DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
Claims 2-5 have been canceled in the amendments filed 2024-12-12. Claims 1 and 6-16 are pending and are examined herein. This is the first action on the merits.
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.
Claims 15-16 are 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 regards as the invention.
Claims 15 and 16 require “wherein the negative electrode further includes a lithium deposition layer.” Claim 1, on which those claims depend, requires “a negative electrode layer disposed [on a current collector].” It is not clear whether claims 15 and 16 are implicitly requiring a negative electrode layer comprising something that is not a lithium layer, in addition to a lithium deposition layer. It was known in the art, for example, to provide a lithium metal anode, which would read on a “negative electrode layer.” It is unclear whether “further including” such a lithium layer means that the claimed negative electrode therefore requires some other material distinct from a lithium layer, or not. The Office has interpreted the claim broadly, wherein a (re)charged lithium battery forms distinct layers of lithium during the charging, such that a re-plated lithium layer as anode would read on the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chao (US 2021/0167417 to Chao et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Chao teaches:
an all solid-state battery (abstract) comprising a negative electrode comprising an anode active material with an anode current collector layer (¶ 0099)
a positive electrode (¶ 0094)
a solid electrolyte layer located between the positive electrode and negative electrode (¶ 0094, 0101)
wherein the negative electrode has a thickness in some embodiments of 15 microns (¶ 0090)
wherein the solid electrolyte has a thickness in some embodiments of 75, 76, 77, … 90 microns (¶ 0090)
Insofar as Chao does not teach an explicit example with both of the claimed thicknesses, it would have been obvious to select such thicknesses, such Chao explicitly contemplates that the inventive concept includes, e.g., a negative current collector, a negative active material of 15 microns, and a solid electrolyte with a thickness of 75-90 microns. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]).
Regarding Claim 13, Chao teaches:
embodiments with a buffer layer including a sulfide electrolyte (¶ 0081, 0085-0086, 0105-0107) that can be read as the solid electrolyte of electrolyte of claim 1, being situated between the cathode and the anode, the buffer/electrolyte layer in some embodiments being 15 microns thick (¶ 0090)
Regarding Claim 14, Chao teaches:
wherein the buffer layer can be selected from e.g. LATS or LPS (¶ 0381)
Regarding Claims 15-16, Chao teaches:
a lithium anode deposition layer after (re)charging, with a thickness of 15 or more microns (¶ 0090)
Claims 1, 6-14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ueno (US 2021/0036362 to Ueno et al.).
Regarding Claims 1 and 17-18, Ueno teaches:
an all-solid state battery comprising an anode with active material 54 and a current collector layer 53, a solid electrolyte layer 55, and a cathode with active material 52 and a current collector layer 51 (¶ 0098, Fig. 1)
wherein the negative electrode can vary from 0.1-100 microns, or 0.5-10 microns (¶ 0078) and the solid electrolyte can vary from 0.1-100 microns, or 0.3-20 microns (¶ 0071
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select any portion of the disclosed ranges of Ueno, including thicknesses of, e.g., 15 microns for the anode and solid electrolyte layer, in the middle of the most preferable range.
Regarding Claim 6, Ueno teaches:
a negative active material and binder (¶ 0132)
Regarding Claim 7, Ueno teaches:
negative active material can be selected from carbon and/or metal particles (¶ 0076)
Regarding Claim 8, Ueno teaches:
binder in an amount of ~15 parts per 100 (¶ 0132-0134)
Regarding Claim 9, Ueno teaches:
cellulose (¶ 0132)
Regarding Claim 10, Ueno does not explicitly teach:
amorphous carbon
Amorphous carbon, however, was a common active material in the art, commercially available as carbon black and other related forms. See e.g. Suzuki (US 2019/0157723) for evidence of ordinary skill in the art in this regard. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 11, Ueno teaches:
metals like Si, Sn, Al, etc. (¶ 0076)
Regarding Claim 12, Ueno teaches:
particle diameters of 50 nm to 5 microns (¶ 0077)
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]).
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, Ueno teaches:
conventional solid electrolytes, including sulfide-based ones, and lithium metal oxide ceramics (¶ 0068)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights