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 § 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, 2, 4, 5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being taught by Yuuki Fujita WO 2018025649 A1 with attached machine translation.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected as having been taught by Fujita: Fujita teaches a solid-state secondary battery, comprising an electrode laminate made up of a positive electrode comprising a positive current collector and active material layer; a negative electrode, comprising a negative current collector and lithium metal as an active material; and a solid-state electrolyte (abstract). The battery laminate is housed in an outer case of packaging made of the current collector material (paragraph 15). The electrode laminates are surrounded by an insulative layer, in an end sealing section (figure item 18, paragraph 34-38). This end sealing section is taught to have a minimum resistivity of 1*10^6 Ω∙cm (paragraph 38), and is made of organic polymer materials, such as resins (Paragraph 41). It is noted that the resins listed by the prior art (polyethylene, [poly]tetrafluoroethylene PTFE, polypropylene, paragraph 41 of prior art) are also listed in the applicant’s specifications to be capable of manufacture such that the porosity is 40% or less, or as per claim 2 20% or less. It is therefore reasonable to interpret that the materials taught by the prior art could be manufactured to have the same porosity.
Regarding Claim 4; Fujita teaches of an inner insulating frame (named ‘end insulating section’ by Fujita in reference) made of polymer (paragraph 34). This end insulating section is specified to surround the solid electrolyte layer in the specifications (paragraph 34), and an intermediate layer is specified as being located between the anode and the electrolyte (Intermediate layer, paragraph 33). Based on the description of the reference’s prior art elements, and the illustration of the end insulating section in annotated figure 3 being either adjacent and/or surrounding the interlayer otherwise it is reasonable to conclude that Fujita teaches the insulating section surrounding the circumference of the interlayer.
PNG
media_image1.png
769
1452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5; Fujita teaches that the intermediate layer, acting as an interlayer section, of the battery being within the range if 0.05-1μm. As this range falls within the claimed range (5μm or less) the claimed range can be seen as anticipated by Fujita MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding Claim 7; Fujita teaches a secondary battery with an anode made of lithium metal (paragraph 31).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), 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 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita WO 2018025649 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Park CA 3 210805 A1
Regarding claim 3, Fujita teaches all the claimed limitations of claim 1 above but does not teach of the relative porosity of the interlayer to the solid electrolyte. Park teaches a secondary battery using lithium as the anodic material (page 8 line 13) that is covered by an interlayer in a three-dimensional porous protective coating (abstract, page 9 lines 7-10, page 15 lines 18-21) and is applicable for use in solid electrolyte batteries (such electrolytes are referenced repeatedly such as page 14 paragraph 1). The interlayer in the teachings of Park is taught in the embodiments to have tunable porosity based on the thickness of the interlayer (page 32 paragraph 1). Park in the embodiment gives porosity values of 36% and 41% based on the thicknesses manufactured for the coating layer, values noted as being overlapped to the applicant’s porosity range in the specifications (paragraph 42). Park also teaches that this porosity affects the functionality of the battery as it changes the energy capacity of the battery measure by having a larger peak voltage (page 32 paragraph 4). Park teaches the protective layering as necessary to prevent the growth of dendrites on the anode as the battery undergoes repeated dis/charge processes (abstract). A part of this, as Park teaches, involves making an interlayer that is capable of evenly distributing lithium ions across the anode, thus preventing dendrite growth (page 2 paragraph 2). It is noted from these elements that it should be obvious to one of reasonable skill in the art to include an interlayer element between the lithium metal anode and the solid electrolyte, as the battery’s stability and energy capacity is affected. As for the relative porosity of the interlayer to the solid electrolyte, it would be obvious to conclude that the following three conditions: That the interlayer have porosity equal to the solid-state electrolyte, the porosity of the interlayer be less than the solid electrolyte, or that the interlayer have a porosity greater than the electrolyte. Therefore, it would be obvious to obtain a battery wherein the porosity of the interlayer is greater than the porosity of the solid electrolyte, with a reasonable expectation of success, to this point it is noted that the porosity of the interlayer taught by Park (41% page 32 paragraph 1) aligns with the recommended porosity range suggested for the interlayer space in the applicant’s specification (40-70% applicant specification paragraph 42). This conclusion can be highlighted due to the fact that the prior art both teaches the necessity of the interlayer, due to keeping the battery stable, and the porosity being a necessary tuned value, to affect the charge capacity and provide actual function to the interlayer, it is deemed obvious to anyone of reasonable skill in the art to include an interlayer whose porosity is greater than the solid electrolyte in the manufacturing of a solid state lithium metal anode battery.
Regarding claim 6; Park in the prior art teaches all the claimed limitations of claim 3 above and describes the protective layer as being composed of the following: A nanoporous polymer material, with conductive carbon additives (page 9, lines 11-12), and a lithium alloy coating coordinating with this protective coating made up of lithium alloying metals (page 9 lines 22-23, 26, 32). Considering the functions of the lithiophobic and lithium alloying metals being in concert and in consecutive layering (page 11 paragraphs 1-2) it would be reasonable to interpret both layers as being a part of a broader ‘interlayer’ between the lithium metal anode and the solid-state electrolyte. It is noted for clarity that the ‘lithium alloying metal coating’ is described as ‘disposing powdered lithium alloying metal on the protective coating’ (page 11 paragraph 2), such a powder can reasonably be in the nanoscale of particulate size and the described alloying metals (indium, tin, bismuth, gallium, silver, gold, zinc, aluminum, platinum, germanium, and Field's metal, park page 9 line 22-23) overlap with the metals described for the same purpose in their specifications (applicant specifications paragraph 46).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKIL JALIL MONDIE whose telephone number is (571)270-7804. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM - 5:00PM.
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.
/AKIL J MONDIE/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights