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 § 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 1-8 are 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 phrase (emphasis added) “a rate of length of the longer side with respect to a length of the shorter side is 1.5 or more.” In general, a “rate” is considered to be a comparison of two different quantities which have different units relative to one another. However, the instant Claim (and the instant Specification) appears to be a mere characterization of the length of the longer side as compared to the length of the shorter side. Accordingly, Claim 1 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what constitutes a “rate of length” and how a “rate of length” is different from simply a “length.” For purposes of examination, it will be assumed simply that a length of the longer side with respect to a length of the shorter side is 1.5 or more. Proper clarification is required.
Claim 3 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 3 recites the phrase (emphasis added) “a void rate in the nonwoven fabric is 70% or more and 90% or less.” In general, a “rate” is considered to be a comparison of two different quantities which have different units relative to one another. However, the instant Claim (and the instant specification) appears to be a mere quantification of the percentage of voids in the nonwoven fabric (as especially evidenced by the fact that “void rate” in Claim 3 is quantified simply as a percentage). Accordingly, Claim 3 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what constitutes a “void rate” and how a “void rate” is different from simply a percentage of voids. For purposes of examination, it will be assumed that “void rate” is simply the percentage of voids present in the nonwoven fabric. Proper clarification is required.
Claim 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 7 recites the phrase (emphasis added) “the solid electrolyte is a molten salt which is in a solid state at 25°C.” Accordingly, Claim 7 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear how the solid electrolyte is a solid if it is explicitly stated as being a molten (i.e. non-solid) salt, or if “the solid electrolyte is a molten salt which is in a solid state at 25°C” is intended to mean that the solid electrolyte is a solid state form of a molten salt (wherein the solid state form exists at 25°C). Proper clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al. (JP 2016-031789, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes), and further in view of Huang et al. (US 2013/0143099) and Kim et al. (KR 1020170135180, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 1, Ueda teaches an all solid secondary battery (“all solid state battery”) ([0001], [0020]). As illustrated in Figure 1, Ueda teaches that the battery comprises an “electrode structure body” including a positive electrode current collector (2), a positive electrode active layer (3) (wherein (2) and (3), in combination, are interpreted to be a “cathode layer”), a negative electrode current collector (6), a negative electrode active layer (5) (wherein (5) and (6), in combination, are interpreted to be an “anode layer”), and a solid electrolyte layer (4) (“solid electrolyte layer arranged between the cathode layer and the anode layer”) ([0020]). As illustrated in Figure 1, the battery includes a “facing part,” wherein said facing part includes the areas of the battery wherein said cathode layer and said anode layer face each other. Ueda teaches that the solid electrolyte layer contains a nonwoven fabric (“nonwoven fabric”) having a solid electrolyte on the surface and inside the nonwoven fabric (“solid electrolyte arranged inside the nonwoven fabric”) ([0011], [0017]). Ueda teaches that the nonwoven fabric preferably exhibits a porosity of 75.8% or more and 85.5% or less ([0015]). As illustrated in Figure 1, all layers of the electrode structure body extend so as to be parallel with one another.
Ueda does not explicitly teach that in a plan view along a thickness direction, a shape of the facing part is a rectangular shape including a longer side and a shorter side, wherein the length of the longer side with respect to a length of the shorter side is 1.5 or more.
However, Huang teaches a secondary battery (Abstract, [0003]). As illustrated in Figures 2-3, the secondary battery is a rectangular battery which comprises a rectangular cell assembly therein ([0027]-[0028]). Huang teaches that the rectangular battery is structured, for example, such that the layers of the rectangular cell assembly have a length of 65 mm and a width being a multiple of 18 mm ([0030], Claim 8). Alternatively, Huang teaches that the rectangular battery is structured, for example, such that the layers of the cell assembly have both a length and a width which are a multiple of 18 mm ([0030], Claim 8). Huang teaches that a battery with such rectangular dimensions makes it useable for a power source of an external device ([0027]). Huang also teaches that the shape of a battery has a great effect upon the design and manufacture of its cell structure ([0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would construct the layers of the electrode structure body of Ueda so as to be rectangular with a length of 65 mm and a width being a multiple of 18 mm (thereby resulting in the facing part having a rectangular shape in a plan view along a thickness direction with a length of a “longer side” with respect to a length of a “shorter side” that may be 1.5 or more), as taught by Huang, or to be rectangular with both a length and a width which are a multiple of 18 mm, as also taught by Huang (thereby also resulting in the facing part having a rectangular shape in a plan view along a thickness direction with a length of a “longer side” with respect to a length of a “shorter side” that may be 1.5 or more), based not only on the final desired and/or required overall dimensions of the battery (wherein it is noted that per MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(b), changes in shape are a matter of design choice unless persuasive evidence is present to show that it is significant), but also because such rectangular dimensions would specifically render the battery useable as a power source of an external device, as taught by Huang. It is noted that in the case where the claimed range “overlaps or lies inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Furthermore, and as previously described, all layers of the electrode structure body extend so as to be parallel with one another. Accordingly, and in context of Ueda, as modified by Huang, in the plan view, an angle formed by a longer direction in the facing part and a fabric direction in the nonwoven fabric is 0°.
Ueda, as modified by Huang, does not explicitly teach that the all solid secondary battery is comprised in a vehicle.
However, Kim teaches an all solid state secondary battery (Abstract, [0001]). Kim teaches that all solid state secondary batteries are suitable for use as power sources for electric vehicles given their high theoretical energy density as compared to conventional lithium ion batteries ([0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize the all solid secondary battery of Ueda, as modified by Huang, as a power source in an electric vehicle (“vehicle”), as taught by Kim, given that all solid state secondary batteries are suitable for use as power sources for electric vehicles given their high theoretical energy density as compared to conventional lithium ion batteries.
Regarding Claim 2, Ueda, as modified by Huang and Kim, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), in the plan view, an angle formed by a longer direction in the facing part and a fabric direction in the nonwoven fabric is 0°.
Regarding Claim 3, Ueda, as modified by Huang and Kim, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the nonwoven fabric preferably exhibits a porosity (“void rate”) of 75.8% or more and 85.5% or less.
Regarding Claims 5-6, Ueda, as modified by Huang and Kim, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Furthermore, Ueda teaches that the solid electrolyte is, for example, an inorganic solid electrolyte which is, for example, a sulfide solid electrolyte ([0025]-[0028]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al. (JP 2016-031789, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes), and further in view of Huang et al. (US 2013/0143099) and Kim et al. (KR 1020170135180, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes) and Kauschke et al. (US 6,610,390).
Regarding Claim 4, Ueda, as modified by Huang and Kim, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Ueda, as modified by Huang and Kim, does not explicitly teach that in the nonwoven fabric, a tensile strength of the fabric direction is larger than a tensile strength of a direction orthogonal to the fabric direction.
However, Kauschke teaches a nonwoven fabric having a non-symmetrical bonding configuration (Abstract, col. 1 lines 14-18). Kausche teaches that the nonwoven fabric is useful in a separator for a battery (col. 10 lines 30-42). Kausche teaches that the non-symmetrical bonding configuration of the nonwoven fabric provides for a high tensile strength in the machine direction and a low tensile strength in the cross direction (which is orthogonal to the machine direction), while simultaneously providing for a high percent elongation in the cross direction and a low percent elongation in the machine direction (col. 3 lines 37-46). Furthermore, Kauschke teaches that the non-symmetrical bonding configuration helps retain softness, bulkiness, fiber tie down, abrasion resistance, bond strength, and bonding area characteristics of the nonwoven fabric (col. 5 lines 28-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would construct the nonwoven fabric of Ueda, as modified by Huang and Kim, with a non-symmetrical bonding configuration, as taught by Kauschke, given that such a bonding configuration would provide the nonwoven fabric with a high tensile strength in the machine direction (“fabric direction”) and a low tensile strength in an orthogonal cross direction (“a direction orthogonal to the fabric direction”), while simultaneously providing the nonwoven fabric with a high percent elongation in said orthogonal cross direction and a low percent elongation in said machine direction, all while helping retain softness, bulkiness, fiber tie down, abrasion resistance, bond strength, and bonding area characteristics of the nonwoven fabric.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al. (JP 2016-031789, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes), and further in view of Huang et al. (US 2013/0143099) and Kim et al. (KR 1020170135180, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes) and Alarco et al. (“The plastic-crystalline phase of succinonitrile as a universal matrix for solid-state ionic conductors,” provided by Applicant in the 05/14/25 IDS).
Regarding Claim 7, Ueda, as modified by Huang and Kim, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Ueda, as modified by Huang and Kim, does not explicitly teach that the solid electrolyte is a molten salt which is in a solid state at 25°C.
However, Alarco teaches a solid state electrolyte for use in a secondary battery (Abstract, 1st full paragraph of page 476, 1st full paragraph of page 480). Alarco teaches that the electrolyte comprises a plastic crystal solid matrix (i.e. succinonitrile) comprising an LiTFSI doping agent, wherein both the plastic crystal solid matrix and the LiTFSI doping agent exhibit ionic conductivity (2nd full paragraph of page 476, 1st full paragraph of page 480). Alarco teaches that the electrolyte is not only easily produced, but also exhibits high ionic conductivity as compared to conventional polymer-based solid electrolyte materials (Abstract, 2nd full paragraph of page 476, 1st full paragraph of page 480).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would use, as the solid electrolyte of Ueda, as modified by Huang and Kim, a plastic crystal solid matrix (i.e. succinonitrile) comprising an LiTFSI doping agent (wherein in this context, the LiTFSI doping agent is interpreted as “the solid electrolyte is a molten salt, which is in a solid state at 25°C,” especially given that the instant Claim does not explicitly preclude the presence of more than one solid electrolyte materials in the nonwoven fabric), as taught by Alarco, given that such a material is not only easily produced, but also exhibits high ionic conductivity as compared to conventional polymer-based solid electrolyte materials.
Regarding Claim 8, Ueda, as modified by Huang and Kim, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Ueda, as modified by Huang and Kim, does not explicitly teach that the solid electrolyte is a plastic crystal solid electrolyte.
However, Alarco teaches a solid state electrolyte for use in a secondary battery (Abstract, 1st full paragraph of page 476, 1st full paragraph of page 480). Alarco teaches that the electrolyte comprises a plastic crystal solid matrix (i.e. succinonitrile) comprising an LiTFSI doping agent, wherein both the plastic crystal solid matrix and the LiTFSI doping agent exhibit ionic conductivity (2nd full paragraph of page 476, 1st full paragraph of page 480). Alarco teaches that the electrolyte is not only easily produced, but also exhibits high ionic conductivity as compared to conventional polymer-based solid electrolyte materials (Abstract, 2nd full paragraph of page 476, 1st full paragraph of page 480).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would use, as the solid electrolyte of Ueda, as modified by Huang and Kim, a plastic crystal solid matrix (i.e. succinonitrile) comprising an LiTFSI doping agent (wherein in this context, the plastic crystal solid matrix (i.e. succinonitrile) is interpreted as “the solid electrolyte is a plastic crystal solid electrolyte,” especially given that the instant Claim does not explicitly preclude the presence of more than one solid electrolyte materials in the nonwoven fabric), as taught by Alarco, given that such a material is not only easily produced, but also exhibits high ionic conductivity as compared to conventional polymer-based solid electrolyte materials.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST M-F.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights