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.
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 1, 4, 5, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui et al., CN 105932225 A, and further in view of Zhao et al., “A promising PEO/LAGP hybrid electrolyte prepared by a simple method for all-solid-state lithium batteries,” Solid State Ionics, 295, 2016, pg. 65–71.
Regarding Claim 1, Cui discloses an all-solid-state battery (all-solid-state secondary lithium battery [0012, 0027]), comprising:
a positive electrode including a positive electrode active material layer ([0018, 0024]);
a negative electrode including a negative electrode active material layer ([0018, 0035-0046]); and
a solid electrolyte layer located between the positive electrode active material layer and the negative electrode active material layer (all-solid electrolyte/PEO all-solid electrolyte [0032, 0050]),
wherein the negative electrode active material layer contains a titanium compound (lithium titanate [0018, 0046]), and
an inside of the negative electrode active material layer contains an LATGP compound represented by the following Expression (2): Li1+yAlyTizGe2-y-z(PO4)3 and 0<y<1 and 0<z<1 (layer includes a fast ion conductor, [0014-0017]; fast ion conductor may be Li1+aAlaTibGe2-a-b(PO4)3 wherein 0<a<1 and 0≤b<2 [0020]). Cui’s “a” and “b” variables are either the same range as claimed (see ranges for Cui’s “a” and instant claim “y”), or encompass the claimed range (see ranges for Cui’s “b” and instant claim “z”):
Claimed Expression (2): Li1+yAlyTizGe2-y-z(PO4)3 and 0<y<1 and 0<z<1
Cui: Li1+aAlaTibGe2-a-b(PO4)3 and 0<a<1 and 0≤b<2
Cui does not disclose the composition of the “PEO all-solid electrolyte” layer, and therefore does not disclose “the solid electrolyte layer contains an LAGP compound represented by the following Expression (1): Li1+xAlxGe2-x(PO4)3 and 0<x<1.” However, this limitation is taught by Zhao et al.
Zhao teaches an all-solid-state lithium battery may use PEO as a solid polymer electrolyte, but the electrolyte layer will not have high conductivity (pg. 65). Zhao teaches addition of Li1.5Al0.5Ge1.5(PO4)3 (LAGP) to the PEO electrolyte layer at various weight ratios (pg. 66; per the claimed Expression (1), x=0.5). When compared to a 100 wt% PEO electrolyte layer, an annealed 80 wt% PEO + 20 wt% LAGP composite electrolyte layer shows significant increases in conductivity and electrochemical stability, and also improves mechanical properties such as tensile strength and elongation at break (pg. 67-69).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the PEO/LAGP solid electrolyte layer of Zhao in the all-solid-state lithium battery of Cui, as Zhao teaches the PEO/LAGP composition increases conductivity, stability, and mechanical strength in the solid electrolyte layer.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Cui discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Cui discloses the negative electrode active material layer contains a carbon-based material (Cui, electrode layer includes a conductive agent [0008, 0035]; all conductive agents listed by Cui are carbon-based materials, see [0019]).
Regarding Claims 5 and 12, modified Cui discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Cui discloses the solid electrolyte layer (Zhao, PEO/LAGP solid electrolyte) has a porosity of 40% or less (Zhao, “LAGP particles are embedded in the PEO polymer uniformly, and covered by PEO membrane completely … No obvious porous structure can be observed from the surface or the cross-section of the hybrid electrolyte membrane” pg. 66-68, Figs. 3A-C).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Cui as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of He, CN 110098431 A.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Cui discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Cui teaches the titanium compound may be lithium titanate (Cui [0018]), but does not disclose the lithium titanate composition is Li4Ti5O12. However, this limitation is taught by He.
He teaches an all-solid state battery, wherein the negative electrode comprises a carbon-based material and lithium titanate as an active material (LTO/Li4Ti5O12 and carbon nanotubes [0037, 0048]). He teaches a combination of a LAGP-based solid electrolyte layer and the LTO/carbon negative electrode layer has high conductivity, a stable interface, and high cycle performance ([0048, 0078]).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Li4Ti5O12 as the lithium titanate compound in the negative electrode active material layer of modified Cui, and would have a reasonable expectation of success for doing so, since He teaches the lithium titanate composition Li4Ti5O12 is compatible carbon in a negative electrode layer, and also produces favorable conductivity and cycle performance when paired with a LAGP-based solid electrolyte layer.
The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2143.02).
Claims 3, 6-11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Cui, or in the alternative, modified Cui further in view of Tanaka et al., US 20210210780 A1.
Regarding Claims 3 and 6, modified Cui discloses all limitations as set forth above. Due to modified Cui disclosing the same base formula for LATGP as the claimed invention, with variables “a” and “b” either identical or overlapping the claimed ranges, it is the Examiner’s position that the limitations of Claims 3 and 6 (0.11≤y+z≤1 and 0.01≤z/y≤9) would be satisfied by at least some compositions of modified Cui’s LATGP. However, while the LATGP formula is disclosed by modified Cui, modified Cui does not disclose any LATGP compositions. Should the limitations of Claims 3 and 6 not be met by modified Cui with sufficient specificity, the following rejection in view of Tanaka also applies:
Tanaka teaches a LATGP may be used as a solid electrolyte in a battery, wherein LATGP has a general formula Li1+xAlxGe2-x-yTiy(PO4)3 ([0095]). Tanaka teaches the preferred compositions of the LATGP solid electrolyte are Li1.5Al0.5Ge1.0Ti0.5(PO4)3 and Li1.2Al0.2Ge1.3Ti0.5(PO4)3 ([0095]). Both of Tanaka’s preferred compositions satisfy the limitations of Claims 3 and 6 (Tanaka’s “y+z” values are 1.0 and 0.7, and “z/y” values are 1.0 and 2.5).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Li1.5Al0.5Ge1.0Ti0.5(PO4)3 or Li1.2Al0.2Ge1.3Ti0.5(PO4)3 composition taught by Tanaka, as the LATGP compound of modified Cui, as Tanaka teaches these compounds are preferred for use as a LATGP solid electrolyte in a battery.
The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding Claims 7-9, modified Cui discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Cui discloses the negative electrode active material layer contains a carbon-based material (Cui, electrode layer includes a conductive agent [0008, 0035]; all conductive agents listed by Cui are carbon-based materials, see [0019]).
Regarding Claims 10, 11, and 13-16, modified Cui discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Cui discloses the solid electrolyte layer (Zhao, PEO/LAGP solid electrolyte) has a porosity of 40% or less (Zhao, “LAGP particles are embedded in the PEO polymer uniformly, and covered by PEO membrane completely … No obvious porous structure can be observed from the surface or the cross-section of the hybrid electrolyte membrane” pg. 66-68, Figs. 3A-C).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Lee et al., US 20140178777 A1.
Lee teaches LATGP compounds for use as protective layer on an anode ([0031-0041]), see Formulas 1 and 2:
PNG
media_image1.png
808
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETHANY C GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-2475. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 0800 - 1730 MT.
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.
/BETHANY C GARCIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights