination thereof (claim 11). ‘764 further claims a molar ratio of the M2S to the alkali metal salt in the composite is in a range of about 50:50 to about 95:5 (claim 3).
Regarding Claim 11, ‘764 claims a particle size of the composite is 10 μm or less (claim 5). This overlaps with the claimed range of 2 μm or less. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 12, ‘764 claims the composite has a two-dimensional form (two-dimensional carbonaceous structure) and comprises a carbon-based material (graphene, graphene oxide, or a combination) (claim 1).
Regarding Claim 13, ‘764 claims the anode layer comprises an anode current collector and a first anode active material layer on the anode current collector (claim 12).
Regarding Claim 14, ‘764 claims an anode active material of the first anode active material layer comprises at least one selected from a carbon-based anode active material and a metal-based anode active material, the carbon-based anode active material comprises amorphous carbon, crystalline carbon, porous carbon, or a combination thereof, the metal-based anode active material comprises gold (Au), platinum (Pt), palladium (Pd), silicon (Si), silver (Ag), aluminum (Al), bismuth (Bi), tin (Sn), zinc (Zn), or a combination thereof (claim 13). ‘764 further claims the anode active material of the first anode active material layer comprises a mixture of a metal-based anode active material and a carbon-based material, a metal-based anode active material supported on a carbon-based material, or a combination thereof (claim 14).
Regarding Claim 15, ‘764 claims the anode layer comprises an anode current collector and a lithium host layer on one surface of the anode current collector, the lithium host layer comprises a lithium host structure, the lithium host structure comprises one or more lithium hosts, wherein the lithium host comprises a carbon-based lithium host, a metal-based lithium host, a polymer-based lithium host, or a combination thereof, and the solid secondary battery comprises a first inactive member on one side surface of the anode layer (claim 15).
Regarding Claim 16, ‘764 claims a second anode active material layer between the anode current collector and the first anode active material layer, wherein the second anode active material layer is a metal layer comprising lithium or a lithium alloy and is a plated layer, and the first anode active material layer is thicker than the second anode active material layer (claim 16).
Regarding Claim 17, ‘764 claims the solid secondary battery comprises an inactive elastic member on one surface of the cathode layer or the anode layer, or does not comprise the inactive elastic member (claim 17).
Regarding Claim 18, ‘764 claims the solid electrolyte layer comprises a solid electrolyte, a gel electrolyte, or a combination thereof, wherein the solid electrolyte comprises a sulfide-based solid electrolyte, an oxide-based solid electrolyte, a polymer solid electrolyte, or a combination thereof, the gel electrolyte comprises a polymer gel electrolyte (claim 18).
Regarding Claim 19, ‘764 claims the anode layer comprises an anode current collector, and at least one of the cathode current collector or the anode current collector comprises a base film and a metal layer on at least one surface of the base film, and wherein the base film comprises a polymer, the polymer comprising polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polyimide (PI), or a combination thereof, and the metal layer comprises indium (In), copper (Cu), magnesium (Mg), stainless steel, titanium (Ti), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), zinc (Zn), aluminum (Al), germanium (Ge), lithium (Li), or an alloy thereof (claim 19).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/497,764 (reference application) hereinafter ‘764 in view of Holme et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0170493).
‘764 is relied upon as described above.
‘764 further claims the composite comprises a solid solution of the M2S and the alkali metal salt (claim 1).
‘764 does not claim a size of an M2S crystallite obtained from an X-ray diffraction (XRD) spectrum of the composite is less than 10 nanometer (nm).
Holme teaches a solid secondary battery comprising with a cathode layer, an anode layer, and a solid electrolyte layer between the cathode layer and the anode layer ([0189] and fig. 5 ref. #505, #507, #503). The cathode layer comprises a cathode current collector and a cathode active material layer on at least one surface of the cathode current collector ([0036] and fig. 5 ref. #513). The cathode active material layer comprises a composite cathode active material, and the composite cathode active material comprises a composite of M2S, an alkali metal salt ([0009], Li2S—SiS2—LiI), and an inorganic electronic-conductive structure ([0085], MoS2), and wherein M is an alkali metal, the alkali metal is Li or Na ([0009]).
Holme further teaches a size of the M2S used (lithium sulfide) is 5 nm or less ([0021]), which lies within the claimed range of 10 nm or less. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the size of M2S as taught by Holme in the claimed invention of ‘764. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this size as results in lower heat generation and increased efficiency, in turn decreasing costs to the consumer (Holme, [0090]-[0091])
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 3-4, 10-13, and 18-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 7-8, 16-17, and 19 of copending Application No. 18/648,218, hereinafter ‘218, in view of Xu (Xu, Jili et. al., Chevrel Phase Mo6S8 Nanosheets Featuring Reversible Electrochemical Li-Ion Intercalation as Effective Dynamic-Phase Promoter for Advanced Lithium-Sulfur Batteries, 2023, Small, Volume 19, Issue 29, page 2300042) and Hayashi (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0317337).
Regarding Claim 1, ‘218 claims a cathode layer; an anode layer; and a solid electrolyte layer between the cathode layer and the anode layer, wherein the cathode layer comprises a cathode current collector and a cathode active material layer on at least one surface of the cathode current collector, the cathode active material layer comprises a composite cathode active material, and the composite cathode active material comprises a composite of M2S and an inorganic electronic-conductive structure (one or more molybdenum compounds, Mo6S8), and wherein M is an alkali metal, the alkali metal is Li or Na (claim 1).
‘218 does not explicitly claim the inorganic electronic-conductive structure has an electronic conductivity of 1x10-3 siemens per centimeter or greater.
Xu teaches chevrel phase Mo6S8 nanosheets featuring reversible electrochemical li-ion intercalation as effective dynamic-phase promoter for advanced lithium-sulfur batteries (title) Xu also teaches that Mo6S8 has an electronic conductivity of 1x10-3 siemens per centime or greater (Supporting Information, page 10). The use of these high conductivity chevrel phase Mo6S8 nanosheets allows for batteries with superior cycling stability, high-rate capability, and low-temperature performance (abstract)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to Mo6S8 has an electronic conductivity of 1x10-3 siemens per centime or greater as taught by Xu in the battery of ‘218. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion as it leads to batteries with superior cycling stability, high-rate capability, and low-temperature performance (Xu, abstract)
‘218 does not claim the composite cathode active material includes an alkali metal salt.
Hayashi teaches a positive electrode for an all-solid secondary battery which includes Li2S as M2S (abstract) and LiI as an alkali metal salt ([0016]-[0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include an alkali metal salt in the composite cathode active material of ‘218. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion as it is capable of improving a charge-discharge capacity without lowering ionic conductivity, in turn increasing overall battery performance ([Hayashi, [0008]).
Regarding Claim 3, ‘ 218 claims an amount of the inorganic electronic-conductive structure (molybdenum compounds) is in a range of about 1 part by weight to about 40 parts by weight with respect to about 100 parts by weight of the composite (claim 2). This overlaps with the claimed range of about 1 part by weight to about 30 parts by weight with respect to about 100 parts by weight of the composite. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding Claim 4, ‘218 claims the inorganic electronic-conductive structure has a form of a one-dimensional structure or a two-dimensional structure (fibers or plates) and has a length of about 1 micrometer (μm) to about 50 μm and a thickness of about 0.01 μm to about 10 μm (claim 7). ‘218 also claims the M2S has a size of about 0.1 nm to about 10 μm (claim 8).
Regarding Claim 10, modified ‘218 includes the alkali metal salt as a lithium salt and is a binary compound of LiI (Hayashi, [0016]-[0017]).
Regarding Claim 11, ‘218 claims a particle size of the composite is 0.1 μm to 50 μm (claim 8). This overlaps with the claimed range of 2 μm or less. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 12, ‘218 claims the composite has a two-dimensional form (the molybdenum compounds, claim 7) and comprises a carbon-based material (carbonaceous material, claim 1).
Regarding Claim 13, ‘218 claims the anode layer comprises an anode current collector and a first anode active material layer (metal layer) on the anode current collector (claim 17).
Regarding Claim 18, ‘218 claims the solid electrolyte layer comprises a solid electrolyte, a gel electrolyte, or a combination thereof, wherein the solid electrolyte comprises a sulfide-based solid electrolyte, an oxide-based solid electrolyte, a polymer solid electrolyte, or a combination thereof, the gel electrolyte comprises a polymer gel electrolyte (claim 15). ‘218 further claims the sulfide-based solid electrolyte comprises at least one selected from among: Li2S-P2S5; Li2S-P2S5-LiX, X being a halogen element; Li2S-P2S5-Li2O; Li2S-P2S5-Li2O-LiI; Li2S-SiS2; Li2S-SiS2-LiI; Li2S-SiS2-LiBr; Li2S-SiS2-LiCl; Li2S-SiS2-B2S3-LiI; Li2S-SiS2-P2S5-LiI; Li2S-B2S3; Li2S-P2S5-ZmSn,m and n being each a positive number, and Z being one selected from among Ge, Zn, and Ga; Li2S-GeS2; Li2S-SiS2-Li3PO4; Li2S-SiS2-LipMOq, p and q being each a positive number, and M being one selected from among P, Si, Ge, B, Al, Ga, and In; Li7-xPS6-xClx, 0<x<2; Li7-xPS6-xBrx, 0<x<2; and Li7-xPS6-xIx, 0≤x≤2, and comprises an argyrodite-type solid electrolyte, and wherein the argyrodite-type solid electrolyte comprises at least one selected from among Li6PS5Cl, Li6PS5Br, and Li6PS5I and has a density of about 1.5 gram per cubic centimeter (g/cc) to about 2.0 g/cc (claim 16).
Regarding Claim 19, ‘218 claims the anode layer comprises an anode current collector, and at least one of the cathode current collector or the anode current collector comprises a base film and a metal layer on at least one surface of the base film, and wherein the base film comprises a polymer, the polymer comprising polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polyimide (PI), or a combination thereof, and the metal layer comprises indium (In), copper (Cu), magnesium (Mg), stainless steel, titanium (Ti), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), zinc (Zn), aluminum (Al), germanium (Ge), lithium (Li), or an alloy thereof (claim 19).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. No. 18/648,218 (reference application) , hereinafter ‘218, in view of Xu (Xu, Jili et. al., Chevrel Phase Mo6S8 Nanosheets Featuring Reversible Electrochemical Li-Ion Intercalation as Effective Dynamic-Phase Promoter for Advanced Lithium-Sulfur Batteries, 2023, Small, Volume 19, Issue 29, page 2300042) and Hayashi (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0317337), further in view of Holme et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0170493).
‘218, Xu, and Hayashi are relied upon as described above.
‘218 does not claim a size of an M2S crystallite obtained from an X-ray diffraction (XRD) spectrum of the composite is less than 10 nanometer (nm).
Holme teaches a solid secondary battery comprising with a cathode layer, an anode layer, and a solid electrolyte layer between the cathode layer and the anode layer ([0189] and fig. 5 ref. #505, #507, #503). The cathode layer comprises a cathode current collector and a cathode active material layer on at least one surface of the cathode current collector ([0036] and fig. 5 ref. #513). The cathode active material layer comprises a composite cathode active material, and the composite cathode active material comprises a composite of M2S, an alkali metal salt ([0009], Li2S—SiS2—LiI), and an inorganic electronic-conductive structure ([0085], MoS2), and wherein M is an alkali metal, the alkali metal is Li or Na ([0009]).
Holme also teaches the composite comprises a solid solution of the M2S and the alkali metal salt (as the composite can be made by milling of the precursors, [0215]). Holme further teaches a size of the M2S used (lithium sulfide) used in the solid solution is 5 nm or less ([0021]), which lies within the claimed range of 10 nm or less. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the solid solution with a size of M2S as taught by Holme in the claimed invention of ‘218. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this as it results in lower heat generation and increased efficiency, in turn decreasing costs to the consumer (Holme, [0090]-[0091]).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 recites the limitation “wherein the argyrodite-typ solid electrolyte comprises” on page 8, line 1, which should be corrected to “wherein the argyrodite-type solid electrolyte comprises”.
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.
Claims 2, 4, 6-8, and 10-12 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.
Claims 2, 6-7, and 10-12 recite the limitation “the composite” which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if “the composite” is in reference to “the composite cathode active material” in claim 1 line 10 or “the composite of M2S, an alkali metal salt, and an inorganic electronic-conductive structure” in claim 1 lines 10-11.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the inorganic electronic-conductive structure has a form of a zero-dimensional structure, a one-dimensional structure, or a two-dimensional structure and has a length of about 1 micrometer (μm) to about 50 μm and a thickness of about 0.01 μm to about 10 μm” which renders the claim vague and indefinite. Zero-dimensional structures are generally understood to have nanometer scale sizes in all spatial directions, therefore it is unclear how it would be possible to have a zero-dimensional structure with a length of about 1 μm to about 50 μm.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the inorganic electronic-conductive structure comprises: a transition metal sulfide; a sulfide of at least one metal of metals of Groups 3 to 5 of the periodic table, or a combination thereof; at least one metal selected from among titanium… wherein the inorganic electronic-conductive structure further comprises: at least one metal oxide selected from among VO2-… and at least one metal material selected from among ZrS2…” which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if the limitations of Claim 5 mean that a minimum of 5 separate elements are required (a transition metal sulfide, a sulfide of at least one metal of metals of Groups 3 to 5 of the periodic table, at least one metal selected from among titanium…, at least one metal oxide selected from among VO2-…, and at least one metal material selected from among ZrS2…), as this is what the language “further comprises” in line 10 of Claim 5 may suggest, or if a minimum of 2 separate elements are required (at least one metal oxide selected from among VO2-…, and at least one metal material selected from among ZrS2…-), as select materials from the listed groups (such as VO2 and Ti2S) would fulfill the requirements of the first 3 limitation (a transition metal sulfide; a sulfide of at least one metal of metals of Groups 3 to 5 of the periodic table, or a combination thereof; at least one metal selected from among titanium…). For the purpose of examination, claim 5 will be interpreted to be mean that there can be 2 materials in the inorganic electronic-conductive structures as long as those two materials fulfill the requirements of the first 3 limitations.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a first diffraction angle of each of a first peak appearing at a diffraction angle (2θ) of about 14.5°±0.5°, a second peak appearing at a diffraction angle (2θ) of about 32.5°±0.5°, and a third peak appearing at a diffraction angle (2θ) of about 58.5°±0.5° in the composite is less than a second diffraction angle of each of a fourth peak appearing at a diffraction angle (2θ) of about 14.5°±0.5°, a fifth peak appearing at a diffraction angle (2θ) of about 32.5°±0.5°, and a sixth peak appearing at a diffraction angle (2θ) of about 58.5°±0.5° in an XRD spectrum of MoS2 used to prepare the composite, respectively, and an intensity of the first peak appearing at a diffraction angle (2θ) of about 14.5°±0.5° is less than an intensity of the fourth peak appearing at a diffraction angle (2θ) of about 14.5°±0.5° in the XRD spectrum of the MoS2 used to prepare the composite” which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if “about 14.5°±0.5°” means that the value is within the range of 14.0° to 15.0°, or if the value can lie outside of that specified range to an extent due to use of both “about” and the “±0.5°” which is a fixed range. Furthermore, it is unclear if MoS2 in line 9 of claim 6 is being actively claimed as one of the materials in the composite of claim 1, line 10, as MoS2 was not claimed in claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the particle sizes of the inorganic electronic-conductive structure, the alkali metal salt, and the M2S gradually decrease in order of the inorganic electronic-conductive structure, the alkali metal salt, and the M2S” in lines 6-8, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if what is claimed is that the inorganic electronic-conductive structure is larger than the alkali metal salt which is larger than the M2S, or that each constituent has particles with a range of sizes, with the gradient of ranges being largest for the inorganic electronic-conductive structure, smaller for the alkali metal salt, and even smaller for the M2S.
Claim 8 recites the limitations “a particle size of the M2S is less than or equal to a particle size of the alkali metal salt” and “the particle sizes of the inorganic electronic-conductive structure, the alkali metal salt, and the M2S gradually decrease in order of the inorganic electronic-conductive structure, the alkali metal salt, and the M2S” which render the claim indefinite. It is unclear if a particle size of the M2S can be equal to a particle size of the alkali metal salt, or if a particle size of the M2S must be less than a particle size of the alkali metal salt.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a particle size of the composite is 2 µm or less” in line 2 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. As the composite of claim 1 requires multiple substituents (M2S, an alkali metal salt, and an inorganic electronic-conductive structure, Claim 1 lines 10-11) it is unclear if each of the substituents requires a particle size of 2 µm or less, only one (1) of the substituents requires a particles size of 2 µm or less, or if an average particle size of the substituents is required to be 2 µm or less.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the composite has a two-dimensional form” which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if this means that the form of the composite is a two-dimensional form, or that the composite contains a component with a two-dimensional form. For the purpose of examination, it will be interpreted to mean that the composite contains a component with a two-dimensional form.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the inactive elastic member” in line 4 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if “the inactive elastic member” in line 4 refers to the inactive elastic member one surface of the cathode, the inactive elastic member one surface of the anode, or both.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the argyrodite-type solid electrolyte” in lines 29 and 30 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if “the argyrodite-type solid electrolyte” is a solid electrolyte with an argyrodite crystal structure, or if is a solid electrolyte with properties similar to those with an argyrodite structure.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “and comprises an argyrodite-type solid electrolyte” in line 30 which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear if the argyrodite-type solid electrolyte is included as part of the list of sulfide-based solid electrolyte materials or if it required in addition to the sulfide-based electrolyte materials. For purpose of examination, it will be interpreted as being included in the list of possible sulfide-based solid electrolyte materials.
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.
Claims 1-5, 11-13, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holme et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0170493).
Regarding Claim 1, Holme teaches a solid secondary battery comprising with a cathode layer, an anode layer, and a solid electrolyte layer between the cathode layer and the anode layer ([0017] and fig. 5 ref. #505, #507, #503). The cathode layer comprises a cathode current collector and a cathode active material layer on at least one surface of the cathode current collector ([0036] and fig. 5 ref. #513). The cathode active material layer comprises a composite cathode active material, and the composite cathode active material comprises a composite of M2S, an alkali metal salt ([0009], Li2S—SiS2—LiI), and an inorganic electronic-conductive structure (mixed electron-ion conducting component (MEIC), [0138]), or Li+ ionic conductor, [0142]) wherein M is an alkali metal, the alkali metal is Li or Na ([0009]).
The inorganic electronic-conductive structure has an electronic conductivity of 1×10-7 siemens per centimeter (S/cm) or more (for the MEIC, [0138]) or of 1×10-4 siemens per centimeter (S/cm) or more (for the Li+ ionic conductor, [0142]) which overlap with the claimed range of 1×10-3 siemens per centimeter (S/cm) or more. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 2, Holme teaches a size of the M2S used (lithium sulfide) is 5 nm or less ([0021]), which lies within the claimed range of 10 nm or less. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Holme also teaches the composite comprises a solid solution of the M2S and the alkali metal salt (as the composite can be made by milling of the precursors, [0215]).
Regarding Claim 3, Holme teaches that the amount of the inorganic electronic-conductive structure (MEIC) is in a range of 1 part by weight to 50 parts by weight with respect to about 100 parts by weight of the composite ([0139]). This overlaps with the claimed range of about 1 part by weight to about 30 parts by weight with respect to about 100 parts by weight of the composite. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 4, Holme teaches the inorganic electronic-conductive structure has a form of a zero-dimensional structure (a particle form, [0140] for the MEIC, [0142] for the Li+ ionic conductor). Holme further a size of the M2S used (lithium sulfide) is 5 nm or less ([0021]), which lies within the claimed range of 0.1 nm to 10 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 5, Holme teaches the inorganic electronic-conductive structure comprises molybdenum sulfide ([0138]), which is a transition metal sulfide with molybdenum. The inorganic electronic-conductive structure further comprises VO2 or VO3 (vanadium oxides , ([0138]).
Holme does not explicitly teach a sulfide of at least one metal of metals of Groups 3 to 5 of the periodic table in the inorganic electronic-conductive structure.
Holme does teach the use of a sulfide of at least one metal of metals of Groups 3 to 5 of the periodic table (TiS2, WS2) as a conversion material in the positive electrode material ([0085]) for increased energy density of the battery ([0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the TiS2 or WS2 conversion material in the inorganic electronic-conductive structure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion to increase energy density ([0067]).
Regarding Claim 11, Holme teaches a particle size of the composite is 20 nm or less ([0091]), which lies within the claimed range of 2 μm or less. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 12, Holme teaches the composite has a two-dimensional form such as rods or wires ([0153]) and comprises a carbon-based material such as activated carbon or graphene ([0141]).
Regarding Claim 13, Holme teaches the anode layer comprises an anode current collector and a first anode active material layer (lithium metal) on the anode current collector ([0170]).
Regarding Claim 15, Holme teaches the anode layer comprises an anode current collector ([0171] and a lithium host layer (negative electrode active material layer) on one surface of the anode current collector, the lithium host layer comprises a lithium host structure, the lithium host structure comprises a carbon-based lithium host (carbon nanotubes) ([0169]), and the solid secondary battery comprises a first inactive member (silicon wafer) on one side surface of the anode layer ([0207], fig. 5, substrate foil).
Regarding Claim 17, does not comprise an inactive elastic member.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holme et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0170493) in view of Tao (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. 115472797). For prior art discussion see English translations for CN-115472797-A.
Holme is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 6, Holme further teaches that the composite comprises MoS2 (molybdenum sulphides, [0138]).
Holme does not explicitly teach that in an X-ray diffraction (XRD) spectrum of the composite cathode active material, a first diffraction angle of each of a first peak appearing at a diffraction angle (2θ) of about 14.5°±0.5°, a second peak appearing at a diffraction angle (2θ) of about 32.5°±0.5°, and a third peak appearing at a diffraction angle (2θ) of about 58.5°±0.5° in the composite is less than a second diffraction angle of each of a fourth peak appearing at a diffraction angle (2θ) of about 14.5°±0.5°, a fifth peak appearing at a diffraction angle (2θ) of about 32.5°±0.5°, and a sixth peak appearing at a diffraction angle (2θ) of about 58.5°±0.5° in an XRD spectrum of MoS2 used to prepare the composite, respectively, and an intensity of the first peak appearing at a diffraction angle (2θ) of about 14.5°±0.5° is less than an intensity of the fourth peak appearing at a diffraction angle (2θ) of about 14.5°±0.5° in the XRD spectrum of the MoS2 used to prepare the composite.
Tao teaches a sodium battery with a molybdenum sulfide (molybdenum disulfide) composite for the electrode of a sodium-battery (abstract). Tao also teaches that, in an X-ray diffraction (XRD) spectrum of the composite active material, an offset of the molybdenum sulfide peaks to a smaller diffraction angle, which represents an increase in interlayer expansion (page 31, paragraph 2, lines 1-5), in turn allowing for increased ion intercalation (page 30, paragraph 3, lines 3-5). Tao also shows an intensity of a peak at a diffraction angle (2θ) of about 14.5°±0.5° is less than an intensity of the fourth peak appearing at a diffraction angle (2θ) of about 14.5°±0.5° in the XRD spectrum of the MoS2 used to prepare the composite (fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use MoS2 in the composite that has lower diffraction angles that the MoS2 used to prepare the composite as taught by Tao in the electrode active material of Holme. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a composite with this property as it allows for increased ion intercalation (page 32, paragraph 3, lines 3-5).
Claims 7, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holme et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0170493) in view of Hayashi (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0317337).
Holme is relied upon as described above.
Holme does not explicitly teach in an X-ray diffraction (XRD) spectrum of the composite, a first lattice constant (d1) derived from a seventh peak appearing at a diffraction angle (2θ) of 27°±2.0° corresponding to a (111) crystal plane of the M2S is larger than a second lattice constant (d2) derived from an eighth peak appearing at a diffraction angle (2θ) of about 27°±2.0° corresponding to a (111) crystal plane of the M2S in an XRD spectrum of the M2S used to prepare the composite, nor a size of the first lattice constant (d1) is 5.78 angstrom (Å) or more,
Hayashi teaches a positive electrode active material comprising M2S used in a composite with an alkali metal salt (abstract). Hayashi also teaches a first lattice constant (d1) derived from a peak appearing at a diffraction angle (2θ) of 27°±2.0° corresponding to a (111) crystal plane of the M2S is larger than a second lattice constant (d2) derived from a peak appearing at a diffraction angle (2θ) of about 27°±2.0° corresponding to a (111) crystal plane of the M2S in an XRD spectrum of the M2S used to prepare the composite (fig. 2), giving lattice constants of up to approximately 5.87 Å, which allows for an increase in ionic conductivity (fig. 3, as the lattice constant increases the ionic conductivity increases). The lattice constant of 5.87 Å lies within the claimed range of 5.78 Å or more. Since the prior art recites a value within the claimed range, the claimed range is considered obvious over the prior art (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a composite with a larger lattice constant of M2S than the than of the M2S used to prepare the composite. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion as it leads to increased ionic conductivity (Hayashi, fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 10, Holme further teaches that the alkali metal salt is lithium iodide (LiI, [0009]) a lithium salt that is a binary compound.
Holme does not explicitly teach that a molar ratio of the M2S to the alkali metal salt in the composite is in a range of about 50:50 to about 95:5
Hayashi teaches a positive electrode for an all-solid secondary battery which includes Li2S as M2S (abstract) and LiI as an alkali metal salt ([0016]-[0017]). The molar ratio of the M2S to the alkali metal salt in the composite is in a range of 99:1 to 80:20 ([0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the molar ratio of Hayashi in the cathode active material of Holme. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this molar ratio as it allows for a higher charge-discharge capacity (Hayashi, [0018]).
Regarding Claim 14, Holme further teaches an anode active material of the first anode active material layer comprises at least one selected from a carbon-based anode active material such as porous carbon nanotubes, carbon buckyballs, carbon fibers, activated carbon, graphite, porous silicon, aerogels, zeolites, xerogels ([0169]), or a metal-based anode active material such as silicon (Si) or tin (Sn) ([0168]).
Holme does not explicitly teach the anode active material of the first anode active material layer comprises a mixture of a metal-based anode active material and a carbon-based material, a metal-based anode active material supported on a carbon-based material, or a combination thereof.
Hayashi further teaches the anode active material comprises a mixture of a metal-based anode active material such as indium (In) or tin (Sn) ([0065]-[0066]) and a carbon-based material (electrical conducting material) such as natural graphite, artificial graphite, AB, VGCF, carbon nanotube and activated carbon ([0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use an anode active material with a metal-based anode active material and a carbon-based material as taught by Hayashi in the anode of Holme. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion as the mixture will allow for improved electrical conductivity over using solely a metal-based anode active material layer.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holme et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0170493) in view of Sung et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0301694) and Chen et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0162901).
Holme is relied upon as described above.
Holme further teaches that the particle of the M2S used (lithium sulfide) is 5 nm or less ([0021]), and that the inorganic electronic-conductive structure may be MoS2 (molybdenum sulphides, [0138]).
Holme does not explicitly teach the particle size of the inorganic electronic-conductive structure. Sung teaches a lithium-sulfur secondary battery includes a cathode current collector and a cathode electrode on the cathode current collector (abstract). Sung also teaches that the cathode electrode includes MoS2 (metal sulfide catalyst, [0006]-[0007]), which has an average particle size ranging from 1 nm to 100 µm ([0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the particle size of MoS2 as taught by Sung in the electrode of Holme. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this size range as when it is below this range it is difficult to sufficiently adsorb the cathode active material particles, and when it is above this range it may be difficult to uniformly disperse the metal sulfide catalyst particles, thus reducing the capacity of the cathode electrode (Sung, [0061]).
Holme and Sung do not teach the particle size of the alkali metal salt.
Chen teaches a solid-state lithium conducting electrolyte and cathode active material (catholyte) (abstract). The electrode active material contains a lithium-phosphorus-sulfur-iodine (LPSI) ion conductor ([0108], the LPSI and electrode slurry are laminated together), which is made via milling lithium sulfide and an alkali metal salt (LiI) with other components ([0137]). The alkali metal salt (LiI) has a workable range of 1 nm to 100 nm ([0050] and [0122]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the workable range of the alkali metal salt as taught by Chen in the cathode active material of modified Holme. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use this range of sizes as it would allow for the combination of the alkali salt with the lithium sulfide and other components with a reasonable expectation of success.
Within the size ranges of the M2S, alkali salt, and inorganic electronic-conductive structure of modified Holme, a particle size of the M2S is less than or equal to a particle size of the alkali metal salt, a particle size of the inorganic electronic-conductive structure is greater than a particle size of each of a lithium sulfide and the alkali metal salt, and the particle sizes of the inorganic electronic-conductive structure, the alkali metal salt, and the M2S gradually decrease in order of the inorganic electronic-conductive structure, the alkali metal salt, and the M2S.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holme et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0170493) in view of Zhamu (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0194663).
Holme is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 9, Holme further teaches the cathode active material layer further comprises a solid electrolyte, and an amount of the solid electrolyte is in a range of about 20 parts by weight or less with respect to 100 parts by weight of the cathode active material layer ([0142]). This overlaps with the claimed range of 10 parts by weight to about 60 parts by weight, with respect to 100 parts by weight of the cathode active material layer. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05)
Holme does not teach the solid electrolyte comprises a sulfide-based solid electrolyte, an oxide-based solid electrolyte, a polymer solid electrolyte, or a combination thereof.
Zhamu teaches a solid electrolyte for a lithium-sulfur battery containing Li2S (abstract). The solid electrolyte is a polymer solid electrolyte (a lithium ion-conducting polymer matrix) ([0025]) that can be used both as a solid electrolyte layer between the anode and cathode (fig. 1, cathode layer, solid state electrolyte, and Li anode) and within the cathode active material ([0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the polymer solid electrolyte of Zhamu in the secondary battery of Holme. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the polymer solid electrolyte as it has a high degree of both safety and performance ([0053]).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Holme teaches the solid electrolyte layer comprises a solid electrolyte which is a polymer electrolyte (Zhamu, abstract).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holme et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0170493) in view of Affinito et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0068001).
Holme is relied upon as described above.
Holme also teaches an anode active material layer that is a metal layer comprising lithium or a lithium alloy and is a plated layer ([0169], lithium is plated into the anode layer).
Holme does not explicitly teach a second anode active material layer between the anode current collector and the first anode active material layer, and the first anode active material layer is thicker than the second anode active material layer.
Affinito teaches electrochemical cells and a method for assembling electrochemical cells with release layers (abstract). Affinito also teaches an anode layer containing a first anode active material layer and a second anode active material layer, wherein the second anode active material layer (first anode active layer) is between the anode current collector and the first anode active material layer (second anode active layer) ([0129]). Affinito further teaches the first anode active material layer (second anode active layer) is thicker than the second anode active material layer (first anode active layer) ([0129].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the two anode active material layers with differing thicknesses of Affinito in the anode of Holme. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion as it allows for one to incorporate a targeted amount of anode active material in an electrochemical cell to better match the requirements or capacity of the cathode, and/or to achieve a specific energy density target, while reducing excessive waste of anode active material (Affinito, [0130]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holme et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0170493) in view of Oh et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0014031).
Holme is relied upon as described above.
Holme further teaches the anode layer comprises an anode current collector with a metal layer that comprises stainless steel, titanium (Ti), or nickel (Ni) ([0170]).
Holme does not teach at least one of the cathode current collector or the anode current collector comprises a base film and a metal layer on at least one surface of the base film, and wherein the base film comprises a polymer, the polymer comprising polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polyimide (PI), or a combination thereof.
Oh teaches one-sided electrode with reduced twisting for a secondary battery (title). Oh further teaches a base film (electrode distortion-preventing layer) on one surface of an electrode active material layer ([0037] fig. 2 ref. # 120, #130). The base film is made of a polymer ([0015]) that is selected from polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), or a combination thereof ([0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the base film layer of Oh in the anode or cathode of Holme. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this inclusion as it prevents distortion of the electrode, in turn improving the ease of manufacture (Oh, [0026]-[0027]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Myles Alan Lovasz whose telephone number is (571)272-0214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/MAL/
Myles Alan LovaszExaminer, Art Unit 1788 05/28/2026
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights