DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 2026/07/14, the following has occurred: Claims 1, 7, 8, and 13-15 have been amended; Claims 2-6 and 9 have been canceled; Claims 17-18 have been added.
Claims 1, 7-8, and 10-18 are pending and are examined herein. This is a Final Rejection.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 7-8, 10-14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno (US 2021/0036362 to Ueno et al.) in view of Nogami (US 2016/0204466 to Nogami 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)
the negative electrode including a cellulosic binder (¶ 0132)
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.
Ueno does not explicitly teach:
a cellulosic binder and a butadiene-based rubber
Nogami, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a solid state battery, teaches a variety of conventional binders can be used in the anode, such as PVDF, PTFE, and styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR), wherein cellulosic materials like carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) is described specifically as a thickener (¶ 0121), and can be used in combination with SBR as a results-effective variable for changing the viscosity of a binder depending on the anode material (¶ 0188-0192). It would have been obvious to use an SBR-CMC binder, as was conventional in the art, and taught by Nogami. 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 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 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)
Regarding Claims 17 and 18, Ueno does not teach:
the ratio of SBR to CMC
Nogami, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a solid state battery, teaches a variety of conventional binders can be used in the anode, such as PVDF, PTFE, and styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR), wherein cellulosic materials like carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) is described specifically as a thickener (¶ 0121), and can be used in combination with SBR as a results-effective variable for changing the viscosity of a binder depending on the anode material (¶ 0188-0192). Nogami, in other words, teaches the SBR as the primary substituent, with the CMC being used as a secondary ingredient for adjusting thickness in order to achieve a desired viscosity. When the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. An SBR-CMC ratio that is slightly greater than 1:1 to 6:1 is a result effective variable because Nogami suggests providing CMC as a secondary thickener to a primary SBR binder, and further suggests that this was conventional in the art. Moreover, binder inclusion in the overall electrode was on the order of a few percent, suggesting that ratios of, e.g., 1:1-2:1, 3:1, 4:1, or even 7:1 would have been obvious absent a showing of criticality for the specifically claimed ranges in claims 17 and 18. 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]).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno (US 2021/0036362 to Ueno et al.) in view of Nogami (US 2016/0204466 to Nogami et al.), in further view of Suzuki (US 2019/0157723 to Suzuki et al.).
Regarding Claims 15-16, Ueno does not explicitly teach:
a lithium deposition layer formed between the current collector and the negative active material (claim 15)
wherein the lithium deposition layer has a thickness of 10-50 microns (claim 16)
Suzuki, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a solid state battery, teaches a method of improving the energy density of the battery by providing a greater cathode energy capacity than the anode, and subsequently plating lithium between the intercalative anode material and the current collector during the charging (abstract, Fig. 8, ¶ 0020-0024). Suzuki further teaches a metal layer thickness of 1 to 200 microns (¶ 0024). Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to balance the cathode and anode energy densities in such a way as to plate a lithium metal layer on the anode collector in Ueno, with the motivation to improve the energy density of the solid state cell, as suggested by Suzuki.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but do not place the application in condition for allowance. Applicant argues that Ueno does not teach both SBR and CMC as a binder. Such combinations are conventional in the art. The rejections now cite to Nogami for this teaching of a conventional combination.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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