DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Applicant’s specification filed 03/14/2024, a space needs to be provided between “layers10” in P24.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1-3 and 5-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a fibrous conductive auxiliary agent”. Claims 1-3 and 5 recite “the conductive auxiliary agent” when they should recite “the fibrous conductive auxiliary agent” to provide consistency to the claims.
Claim 6 recites “a carbon-based conductive auxiliary agent”. Claims 6-9 recite “the conductive auxiliary agent” when they should recite “the carbon-based conductive auxiliary agent” to provide consistency to the claims.
Claims 10-11 recite “the solid electrode layer” when they should recite “the solid electrolyte layer”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al (US 20220367846 A1) in view of Suwa et al (US 20260155367 A1) in view of Fukui et al (US 20050244711 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka teaches an all solid battery (10 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P29) comprising:
a solid electrolyte layer (solid electrolyte layer 3 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P29) wherein a thickness of the solid electrolyte layer is 5 μm or more and 20 μm or less (P106 teaches a solid electrolyte layer having a thickness of 15 micron, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the solid electrolyte layer of Tanaka to be the solid electrolyte layer described in P106 because the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07)); and
electrode layers that are provided on both main faces of the solid electrolyte layer (positive electrode layer 1 and negative electrode layer 2 in Fig. 1) and include an electrode active material and a fibrous conductive auxiliary agent (positive electrode active material layer 1B in Fig. 1 includes a positive electrode active material and a plurality of carbon materials; negative electrode active material layer 2B in Fig. 1 includes a negative electrode active material and a plurality of carbon materials; the layers can also each include a binding agent; the carbon materials can be carbon nanotubes; see entire disclosure and especially P29, 36, 38, 41-42).
Tanaka discloses the conductive auxiliary agent can be a carbon nanotube, but Tanaka does not disclose wherein, in cross sections of the electrode layers, an average diameter of the conductive auxiliary agent is 2 nm or more and 150 nm or less.
In a similar field of endeavor, Suwa teaches a conductive auxiliary agent can include carbon nanotubes having a length of 5 micron or more, an average diameter of 0.4 nm to 100 nm, and a G/D ratio of 10 or less (P149).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Suwa and substituted the conductive auxiliary agent (carbon nanotube) of Tanaka with the carbon nanotube conductive additive of Suwa, given both are carbon nanotubes used as a conductive auxiliary agent and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Modified Tanaka’s carbon nanotube’s diameter range of 0.4 nm to 100 nm overlaps the claimed range of 2 nm or more and 150 nm or less. The fibrous conductive auxiliary agent (carbon nanotube) are dispersed throughout the entirety of the electrode layers of modified Tanaka. Given the diameter of the fibrous conductive auxiliary agent (carbon nanotube) of modified Tanaka overlaps with the claimed range, modified Tanaka would necessarily meet the limitation “wherein, in cross sections of the electrode layers, an average diameter of the conductive auxiliary agent is 2 nm or more and 150 nm or less”, because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP § 2144.05). Alternatively, if Applicant disagrees the overlapping of diameters would necessarily meet the claimed limitation, the diameter range of the carbon nanotubes dispersed through the entire electrode layers would necessarily provide an average diameter of the fibrous conductive auxiliary agent in cross sections of the electrode layers to be close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the diameters of modified Tanaka to provide the same properties. A prima facie 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. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Further, Tanaka discloses in cross sections of the electrode layers an area ratio occupied by the conductive auxiliary agent is 2% or more and 40% or less (P43). This range overlaps the claimed range of 0.5% or more and 5% or less, and in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP § 2144.05)).
Tanaka further teaches a ratio of voids in the electrode layers is 2% or more and 15% or less (P50-51).
The total area of the cross section of the electrodes is equal to the sum of the area of the carbon, the area of the voids, the area of the active material, and the area of the binding agent. The area of the carbon is 2 to 40%. The area of the voids is 2 to 15 %. Therefore, the area ratio occupied by the electrode active material in cross sections of the electrode layers is 45% to 96% minus the area of the binder. Therefore, it can be said that the area ratio occupied by the electrode active material in cross sections of the electrode layers is less than 96%.
The range of less than 96 % overlaps the claimed range of 28% or more and 80% or less, and in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP § 2144.05)).
Further, in a similar field of endeavor, Fukui teaches an amount of binder in an active material layer is preferably 5% or more and 50% or less of the total weight of an active material layer (P36). Fukui teaches if the binder content of the active material layer is excessively low, insufficient adhesion may result within the electrode, and, on the other hand, if the binder content of the active material layer is excessively high, a resistance inside the electrode may increase to result in the difficulty to effect initial charging (P36).
From the teaching of Fukui, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the amount of binder within an active material layer is a result-effective variable based upon the balance of adhesion and resistance one of ordinary skill in the art desires for their active material layer. Therefore, it would be obvious to optimize the amount of binder within the electrode layers of modified Tanaka through routine experimentation, thereby optimizing the area ratio of the binder, in order to reach their desired balance of adhesion and resistance within the electrode layers. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Given the area ratio occupied by the electrode active material in cross sections of the electrode layers of modified Tanaka is 45% to 96% minus the area of the binder, and the amount of binder is optimizable through routine experimentation, the amount of electrode active material, and therefore the area ratio occupied by the electrode active material, is optimized by the optimization of the amount of binder.
Regarding claim 2, modified Tanaka meets the limitation wherein the conductive auxiliary agent is a carbon material (carbon nanotube, P42 of Tanaka, P149 of Suwa).
Regarding claim 3, modified Tanaka meets the limitation wherein the conductive auxiliary agent is a carbon nanotube (P42 of Tanaka, P149 of Suwa).
Regarding claim 4, modified Tanaka meets the limitation wherein the solid electrolyte layer is an oxide material (“The solid electrolyte may be… an oxide-based material”, P56 of Tanaka).
Regarding claim 5, modified Tanaka meets the limitation wherein a total length of the conductive auxiliary agent (carbon nanotube) of is 5 µm or more (P149 of Suwa).
Claims 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al (US 20220367846 A1) in view of Suwa et al (US 20260155367 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka teaches an all solid battery (10 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P29) comprising:
a solid electrolyte layer (solid electrolyte layer 3 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P29) wherein a thickness of the solid electrolyte layer is 5 μm or more and 20 μm or less (P106 teaches a solid electrolyte layer having a thickness of 15 micron, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the solid electrolyte layer of Tanaka to be the solid electrolyte layer described in P106 because the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07)); and
electrode layers that are provided on both main faces of the solid electrolyte layer (positive electrode layer 1 and negative electrode layer 2 in Fig. 1) and include an electrode active material and a carbon-based conductive auxiliary agent (positive electrode active material layer 1B in Fig. 1 includes a positive electrode active material and a plurality of carbon materials; negative electrode active material layer 2B in Fig. 1 includes a negative electrode active material and a plurality of carbon materials; the carbon materials are carbon nanotubes; see entire disclosure and especially P29, 36, 38, 41-42).
Tanaka discloses the conductive auxiliary agent can be a carbon nanotube, but Tanaka does not disclose wherein, in cross sections of the electrode layers, an average diameter of the conductive auxiliary agent is 5 nm or more and less than 150 nm, and a GD ratio of the conductive auxiliary agent is 0.5 or more and 20 or less.
In a similar field of endeavor, Suwa teaches a conductive auxiliary agent can include multilayer carbon nanotubes having a length of 5 micron or more, an average diameter of 0.4 nm to 100 nm, and a G/D ratio of 10 or less (P149).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Suwa and substituted the conductive auxiliary agent (carbon nanotube) of Tanaka with the carbon nanotube conductive additive of Suwa, given both are carbon nanotubes used as a conductive auxiliary agent and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Modified Tanaka’s carbon nanotube’s diameter range of 0.4 nm to 100 nm overlaps the claimed range of 5 nm or more and less than 150 nm, and modified Tanaka’s carbon nanotube GD ratio of 10 or less overlaps the claimed range of 0.5 or more and 20 or less. The carbon-based conductive auxiliary agent (carbon nanotube) are dispersed throughout the entirety of the electrode layers of modified Tanaka. Given the diameter and GD ratio of the carbon-based conductive auxiliary agent (carbon nanotube) of modified Tanaka overlaps with the claimed range, modified Tanaka would necessarily meet the limitation “wherein, in cross sections of the electrode layers, an average diameter of the conductive auxiliary agent is 5 nm or more and less than 150 nm, and a GD ratio of the conductive auxiliary agent is 0.5 or more and 20 or less”, because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP § 2144.05). Alternatively, if Applicant disagrees the overlapping of diameters and GD ratio would necessarily meet the claimed limitation, the diameter range of the carbon nanotubes dispersed through the entire electrode layers would necessarily provide an average diameter of the carbon-based conductive auxiliary agent in cross sections of the electrode layers to be close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the diameter’s of modified Tanaka to provide the same properties, and the GD ratio range of the carbon nanotubes dispersed through the entire electrode layers would necessarily provide a GD ratio range of the carbon-based conductive auxiliary agent in cross sections of the electrode layers to be close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the GD ratio of modified Tanaka to provide the same properties. A prima facie 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. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Further, Tanaka discloses in cross sections of the electrode layers an area ratio occupied by the conductive auxiliary agent is 2% or more and 40% or less (P43). This range overlaps the claimed range of 0.5% or more and 10% or less, and in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP § 2144.05)).
Regarding claim 7, modified Tanaka meets the limitation wherein the conductive auxiliary agent is a fibrous conductive auxiliary agent (carbon nanotube, P42 of Tanaka, P149 of Suwa).
Regarding claim 8, modified Tanaka meets the limitation wherein the conductive auxiliary agent is a carbon nanotube (P42 of Tanaka, P149 of Suwa).
Regarding claim 9, modified Tanaka meets the limitation wherein the conductive auxiliary agent is a multilayer carbon nanotube (P149 of Suwa).
Regarding claim 10, modified Tanaka meets the limitation wherein the solid electrolyte layer is an oxide material (“The solid electrolyte may be… an oxide-based material”, P56 of Tanaka).
Regarding claim 11, modified Tanaka meets the limitation wherein the solid electrolyte layer is an phosphate oxide material (“The solid electrolyte may be…
L
i
3
P
O
4
”, P56 of Tanaka).
Regarding claim 12, modified Tanaka meets the limitation wherein the solid electrolyte layer and the electrode layers have a sintered body (P83-84 of Tanaka).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Harris whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/MARY GRACE HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights