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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 3-15 are pending. Claim 1 has been amended to include limitations previously presented in claims 2 and 3. Claim 2 has been cancelled, and claim 3 has been amended. Claims 12 and 13 have been amended to overcome formal matters.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of the Applicant’s remarks, filed 7/20/2026, with respect to the Drawings have been fully considered. Regarding the objections to Figures 5 and 6, the examiner appreciates the clarification and the response is persuasive. The objection.
Regarding the objections to Figures 7 and 8, the examiner notes Figure 7 has been amended to include the x-axis labels and Figure 8 has been amended to include the pressures. However, in the drawings dated 7/20/2026, the examiner does not see similar pressure labels included in the Figure 7 drawings. Therefore, the examiner maintains the objection to Figure 7, and withdraws the objection to Figure 8. The examiner notes, in the drawings filed 7/20/2026, additional objections are newly present. Please see the discussion of the drawings below for a further explanation.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8 of the Applicant’s remarks, filed 7/20/2026, with respect to the Specification have been fully considered. The examiner concurs that the typographical error in paragraph 36, and modifications to paragraphs 23, 36, and 43 help clarify the subject matter of the instant disclosure. The examiner notes these paragraph numbers are one more than the paragraph numbers listed in the remarks document, due to the inclusion of a new first paragraph indicating the priority of the application. Regarding the potential error in paragraph 17 related to conductivity range, this argument will be addressed when claim 10 is considered below.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8 of the Applicant’s remarks, filed 7/20/2026, with respect to the Claim Interpretation and Claim Objections have been fully considered. The examiner concurs the amendment to claim 12 to specify “anode composition” help further clarify the claims, and finds applicant’s arguments about the bulk pressure somewhat persuasive. The examiner notes paragraph 39, not paragraph 43, would have sufficient information for a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize how the measurement is obtained. The examiner notes amending the claim to include language such as “about 359.9 Ω when measured at 100 MPa” would make this abundantly clear. The examiner notes this clarification changes the scope of how claim 12 was examined and therefore the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 12 is withdrawn; see the section below for an updated rejection of claim 12.
Additionally, the amendments to claim 13 to specify the retained capacity help specify the claim language; support is found in paragraph 47 of the original disclosure (8/24/2023) for this modification. Therefore, the objection to claim 13 is withdrawn.
Regarding claim 10, the applicant admits the range presented in claim 10 was wrong and should be 1 – 5 x 101 S/cm. The applicant claims the support for this range is in Figure 6. However, the examiner is of the position that this modification constitutes new matter. The data presented in Figures 5 and 6 refer to data for a Talnode-C system, which is not the system being claimed in the instant claims. As such, this modification in the instant disclosure is considered new matter; see the specification objection and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection for the claim is presented below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-11, filed 7/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-2, 6-8 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and claim 3-5, 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments will be summarized below and discussed in turn.
Applicant argues Ahn describes the formation of composite particles, comprising a agglomeration of multiple primary graphite particles and a conductive mixture, which is then shaped and separately mixed with solid electrolyte to form a negative electrode active material. However, Ahn describes an embodiment (Claim 6), where solid electrolyte is ground with the conductive material and graphite particles to form a composite mixture. In this case, the graphite particles, before making the composite material, is in the form of primary particles ([0028]). Therefore, the examiner maintains that Ahn teaches a negative electrode composition comprising a graphitic material provided in the form of primary graphite particles and a solid electrolyte.
Applicant argues that Ahn does not teach the primary particles have a D50 of 4-6 μm, and the value referenced by the examiner was before the grinding of the particles. The examiner agrees with this assessment, and therefore the rejection of claim 2 is withdrawn. Since the content of claim 2 has been amended to be in claim 1, the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1 is withdrawn. However, after further search and consideration, a new grounds of rejection has been found, which is outlined below.
Applicant additionally argues Ahn does not teach the BET surface area of the primary graphite particles. The examiner agrees with this assessment, as Egnuchi had been utilized to teach this aspect. Applicant argues that the combination of Ahn with Egnuchi is nonobvious since Ahn is directed towards solid electrolyte battery systems while Egnuchi is directed towards liquid electrolyte systems, and the properties desired in each scenario are different. This argument is considered persuasive; however, a new grounds of rejection is outlined below.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 13, filed 7/20/2026, with respect to the double patenting rejections of claims 1-15 have been fully considered. The examiner notes, at the time of writing, no terminal disclaimer has been received by the Office. Therefore, the double patenting rejections are maintained until such a terminal disclaimer has been received.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following reasons:
In the drawings filed 7/20/2026, labels present in Figure 2 that had been present in the drawings dated 8/24/2023 are no longer present. Since these labels are important for understanding the process depicted in Figure 2, their exclusion is objected to.
Figures 5 and 6 are objected to as they reference data for a Talnode-C system. The examiner notes these Figures are used to support the Talnode-E compositions of the instant claims. The examiner notes paragraphs 43 and 44 of the instant disclosure refer to these Figures as data presented for Talnode-E systems, not Talnode-C systems. For the purposes of examination, these will be interpreted as data for Talnode-E systems.
In Figure 7, while the x-axis is labelled, each of the plots do not have the pressure they correspond to. In the certified foreign copy, the leftmost plot has a label of 100 MPs, the center one a label of 300 MPa, and the rightmost one 500 MPa. This is absent in the present copy. For the purposes of examination, the labels listed in the certified foreign copy will be applied in the same manner to those drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendment filed 7/20/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The conductivity range for the Talnode-E system of the instant claims, located in paragraph 17 of the instant disclosure, has been modified from “0 ~ 2 x 10 S/cm” to “1 ~ 5 x 101 S/cm”, based on the contents of Figure 6. However, the labels of Figure 6 indicate this is for a Talnode-C system, which is not the Talnode-E system of the instant claims. While examiner notes paragraph 44 of the instant detailed disclosure refers to this data as data collected on Talnode-E compositions, as presented, the examiner cannot be certain the instant disclosure provides support for this modification, and therefore the modification is considered new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Interpretation
For the purposes of claim interpretation, the definitions attributed to the words “about” and/or “substantially” (“intended to encompass variations up to ±10% of the stated value”) listed on page 15, paragraph 53 of the instant specification will be applied herein.
The pressures stated in claim 12 will be interpreted in view of paragraph 39 of the instant disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The instant disclosure disc=uses a Talnode-E composition. However, the conductivity range for the Talnode-E system in claim 10, located in paragraph 17 of the instant disclosure, has been modified to correct a typographical error from “0 ~ 2 x 10 S/cm” to “1 ~ 5 x 101 S/cm”, based on the contents of Figure 6. However, the labels of Figure 6 indicate this is for a Talnode-C system, which is not the Talnode-E system of the instant claims. While examiner notes paragraph 44 of the instant detailed disclosure refers to this data as data collected on Talnode-E compositions, as presented, the examiner cannot be certain the instant disclosure provides support for this modification, and therefore had procession of the claimed invention.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sowata (WO 2020116324 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sowata teaches a solid state battery anode composition (an all-solid-state lithium-ion battery comprising a negative electrode mixture, [0011]) comprising a graphitic material (wherein the negative electrode mixture layer contains […] graphite particles with a non-aggregated structure, [0011]) and a solid electrolyte material (a solid electrolyte; [0011]), wherein the graphitic material is provided in the form of a ground primary graphite particle (graphite particles with a non-aggregated structure, [0011] and graphite particles E: Coal-based coke was crushed using a bantam mill, [0052]). The examiner notes the former portion teaches the particles are primary particles, while the graphite particles are artificial graphite particles that have been milled prior to their use in an active material mixture. Sowata teaches the ground primary particles have a particle size D50 in the range of 4 to 6 microns (Graphite particles E: Coal-based coke was crushed using a bantam mill […[ and carbon particles with a D50 of 5 μm were obtained by airflow classification using a turbo classifier, [0052]) and a surface area (BET) of 2 to 9 m2/g (BET specific surface area of the graphite particles is 1.0 m2/g or more and 9.0 m2/g or less, [0011]; Table 1, entry 5, corresponding to the graphite particles in [0052] is listed as having a BET of 5.0 m2/g). The examiner notes the values for surface area value and the particle size taught by Sowata lie within the instant ranges and therefore anticipate them. See MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 4, Sowata teaches the anode composition of claim 1. Sowata, in Table 1, entry 5, teaches a graphite particle with a doo2 of 0.3365 nm. The examiner notes this corresponds to the composition taught in [0052], and corresponds to a d002 of 3.365 Å. The examiner notes this lies within the instant range of d002 and therefore anticipates it. See MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 6, Sowata teaches the anode composition of claim 1, wherein the solid electrolyte material comprises a sulphide-based glass (examples of sulfide-based solid electrolyte include sulfide glass [… and] sulfide glass ceramics, [0030]).
Regarding claim 8, Sowata teaches the anode composition of claim 1. Sowata teaches the negative electrode mixture has the proportions of 35% or more by mass and 80% or less by mass negative electrode active material, wherein the negative electrode material comprises graphite particles and 19% or more and 64% by mass or less of solid electrolyte, and 0.1% or more and less than 5.0% by mass of the conductive additive ([0011]). Sowata also teaches an example (Table 1, Comparative Example 9) where the composition is 87% graphitic material, 10% solid electrolyte, and 3% conductive aid. The examiner notes these values lie within the instant ranges, and therefore anticipate them. See MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 15, the instant claim is drawn to a method for making a solid-state anode, the method comprising: providing an anode composition that comprises a graphitic material and a solid electrolyte material, wherein the graphitic material is in the form of ground primary graphite particles; and forming a battery anode with the anode composition.
Sowata teaches a solid state battery anode composition (a negative electrode mixture, [0011]) comprising a graphitic material ([0011]) and a solid electrolyte material ([0011]), wherein the graphitic material is provided in the form of a ground primary graphite particle ([0011] teaches the graphite particles are in the form of primary particles, while [0052] teaches the graphite particles are ground). Sowata teaches that the preparation of the negative electrode mixture layer consists of mixing, graphite particles, which are the negative electrode active material, a solid electrolyte, and a conductive additive, milled, then press molded to make a negative electrode mixture layer ([0066]).
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.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sowata.
Regarding claim 3, the instant claim is drawn to the anode composition of claim 1, wherein the ground primary graphite particles have a surface area (BET) of 7 to 9 m2/g.
Sowata teaches the anode composition of claim 1. Sowata teaches the ground primary graphite particles have a BET specific surface area of the graphite particles is 1.0 m2/g or more and 9.0 m2/g or less ([0011]). The examiner notes the range taught by Sowata encompasses the range taught by the instant claim. It has been held that, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the surface area range from the prior art range, because the prior art teaches the desired property/utility over the entire range.
Regarding claim 12, the instant claim is drawn to the anode composition of claim 1, wherein the anode composition has a bulk resistance of: (i) about 359.5 Ω at 100MPa; (ii) about 94.7 Ω at 300MPa; or (iii) about 73.5 Ω at 500MPa.
Sowata teaches the anode composition of claim 1. Sowata does not explicitly teach the bulk resistance of the material.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized the anode composition taught by Sowata has a bulk resistance of: (i) about 359.5 Ω at 100MPa; (ii) about 94.7 Ω at 300MPa; or (iii) about 73.5 Ω at 500MPa. Sowata, as outlined in claim 1, above, teaches the anode composition, and all of the properties of the graphitic material. It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I). In the instant case, the graphite materials of Sowata have substantially identical properties, with the lone exception of being artificial graphite ([0052]) instead of being natural in the instant case (paragraph 36). However, the examiner notes that the instant material has been benchmarked against over 200 commercial graphite sources with a particle size of 10 μm to 20 μm, utilizing the same electrolyte and production protocols (paragraph 42). As such, the properties that matter in the anode composition for impedance measurements (the result of which determines the bulk resistance measurements) are those of the graphite material, with a standardized electrolyte. Since Sowata teaches all the properties of the graphite material of claim 1, which the examiner notes are the only properties that claim 12 indicates are importance to get the claimed bulk resistance values, and teaches the same negative electrode composition (including the electrolyte), the material of Sowata inherently would have the same bulk resistances as the anode composition of the instant claim.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sowata, in view of Toshio et al.(EP 0869566 A2; Henceforth, Toshio) and Zaghib et al. (US 200503207966 A1; Henceforth, Zaghib).
Regarding claim 5, the instant claim is drawn to the anode composition of claim 1, wherein the ground primary graphite particles have XRD characteristics of each of a d002 > 3.35 Å, an Lc of >1000 Å, and an La of >1000 Å, and a purity of >99.9%. While not directly motivated, the crystallinity (“graphitization”) of the graphite is noted as an important aspect of the claimed invention (page 11, paragraph 43). The examiner notes the method of purification of the primary ground graphite particles is not described.
Sowata teaches the anode composition of claim 1, and teaches an example of d002 less that is 0.3365 nm (Table 1, entry 5). Sowata does not teach the La, Lc or purity of the graphitic particles.
Toshio teaches a graphite material for use in a negative electrode of a lithium-ion secondary battery (Abstract) using ground carbon material that is graphitized (Abstract). Comparative Example 1 (page 14, column 25, lines 16-40) uses a graphite base material, which, after processing, has a d002 of 3.355 nm, an La of at least 100 nm, and an Lc of at least 100 nm. Toshio teaches that the crystal parameters function as a degree of graphitization of the material, and are desired for the improvement of the battery (page 9, column 15, lines 26-29), especially in terms of charge-discharge capacities (page 2, column 3, lines 14-19). The examiner notes the value for d002 is within the claimed range and therefore anticipates it. Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001). See MPEP 2131. Toshio does not teach the purity of the material.
Zaghib teaches a method for preparing graphite particles (Claim 1) for use in a carbon-lithium anode ([0001]) for a battery, such as a lithium-ion battery ([0029]). Zaghib teaches the graphite particles made through this process have a d002 ranging between 3.35 and 3.38 Å, surface area between 0.4 to 55 m2/g, and a purity ranging between 98.5 to 99.99% ([0014-0017]). Example 12 ([0086-0090]) was shown to have a purity of 99.99% after this process ([0088]). The examiner notes the value for purity is within the claimed range and therefore anticipates it. Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001). See MPEP 2131. Zaghib teaches this method can remove impurities after grinding, permitting a better size distribution of the particles ([0021]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to create a solid-state battery with a graphitic material and a solid electrolyte, as taught by Sowata wherein the ground primary graphite particles have a d002 > 3.35 Å, an Lc of >1000 Å, and an La of >1000 Å, as taught by Toshio, and a purity of >99.9%, as taught by Zaghib. The examiner notes the prior art range for Lc and La taught by Toshio overlap or encompass the claimed range for the same parameter. It has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed range from the prior art range, because the prior art teaches the desired property over the entire range. There would have been a motivation to use the graphite particles with the degree of crystallinity (represented by the d002, Lc and La values), as taught by Toshio, with the purification methods taught by Zaghib to remove impurities after the desired size distribution had been established, to generate a graphitic material that would improve the charge-discharge capabilities of the resulting battery.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sowata in view of Ahn et al. (US 20250273678 A1, which claims foreign priority to KR 10-2018-0059800, filed 5/25/2018; Henceforth, Ahn).
Regarding claim 7, Sowata teaches the anode composition of claim 6. Sowata does not explicitly teach the sulphide-based glass: (i) is chosen from the group of Li2S-SiS2, Li2S-P2S5 and Li2S-B2S3; or (ii) comprises Li2S-P2S5.
Ahn teaches a carbon-based negative electrode active material for use in an all-solid-type battery ([0006]), wherein the solid electrolyte includes a sulphide-based solid electrolyte ([0011]). Ahn teaches specific examples of suitable sulphide-based solid electrolytes that include glass solid electrolytes including Li2S-P2S5, B2S3-Li2S, and Li2S-SiS2-LiI ([0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anode composition of Sowata by utilizing Li2S-P2S5 as the sulfur-based glass electrolyte, as taught by Sowata. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the reasonable expectation that the simple substitution of the sulfur-based glass solid electrolyte in the anode composition of Sowata for Li2S-P2S5 would have yielded predictable results, since Ahn demonstrates its use in an analogous all-solid stated battery utilizing a carbon-based negative electrode active material composition. See MPEP 2143 (I) B.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sowata, in view of Yata et al. (ECS trans., 2011, 33, 45; Henceforth, Yata).
Regarding claim 9, the instant claim is drawn to the anode composition of claim 1, wherein the composition provides, in half cell measurements using the Current Rest Method, an equilibrium component of: (i) less than about 60 Ohm; or (ii) less than 54 Ohm.
Sowata teaches the anode composition of claim 1. Sowata does not teach the equilibrium component of the half cell measurements.
Yata teaches a method to evaluate the current-rest method resistances of positive and negative electrodes using a Four-Electrode cell (page 2, paragraph 1). The negative electrode active material is graphite, spread on a copper foil (page 46, paragraph 7). Yata teaches the negative current-rest method resistance has an ohmic contribution of ~2.5 Ω and a relaxation component (corresponding to the equilibrium component of the instant application) of ~ 3.5 Ω (3.70, 3.39, 3.30 Ω across 3 different positive electrode materials; Figure 2; page 48, paragraphs 1-3). The examiner notes this method isolates the contributions of only the negative electrode, and would be functionally similar to that obtained by a half-cell measurement. Since the taught example is a point within the claimed range, it is anticipated. UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). See MPEP 2131.03.
Thus, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the current-rest method measurement on an electrode with a graphitic active material, as taught by Yata, with the anode composition of Sowata, in the same field of endeavor, to create an anode composition for a solid state battery. There would have been a motivation to use the graphite particles to form a negative electrode active material, since Yata teaches that graphite-based negative electrode active materials have a low equilibrium component in half cell measurements, as measured by the current rest method.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sowata, and further in view of Han et al. (US 20140099551 A1; Henceforth, Han).
Regarding claim 10, the instant claim is drawn to the anode composition of claim 1, wherein the solid-state battery anode composition of the present invention provides a conductivity of 1 ~ 5 x 101 S/cm, over a compression density range of 0.5 ~ 2 g/cm3.
Sowata teaches the anode composition of claim 1. Sowata does not teach the conductivity nor compression density range.
Han teaches an anode material comprising a mixture of crystalline graphite particles and amorphous carbon ([0010]), Han teaches that the crystalline graphite particles have a conductivity of between 10 and 200 S/cm ([0017]), at a compression density of 1.4 to 1.6 g/cc ([0017]). These graphite particles have the same conductivity of the amorphous carbon used and a similar internal structure, leading to enhanced output characteristics and increased battery lifespans ([0017]). Comparative example 5 teaches a graphite having a powder conductivity of 50 S/cm at a powder density of 1.5 g/cc ([0072]) for use in an anode composition for a battery. Additionally, since the taught example is a point within the claimed range, it is anticipated. UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). See MPEP 2131.03.
Thus, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the ground primary graphite particles taught by Han in the anode composition of Sowata, in the same field of endeavor, to create an anode composition for a solid state battery. There would have been a motivation to use the graphite particles to form an anode composition with conductivity values in the instant range, since Han teaches graphite having these sulfide conductivity values help improve the output characteristics of the resulting battery ([0017]),
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sowata, and further in view of Rui et al. (CN 109704324 A; Henceforth, Rui).
Regarding claim 11, the instant claim is drawn to the anode composition of claim 1, wherein the graphitic material has a degree of graphitization of greater than about 96%.
Sowata teaches the anode composition of claim 1. Sowata does not teach the degree of graphitization explicitly.
Rui teaches a graphitic electrode material, with a degree of graphitization between 93 and 97% ([0008]). Rui teaches using highly graphitized carbon material has the effect of improving battery performance, particularly the energy density and cycle stability ([0010]). Rui teaches an example (Example 5, [0086] and Table 2) with a degree of graphitization of 97.0%. Since the taught example is a point within the claimed range, it is anticipated. UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). See MPEP 2131.03.
Thus, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a graphitic material with a high degree of graphitization, as taught by Rui, with the anode composition of Sowata, in the same field of endeavor, to create an anode composition for a solid state battery. There would have been a motivation to use the graphite particles with a high degree of graphitization, since Rui teaches using highly graphitized carbon material has the effect of improving battery performance, particularly the energy density and cycle stability ([0010]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sowata in view of Maeyama et al. (US 11791452 B2, claims foreign priority to WO 2019150559, published 8/9/2019; Henceforth, Maeyama).
Regarding claim 13, the instant claim is drawn to the anode composition of claim 1, wherein the anode composition provides, in half-cell measurements, a capacity of: (i) greater than 90% at 3C; or (ii) about 91.6% at 3C.
Sowata teaches the anode composition of claim 1. Sowata does not teach the capacity of the composition.
Maeyama teaches a solid-state battery utilizing hard carbon as an anodic active material ([196]), a sulfide solid electrolyte material in the form of a glass ceramic ([168]), and a lithium transition metal composite oxide cathodic material ([075-076]). This composition, when assembled into a battery, had a capacity retention (at 3C, normalized with the 0.1C value) of 88%. The examiner notes that this is within the range established by the plus and minus 10% of item (ii), which is additionally claimed (see the Claim Interpretation section above).
Thus, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the solid electrolyte and cathodic materials taught by Maeyama in combination with the ground primary graphite particles taught by Sowata, in the same field of endeavor, to create an anode composition for a solid state battery. The examiner notes the prior art value for the capacity retention is within the claimed range and thus anticipates it. Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001). See MPEP 2131. There would have been a motivation to incorporate the solid electrolyte of Maeyama with the graphitic material taught by Sowata to create an anodic material which exhibits superior capacity retention at high C-rates.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sowata in view of Liang and Rangasamy (US 20150295241 A1; Henceforth, Liang).
Regarding claim 14, the instant claim is drawn to the anode composition of claim 1, wherein the composition provides, in half cell measurements, a discharge profile substantially free of polarization effects.
Sowata teaches the anode composition of claim 1. Sowata does not teach discharge profiles being substantially free from polarization effects.
Liang teaches an all-solid state battery with an anode comprising Li, a cathode comprising carbon monofluoride and graphite, and a solid electrolyte of Li3PS4 (Abstract, [0026]). When made into a battery, the discharge profiles exhibited very minimal polarization, which is attributed to the use of solid-state electrolytes having better transport properties at elevated temperatures and better interfacial kinetics ([0041]).
Thus, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the solid electrolyte taught by Liang in combination with the ground primary graphite particles taught by Sowata, in the same field of endeavor, to create an anode composition for a solid state battery with minimal polarization effects. As taught by Liang, the use of solid-state electrolytes is known in the field to have lower polarization effects due to its better transport properties and interfacial kinetics, and thus there would have been a motivation to utilize the utilize the solid-state electrolyte taught by Liang in the composition of Sowata in order to create an anode composition with reduced polarization effects in the half-cell or full battery discharge profiles.
Double Patenting
[070] 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).
[071] 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).
[072] 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.
[073] 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 1-4, 6-8, 12 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12424627 (Henceforth, US’627) in view of Ahn.
Regarding claim 1, the instant claim is drawn to a solid state battery anode composition comprising a graphitic material and a solid electrolyte material, wherein the graphitic material is provided in the form of a ground primary graphite particle.
Claim 1 of US’627 teaches the use of secondary particles, comprised of an aggregate of primary ground graphite particles, as an anode material. Claim 15 of US’627 teaches a method of making an anode material, the method comprising grinding graphite material to produce ground primary graphite particles. US’627 does not teach the use of solid electrolyte with the ground primary graphite particles to form an anode material. Ahn teaches the formation of a negative electrode active material utilizing a solid electrolyte ([0002]). Ahn teaches that the use of solid electrolytes has battery performance advantages including safety, high energy density, high output and long life, a simple manufacturing process, a large scale/compact design and low cost ([0003]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anode composition recited in claims 1 and 15 of US’627 to include the solid electrolyte taught by Ahn in order to improve safety, increase the energy density, output and battery life, and lower the cost of the resulting battery.
Regarding claim 3, the instant claim is drawn to the anode composition of claim 1, wherein the ground primary particles have a surface area (BET) of 7 to 9 m2/g.
Claims 1 and 15 of US’627 and Ahn teach the anode composition of claim 1. Claim 17 of US’627 teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the ground primary particles have a surface area of 7 to 9 m2/g.
Regarding claim 4, the instant claim is drawn to the anode composition of claim 1, wherein the ground primary graphite particles have XRD characteristics of one or more of a d002 > 3.35 Å, an Lc > 1000 Å, and an La of > 1000 Å.
Claims 1 and 15 of US’627 and Ahn teach the anode composition of claim 1. Claim 20 of US’627 teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the ground primary particles wherein the ground primary graphite particles have XRD characteristics of one or more of a d002 > 3.35 Å, an Lc > 1000 Å, and an La of > 1000 Å.
Regarding claim 6, the instant claim is drawn to the anode composition of claim 1, wherein the solid electrolyte material comprises a sulphide-based glass.
Claims 1 and 15 of US’627 and Ahn teach the anode composition of claim 1. Ahn teaches the use of a sulfide-based glass solid electrolyte material ([0046]).
Regarding claim 7, the instant claim is drawn to the anode composition of claim 6, wherein the sulphide-based glass: (i) is chosen from the group of Li2S-SiS2, Li2S-P2S5 and Li2S-B2S3; or (ii) comprises Li2S-P2S5.
Claims 1 and 15 of US’627 and Ahn teach the anode composition of claim 6. Ahn teaches the anode composition of claim 6, where the sulphide-based glass included Li2S-P2S5, B2S3-Li2S, and Li2S-SiS2-LiI ([0046]).
Regarding claim 8, the instant claim is drawn to the anode composition of claim 1, wherein the anode composition comprises a graphitic material and a solid electrolyte with the following proportions: (i) Graphitic material 70 to 90 wt %; and (ii) solid-electrolyte material 10 to 30%.
Claims 1 and 15 of US’627 and Ahn teach the anode composition of claim 1. Ahn teaches an anode composition of claim 1, with the proportions of 84% graphite material by weight, 15% solid-electrolyte in the form of Li2S-P2S5 by weight, and 1% conductive material in the form of carbon black by weight (Examples 4-6 in Table 1, page 7).
Regarding claim 12, the instant claim is drawn to the anode composition of claim 1, wherein the anode composition has a bulk resistance of: (i) about 359.5 Ω at 100MPa; (ii) about 94.7 Ω at 300MPa; or (iii) about 73.5 Ω at 500MPa.
Claims 1 and 15 of US’627 and Ahn teach the anode composition of claim 1. Ahn and US’627 do not teach the bulk resistance of the graphitic material.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized the anode composition taught by US’627 has a bulk resistance of: (i) about 359.5 Ω at 100MPa; (ii) about 94.7 Ω at 300MPa; or (iii) about 73.5 Ω at 500MPa. US’627, as outlined in claim 1, above, teaches the anode composition, and all of the properties of the graphitic material. It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I). The examiner notes that the instant material has been benchmarked against over 200 commercial graphite sources with a particle size of 10 μm to 20 μm, utilizing the same electrolyte and production protocols (paragraph 42). As such, the properties that matter in the anode composition for impedance measurements (the result of which determines the bulk resistance measurements) are those of the graphite material, when using an identical electrolyte. Since US’627 teaches all the properties of the graphite material of claim 1, which the examiner notes, based on the instant disclosure, are the distinguishing factors to get the claimed bulk resistance values, the anode composition of US’627 and Ahn inherently would have the same bulk resistances as the anode composition of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 15, the instant claim is drawn to a method for making a solid-state anode, the method comprising: providing an anode composition that comprises a graphitic material and a solid electrolyte material, wherein the graphitic material is in the form of ground primary graphite particles; and forming a battery anode with the anode composition.
Claim 1 of US’627 teaches the use of secondary particles, comprised of an aggregate of primary ground graphite particles, as an anode material. Claim 15 of US’627 teaches a method of making an anode material, the method comprising grinding graphite material to produce ground primary graphite particles. US’627 does not teach the use of solid electrolyte with the ground primary graphite particles to form an anode material. Ahn teaches a solid state battery anode composition (complex particles for a negative electrode active material for an all-solid type battery; [0007]) comprising a graphitic material ([0007]) and a solid electrolyte material ([0007]), wherein the graphitic material is provided in the form of a ground primary graphite particle ([0031]). The examiner notes that, in [0030], Ahn teaches that, in one embodiment, the composite particles may be made of secondary particles resulting from agglomeration of graphite materials in primary particle form, which implies that the graphite particles mentioned in [0031] are primary particles. Ahn additionally teaches manufacturing negative electrodes with these complex particles, comprising graphite material, solid electrolyte, and conductive material ([0081], in view of Table 1, page 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anode composition recited in claims 1 and 15 of US’627 to include the solid electrolyte taught by Ahn in order to improve safety, increase the energy density, output and battery life, and lower the cost of the resulting battery, and form a battery anode with the resulting composition.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12424627 (Henceforth, US’627) in view of Ahn and Zaghib.
Regarding claim 5, the instant claim is drawn to the anode composition of claim 1, wherein the ground primary graphite particles have XRD characteristics of each of a d002 > 3.35 Å, an Lc of >1000 Å, and an La of >1000 Å, and a purity of > 99.9%.
Claims 1 and 15 of US’627 and Ahn teach the anode composition of claim 1. Claim 20 of US’627 is drawn to the method of claim 15, wherein the ground primary particles wherein the ground primary graphite particles have XRD characteristics of one or more of a d002 > 3.35 Å, an Lc > 1000 Å, and an La of > 1000 Å. Ahn and US’627 do not teach the purity.
Zaghib teaches a method for preparing graphite particles (Claim 1) for use in a carbon-lithium anode ([0001]) or a battery, such as a lithium-ion battery ([0029]). Zaghib teaches the graphite particles made through this process have a d002 ranging between 3.35 and 3.38 Å, surface area between 0.4 to 55 m2/g, and a purity ranging between 98.5 to 99.99% ([0014-0017]). Example 12 ([0086-0090]) was shown to have a purity of 99.99% after this process ([0088]). Zaghib teaches this method can remove impurities after grinding, permitting a better size distribution of the particles ([0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anode composition recited in claims 1 and 15 of US’627 to include the solid electrolyte taught by Ahn in order to improve safety, increase the energy density, output and battery life, and lower the cost of the resulting battery, and to utilize the purification method taught by Zaghib, in order to remove the impurities in the ground graphite particles after being ground to the ideal size distribution established by US’627.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12424627 (Henceforth, US’627) in view of Ahn and in further view of Yata.
Regarding claim 9, the instant claim is drawn to the anode composition of claim 1, wherein the composition provides, in half cell measurements using the Current Rest Method, an equilibrium component of: (i) less than about 60 Ohm; or (ii) less than 54 Ohm.
Claims 1 and 15 of US’627 and Ahn teach the anode composition of claim 1. Ahn and US’627 do not teach the equilibrium component of the half cell measurements.
Yata teaches a method to evaluate the current-rest method resistances of positive and negative electrodes using a Four-Electrode cell (page 2, paragraph 1). The negative electrode active material is graphite, spread on a copper foil (page 46, paragraph 7). Yata teaches the negative current-rest method resistance has an ohmic contribution of ~2.5 Ω and a relaxation component (corresponding to the equilibrium component of the instant application) of ~ 3.5 Ω (3.70, 3.39, 3.30 Ω across 3 different positive electrode materials; Figure 2; page 48, paragraphs 1-3). The examiner notes this method isolates the contributions of only the negative electrode, and would be functionally similar to that obtained by a half-cell measurement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anode composition recited in claims 1 and 15 of US’627 to include the solid electrolyte taught by Ahn in order to improve safety, increase the energy density, output and battery life, and lower the cost of the resulting battery, and measure the equilibrium component of the half cell measurement for the resulting composition by the Current Rest Method, as taught by Yata.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12424627 (Henceforth, US’627) in view of Ahn and in further view of Han.
Regarding claim 10, the instant claim is drawn to the anode composition of claim 1, wherein the solid-state battery anode composition of the present invention provides a conductivity of 1 ~ 5 x 101 S/cm, over a compression density range of 0.5 ~ 2 g/cm3. The examiner notes the conductivity range is objected to, and is interpreted as 10-102 S/cm to encompass the presented data, as outlined above.
Claims 1 and 15 of US’627 and Ahn teach the anode composition of claim 1. Ahn and US’627 do not teach the conductivity nor compression density range.
Han teaches an anode material comprising a mixture of crystalline graphite particles and amorphous carbon ([0010]), Han teaches that the crystalline graphite particles have a conductivity of between 10 and 200 S/cm ([0017]), at a compression density of 1.4 to 1.6 g/cc ([0017]). These graphite particles have the same conductivity of the amorphous carbon used and a similar internal structure, leading to enhanced output characteristics and increased battery lifespans ([0017]). Comparative example 5 teaches a graphite having a powder conductivity of 50 S/cm at a powder density of 1.5 g/cc ([0072]) for use in an anode composition for a battery.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anode composition recited in claims 1 and 15 of US’627 to include the solid electrolyte taught by Ahn in order to improve safety, increase the energy density, output and battery life, and lower the cost of the resulting battery, with the graphite having a conductivity of between 1-50 S/cm with a compression density of 1.4 to 1.6 g/cc, to help improve battery life and enhance output characteristics, as taught by Han.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12424627 (Henceforth, US’627) in view of Ahn and in further view of Rui.
Regarding claim 11, the instant claim is drawn to the anode composition of claim 1, wherein the graphitic material has a degree of graphitization of greater than about 96%.
Claims 1 and 15 of US’627 and Ahn teach the anode composition of claim 1. Ahn and US’627 do not teach the degree of graphitization explicitly.
Rui teaches a graphitic electrode material, with a degree of graphitization between 93 and 97% ([0008]). Rui teaches using highly graphitized carbon material has the effect of improving battery performance, particularly the energy density and cycle stability ([0010]). Rui teaches an example (Example 5, [0086] and Table 2) with a degree of graphitization of 97.0%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anode composition recited in claims 1 and 15 of US’627 to include the solid electrolyte taught by Ahn in order to improve safety, increase the energy density, output and battery life, and lower the cost of the resulting battery, with the graphite having a high degree of graphitization, in order to improve energy density and cycle stability, as taught by Rui.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12424627 (Henceforth, US’627) in view of Ahn and in further view of Maeyama.
Regarding claim 13, the instant claim is drawn to the anode composition of claim 1, wherein the anode composition provides, in half-cell measurements, a capacity of: (i) greater than 90% at 3C; or (ii) about 91.6% at 3C.
Claims 1 and 15 of US’627 and Ahn teach the anode composition of claim 1. Ahn and US’627 do not teach the capacity of the composition.
Maeyama teaches a solid-state battery utilizing hard carbon as an anodic active material ([196]), a sulfide solid electrolyte material in the form of a glass ceramic ([168]), and a lithium transition metal composite oxide cathodic material ([075-076]). This composition, when assembled into a battery, had a capacity retention (at 3C, normalized with the 0.1C value) of 88%. The examiner notes that this is within the range established by the plus and minus 10% of item (ii), which is additionally claimed (see the Claim Interpretation section above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anode composition recited in claims 1 and 15 of US’627 to include the solid electrolyte taught by Maeyama to create an anodic material which exhibits superior capacity retention at high C-rates, in order to improve safety, increase the energy density, output and battery life, as taught by Ahn.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12424627 (Henceforth, US’627) in view of Ahn and in further view of Liang.
Regarding claim 14, the instant claim is drawn to the anode composition of claim 1, wherein the composition provides, in half cell measurements, a discharge profile substantially free of polarization effects.
Claims 1 and 15 of US’627 and Ahn teach the anode composition of claim 1. Ahn and US’627 do not teach the discharge profiles being substantially free from polarization effects.
Liang teaches an all-solid state battery with an anode comprising Li, a cathode comprising carbon monofluoride and graphite, and a solid electrolyte of Li3PS4 (Abstract, [0026]). When made into a battery, the discharge profiles exhibited very minimal polarization, which is attributed to the use of solid-state electrolytes having better transport properties at elevated temperatures and better interfacial kinetics ([0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anode composition recited in claims 1 and 15 of US’627 to include the solid electrolyte taught by Liang, in order to create an anode composition with reduced polarization effects in the half-cell or full battery discharge profiles, while also improving safety, increase the energy density, output and battery life, as taught by Ahn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN P MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)272-9321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 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, Nicholas A Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/RPM/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
