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 [0051], “LiPS5Cl/PEO/LiTFSI/SiO-2” should read “Li6PS5Cl/PEO/LiTFSI/SiO-2”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 9, “wherein the cathode active material layer includes cathode active material” should read “wherein the cathode active material layer includes a cathode active material”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Evidentiary reference Li et al. (“30 Years of Lithium-Ion Batteries”) exemplifies common cathode active materials (see discussion below).
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for “wherein the cathode active material is selected from a group consisting of LiNixMnyCo1-x-yO2 (where 0.95 > x ≥0.33; and y ≥ 0.05)” and “LiNixMnyAlZCo1-x-y-ZO2 (where 0.95 > x ≥ 0.33; y ≥ 0.01; and Z ≥ 0.01)”, does not reasonably provide enablement for " LiNxAlyCo1-x-yO2 (where 0.95 > x ≥0.33; and y ≥ 0.05)”. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Claims 1 and 16 recite “LiNxAlyCo1-x-yO2 (where 0.95 > x ≥0.33; and y ≥ 0.05)”. Although this limitation is found within the instant specification (see [0006], [0013], and [0041]), the instant specification does not reasonably provide enablement for “LiNxAlyCo1-x-yO2 (where 0.95 > x ≥0.33; and y ≥ 0.05)” as it fails to teach how one of ordinary skill in the art could attain the taught material.
Examiner further notes that foreign priority document, CN120413767A, and sister application, DE102024115288A1, do not appear to show that the claim limitation is a result of mistranslation.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have to engage in undue experimentation in order to make and use Applicant’s claimed invention. See In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988); see also MPEP 2164.01. MPEP 2164.01(a) sets forth the following factors, summarized from In re Wands, which should be considered when determining whether the claimed invention would require undue experimentation. The factors are as follows:
(A) The breadth of the claims; (B) The nature of the invention; (C) The state of the prior art; (D) The level of one of ordinary skill; (E) The level of predictability in the art; (F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor; (G) The existence of working examples; and (H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
The factors are addressed below:
Regarding factor A, Applicant claims a cathode active material with a general formula LiNxAlyCo1-x-yO2 (where 0.95 > x ≥0.33; and y ≥ 0.05). The breadth of the claim is broad as the amounts of N, Al, and Co claimed in the general formula are encompassed by broad ranges.
Regarding factor B, the claimed invention is drawn to an all-solid-state battery comprising a cathode active material layer which includes a cathode active material which may be selected from LiNixMnyCo1-x-yO2 (where 0.95 > x ≥0.33; and y ≥ 0.05), LiNxAlyCo1-x-yO2 (where 0.95 > x ≥0.33; and y ≥ 0.05), and LiNixMnyAlZCo1-x-y-ZO2 (where 0.95 > x ≥ 0.33; y ≥ 0.01; and Z ≥ 0.01).
Regarding factor C-D, the prior art and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize LiNixMnyCo1-x-yO2 and LiNixMnyAlZCo1-x-y-ZO2 as common cathode active materials, as evidenced by Li et al. (pg. 13). However, the claimed general formula LiNxAlyCo1-x-yO2 is not found in the prior art and would not be known or able to be attained by one of ordinary skill in the art without further guidance. Furthermore, nitrogen (Nx) in the claimed amounts is not known by a skilled artisan or recognized by the prior art to form a workable cathode active material. The prior art appreciates common cathode active materials contain nickel (Ni) as a possible choice among transition metals, such as in an NCA active material (see Li et al. pg. 14, second col., first full para.), but nitrogen is not typically recognized as a common active material for lithium-ion batteries.
Regarding factor F-G, the instant specification discloses the limitation “LiNxAlyCo1-x-yO2 (where 0.95 > x ≥0.33; and y ≥ 0.05)” (see [0006], [0013], and [0041]) but does disclose how one of ordinary skill could possibly arrive at the example compound. A person skilled in the art could not arrive at a compound with a general formula LiNxAlyCo1-x-yO2 as a whole without undue experimentation. Furthermore, the Examiner notes the instant specification includes a working example wherein the cathode active material is NMC532 (see [0051]), but does not provide any working examples wherein the cathode active material has a general formula of LiNxAlyCo1-x-yO2. The instant specifications also lack any support that a skilled artisan would be able to make or use a cathode active material with a general formula of LiNxAlyCo1-x-yO2, where nitrogen exists in the claimed amounts. The general formula of LiNxAlyCo1-x-yO2, without any guidance from the disclosure, militates against finding of enablement.
Regarding claims E and H, the fields of material science and electrochemistry are unpredictable arts. Due to the unpredictability of the art, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to perform undue experimentation in order to achieve a material that satisfied the claimed general formula, LiNxAlyCo1-x-yO2, and could successfully be used as a positive electrode active material in an all-solid-state battery. Such a degree of testing is undue experimentation. This factor militates against a finding of enablement.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6 and 11-15 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.
Regarding claim 6, the claim limitation “wherein the outer coating layer comprises 0.5 wt% to 5wt% of the cathode active material coated by the outer coating layer” (lines 1-3) renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether Applicant means the outer coating layer has 0.5 to 5 wt% relative to 100wt% of the cathode active material and outer coating layer combined, 100wt% of the cathode active material, or otherwise. For the purpose of the Office Action, the claim limitation is interpreted as, “the cathode active material coated by the outer coating layer comprises 0.5wt% to 5wt% outer coating layer”.
Regarding claim 11, the claim limitation “sulfide solid electrolyte” (line 2) renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether “sulfide solid electrolyte” is referring to the same “a sulfide solid electrolyte” claimed in claim 1, or otherwise. For the purpose of this Office Action, “sulfide solid electrolyte” is understood to encompass any sulfide solid electrolyte.
Claims 12-15 are similarly rejected as being dependent on claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (WO2023121462A1, cited in IDS filed 12/31/2023, refer to US PG Pub equivalent US20250079440A1 for citations).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses an all-solid-state battery cell ([0011]) comprising:
A anode electrodes (i.e. silicon anode, [0008], Fig.1B, 2) each including an anode active material layer arranged on a current collector (i.e. pure amorphous silicon film deposited onto a current collector, [0008], Fig. 1B, 1),
wherein the anode current collector comprises a roughened outer surface (i.e. nodules or aggregates added to current collector, [0029];[0082], current collector possess some amount of roughness, [0092]), the anode active material comprises silicon (i.e. pure amorphous porous silicon film, [0007]), and an outer surface of the anode active material includes a plurality of convex spherical shapes (Fig. 9A, 3, and Fig. 9C and 9D);
C cathode electrodes (i.e. cathode layer, [0103], Fig. 1B, 4) arranged on a current collector (Fig. 1B, 5, [0017];[0103]), wherein the cathode active material layer includes a cathode active material ([0079]) and a sulfide solid electrolyte ([0066]). Furthermore, Li discloses specifically a cathode active material of LiNbO3 coated LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2 ([0120]), satisfying the claim limitation, LiNixMnyCo1-x-yO2 (where 0.95 > x ≥0.33; and y ≥ 0.05).
S separators comprising a sulfide membrane (i.e. argyrodite sulfide solid electrolyte layer, [0120]), where A, C, and S are integers greater than one (Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Li further discloses the anode current collector preferably comprises a metal or metal alloy, preferably copper, nickel or titanium current collector ([0074]), satisfying claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, Li discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Li further discloses wherein the cathode active material is a LiNbO3 coated LiNi0.8-Mn0.1Co0.1O-2 ([0120]), satisfying claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, Li discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Li discloses wherein the sulfide solid electrolyte comprises LiPSCl5 ([0120]), satisfying claim 7.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (WO2023121462A1), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Li discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Li discloses the silicon film (i.e. anode active material layer) preferably having a thickness of 5 to 50 µm ([0041]), which encompasses the claimed range of 5 µm to 20 µm.
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 selected within the overlapping portion of the ranges for the maximum thickness, with reasonable expectation that such a selection would result in a satisfactory anode active material layer.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (WO2023121462A1), as applied to claim 5 above, and in further view of Kato et al. (US20220376291A1).
Regarding claim 6, in view of the 112(b) above, Li discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Li further discloses the cathode active material layer comprising a cathode active material of LiNbO3 coated LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2 ([0120]), but does not explicitly disclose the wt% of the outer coating layer.
Kato discloses a positive electrode active material where an NMC material is coated with LiNbO3 ([0227]). The obtained LiNbO3-coated NMC had a LiNbO3 content of 3% by mass, which is within the claimed outer coating layer range of 0.5 wt% to 5 wt%. Furthermore, Kato teaches the active material was utilized in a positive electrode sheet ([0228]) which was subsequently used in an all-solid-state battery with good cycle characteristics ([0232-0234]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have arrived at the claimed range for the wt% of the outer coating layer of LiNbO3 with reasonable expectation that such a selection would result in a satisfactory positive electrode for an all-solid-state battery.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (WO2023121462A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Lee et al. (US20230223588A1).
Regarding claim 8, Li discloses the cathode active material layer including a cathode active material (i.e. NMC811 ([0120]), and LiPSCl5 ([0120]), and that preferably, the cathode layer comprises a cathode active material, solid electrolyte, carbon conductive material, and an aluminum current collector ([0103]).
Li does not explicitly disclose the cathode active material layer comprising a binder or the weight composition of the cathode active material.
Lee teaches a similar all-solid-state battery ([0025]) where the positive electrode layer includes NMC811 as a positive electrode active material, argyrodite (Li6PS5Cl) as a solid electrolyte, furnace black as a conductive agent, and polytetrafluorethylene as a binder in the weight ratio of 77.5:19.5:1.:1.5:1.5 ([0108]).
77.5 wt% NMC811 is within the claimed range of 40 wt% to 90 wt% for the cathode active material. 19.5 wt% argyrodite is within the claimed range of 10wt% to 50wt% sulfide solid electrolyte. 1.5 wt% furnace black is within the claimed range of 0.1 wt% to 10 wt% conductive additive. 1.5 wt% polytetrafluoroethylene is within the claimed range of 0.1wt% to 3wt% binder.
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 arrived at the claimed ranges for the cathode active material weight composition, with reasonable expectation that such weight percentages would result in a successful cathode active material layer for a solid-state battery.
Claims 3-4, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (WO2023121462A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Hasegawa et al. (US20180287209A1, cited in IDS filed 12/31/2024)
Regarding claim 3, Li discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Li discloses an anode current collector containing nodules or aggregates ([0082]) and a desire to control the roughness of the anode current collector ([0092]), but does not explicitly disclose a thickness or a roughness.
Hasegawa teaches a similar all-solid-state battery ([0007]) with an anode containing a roughened anode current collector ([0081]) where the thickness of the current collector is appropriately selected, for example greater than or equal to 5 µm or less than or equal to 30 µm ([0080]), which encompasses the claimed range of 10 to 20 µm. Hasegawa further teaches that when the current collector is too thick, the energy density decreases, and when the current collector is too thin, the workability becomes poor ([0080]).
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 selected within the claimed range for the thickness of the anode current collector in order to achieve a current collector with satisfactory energy density and workability (MPEP 2144.05 I)
Hasegawa further teaches the roughened anode current collector with an arithmetic average roughness (Ra) of greater than or equal to 0.1 µm and less than or equal to 10 µm ([0083]), which is fully within the claimed range of 0.1 µm to 12 µm.
Furthermore, Hasegawa teaches when the roughness of the coating surface is low, the rear surface of the current collector becomes smooth and it comes difficult to join the anode active material to the current collector, and when the roughness is too large, variations in the pressure distribution at times of pressing becomes larger, making it difficult to obtain stable battery performance ([0081];[0083]).
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 arrived at the claimed range for roughness with reasonable expectation of achieving a successful anode, and to achieve a balance between adhesion strength between the anode and anode current collector and battery performance characteristics (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 4, Li discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Li discloses the cathode active material being a LiNbO3- coated LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2, but does not explicitly disclose D50 of the particle size of the active material.
Hasegawa teaches a similar all-solid-state battery ([0007]) where the cathode active material may be lithium transition-metal oxides ([0064]). Hasegawa further teaches when the cathode active material is in a particulate shape, the average particle diameter (D50) is preferably in the range of greater than or equal to 1 µm and less than or equal to 100 µm, even more preferably, greater than or equal to 1 µm and less than or equal to 15 µm ([0065]), which encompasses the claimed range of 2 µm to 10 µm. Furthermore, Hasegawa teaches, when the average particle diameter of the cathode active material is too small, the handleability may be deteriorated, and when the average particle diameter is too large, it may be difficult to obtain a flat cathode layer ([0065]). 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 selected within the overlapping portion of the ranges for the D50 of the cathode active material with reasonable expectation of arriving at a satisfactory cathode active material layer and to achieve the desired balance between handleability of the active material and desired surface characteristics (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (WO2023121462A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Tani et al. (CN102422465A).
Regarding claim 10, Li discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Li further discloses an outer surface of the anode active material including a plurality of convex spherical surfaces (Fig. 9A, 3, and Fig. 9C and 9D), but does not explicitly disclose wherein a peak to trough distance of the plurality of convex spherical surfaces is in a range from 0.1 µm to 5 µm.
Tani teaches a similar anode active material ([3]) wherein the silicon-based active material coating formed on a rough surface of a current collector substrate has a surface roughness Rz (JIS B0601-1994 ten-point average roughness) of 2 to 20 µm ([35]).
R-z is defined as the average of the level of the highest peak to the fifth highest peak as measured from the average line and the average of the levels of the lower trough to the fifth lowers trough similarly measured, added together, as evidenced by JIS B0031 (1994).
A skilled artisan would appreciate the surface roughness taught by Tani is an average distance from peak to trough, and that 2 to 20 µm overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 to 5 µm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of claimed invention, to have selected within the overlapping portion of the ranges with a reasonable expectation that such a selection will result in a satisfactory anode.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (WO2023121462A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Platt et al. (US20220123359A1).
Regarding claims 11-12, Li discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Li further discloses the sulfide membrane comprising argyrodite sulfide based Li6PS5Cl as the solid electrolyte layer ([0120]).
However, Li does not explicitly disclose the sulfide membrane comprising a binder, as claimed in claim 11, or wherein the binder is polyethylene oxide (PEO), as claimed in claim 12.
Platt teaches a similar sulfide based solid electrolyte ([0006]) for a lithium solid-state battery ([0039]) wherein the solid electrolyte layer may contain a binder ([0042]). Platt further teaches that the binder may include additional self-healing polymers and polyethylene oxide (PEO), [0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the filing date to have utilized PEO as a binder, as taught by Platt, with reasonable expectation of success in arriving at a successful solid electrolyte layer.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (WO2023121462A1) and Platt et al. (US20220123359A1), as applied to claim 11 above, and in further view of Iizumi et al. (US20230238532A1) and Shike et al. (WO2022114044A1, see English equivalent US PG Pub US20240301105A1 for citations).
Regarding claim 13 and 15, modified Li discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Li discloses the sulfide membrane comprising argyrodite sulfide based Li6PS5Cl (Li, [0120]) and PEO as a binder (Platt, [0042]), as rendered obvious above, but does not explicitly disclose the mass composition of the separator.
Iizumi teaches as similar all-solid-state battery ([0014]) with an inorganic solid electrolyte layer which contains an inorganic solid electrolyte ([0122]) which may be a sulfide-based solid electrolyte ([0128-0129]).
Iizumi further teaches the inorganic solid electrolyte layer may contain preferably 80 to 99.9% by mass inorganic solid electrolyte ([0122]), which encompasses the claimed range for the sulfide solid electrolyte of 85 to 99 wt% sulfide solid electrolyte of claim 13.
Furthermore, Iizumi teaches the solid electrolyte layer may contain an amount of binder resin ([0123]) where the binder resin may be of any type ([0138]). Iizumi further teaches the amount of binder resin in the solid electrolyte layer is preferably 0.3 to 10% by mass, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1 wt% to 10 wt% ([0123]), as claimed in claim 13.
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 selected within the overlapping portion of the ranges for the sulfide solid electrolyte and binder, with reasonable expectation of success in arriving at a satisfactory solid electrolyte layer.
Shike teaches an all-solid-state battery ([0157]) wherein the electrolyte layer may further contain a filler and various additives [(0160]). Shike further teaches the amount of additive is not particularly limited, and the amounts are preferably 0.1% to 90% by mass relative to the total amount of the electrolyte layer ([0161]), which encompasses with the claimed range of filler of 0.1 wt% to 1 wt%.
Furthermore, Shike teaches the filler contained in the electrolyte layer may be an inorganic filler including oxides such as SiO2, Al2O3, and TiO2 ([0161]). A skilled artisan would recognize SiO2, Al2O3, and TiO2 are ceramic oxides, as claimed in claim 15.
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 selected within the overlapping portion of the ranges for the filler with reasonable expectation in achieving a successful solid electrolyte layer.
It would have been further obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected at least one of Al2O3 , SiO2, and TiO2 from the finite list of inorganic fillers provided by Shike, with reasonable expectation of success in arriving at a satisfactory solid electrolyte layer, as these are common materials used in electrolyte layers.
Regarding claim 14, modified Li discloses all limitations above.
Modified Li discloses the sulfide membrane comprising argyrodite sulfide based Li6PS5Cl (Li, [0120]) and PEO as a binder (Platt, [0042]), as rendered obvious above, but does not explicitly disclose the separator comprising a lithium salt.
Iizumi teaches as similar all-solid-state battery ([0014]) with an inorganic solid electrolyte layer which contains inorganic solid electrolyte ([0122]) which may include sulfide-based solid electrolytes ([0128-0129]).
Iizumi further teaches the solid electrolyte layer further comprising one or more kinds of lithium salts ([0124]). Furthermore, Iizumi teaches the amount of lithium salt is not particularly limited but is preferably 0.1 to 10 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the inorganic solid electrolyte ([0125]), which overlaps with the claimed range for lithium salt of 0.1 wt% to 5 wt%.
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 selected within the overlapping portion of the ranges for the lithium salt with reasonable expectation in achieving a successful solid electrolyte layer.
Iizumi further discloses wherein the lithium salts may include LiB4, LiClO4, and lithium bis(oxalato)borate (LiTFSI) ([0073]).
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected LiTFSI, LiBF4, and/or LiClO4 from the list of suggested lithium salts provided by Iizumi, with reasonable expectation of success in achieving a successful solid electrolyte layer, as these are well-known lithium salts used in solid electrolytes.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (WO2023121462A1, cited in IDS filed 12/31/2023, refer to US PG Pub equivalent US20250079440A1 for citations) in view Platt et al. (US20220123359A1).
Regarding claim 16, Li discloses an all-solid-state battery cell ([0011]) comprising:
A anode electrodes (i.e. silicon anode, [0008], Fig.1B, 2) each including an anode active material layer arranged on a current collector (i.e. pure amorphous silicon film deposited onto a current collector, [0008], Fig. 1B, 1),
wherein the anode current collector comprises a roughened outer surface (i.e. nodules or aggregates added to current collector, [0029];[0082], current collector possess some amount of roughness, [0092]), the anode active material comprises silicon (i.e. pure amorphous porous silicon film, [0007]), and an outer surface of the anode active material includes a plurality of convex spherical shapes (Fig. 9A, 3, and Fig. 9C and 9D);
C cathode electrodes (i.e. cathode layer, [0103], Fig. 1B, 4) arranged on a current collector (Fig. 1B, 5, [0017];[0103]), wherein the cathode active material layer includes a cathode active material ([0079]) and a sulfide solid electrolyte comprising Li6PS5Cl ([0066];[0120]).
Furthermore, Li discloses specifically a cathode active material of LiNbO3 coated LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2 ([0120]), satisfying the claim limitation, “wherein the cathode active material is…LiNixMnyCo1-x-yO2 (where 0.95 > x ≥0.33; and y ≥ 0.05),” and “wherein the cathode active material layer comprises an outer coating layer including lithium niobate (LiNbO3).”
Li further discloses S separators comprising Li6PS5Cl, [0120]), where A, C, and S are integers (Fig. 1B).
However, Li does not explicitly disclose the sulfide membrane comprising polyethylene oxide as binder.
Platt teaches a similar sulfide based solid electrolyte ([0006]) for a lithium solid-state battery ([0039]) wherein the solid electrolyte layer may contain a binder ([0042]). Platt further teaches that the binder may include additional self-healing polymers and polyethylene oxide (PEO), [0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the filing date to have utilized PEO as a binder, as taught by Platt, with reasonable expectation of success in arriving at a successful solid electrolyte layer.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (WO2023121462A1) in view of Platt et al. (US20220123359A1), as applied to claim 16 above, and in further view of Hasegawa et al. (US20180287209A1, cited in IDS filed 12/31/2024).
Regarding claim 17, modified Li discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Li further discloses the anode current collector preferably comprises a metal or metal alloy, preferably copper, nickel or titanium current collector (Li, [0074]).
Modified Li further discloses an anode current collector containing nodules or aggregates (Li, [0082]) and a desire to control the roughness of the anode current collector (Li, [0092]), but does not explicitly disclose a thickness or a roughness of the anode current collector.
Hasegawa teaches a similar all-solid-state battery ([0007]) with an anode containing a roughened anode current collector ([0081]) where the thickness of the current collector is appropriately selected, for example, greater than or equal to 5 µm or less than or equal to 30 µm ([0080]), which encompasses the claimed range of 10 to 20 µm. Hasegawa further teaches that when the current collector is too thick, the energy density decreases, and when the current collector is too thin, the workability becomes poor ([0080]).
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 selected within the claimed range for the thickness of the anode current collector in order to achieve a current collector with satisfactory energy density and workability (MPEP 2144.05 I)
Hasegawa further teaches the roughened anode current collector with an arithmetic average roughness (Ra) of greater than or equal to 0.1 µm and less than or equal to 10 µm ([0083]), which is fully within the claimed range. Furthermore, Hasegawa teaches when the roughness of the coating surface is low, the rear surface of the current collector becomes smooth and it comes difficult to join the anode active material to the current collector, and when the roughness is too large, variations in the pressure distribution at times of pressing becomes larger, making it difficult to obtain stable battery performance ([0081];[0083]).
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 arrived at the claimed range for roughness with reasonable expectation of achieving a successful anode, and to achieve a balance between adhesion strength between the anode and anode current collector and battery performance characteristics (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (WO2023121462A1) in view of Platt et al. (CN111180788A), as applied to claim 16 above, and in further view of Tani et al. (CN102422465A).
Regarding claim 18, modified Li discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Li discloses an outer surface of the anode active material including a plurality of convex spherical surfaces (Li, Fig. 9A, 3, and Fig. 9C and 9D), but does not explicitly disclose wherein a peak to trough distance of the plurality of convex spherical surfaces is in a range from 0.1 µm to 5 µm.
Tani teaches a similar anode active material ([3]) wherein the silicon-based active material coating formed on a rough surface of a current collector substrate has a surface roughness Rz (JIS B0601-1994 ten-point average roughness) of 2 to 20 µm ([35]).
R-z is defined as the average of the level of the highest peak to the fifth highest peak as measured from the average line and the average of the levels of the lower trough to the fifth lowers trough similarly measured, added together, as evidenced by JIS B0031 (1994).
A skilled artisan would appreciate the surface roughness taught by Tani is an average distance from peak to trough, and 2 to 20 µm overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 to 5 µm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of claimed invention, to have selected within the overlapping portion of the ranges with a reasonable expectation that such a selection will result in a satisfactory anode.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (WO2023121462A1) and Platt et al. (US20220123359A1), as applied to claim 16 above, and in further view of Iizumi et al. (US20230238532A1) and Shike et al. (WO2022114044A1, see English equivalent US PG Pub US20240301105A1 for citations).
Regarding claims 19-20, modified Li discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Li discloses the sulfide membrane comprising argyrodite sulfide based Li6PS5Cl (Li, [0120]) and PEO as a binder (Platt, [0042]), as rendered obvious above, but does not explicitly disclose the mass composition of the separator.
Iizumi teaches as similar all-solid-state battery ([0014]) with an inorganic solid electrolyte layer which contains inorganic solid electrolyte ([0122]) which may include a sulfide-based solid electrolyte ([0128-0129]).
Iizumi further teaches the inorganic solid electrolyte layer contains preferably 80 to 99.9% by mass inorganic solid electrolyte ([0122]), which encompasses the claimed range for the sulfide solid electrolyte of 85 to 99 wt% sulfide solid electrolyte, as claimed in claim 19.
Iizumi further teaches the solid electrolyte layer may contain an amount of binder resin where the binder resin may be of any type ([0138]). Furthermore, Iizumi teaches the amount of binder resin in the solid electrolyte layer is preferably 0.3 to 10% by mass, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1 wt% to 10 wt% ([0123]), as claimed in claim 19.
Furthermore, Iizumi teaches the solid electrolyte layer further comprising one or more kinds of lithium salts ([0124]). Iizumi further teaches the amount of lithium salt is not particularly limited but is preferably 0.1 to 10 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the inorganic solid electrolyte ([0125]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 wt% to 5 wt%, as claimed in claim 20.
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 selected within the overlapping portion of the ranges for the sulfide solid electrolyte, binder, and lithium salt, with reasonable expectation of success in arriving at a satisfactory solid electrolyte layer.
Shike teaches an all-solid-state battery ([0157]) wherein the electrolyte layer may further contain a filler and various additives [(0160]). Shike further teaches the amount of additive is not particularly limited, and the amounts are preferably 0.1% to 90% by mass relative to the total amount of the electrolyte layer ([0161]), which encompasses with the claimed range of filler of 0.1 wt% to 1 wt%, as claimed in claim 19.
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 selected within the overlapping portion of the ranges for the filler with reasonable expectation in achieving a successful solid electrolyte layer.
Shike further teaches the filler contained in the electrolyte layer may be an inorganic filler including oxides such as SiO2, Al2O3, and TiO2 ([0161]). A skilled artisan would recognize SiO2, Al2O3, and TiO2 are ceramic oxides, as claimed in claim 20.
It would have been further obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected at least one of Al2O3 , SiO2, and TiO2 from the finite list of inorganic fillers provided by Shike, with reasonable expectation of success in arriving at a satisfactory solid electrolyte layer, as these are common materials used in electrolyte layers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESTHER J TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3479. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:00 PM.
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 at (571)270-1292. 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.
/E.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights