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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (CN 115347231 A).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a solid electrolyte film ([abstract]), comprising:
A first protective layer comprising a first inorganic material and a second protective layer comprising a second inorganic material, wherein both the first and second inorganic materials comprise an oxide solid electrolyte (positive electrode protective layer and negative electrode protective layer both comprise inorganic materials that can be composed of an oxide solid electrolyte; [0008] and [0012] – [0013]);
And an electrolyte layer disposed between the first protective layer and the second protective layer, wherein the electrolyte layer comprises a third inorganic material, wherein the third inorganic material comprises a sulfide solid electrolyte (composite solid electrolyte comprises an inorganic material that can be composed of a solid sulfide electrolyte and is between both protective layers; [0008] and [0015]).
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses the solid electrolyte film as discussed above in claim 1. Chen further discloses that the oxide solid electrolyte can comprise one of the claimed compositions (the oxide solid electrolyte in the positive electrode layer can comprise either LiAlO2 or Li3PO4 and the oxide solid electrolyte in the negative electrode protective layer can comprise LiPON; [0012] – [0013]).
With respect to the negative electrode protective layer, LiPON is considered to satisfy the claimed oxide solid electrolyte limitation. LiPON is a lithium-phosphate-nitrogen containing oxynitride and thus contains lithium, phosphate, nitrogen, and oxygen. Claim 2 expressly states that a lithium-phosphorus containing oxide solid electrolyte, a lithium-phosphorus oxide solid electrolyte, and combinations thereof are acceptable compositions of the oxide solid electrolyte for either protective layer. Accordingly, the composition of LiPON falls within the scope of the acceptable oxide solid electrolytes recited in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses the solid electrolyte film as discussed above in claim 1. Chen further discloses that the sulfide solid electrolyte can comprise one of the claimed compositions (sulfide solid electrolyte in the composite solid electrolyte can comprise Li7P3S11; [0015]).
Regarding claim 11, Chen discloses the solid electrolyte film as discussed above in claim 1. Chen further discloses that the third inorganic material further comprises an oxide solid electrolyte (composite solid electrolyte contains an oxide solid electrolyte ([0016]),
and that the weight percentage of the sulfide solid electrolyte of the third inorganic material is from 51wt% to 99wt%, based on the total weight of the third inorganic material (the mass ratio of sulfide solid electrolyte to oxide solid electrolyte in the composite solid electrolyte can range from 3:1 to 6:1; [0061]).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 115347231 A) in view of Choi et al (US 2021/0184201 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Chen discloses the solid electrolyte film as discussed above in claim 1. While Chen does disclose the use of a first and a second protective layer, Chen does not teach that thickness of both protective layers are independently from 30 µm to 200 µm.
Choi, disclosing a solid electrolyte, teaches the use of a protective layer on a solid electrolyte. Choi further discloses that the thickness of the protective layer can range from 1 nm to 200 µm ([0088]), which encompasses the claimed range of 30 µm to 200 µm. The courts have found that when a claimed range overlaps or lies inside a range disclosed by prior art, the claimed range is prima facie obvious [MPEP 2144.05 (I)]. Choi also teaches that the thickness of protective layer being within this range results in better charge and discharge characteristics of the battery ([0088]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the first and second protective layers of Chen to have a thickness within Choi’s disclosed 1 nm to 200 µm range. Doing so would have resulted in a solid electrolyte with protective layers that impart enhanced charge and discharge properties onto the battery.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 115347231 A).
Regarding claim 5, Chen discloses the solid electrolyte film as discussed above in claim 1. Chen further discloses that the thickness of the composite solid electrolyte corresponding to the claimed electrolyte layer is from 10 µm to 5,000 µm ([0011]). This thickness range encompasses the claimed 30 µm to 700 µm range. The courts have found that when a claimed range overlaps or lies inside a range disclosed by prior art, the claimed range is prima facie obvious [MPEP 2144.05 (I)]. Therefore, the claimed thickness range of the electrolyte layer is not considered to be a patentable distinguishing feature in view of Chen.
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses the solid electrolyte film as discussed above in claim 1. Chen does not expressly state that the total thickness of the first protective layer, the second protective layer, and the electrolyte layer is from 200 µm to 1,100 µm. Chen does, however, teach embodiments that disclose the individual thicknesses of the positive electrode layer, negative electrode layer, and composite solid electrolyte, which correspond to the claimed layers ([0056] and [0059]). Combining the individual thicknesses of each layer in the disclosed embodiments can result in a total thickness ranging from below to above the claimed range. The courts have found that when a claimed range overlaps or lies inside a range disclosed by prior art, the claimed range is prima facie obvious [MPEP 2144.05 (I)]. Therefore, the claimed total thickness range of for first protective layer, second protective layer, and the electrolyte layer is not considered to be a patentable distinguishing feature in view of Chen.
Claims 7, 9, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 115347231 A) in view of Chang et al (US 2021/0194049 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 9, Chen discloses the solid electrolyte film as discussed above in claim 1. Chen further discloses that the electrolyte layer can comprise a fluorine-containing polymer ([0016]). Chen also teaches that the fluorine-containing polymer can be comprised of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), (composite solid electrolyte can contain polyvinylidene fluoride; [0016]). Chen does not, however, disclose that the first and second protective layers can also comprise a fluorine-containing polymer.
Chang, disclosing a secondary battery ([0006]), teaches the use of an electrolyte layer disposed between two porous layers in a solid electrolyte (solid electrolyte membrane (20) has an electrolyte layer (24) between a first porous layer (22) and a second porous layer (26); [0034]). Chang further discloses that both the first porous layer and the second porous layer can each comprise one of the claimed fluorine-containing polymers ([0034] – [0037]). Chang also teaches that the use of a fluorine-containing polymer in the electrolyte reduces moisture flux in it, thereby preventing the deterioration of battery performance ([0034] and [0037]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art to have taken the fluorine polymer teachings of Chang and applied them to the protective layers disclosed by Chen. Doing so would have helped inhibit the movement of moisture into the electrolyte, resulting in improved performance of the battery.
Regarding claim 12, Chen discloses the solid electrolyte film of claim 1. While Chen does teach the use of a solid electrolyte, a negative electrode, and a positive electrode in a secondary battery ([0004] and [0008]), it is not expressly disclosed that the solid electrolyte is disposed between the negative and positive electrode.
Chang does, however, explicitly disclose a secondary battery that uses a solid electrolyte between a positive and negative electrode (Figure 1; battery (100) includes a negative electrode (10) and a positive electrode (40) separated by a solid electrolyte membrane (20); [0024]). Arranging the electrolyte, negative electrode, and positive electrode disclosed by Chen to the known operative layout taught by Chang would have resulted in the predictable placement of an electrolyte in a secondary battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have disposed the solid electrolyte of Chen between the negative and positive electrodes, as taught by Chang. Such a modification would have been consistent with combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results [MPEP 2143 (I) (A)].
Regarding claim 13, Chen in view of Chang discloses the battery of claim 12. Chang further discloses that the negative electrode contains a negative electrode active material that comprises carbon material, lithium, transition metal oxide, lithium containing compound, silicon containing material, tin, tin-containing compound, or a combination thereof ([0024]). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art to have used a negative electrode active material disclosed by Chen in the negative electrode discussed with respect to claim 12. All of the claimed negative electrode active materials that are disclosed by Chang are well known in the art and commonly used in the negative electrode of a battery. Therefore, utilizing one of the negative electrode active materials taught by Chang in the battery disclosed by Chen would have amounted to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results [MPEP 2143 (I) (A)].
Regarding claim 14, Chen in view of Chang discloses the battery of claim 12. Chang further discloses that the positive electrode contains a positive electrode active material that comprises sulfur, organic sulfur, sulfur carbon composite, metal-containing lithium oxide, metal-containing lithium sulfide, metal-containing lithium selenide, metal-containing lithium telluride, metal-containing lithium phosphide, metal-containing lithium silicide, metal-containing lithium boride, or a combination thereof, wherein the metal is selected from a group consisting of aluminum, vanadium, titanium, chromium, copper, molybdenum, niobium, iron, nickel, cobalt, and manganese ([0024]). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art to have used a positive electrode active material disclosed by Chen in the positive electrode discussed with respect to claim 12. All of the claimed positive electrode active materials that are disclosed by Chang are well known in the art and commonly used in the positive electrode of a battery. Therefore, utilizing one of the positive electrode active materials taught by Chang in the battery disclosed by Chen would have amounted to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results [MPEP 2143 (I) (A)].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 8, it would be considered allowable for disclosing that a weight ratio of the first fluorine-containing polymer to the first inorganic material is from 0.1:99.9 to 5:95, a weight ratio of the second fluorine-containing polymer to the second inorganic material is from 0.1:99.9 to 5:95, and a weight ratio of the third fluorine-containing polymer to the third inorganic material is from 0.1:99.9 to 5:95.
Chen discloses that the electrolyte layer can contain a third-fluorine containing polymer ([0016]). However, as discussed with respect to claim 7, Chen fails to teach the use of a first fluorine-containing polymer in the first protective layer and a second fluorine-containing polymer in the second protective layer. Chen also fails to disclose that the weight ratio of the third fluorine-containing polymer to the third inorganic material is from 0.1:99.9 to 5:95. Instead, Chen teaches significantly greater amounts of the fluorine-containing polymer relative to the inorganic material ([0017]).
Chang discloses that the first protective layer can contain a first fluorine-containing polymer and that the second protective layer can contain a second fluorine-containing polymer ([0034] – [0037]). However, Chang fails to disclose that the weight ratio of the first fluorine-containing polymer to the first inorganic material is from 0.1:99.9 to 5:95 and that the weight ratio of the second fluorine-containing polymer to the second inorganic material is from 0.1:99.9 to 5:95.
Based on the disclosures of Chang and Chen, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the weight ratio of fluorine-containing polymer to inorganic material in all three layers to 0.1:99.9 to 5:95. Chang is silent regarding the polymer to inorganic material weight ratios, while Chen teaches a polymer to inorganic material ratio that is outside the claimed range. Therefore, claim 8 is considered allowable over Chen and Chang.
Regarding claim 10, it would be considered allowable for disclosing that both the first inorganic material and the second inorganic material each further comprises a sulfide solid electrolyte, a halide solid electrolyte or a combination thereof that has the weight percentage of the oxide solid electrolyte being from 65wt% to 99wt% of the total weight for each respective inorganic material.
While Chen teaches the presence of a first and a second inorganic material as discussed with respect to claim 1, it is not taught that they further comprise a sulfide solid electrolyte, a halide solid electrolyte or a combination thereof. Additionally, Chen does not disclose that the weight percentage of the oxide solid electrolyte in both the first inorganic material and the second inorganic material is from 65wt% to 99wt% of the total weight of each respective inorganic material.
Based on the disclosures of Chen, it would not have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have added either a sulfide solid electrolyte, a halide solid electrolyte, or a combination thereof into the first and second inorganic materials while ensuring that the weight percentage of the oxide solid electrolyte remains from 65% to 99% by weight of the total weight of each respective inorganic material. Chen is silent on the modification of the first and second inorganic materials to further comprise a halide or sulfide solid electrolyte, as well as the optimization of the weight percentage of the oxide solid electrolyte. Therefore, claim 8 is considered allowable over Chen.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Suzuki (JP 2021/163622 A) cited through US equivalent (US 2023/0187648 A1) teaches the use of LiPON as an oxide-based solid electrolyte ([0106]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB T LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1723. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8 AM - 4 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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.T.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights