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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 2 and Species C in the reply filed on 5/20/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-17, 22-23, 35-37 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group and Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/20/26.
Claims 18-21, 24-34 are under examination.
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 18, 20-21, and 24-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20170088471-A1 (R) in view of JP-2019054012-A (M).
Regarding claim 18, R teaches a method of making a component comprising the steps [0107-110] of: combining particles of a ceramic material (Li2MoO4, [0108]) with a liquid phase (poly(propylene) carbonate resin, ethanol [0108]) to form a slurry; depositing the slurry (screen printing, [0109]) onto a sheet (PET, [0109]); after deposition of the slurry onto the sheet, wetting the particles of the ceramic material with a solvent (water vapor, [0110]) that is configured to partially solubilise the ceramic material (water is absorbed, [0110]); and sintering the wetted particles of the ceramic material by applying pressure (70 to 100 MPa, [0110]) and heat to the particles (120°C, [0110]) to evaporate the solvent and densify the ceramic material (relative density increases as a result of cold sintering [0082]).
R further teaches this method can be used to produce components for Li-ion batteries.
R does not teach the sheet has a plurality of through-thickness apertures.
M teaches an electrode sheet for an all-solid-state battery with a sheet-like porous substrate which is filled with an electrode material, solid electrolyte material, and an adhesive [0009]. M teaches the benefit to using a woven porous substrate for an electrode sheet is that it allows for excellent retention of the electrode material and excellent surface smoothness [0028-29]. M teaches the porous substrate may be formed from PET [0029]. M teaches the benefit to porous substrate is that it allows for the optimal balance of strength and capacity to hold electrode active material [0031].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant to produce a component using the woven porous substrate of M as the sheet in the process of R in order to produce a component with improved retention of electrode material, surface smoothness, and strength. It would have been obvious to do because R teaches a method that may be applied to producing an electrode for an Li battery which uses PET as a substrate and M teaches form for a substrate formed from PET for an electrode that has known benefits. The use of the sheet of M in the process of R would then amount to no more than the replacement of one known form of PET for another known form that has known benefits in the field of battery electrodes.
The use of this sheet would mean that the combination of R and M involves providing a substrate with through-hole apertures, as the examiner is interpreting that a porous substrate would have through-hole apertures.
The sintering is performed at 120°C which is 20°C above the boiling point of water, which is the solvent. This meets the requirement of claim 18 where the sintering occurs no more than 200°C above the boiling point of the solvent.
Claim 18 is therefore unpatentable over R and M because the combination explained above teaches all of the recited process steps of claim 18.
Regarding claim 20, R teaches the step of wetting the particles of the ceramic material with a solvent comprises applying the solvent to the particles in the form of a vapour of the solvent (water vapor, [0110]).
Regarding claim 21, R teaches the liquid phase comprises a polymeric binder phase (poly(propylene) carbonate resin) and the method further comprises the step, after the step of depositing the slurry onto the sheet and before the step of wetting the particles of the ceramic material with the solvent, of heating the slurry to reduce the concentration of the polymeric binder phase in the slurry (binder burnout, [0109]).
Regarding claim 24, R teaches the sintering temperature is 120°C [0110], which is less than 300°C.
Regarding claim 25, R teaches the applied pressure is 70 to 100 MPa [0110], which is less than 300 MPa.
Regarding claim 26, R teaches the step of sintering the particles of the ceramic material by applying pressure and heat to evaporate the solvent and densify the ceramic material takes 12-15 minutes [0110] which is less than 60 minutes.
Regarding claim 27, R teaches the particles of LMO have a D95 size of 50 μm [0031]. This encompasses the claimed range of D50 of 10 μm to 50 μm, so claim 27 is unpatentable.
Regarding claim 28, R teaches the slurry is deposited via printing through a stainless-steel screen with a pattern [0110]. It is the examiner’s position that this is equivalent to the slurry being deposited through a mask, so claim 28 is unpatentable.
Regarding claim 29, R teaches the slurry is printed through a stainless-steel screen with a pattern [0110], which is a screen-printing process.
Regarding claim 30, R teaches the solvent is water [0110].
Regarding claim 31, M teaches the substrate is to be used an electrode for an all-solid state battery cell [0031]. R teaches the process can be used as a method of producing Li-ion batteries [0046]. R teaches in such a use-case the ceramic would be cathode and anode active materials [0046]. Therefore, the combination of R and M would be a process to produce an electrode for an ASSB, where the ceramic is an electrode active material, so claim 31 is unpatentable.
Regarding claim 32, R does not teach the slurry comprises an ion-conductive material.
M teaches the addition of solid electrolyte material to the positive electrode layer [0102]. M teaches a sulfide solid electrolyte material is preferred to reduce interfacial resistance with the positive electrode active material [0053]. M teaches the solid electrolyte material will have high ion conductivity [0053].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to add the sulfide solid electrolyte material of M to the electrode formed by the process of R in order to reduce interfacial resistance. It would have been obvious to do because M teaches a clear benefit to adding a solid electrolyte material to the active material layer in an ASSB. The process of R as explained in the rejection of claim 18 is applied to produce an electrode for an ASSB, so such a modification would be no more than adding a known component for electrodes with known benefits with a reasonable chance of success.
In this case, the combination of R and M would then teach the addition of an ion-conductive material to the electrode of R and M, meaning the slurry would comprise an ion-conductive material.
Claim 32 is therefore unpatentable of R and M.
Regarding claim 33, R does not teach an electronically-conductive constituent in the slurry in the form of particles that is distinct from the ceramic. Therefore, the amount of any solid electronically-conductive constituent in the slurry is less than 10 vol% relative to the total volume of the particles of electrode active material, so claim 33 is unpatentable.
Regarding claim 34, the example cited in [0107-110] teaches a method of making a capacitor [0113-116], which is an energy storage device. Therefore, claim 34 is unpatentable.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20170088471-A1 (R), JP-2019054012-A (M), and in further view of KR-20180028924-A (W).
Regarding claim 19, R teaches the step of wetting the particles of the ceramic material with a solvent comprises applying the solvent to the particles in the form of a vapour of the solvent (water vapor, [0110]).
R does not teach the step of wetting the particles of the ceramic material with a solvent comprises applying the solvent to the particles by means of a spraying process.
W teaches the adhesion of an active material layer can be improved by dissolving the binder polymer by either spraying the solvent or applying it via a vapor phase [0053-54]. This means that W teaches spraying the solvent and applying it via vapor phase are interchangeable in the art of applying solvent to a binder-containing mixture.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant to spray the water of R on the printed ceramic-binder mixture in place of exposing it to water vapor because W teaches the processes are known equivalents in the art of wetting slurry layers.
This substitution of processes renders claim 19 unpatentable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI whose telephone number is (571)272-6917. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M..
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights