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 § 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.
Claims 1, 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20230411603 A1).
Regarding claim 1 and 5:
Kim et al. teaches an all-solid-state battery including a negative electrode, a hybrid solid electrolyte located between the positive electrode and negative electrode, wherein the hybrid solid electrolyte includes at least two solid electrolyte layers (0017), and a negative electrode active material (0050).
Kim et al. also teaches in a second solid electrolyte layer, i.e. SEa, the average particle size D50 of the solid electrolyte having the above shapes may be 2 μm to 30 μm (0067).
In the first solid electrolyte layer, i.e. SEb, the average particle size D50 of the solid electrolyte having the above shapes may be 2 μm to 10 μm (0066) and the average particle size of the second solid electrolyte layer may be three or more times the average particle size of solid electrolyte included in the first solid electrolyte layer (0063), i.e. SEb may be less than 1/3 of SEa, overlapping the claimed relational expression of a solid electrolyte SEb having a particle size that is greater than or equal to 1/10 and less than or equal to 1/5 of the particle size of the solid electrolyte SEa.
In light of the overlap between the claimed negative electrode and that disclosed by Kim et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a negative electrode that is both disclosed by Kim et al. and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Given that Kim discloses a negative electrode as presently claimed including particle sizes of SEa and SEb that overlap that presently claimed, within the overlapping ranges, it is clear that in a 31P-MAS-NMR spectrum of the solid electrolyte, a proportion of a peak intensity of 78 ppm with respect to a sum of the peak intensity of 78 ppm and a peak intensity of 83.7 ppm would inherently be greater than or equal to 2.4% and less than or equal to 7%.
Regarding claim 4:
Kim et al. teaches a negative electrode as set forth above.
Given that Kim et al. discloses a negative electrode as presently claimed including particle sizes of SEa and SEb that overlap that presently claimed, within the overlapping ranges, it is clear that in a Raman spectrum of the solid electrolyte, a peak derived from a PS4 structure would inherently be present at greater than or equal to 423 cm-1 and less than or equal to 425 cm-1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20230411603 A1) in view of Miki et al. (CN 106099050 B). It is noted that the disclosures of Miki et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference included with this action.
Regarding claim 2:
Kim et al. teaches a negative electrode as set forth above.
However, Kim et al. does not teach a volume of the solid electrolyte with respect to a total volume of the active material and the solid electrolyte is greater than or equal to 20% by volume and less than or equal to 40% by volume.
Miki et al. teaches an all-solid-state battery comprising a negative electrode active material, and sulfide solid electrolyte material (0022) and a negative electrode (0138).
Miki et al. also teaches a proportion of sulfide solid electrolyte material in the electrode active material layer is 1% by volume or more (0087), wherein the electrode active material layer contains active material composite particles and the sulfide solid electrolyte material (0079).
Further, Miki et al. teaches if the proportion of sulfide solid electrolyte material is too low, the Li ion conductivity of the electrode active material layer may not be sufficiently improved. If the proportion of sulfide solid electrolyte material is too high, the proportion of electrode active material will be relatively low, which may reduce the battery capacity (0087).
In light of the motivation for using a 1% by volume or more proportion of sulfide solid electrolyte material in the electrode active material layer disclosed by Miki et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a 1% by volume or more proportion of sulfide solid electrolyte material in the electrode active material layer in the negative electrode of Kim et al. in order to improve Li ion conductivity and prevent battery capacity reduction.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20230411603 A1) in view of Fujinoki (US 20230411625 A1).
Regarding claim 3:
Kim et al. teaches a positive electrode as set forth above. Further, Kim et al. teach the first solid electrolyte and second solid electrolyte are made from oxide-based solid electrolyte and sulfide-based solid electrolyte (0069).
However, Kim et al. does not teach a content of the solid electrolyte SEb with respect to a content of the solid electrolyte is greater than or equal to 5% by mass and less than or equal to 20% by mass.
Fujinoki teaches a negative electrode including a negative electrode active material (0178) and an electrolyte layer containing a first solid electrolyte, i.e. SEb, and a second solid electrolyte, i.e. SEa (0058). The first solid electrolyte and second solid electrolyte are made from sulfide-based solid electrolyte and oxide-based solid electrolyte (0137, 0166).
Further, Fujinoki teaches the electrolyte layer may contain the second solid electrolyte as a major component. Specifically, the second solid electrolyte may be present in the electrolyte layer in a mass percentage of greater than or equal to 50 mass% relative to a total mass of the electrolyte layer. With this configuration, the battery can have further improved power characteristics (0169, 0170). Therefore, the first solid electrolyte, i.e. SEb, is present in the electrolyte layer in a mass percentage of less than or equal to 50 mass%, which overlaps the amount presently claimed.
In light of the motivation for using the second solid electrolyte in a mass percentage of greater than or equal to 50 mass% relative to a total mass of the electrolyte layer and therefore, the first solid electrolyte is present in the electrolyte layer in a mass percentage of less than or equal to 50 mass% disclosed by Fujinoki as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the first solid electrolyte SEb in a mass percentage of less than or equal to 50 mass% relative to a total mass of the electrolyte layer in the negative electrode of Kim et al. in order to obtain further improved power characteristics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON E. BROWN whose telephone number is (571)775-5984. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 5712721123. 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.
/MADISON ELIZABETH BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights