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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-8, 12-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagase (US 2022/0246912 A1) in view of Cho et al. (US 2014/0234714 A1) and Feng et al. ("Conformal formation of Carbon-TiOx matrix encapsulating silicon for high-performance lithium-ion battery anode", Journal of Power Sources 399, Pages 98-104).
Regarding Claims 1-3, Nagase teaches an all solid state battery including a cathode active material layer, anode active material layer, solid electrolyte layer arranged between the cathode active material layer and anode active material layer, cathode current collector for collecting currents of the cathode active material layer, and anode current collector for collecting currents of the anode active material layer (Paragraph [0029]; Fig. 1). Nagase also teaches a first anode active material and second anode active material (Paragraph [0029]), wherein an anode active material layer may contain a conductive material such as a carbon material (Paragraph [0076]).
Nagase does not teach the first composite anode material to comprise a first metal oxide represented by MaOb (0<a≤3 and 0<b<4, wherein if a is 1, 2, or 3, b is not an integer) wherein the first metal oxide is within a matrix of the carbon-based material and M is one or more metals selected from Groups 2 to 12 and Groups 14 to 16. Feng teaches a carbon-coated TiOx matrix and the partial reduction of TiO2 to obtain TiOx where x is between 0 and 2 (Introduction, ¶ 4). Cho teaches the negative active material may include a metal/metalloid nanostructure disposed on the carbonaceous base (Paragraph [0028]) and a metal oxide represented by MaOb with M being at least one selected from Zn, Zr, Ni, Co, Mn, B, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Ti, V, Fe, Cu, and Al (Paragraphs [0033] and [0034]), wherein the listed elements are present in Groups 2, 4-6, 8-12, and 13. Cho also specifically highlights TiO2 as a metal oxide (Paragraph [0035]) as in Feng.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the metal oxide having (1) a metal “M” from the teachings of Cho and (2) the obtained formula subscript values for “a” and “b” from the teachings of Feng with the solid-state anode active material of Nagase in order to arrive at the claimed invention of partially reducing a metal oxide such as TiO2 to TiOx where x is between 0 and 2 and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as enhancing electronic conductivity and improving the mechanical robustness of the TiO2 metal oxide coating layer as taught by Feng (Introduction, ¶ 4). See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
Regarding Claims 4-6, Nagase does not teach the first composite anode material to comprise a second metal oxide represented by MaOc (0<a≤3 and 0<c≤4, wherein if a is 1, 2, or 3, c is an integer) wherein the second metal oxide comprises the same metal as the first metal oxide, and the ratio c/a in the second metal oxide has a larger value than b/a in the first metal oxide. Feng teaches TiO2 as a metal oxide, and the partial reduction of TiO2 to obtain TiOx where x is between 0 and 2 (Introduction, ¶ 4). TiO2 of Feng is analogous to the second metal oxide of the instant claims and TiOx of Feng is analogous to the first metal oxide of the instant claims, thereby satisfying the ratios c/a = 2 of TiO2 being larger than b/a < 2 of TiOx where x is between 0 and 2.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the metal oxide having the obtained formula subscript values for “a” and “b” and “c” from the teachings of Feng with the solid-state anode active material of Nagase in order to arrive at the claimed invention of partially reducing a metal oxide such as TiO2 to TiOx where x is between 0 and 2 and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as enhancing electronic conductivity and improving the mechanical robustness of the TiO2 metal oxide coating layer as taught by Feng (Introduction, ¶ 4). See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
Regarding Claim 7, Nagase teaches the average particle size D50 of the second anode active material may be 10 nm or more, and 50 µm or less (Paragraph [0055]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pick any part of the claimed range of the instant application, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. See re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claim 8, Nagase does not teach a content of at least one of the first metal oxide and the second metal oxide of about 10 wt% to about 90 wt% with respect to a total weight of the first composite anode active material. Cho teaches an amount of the metal oxide coating layer in the negative active material may be from about 0.1 wt% to about 10 wt% based on a total weight of the negative active material (Paragraph [0037]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pick any part of the claimed range of the instant application, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. See re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the amount of metal oxide in the negative active material layer of Cho with the solid-state anode active material of Nagase in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as effectively improving initial efficiency and battery life characteristics as taught by Cho (Paragraph [0037]). See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
Regarding Claim 12, Nagase does not teach the second anode active material to comprise at least one selected from a carbon-based anode active material and a metal-based active material, wherein the particles are of amorphous carbon and a metal and/or a metalloid, and the metal and/or metalloid is about 1 wt% to about 60 wt% with respect to the total weight of the mixture. Cho teaches amorphous carbon which may support a metal/metalloid structure (Paragraph [0039]) and a metal/metalloid which may include at least one element selected from the elements of Groups 13, 14, and 15 and lists specific elements such as silicon, tin, and bismuth (Paragraph [0054]). Cho also teaches an amount of the metal/metalloid may be from about 1 wt% to about 40 wt% based on a total weight of the composite core (Paragraph [0059]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pick any part of the claimed range of the instant application, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. See re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the second anode active material comprising amorphous carbon supporting a metal/metalloid having the elements and amounts of Ay with the solid-state anode active material of Nagase in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as providing a sufficient amount of both metal/metalloid and supporting amorphous carbon base to suppress a volumetric change of the metal/metalloid during charging/discharging as taught by Cho (Paragraph [0050]) since optimization of the amorphous carbon base necessarily optimizes the metal/metalloid particles due to their integration. See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
Regarding Claim 13, Nagase teaches a second anode active material having a metal element (Paragraph [0053]) wherein the average particle size D50 of the metal-based anode active material is 10 nm or more, and may be 100 nm or more (Paragraph [0055]). Nagase does not teach the particle size of the carbon-based support having a particulate form and a diameter of about 10 nm to 2 µm. Cho teaches a carbonaceous base which may serve as a support for a metal/metalloid nanostructure disposed thereon (Paragraph [0050]) and the carbonaceous base may have an average particle diameter of about 1 µm to about 30 µm (Paragraph [0049]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pick any part of the claimed range of the instant application, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. See re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the carbonaceous base having the particle sizes of Cho with the metal anode active material having the particle sizes of Nagase in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as providing a sufficient amount of both metal and supporting carbon base to suppress a volumetric change of the metal during charging/discharging as taught by Cho (Paragraph [0050]) since optimization of the carbon base necessarily optimizes the metal particles due to their integration. See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
Regarding Claim 15, Nagase teaches a cathode active material may include an oxide active material such as LiCoO2, LiNiO2, and LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 (Paragraph [0080]) and/or a sulfide active material such as LiS (Paragraph [0081]).
Regarding Claim 16, Nagase teaches a cathode active material further comprising a solid electrolyte, conductive material, and binder (Paragraph [0084]) wherein the solid electrolyte contains a sulfide solid electrolyte (Paragraph [0086]) and the conductive material may include a carbon material (Paragraph [0083]).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagase (US 2022/0246912 A1) in view of Cho et al. (US 2014/0234714 A1) and Feng et al. ("Conformal formation of Carbon-TiOx matrix encapsulating silicon for high-performance lithium-ion battery anode", Journal of Power Sources 399, Pages 98-104) as in Claims 1-8, 12-13, and 15-16 above, further in view of Yoon et al. (US 2017/0117535 A1).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Nagase does not teach a two-dimensional carbon-based nanostructure comprising graphene wherein the carbon-based material has a branched structure comprising a plurality of graphene particles in contact with one another and the first metal oxide is distributed within the branched structure. Yoon teaches an anode active material including a carbonaceous material which is at least one selected from a list which includes graphene (Paragraph [105]), and lithium titanium oxide as an example of a metal oxide which may be dispersed in the carbonaceous material (Paragraph [0062]; Fig. 2, Items 12a and 12b).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the graphene structure within which a metal oxide is dispersed of Yoon with the solid-state anode active material of Nagase in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as using a carbonaceous material which is capable of intercalating and deintercalating lithium ions with a metal oxide which reduces the resistance of a battery whereby the battery may have enhanced lifespan characteristics as taught by Yoon (Paragraphs [0105] and [0066]). See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagase (US 2022/0246912 A1) in view of Cho et al. (US 2014/0234714 A1) and Feng et al. ("Conformal formation of Carbon-TiOx matrix encapsulating silicon for high-performance lithium-ion battery anode", Journal of Power Sources 399, Pages 98-104) as in Claims 1-8, 12-13, and 15-16 above, further in view of Ay et al. (US 2020/0006759 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Nagase does not teach an average particle diameter of each of the first and second anode active material as 4 µm or less. Ay teaches d50 of the composite active material particles to be 1 µm to 30 µm (Paragraph [0082]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pick any part of the claimed range of the instant application, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. See re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the active material particle diameter of Ay with the solid-state anode active material of Nagase in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as lithium ion and electron permeability, SEI reduction, and high compressive strength and high shear strength yielded by the embodiment of the composite particles taught by Ay (Paragraphs [0109] and [0112]). See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagase (US 2022/0246912 A1) in view of Cho et al. (US 2014/0234714 A1) and Feng et al. ("Conformal formation of Carbon-TiOx matrix encapsulating silicon for high-performance lithium-ion battery anode", Journal of Power Sources 399, Pages 98-104) as in Claims 1-8, 12-13, and 15-16 above, further in view of Jung et al. (US 2022/0231325 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Nagase teaches an anode active material containing a binder, and examples of the binder may include a fluoride-based binder (Paragraph [0077]). Nagase also teaches an anode active material layer with a first anode active material and a second anode active material, and in the plurality of structure layers a structure layer A designates a layer closest to the solid electrolyte layer and a structure layer B designates a layer farthest from the solid electrolyte layer (Paragraph [0013]). Structure layer A with the first anode active material of Nagase is analogous to the second anode active material of the instant claims, and structure layer B with the second anode active material of Nagase is analogous to the first anode active material of the instant claims. Nagase teaches a first anode active material as lithium titanate, which corresponds to the second anode active material of the instant claim as a metal layer comprising lithium and/or a lithium alloy. Nagase also teaches X1 as a volume fraction of the first anode active material which is analogous to the second anode active material of the instant claim, and Y1 as a volume fraction of the second anode active material which is analogous to the first anode active material of the instant claim, and Nagase teaches that X1 is smaller than Y1 (Paragraphs [0065] and [0066]).
Nagase does not explicitly teach the thickness of the second anode active material layer as less than a thickness of the first anode active material layer. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize an amount of first and second anode active material because Cho teaches the optimizing the proportion of anode active material volume to improve volume energy density and electron/ion conducting paths (Paragraph [0072]) in which volume may also be achieved by way of optimizing thickness. Furthermore, it has been held that, where 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 re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Nagase does not teach an initial charge capacity of the first anode active material layer as less than an initial charge capacity of the cathode active material layer. Jung teaches the charge capacity of the first anode active material layer may be 50% or less of the charge capacity of the cathode active material layer (Paragraph [0190]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the charge capacity proportions of the first anode active material layer to the cathode active material layer as taught by Jung with the solid-state anode active material of Nagase in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as preventing excess charge capacity of the first anode active material layer which would decrease the energy density and internal resistance of the solid secondary battery and thus cause difficulties in improving cyclic characteristics as taught by Jung (Paragraph [0190]). See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagase (US 2022/0246912 A1) in view of Cho et al. (US 2014/0234714 A1) and Feng et al. ("Conformal formation of Carbon-TiOx matrix encapsulating silicon for high-performance lithium-ion battery anode", Journal of Power Sources 399, Pages 98-104) as in Claims 1-8, 12-13, and 15-16 above, further in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0069420 A1).
Regarding Claims 17 and 18, Nagase does not teach a solid electrolyte layer comprising a solid electrolyte or a combination solid-gel electrolyte wherein the solid electrolyte comprises a sulfide-based, oxide-based, and/or polymer electrolyte and the gel electrolyte comprises a polymer gel electrolyte. Cho teaches the electrolyte may include a non-aqueous liquid electrolyte, an organic solid electrolyte, or an inorganic solid electrolyte with examples of an organic solid electrolyte such as polyethylene oxide derivatives, polypropylene oxide derivatives, polyester sulfide, and polymers (Paragraph [0087]). Cho further teaches sulfide-based solid electrolytes such as Li3PO4-Li2S-SiS2 (Paragraph [0088]). Lee teaches argyrodite-type sulfide-based solid electrolytes including at least one selected from Li7-xPS6-xClx (wherein 0≤x≤2), Li7-xPS6-xBrx (wherein 0≤x≤2), and Li7-xPS6-xIx (wherein 0≤x≤2) (Paragraph [0072]) wherein the density of the argyrodite-type solid electrolyte may be about 1.5 g/cc to about 2.0 g/cc (Paragraph [0073]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the sulfide-based solid electrolytes of Cho and sulfide-based argyrodite-type solid electrolytes of Lee with the solid-state battery of Nagase in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as reducing internal resistance of the all-solid secondary battery as taught by Lee (Paragraph [0073]). See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (D).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagase (US 2022/0246912 A1) in view of Cho et al. (US 2014/0234714 A1) and Feng et al. ("Conformal formation of Carbon-TiOx matrix encapsulating silicon for high-performance lithium-ion battery anode", Journal of Power Sources 399, Pages 98-104) as in Claims 1-8, 12-13, and 15-16 above, further in view of Zeng et al. (US 2023/0231100 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Nagase teaches an all solid-state battery comprising a cathode current collector for collecting currents of the cathode active material layer and an anode current collector for collecting currents of the anode active material layer, where examples of the shape of the cathode current collector and anode current collector may include a foil shape and example materials for the cathode current collector may include SUS, aluminum, nickel, and carbon while examples of the material for the anode current collector may include SUS, copper, nickel, and carbon (Paragraph [0088]).
Nagase does not teach at least one selected from the cathode current collector and anode current collector to include a base film. Zeng teaches an aluminum-based current collector as an aluminum-based composite current collector, and the aluminum-based composite current collector includes a polymer base film as well as aluminum foils and/or aluminum alloy foils formed on both sides of the polymer base film, wherein the polymer base film is any one of polyimide, polyethylene terephthalate, polyimide, polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, polyvinyl chloride, acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymer, polybutylene terephthalate, polyparaphenylene terephthalamide, poly(ethylene-co-propylene), polyoxymethylene, epoxy resin, phenolic resin, polytetrafluoroethylene, polyvinylidene fluoride, silicone rubber, and polycarbonate (Paragraph [0011]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the current collector base film of Zeng with the solid-state battery of Nagase in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as controlling the surface roughness of the current collector to ensure good bonding force as taught by Zeng (Paragraph [0037]). See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (D).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagase (US 2022/0246912 A1) in view of Cho et al. (US 2014/0234714 A1) and Feng et al. ("Conformal formation of Carbon-TiOx matrix encapsulating silicon for high-performance lithium-ion battery anode", Journal of Power Sources 399, Pages 98-104) as in Claims 1-8, 12-13, and 15-16 above, further in view of Ariga et al. (US 2022/231343 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Nagase does not teach an elastic inactive member on at least one of the opposite surface to the one surface of the cathode current collector and the opposite surface to the one surface of the anode current collector. Ariga teaches a first elastic member arranged on one side of the laminate in the laminating direction in contact with the entire surface of the negative electrode current collector and on the other side of the negative electrode current collector (Paragraph [0048]; Fig. 2, Items 140a and 140b).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inactive elastic member of Ariga with the solid-state battery of Nagase in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as maintaining a constant overall volume of the solid-state battery cell due to compression of the elastic member in response to expansion due to charging as taught by Ariga (Paragraph [0048]). See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (D).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vivian Cheng whose telephone number is (571)270-1930. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:30am-5pm ET, Fri 7:30am-12pm ET.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/V.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights