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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “an electrode provided on one surface side of the composite; and a current collector provided on the other surface side of the composite” in lines 3–6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the other surface side of the composite”. Specifically, as the instant specification appears to envision a battery including a composite with at least three “surface sides” (see P100 in fig. 2 with implied two longitudinal surface sides as well as a circumferential third surface side), it is unclear which other surface side “the other surface side references”.
Again, instant fig. 2 appears to depict a composite with at least three “surface sides”, though such is merely an embodiment and, thus, non-limiting to the number of surface sides. Thus, for this Office Action claim 5 will be interpreted to require “an electrode provided on one surface side of the composite; and a current collector provided on [[the]] another surface side of the composite”, consistent with fig. 2 and the broader specification.
Dependent claim 6 fails to correct this deficiency and is rejected likewise. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1–6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (US 20160336617 A1) in view of Tong et al. (Highly Conductive Li Garnets by a Multielement Doping Strategy) (Tong) and Yamamoto et al. (US 20180062200 A1) (Yamamoto).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Yamazaki discloses (per annot. fig. 2 below) a battery (101) comprising a composite (positive electrode active material layer 14 plus first solid electrolyte layer 30 and second solid electrolyte layer 40); an electrode provided on one surface side of the composite (negative electrode 20 on upper side); and a current collector provided on another surface side of the composite (collector 12), the composite comprising an active material (142); a first electrolyte portion containing a lithium composite metal oxide (e.g., lithium boron oxide in first solid electrolyte layer, ¶ 0081/0082; see also Li3BO3 in Ex. 1, ¶ 0304).
PNG
media_image1.png
323
695
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yamazaki discloses that the first electrolyte may be crystalline or amorphous (¶ 0084) though fails to specify the crystallinity state in Ex. 1 and, thus, that the first electrolyte portion is crystalline.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure Yamazaki’s first electrolyte portion to be crystalline with the reasonable expectation of achieving a successful solid electrolyte.
Yamazaki further discloses a second electrolyte portion (third electrolyte 60/61 above) containing a lithium composite metal oxide (Li7–xLa3(Zr2–x, Mx)O12, ¶ 0027; see also Li6.8La3Zr1.8Nb0.2O12 in Ex. 1, ¶ 0297).
As seen above, Yamazaki discloses that the instant second electrolyte portion may be represented by Li7–xLa3(Zr2–x, Mx)O12, where M is at least one of Nb, Sc, Ti, V, Y, Hf, Ta, Al, Si, Ga, Ge, Sn, and Sb, and x is 0–2 (¶ 0027), though Yamazaki fails to explicitly disclose co-doping with at least two of Nb, Ta, and Sb and, thus, composition formula (2).
However, because Yamazaki allows selecting multiple of the above elements as M, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely select, e.g., Nb and Ta as M to arrive at formula (2) by selecting from within Yamazaki’s finite list of possible metals with the reasonable expectation of achieving a successful electrolyte.
Further, Tong teaches an analogous LLZO solid electrolyte where Zr is co-substituted with Ta and Nb, where the electrolyte is Li6.4La3Zr1.4Ta0.6–xNbxO12, where x = 0, 0.1, 0.2, or 0.3 (Abstract). Tong teaches that ion conductivity increases with increasing Nb content and that Li6.4La3Zr1.4Ta0.3Nb0.3O12 exhibits higher ion conductivity than the parent LLZO (see Table 2 as well as p. 3605, right col., ¶ 1 and 2).
It would have been further obvious to incorporate Tong’s Li6.4La3Zr1.4Ta0.3Nb0.3O12 as Yamazaki’s LLZO-based second electrolyte—and, thus, achieve formula (2), where z = 0.6, and M is Ta and Nb—with the reasonable expectation of achieving a successful electrolyte with improved ion conductivity, as taught by Tong.
Yamazaki further discloses that the second electrolyte portion is configured to cover at least a part of a surface of the active material (see granular bodies 60/61 covering active particles 142 in annot. fig. 2; note also third electrolyte’s contacting active particles in ¶ 0027), wherein at least a part of the first electrolyte portion is bonded to the active material through the second electrolyte portion (again via third electrolyte 60/61’s contacting—and, thus, bridging or “bonding”—both active material 142 and first electrolyte 30, ¶ 0027 and fig. 2).
As further seen above, Yamazaki discloses a lithium-borate-based electrolyte within the “first electrolyte portion” (first electrolyte layer, ¶ 0081/0082 and Ex. 1) but generally discloses that this electrolyte is not limited to one type of electrolyte and may be constituted by a mixture of two or more electrolytes (¶ 0083). However, despite generally desiring high ion conductivity at the interface between the first solid electrolyte layer and the positive electrode to reduce internal resistance (¶ 0010), Yamazaki fails to disclose that the crystalline first electrolyte portion contains a lithium composite metal oxide represented by composition formula (1).
Yamamoto teaches an analogous solid electrolyte including a substantially similar arrangement with a positive electrode complex 10 including a positive active material 2b surrounded by solid electrolyte 3, as well as an adjacent solid electrolyte layer 20 (fig. 2), where each electrolyte is (Li7–3x+yGax)(La3-yCay)Zr2O12, where x is preferably 0.3–0.7, and y is preferably 0.04–0.08 (¶ 0047, 0048). Further, this material is compatible alongside lithium-borate electrolytes as well as doped LLZO electrolytes (¶ 0066, 0067). Yamamoto teaches that the above material provides reduced grain boundary resistance by forming smaller, more densely packed particles for better contact area due to the Ca substitution (¶ 0007), and using this composition within the adjacent solid electrolyte layer provides suitable ion conductivity (¶ 0048).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Yamamoto’s (Li7–3x+yGax)(La3-yCay)Zr2O12, where x is preferably 0.3–0.7, and y is preferably 0.04–0.08 into Yamazaki’s “first electrolyte portion”—and, thus, arrive at formula (1) given x and y fall within the instant x and y ranges—with the reasonable expectation of producing a better contact area to reduce grain boundary resistance and provide suitable ion conductivity, as taught by Yamamoto.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, modified Yamazaki discloses the composite according to claim 1, further comprising an amorphous third electrolyte portion (second solid electrolyte layer 40 in Yamazaki’s annot. fig. 2; per ¶ 0100, this electrolyte is preferably amorphous) in contact with the first electrolyte portion (by being bound to first electrolyte layer 30 in annot. fig. 2) and containing Li, B, and O (see film of Li3BO2.8N0.2 in Yamazaki’s Ex. 1, ¶ 0305).
Regarding claim 4, modified Yamazaki discloses the composite according to claim 1, wherein the active material is a positive electrode active material containing Li (see LiCoO2 in Yamazaki’s Ex. 1, ¶ 0295 and 0296).
Regarding claim 6, modified Yamazaki discloses the battery according to claim 5.
Yamazaki discloses that lithium batteries are known to be used to power electrical apparatuses such as portable electronics (¶ 0005), though Yamazaki fails to disclose such an apparatus with sufficient specificity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely incorporate Yamazaki’s battery into an electronic apparatus as a power source with the reasonable expectation of successfully powering the apparatus.
Conclusion
The cited art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20180375150 A1: composite of active material and multi-portion solid electrolyte; first electrolyte is (Li7–3x+yGax)(La3-yCay)Zr2O12 doped with Nb, Sb, or Ta as a metal with crystal radius ≥ 78 pm, and second electrolyte contains Li, La, Zr, and at least one of Nb, Sb, and Ta.
US 20190341651 A1: solid electrolyte of Li7–x–yLa3Zr2–x–yTaxNbyO12 (0 ≤ x ≤ 0.8, 0.2 ≤ y ≤ 1, and 0.2 ≤ + y ≤ 1), with an example of Ta and Nb co-substituting for Zr.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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, Jonathan Leong, can be reached on 571-270-192. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 9/10/2026
Prosecution Insights