DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgement has been made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 USC 119 (a-d). The certified copy has been filed on 04/03/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed 03/07/2024 and 04/21/2026 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings received on 03/07/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are made.
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.
Claim1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1 it is unclear what kind of volume claimed in the limitation a scope of claimed genus metal oxide particles. Does all compounds consistent of metal and oxygen such as LiAlO2 cover? A description of a genius may be achieved by means of a recitation of a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or of a recitation of structural features common to the members of the genus, which features constitute a substantial portion of the genus. Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F3d 1559, 1569, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In claim 15 it is not clear how hardness of metal oxide and current collector was determined and in what units it was expressed: from Mohs scale, Rockwell hardness, Brinell hardness etc.
Claims 2-7 and 9-19 depend on claim 1 directly or indirectly and fall therewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 should not be negated by the way the invention was made.
This application is 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, 6, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over WO 2020111127 to Tanaka (Tanaka, machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka discloses a battery (claim 1, re claim 8) comprising a first active material layer, a solid electrolyte layer, and a second active material layer in this order (claim 1), wherein at least one selected from the group consisting of the first active material layer and the second active material layer contains metal oxide particles, the solid electrolyte layer contains metal oxide particles (claim 1, para 48, since metal particles 10 contains metal oxide film, the limitation metal oxide particles considered met, re claim 4 ), the first active material layer contains a first active material, the second active material layer contains a second active material.
Regarding the limitation metal oxide particles have a thermal conductivity higher than that of each of the first active material and the second active material: Tanaka discloses that in order to enhance heat dissipation metal particles has metal oxide film (para, 48 51), therefore metal particles comprising metal oxide film inherently have higher thermal conductivity than that of each of the first active material and the second active material. MPEP 2112 V states that "once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the Examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show an unobvious difference."
As such, instant claim 1 considered anticipated by Tanaka.
Alternatively: since invention of Tanaka devoted to improvement of heat dissipation in the solid state battery, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one selected from the group consisting of the first active material layer and the second active material layer with the metal particles having oxide film having have a thermal conductivity higher than that of each of the first active material and the second active material in order to improve heat dissipation without creating short circuits.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka discloses herein the metal oxide particles include at least one selected from the group consisting of first metal oxide particles located at a first interface between the solid electrolyte layer and the first active material layer and second metal oxide particles located at a second interface between the solid electrolyte layer and the second active material layer (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka discloses wherein metal comprising oxide film are particles that include at least one selected from copper, nickel, silver, platinum, iron, aluminum, bismuth, and palladium (claim 5).
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka discloses wherein the metal oxide particles are dispersed in the solid electrolyte layer. (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka discloses wherein the metal oxide particles are in contact with a side surface of the solid electrolyte layer (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Tanaka discloses wherein the metal oxide particles have an insulation property (para 57).
Regarding claim 12, Tanaka discloses aluminum (claim 5)
Claims 9, 10, 14 and 15 are rejected, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over WO 2020111127 to Tanaka (Tanaka, machine translation).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Tanaka discloses wherein an average particle diameter of the metal particles having the oxide film is 0.1 μm to 20 μm (Claim 3).In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize diameters of the particles based on range disclosed by Tanaka particles to provide an all-solid-state secondary battery having high uniformity of heat dissipation for heat generated by a battery reaction.
Regarding claim 14, Tanaka discloses the invention discussed above as applied to claim 13 and incorporated therein. Tanaka does not expressly disclose wherein the metal oxide particles have an oxygen deficiency. However, Since the criticality of using the metal oxide particles have an oxygen deficiency- a position claimed by Applicant is not supported by any showing of criticality of such placement in the instant specification, nor did Applicant stated that such placement serves any specific purpose or performs any specific function other that the function disclosed in Tanaka, it would have been obvious top those skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to use metal oxide particles have an oxygen deficiency as an obvious design choice, and as such it does not impact the patentability of claim 14. In addition, using oxides having oxygen deficiency in solid electrolyte is well known in the art.
Regarding claim 15, Tanaka discloses the invention discussed above as applied to claim 1 including a first collector; and a second collector, wherein the first collector, the first active material layer, the solid electrolyte layer, the second active material layer, and the second collector are disposed in this order and incorporated therein. Tanaka does not expressly disclose wherein the metal oxide particles are harder than the first collector, a solid electrolyte contained in the solid electrolyte layer, and the second collector. However, Tanaka teaches that current collectors can be made from of silver (Ag), palladium (Pd), gold (Au), platinum (Pt), aluminum (Al), copper (Cu), and nickel (Ni) (para 27) and metal oxide particles include at least one selected from the group consisting of Y, Al, and Mg. Takin into account that Vickers hardnesses of Cu is. 3.0 and Al 2.7 while hardness of yttria or MgO are between 5-6, it would have been obvious to choose suitable current collectors materials and metal oxide particles materials from a finite number of identified, provided by Tanaka i.e., it would have been "obvious to try" such combinations in order to provide an all-solid-state secondary battery having high uniformity of heat dissipation for heat generated by a battery reaction See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale E, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over WO 2020111127 to Tanaka (Tanaka, machine translation) in view of US 20200343580 to Yushin (Yushin).
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka discloses the invention discussed above as applied to claim 1 and is incorporated therein. Tanaka does not expressly disclose wherein at least one selected from the group consisting of the first active material layer and the second active material layer contains the metal oxide particles, and the metal oxide particles in the solid electrolyte layer have a high volume rate compared to that of the metal oxide particles in the first active material layer or the second active material layer. Since Yushin does not positively recite metal oxide particles in electrode active material, the solid electrolyte nessarely has a high-volume rate compared to that of the metal oxide particles in the first active material layer or the second active material layer
Regarding claim 13, Tanaka discloses the invention discussed above as applied to claim 12 and incorporated therein. Tanaka does not expressly disclose wherein the metal oxide particles include Y. Yushin teaches a solid electrolyte for Li or Li-ion battery, wherein the solid electrolyte comprises among others aluminum oxide and yttrium oxide (Para 95). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solid electrolyte of Tanaka with high volume rate metal oxide particles as taught by Yushin, to improve stability of the solid electrolyte.
Yushin teaches a solid electrolyte for Li or Li-ion battery, wherein the solid electrolyte comprises among others aluminum oxide and yttrium oxide (Para 95). Therefore, aluminum oxide and yttrium oxide are suitable for use in the solid electrolyte and as such mutually replaceable. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solid electrolyte of Tanaka by adding yttrium oxide or replacing aluminum oxide as taught by Yushin, to improve stability of the solid electrolyte.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over WO 2020111127 to Tanaka (Tanaka, machine translation) in view of US 20200168945 to Koga (Koga).
Regarding claim 16, Tanaka discloses the invention discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Tanaka does not expressly disclose wherein the solid electrolyte layer contains a halide solid electrolyte.
Koga teaches a solid electrolyte layer for an electricity storage device such a battery (Abstract, Para 12). Koga also teaches that the solid electrolyte is a halide solid electrolyte (para 94, para 137). Therefore, using halide solid electrolytes in batteries is well known in the art.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the halide electrolyte since it was known in the art. MPEP 2144.03 (A-E).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 17-19 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and rejection of independent claim 1 over 112(b) would overcome.
The closest prior art of record- WO 2020111127, US 20200343580, US 20200168945, US 20190334201 fail to teach or suggest each and every limitation of claims 5 and 17-19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER USYATINSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-7703. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/Alexander Usyatinsky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights