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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the mixture obtained from stage a)" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner has interpreted “the mixture from stage a)” as “a mixture obtained from mixing the solid electrolyte and the agent from step a)”. Claims 2-7 are rejected for being dependent from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uesugi et al. (US 20190312304 A1) in view of Xu et al. (Preparation of Li7P3S11 glass-ceramic electrolyte by dissolution-evaporation method for all-solid-state lithium ion batteries).
Regarding claim 1, Uesugi teaches a method for the preparation of a solid electrolyte [0001], comprising:
mixing a solid electrolyte chosen from sulfides with an agent comprising at least sulfur ([0082], Li5.8PS4.8Cl1.2, P2S5);
Uesegi does not teach steps b) adding the mixture obtained from stage a) to an organic solvent; and
c) recovering the solid electrolyte obtained from stage b).
However, Xu teaches a method of making a solid electrolyte (Section 1) with steps b) adding the mixture obtained from stage a) to an organic solvent (Section 2.1, THF, ACN); and
c) recovering the solid electrolyte obtained from stage b) (Section 2.1, dried to remove organic solvents).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Uesegi method for preparing a solid electrolyte by adding the steps outlined in the Xu method because pulverizing and mixing using the ball mill method ([0082], stated in the Uesegi method,) is tedious and difficult to obtain uniform products. However, by using the dissolution- evaporation method, the uniformity and stability of the solutions can ensure the homogeneity of precursors. (Xu et al. Section 1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Uesegi teaches the method of claim 1, the solid electrolyte chosen from sulfides is a compound represented by a compositional formula (1): Li7-x-2yPS6-x-yHax (where Ha represents halogen and is at least one kind of element of fluorine (F), chlorine (Cl), bromine (Br), and iodine (I)). In the compositional formula (1), the parameter x, which represents a molar ratio of the halogen element, is preferably 0.4 to 1.7 (Uesegi et al. [0031] - [0032]). This formula overlaps with the range stated in the first formula of claim 2. 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).
Regarding claim 3, modified Uesegi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the agent comprising at least sulfur is P2S5 (Uesegi et al. [0082]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Uesegi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the content of the agent comprising at least is around 1.15% by weight, with respect to the total weight of the mixture comprising the solid electrolyte chosen from sulfides and the agent comprising at least sulfur (Uesegi et al. [0085]). This value was obtained by converting the mol amount stated in Uesegi to wt%: “The respective powders were weighed such that the amount of P2S5 became 7 mol with respect to 100 mol of the compound powder represented by Li5.8PS4.8Cl1.2.”
7
m
o
l
P
2
S
5
*
444.5
g
P
2
S
5
1
m
o
o
l
P
2
S
5
=
3111.5
g
P
2
S
5
100
m
o
l
L
i
5.8
P
S
4.8
C
l
1.2
*
267.687
g
L
i
5.8
P
S
4.8
C
l
1.2
1
m
o
l
L
i
5.8
P
S
4.8
C
l
1.2
=
267687
g
L
i
5.8
P
S
4.8
C
l
1.2
3111.5
g
P
2
S
5
3111.5
g
P
2
S
5
+
267687
g
L
i
5.8
P
S
4.8
C
l
1.2
≈
1.15
w
t
%
P
2
S
5
Regarding claim 5, modified Uesegi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the organic solvent is an ether (Xu et al. Section 2.1, THF).
Regarding claim 6, modified Uesegi teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
d) drying the solid electrolyte obtained from stage c) at 80 °C (Xu et al. Section 2.1).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uesegi et al. in view of Xu et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shen et al. (Composite Electrode Ink Formulation for All Solid-State Batteries).
Regarding claim 7, modified Uesegi teaches preparing a solid electrolyte according to the method of claim 1. Uesegi does not teach a method for the preparation of a battery cell comprising a negative electrode, a positive electrode, and a separator, the method comprising:
preparing a solid electrolyte, forming the separator;
manufacturing the negative electrode and the positive electrode, existing in the form of inks; and
coating the negative electrode and positive electrode inks on the separator, the coatings being subsequently dried.
Shen et al., however, teaches a method for the preparation of a battery cell comprising a negative electrode, a positive electrode, and a separator (Shen et al. Introduction), the method comprising:
preparing a solid electrolyte, forming the separator (Shen et al. LLZO pellet preparation);
manufacturing the negative electrode and the positive electrode, existing in the form of inks (Shen et al. Electrochemical characterization); and
coating the negative electrode and positive electrode inks on the separator, the coatings being subsequently dried (Shen et al. Electrochemical characterization).
Since the modified Uesegi method of preparing a solid electrolyte is intended to be used to create a solid-state battery (Uesegi, [0001]), it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use any method to create this solid-state battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YVONNE WEI whose telephone number is (571)270-0870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5pm, Friday 7:30am-4pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/YVONNE WEI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights