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 .
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification (“spec”) are to the published application US-2024-0266595-A1, unless stated otherwise. Further, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed 12MAR2024 are in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Tatsuya (WO-2020110480-A1; “Tatsuya”) in view of Liang (“Preparation and Performance Study of a PVDF-LATP Ceramic Composite Polymer Electrolyte Membrane for Solid-State Batteries”; “Liang”).
Regarding Claims 1, 3-5, Tatsuya teaches a negative electrode active material and a solid electrolyte contained in the negative electrode material (third full paragraph of Page 9). Tatsuya teaches that the halide solid-electrolyte material may be represented by the following Composition Formula (2): LiaMebYcX6, where a, b and c may satisfy a +mb + 3c =6 and c>0; the element Me is at least one selected from the group Mg, Ca, Al, Ti, and Zn (sixth full paragraph of Page 4) (the Me is Ti so that the first solid electrolyte comprises Ti). The element X is at least one selected from the group consisting of F (fifth full paragraph of Page 5). Thus, the first solid electrolyte comprises Li, Ti, M and F, where the M is at least one selected from the group consisting of Ca, Mg, Al, Y, and Zr – the M is Y and the final formula of Tatsuya that maps to the claim contains the elements Li, Ti, Y and F. Tatsuya teaches that the volume fractions of the positive electrode active material and the solid-electrolyte material included in the positive electrode are defined as “v1:100-v1”, 30<v1<95, where v1 represents the volume fraction of the positive electrode active material with the total volume of the positive electrode active material and the solid-electrolyte material included in the positive electrode being 100 (v1) (last paragraph of Page 12).
Tatsuya does not teach total pore volumes of the coated active material and the active material.
Liang teaches a cathode material LiMn2O4 (active material) (last paragraph of Page 2). Liang teaches a PVDF-LATP solid electrolyte (first full paragraph of Page 2 and second full paragraph of Page 5). PVDF contains fluorine, and LATP contains lithium, aluminum and titanium, in which the formula is poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVDF)–Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3 (LATP) (first paragraph of Page 2). The coating is shown in the following schematic:
[AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Coated Layer)][AltContent: textbox (Active Material)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Liang, duplicated from Page 3 of Liang
Liang teaches that the PVDF-LATP which makes up at least part of the coating active material layer of the cathode is homogeneously dispersed in the polymer matrix with no detectable porosity (second full paragraph of Page 3). The absence of porosity indicates that the pore volume for the solid electrolyte would be equal to 0 μm3. The ratio of a total pore volume of the coated active material (if v1 was 50%) to a total pore volume of the active material (100%) would be 50%, which is less than 155% as claimed in claim 1, less than 131% as claimed in claim 4, and less than 79% as claimed in claim 5. The generated range would be 30-95% for the ratio of a total pore volume of the coated active material to a total pore volume of the active material using the range 30<v1<95 as taught by Tatsuya (last paragraph of Page 12 of Tatsuya). In regard to claims 3-4, prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range does not substantially deviate from the claimed range. Perricone v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., 77 USPQ 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(anticipation found even where prior art range was not identical to claimed ranges); see also MPEP 2131.03 and Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993). In regard to claim 5, it has been held that "[i]n the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists." Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Tatsuya by making the solid electrolyte nonporous as taught by Liang. Tatsuya and Liang each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to claimed invention (MPEP 2141.01(a)(I)). Liang identifies several crystalline lithium solid electrolytes (second full paragraph of Page 1), directly linking the two pieces of art. Liang teaches that a uniform distribution is advantageous for the improvement of electrochemistry when referring to the homogenous dispersion of the solid electrolyte with no detectable porosity (second full paragraph of Page 3). Liang also teaches that PVDF–LATP (1:9) electrolyte membrane shows satisfactory electrochemical performance and is suitable for application in all-solid-state lithium batteries. Moreover, the LMO/CPE/Li cell exhibits good performance, including remarkable rate capability, inferior polarization and superior capacities (second full paragraph of Page 5). Moreover, it has been held that the discovery of the optimum value of a result effective variable (the effect of the porosity of the solid electrolyte and the active material on battery performance) in a known process is ordinarily within the skill in the art. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). This provides the adequate motivation for incorporating these features readily known in the art.
Regarding Claim 2, Tatsuya teaches that the positive electrode 103 includes positive electrode active material particles and solid electrolyte particles (fifth full paragraph of Page 12) as indicated in claim 1 (seventh full paragraph of Page 12).
Regarding Claims 6 and 8, Tatsuya, according to the Composition Formula (2), teaches the compound solid electrolyte Li2.5Ti0.5Y0.5F6 , derived from LiaMebYcX6, where the M is Y and a ratio of an amount of substance of the Li to a sum of an amount of substance of the Ti and an amount of substance of the M is 2.5, which falls in the range of 1.7 or more and 4.2 or less (sixth full paragraph of Page 4). The overall range taught by Tatsuya is broader than that of claim 8 because Tatsuya constrains values according to where a, b and c may satisfy a +mb + 3c =6 and c>0, where b (or the amount of titanium) could be 0, versus claim 8 requires a sum of an amount of substance of the Ti and an amount of substance of the M is 1.7 or more and 4.2 or less. It has been held that "[i]n the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists." Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 7, Tatsuya teaches that Mb from Composition Formula (2) may contain a plurality of elements, in which case it may be selected from the group consisting of Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Zn, Sc, Al, Ga, Bi, Hf, Ti, Sn, Ta, and Nb (seventh and eighth full paragraphs of Page 4), in which case M would be Al.
Regarding Claims 9-11, Furthermore, Tatsuya, according to the Composition Formula (2), teaches the compound solid electrolyte Li2.5Ti0.5Y0.5F6 , the same compound that would be generated if x were equal to 0.5 (0<x<1, or 0.1<x<0.9) and b were equal to 1 (0<b<1.5, or 0.8<b<1.2) (sixth full paragraph of Page 4). The overall range taught by Tatsuya is broader than that of claim 8 because Tatsuya constrains values according to where a, b and c may satisfy a +mb + 3c =6 and c>0, where b (or the amount of titanium) could be 0, versus claim 9 specifies the formula Li6-(4-x)b(Ti1-xMx)bF6, in which 0 < x < 1 and 0 < b < 1.5 are satisfied, or 0.1<x<0.9 or 0.8<b<1.2. It has been held that "[i]n the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists." Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Tatsuya indicates that in the negative electrode according to this embodiment allows the negative electrode material to absorb and release Lithium by utilizing the valence charge of Y. This improves the cycle characteristics of the battery (tenth full paragraph of Page 4).
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, Tatsuya teaches that the electrolyte layer 102 may include two or more of the materials listed as the solid electrolyte material (third full paragraph of Page 12). As the solid electrolyte material, for example, a halide solid electrolyte material, a sulfide solid electrolyte material, an oxide solid electrolyte material, a polymer solid electrolyte material, and a complex hydride solid electrolyte material can be used (fifth full paragraph of Page 9) (a second solid electrolyte). Tatsuya teaches that the electrolyte layer 102 may include a halide solid electrolyte material and a sulfide solid electrolyte material (third full paragraph of Page 12). Tatsuya teaches that as the solid electrolyte material contained in the electrolyte layer 102, the solid electrolyte material exemplified as the solid electrolyte material that can be contained in the negative electrode material in the first embodiment may be used (seventh full paragraph of Page 11) (the coated active material according to claim 1).
Tatsuya teaches that when the negative electrode material contains 30% by mass or more of the reduced halide, the energy density of the battery can be sufficiently secured (third full paragraph of Page 10), and that the charge/discharge characteristics of the battery are improved as a result (first full paragraph of Page 12).
Regarding Claim 14, Tatsuya teaches an electrolyte layer (third full paragraph of Page 12) arranged between the positive and negative electrode (eleventh full paragraph of Page 10), a negative electrode (tenth full paragraph of Page 10), and a positive electrode containing the solid electrolyte material of Embodiment 1 of Tatsuya (a positive electrode comprising the electrode material according to claim 12) (seventh full paragraph of Page 12).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
EP 19777777 A to N Eiji teaches the internal porosity of the negative electrode active material is usually 1% or higher, preferably 3% or higher, more preferably 5% or higher, still more preferably 7% or higher, but usually lower than 50%, preferably 40% or lower, more preferably 30% or lower, still more preferably 20% or lower (first full paragraph of Page 24); teaches the average pore size of the separator (fifth full paragraph of Page 34) and lithium transition metal phosphate compounds including Al and Ti (seventh full paragraph of Page 28)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM FADDOUL SAVAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-0315. The examiner can normally be reached 8a.m.-5p.m..
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/WILLIAM FADDOUL SAVAGE/
Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/AARON AUSTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights