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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
When filing a continuing application that claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 to a parent application (other than an international application that designated the U.S.), it will not be necessary for the applicant to submit an information disclosure statement in the continuing application that lists the prior art cited by the examiner in the parent application unless the applicant desires the information to be printed on the patent issuing from the continuing application (for continued prosecution applications filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d), see subsection A.1. below). The examiner of the continuing application will consider information which has been considered by the Office in the parent application. See MPEP §609.02.
The information disclosure statement filed May 16, 2024 has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to 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.
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.
Claims 1-2 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 1 recites the limitation "the volume rate" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since claim 2 is dependent upon claim 1, it is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 1 recites a conditional phrase, “when the volume rate…an ionic tortuosity factor obtained from ε*σSE / σele is 4.5 or less” (lines 6-10). It is unsure whether or not this limitation is conditional or not (i.e. is the relationship required, or is not required when the volume rate of the sulfide solid electrolyte inside the electrode is not regarded as ε?). Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clear, and the claim is indefinite. Since claim 2 is dependent upon claim 1, it is rejected for the same reason.
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.
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0099556 (Johnson et al.) in view of “Anomalous High Ionic Conductivity of Nanoporous β-Li3PS4”” (Liu et al.).
As to claim 1, Johnson et al. teach an electrode to be used in an all solid state battery (fig. 7; para 0017), the electrode comprising:
an active material and a sulfide solid electrolyte (para 0025 (sulphide electrolytic material set forth); para 0026, 0035)
Johnson et al. do not teach that a tetrahydrofuran is also included (with the sulfide electrolyte).
However, Liu et al. teach a sulfide solid electrolyte (Li3PS4; title); wherein a tetrahydrofuran (THF) is also included (p 976, first paragraph on the left column). The motivation for using a sulfide solid electrolyte that includes a tetrahydrofuran is to enhance ionic conductivity (abs; p 978, last paragraph). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to use a sulfide solid electrolyte that includes a tetrahydrofuran (as taught by Liu et al. and as applied to the electrolyte additive to the electrode of Johnson et al.) in order to enhance ionic conductivity.
Regarding the limitation “when the volume rate of the sulfide solid electrolyte inside the electrode is regarded as ε, ion conductivity of the sulfide solid electrolyte is regarded as σSE, and ion conductivity of the electrode is regarded as σe1e, an ionic tortuosity factor obtained from ε*σSE/σe1e is 4.5 or less,” this is seen as conditional (one interpretation as set forth in the 112(b) rejection), wherein in this interpretation the volume rate of the sulfide solid electrolyte inside the electrode is not regarded as ε, and thus remainder of the limitation is not needed to be present. (See the 112 rejection for more details regarding claim interpretation applicable to the claim language.)
Note: An alternate rejection denoted by * below, renders obvious the conditional litmiation.
As to claim 2, Johnson et al. teach a cathode active material layer, an anode active material layer, and a solid electrolyte layer formed between the cathode active material layer and the anode active material layer (para 0048; fig. 7), wherein at least one of the cathode active material layer and the anode active material layer is the electrode according to claim 1 (note, the limitations to claim 1 have been rendered obvious above; the rejection to claim 1 is incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake)..
*Alternately, claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0099556 (Johnson et al.) in view of “Anomalous High Ionic Conductivity of Nanoporous β-Li3PS4”” (Liu et al.) and US 2017/0263975 (Anadan et al.).
As to claim 1, Johnson et al. teach an electrode to be used in an all solid state battery (fig. 7; para 0017), the electrode comprising:
an active material and a sulfide solid electrolyte (para 0025 (sulphide electrolytic material set forth); para 0026, 0035)
Johnson et al. do not teach that (a) a tetrahydrofuran is also included (with the sulfide electrolyte), or (b) when the volume rate of the sulfide solid electrolyte inside the electrode is regarded as ε, ion conductivity of the sulfide solid electrolyte is regarded as σSE, and ion conductivity of the electrode is regarded as σe1e, an ionic tortuosity factor obtained from ε*σSE/σele is 4.5 or less (given the interpretation that this limitation is present) (see the 112 rejection for more details regarding claim interpretation applicable to the claim language).
However, with respect to (a): Liu et al. teach a sulfide solid electrolyte (Li3PS4; title); wherein a tetrahydrofuran (THF) is also included (p 976, first paragraph on the left column). The motivation for using a sulfide solid electrolyte that includes a tetrahydrofuran is to enhance ionic conductivity (abs; p 978, last paragraph). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to use a sulfide solid electrolyte that includes a tetrahydrofuran (as taught by Liu et al. and as applied to the electrolyte additive to the electrode of Johnson et al.) in order to enhance ionic conductivity.
With respect to (b), Anandan et al. teach the inclusion of solid electrolyte within an electrode, wherein ionic conduction is related to tortuosity, which is desired to be not increased (para 0033). Thus, at the very least, a tortuosity factor (ε*σSE/σele ) is 4.5 or less) is a result effective variable, wherein the lower the value of tortuosity (linked to ionic conductivity) the better. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have a tortuosity factor (ε*σSE/σele) being 4.5 or less; ε is the volume rate of the sulfide solid electrolyte inside the electrode; σSE is an ion conductivity of the sulfide solid electrolyte; σele is ion conductivity of the electrode), as tortuosity is a result effective variable, wherein the lower the value of tortuosity (linked to ionic conductivity) the better (as set forth by Anandan et al. para 0033). See also MPEP §2144.05(II).
As to claim 2, Johnson et al. teach a cathode active material layer, an anode active material layer, and a solid electrolyte layer formed between the cathode active material layer and the anode active material layer (para 0048; fig. 7), wherein at least one of the cathode active material layer and the anode active material layer is the electrode according to claim 1 (note, the limitations to claim 1 have been rendered obvious above; the rejection to claim 1 is incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake)..
Conclusion
Note: No other prior art is considered pertinent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:00 -7:30 (AM) and 9:45-3:15 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights