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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 20200343582 A1), further in view of Liang et al. (US 20220045358 A1) and Ye et al. (US 20210408580 A1).
Regarding Claims 1-4, Li teaches an all-solid-state battery with lithium precipitation reactions on the negative electrode (Paragraph [0050]) wherein a solid electrolyte layer, which may be a sulfide-based solid electrolyte (Paragraph [0059]), is disposed between the cathode layer and the anode layer and may be one or more kinds of solid electrolyte wherein they may be mixed together, or they may be formed into layers to obtain a multi-layered structure in the case of using two or more kinds of solid electrolytes (Paragraph [0091]). Li does not specifically teach the characteristics of each solid electrolyte layer in regards to voltammetry, elemental composition, or weight fraction.
Li does not teach the presence of a reduction peak between 0.3 V and 1 V for a first sulfide solid electrolyte, and no reduction peak between 0.3 V and 1 V for a second and third sulfide solid electrolyte. Liang teaches a single sulfide solid electrolyte measured with cyclic voltammetry to have no reduction current peak between approximately 0.3 V and 1 V, maintained up to 6 V (Fig. 3) which indicates a stable sulfide solid electrolyte with good electrochemical stability due to no obvious reduction current peak and thus no reduction reaction at the subsequent potential (Paragraph [0162]). Liang does not teach further regarding the behavior of sulfide solid electrolytes outside of this voltammetry range.
Ye teaches cyclic voltammetry measurements of the electrolyte LGPS (Li10GeP2S12) with oxidation peaks at 2.4 V and 3.7 V during charging and multiple peaks below 1.6 V during discharging or reduction, and that these redox peaks can be attributed to the solid-solid phase transition of Li—S and Ge—S components in LGPS, confirming that LGPS is unstable and severe decomposition occurred during cycling (Paragraph [0147]).
Combining the teachings of Liang and Ye with those of Li, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have (1) attempted a composite multi-layered solid electrolyte and (2) recognized the detrimental implications of reduction reaction peaks and found it “obvious to try” to prevent reduction peaks or limit such to occur within a low voltage range such as within 1 V as in the instant claims, as the teaching represents a finite number of identified, predictable combinations. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Li does not teach a first sulfide solid electrolyte containing an M element, in which M is at least one of Sn, Al, Zn, In, Ge, Si, Sb, Ga, and Bi. Ye teaches solid state electrolytes include alkali metals such as Li, and may further include compositions from a list including those of Si, Ge, and Sn (Paragraph [0008]). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to use the elements of Ye in a sulfide solid electrolyte of Li since Ye teaches that the sulfide electrolytes of LGPS (Li10GeP2S12) and LSPS (Li10SiP2S12) having the elements of Ge and Si respectively maintain exceptionally high ionic conductivities, and further that LGPS was one of the first solid-electrolytes to reach ionic conductivities comparable to liquid-electrolytes at 12 mS cm-1, only to be displaced by LSPS, which achieved an astonishingly high ionic conductivity of 25 mS cm-1 (Paragraph [0003]).
Li does not teach the weight percent of a first sulfide solid electrolyte in relation to a total weight of the first and second sulfide solid electrolytes to be more than zero percent by weight and 45 percent by weight or less, or more specifically five percent by weight or more and 40 percent by weight or less. 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 combine the teachings of Li regarding a composite multi-layered sulfide solid electrolyte and Liang regarding molar percentages of a sulfide solid electrolyte to optimize the weight percent of a first sulfide solid electrolyte in relation to a total weight of the first and second sulfide solid electrolytes to arrive at the claimed configuration since 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). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the weight percent of a first sulfide solid electrolyte in relation to a total weight of the first and second sulfide solid electrolytes by the desire to contain an appropriate amount of bridging sulfur, which is beneficial to the fast transmission of the lithium ions therein and can also improve the ionic conductivity of the sulfide solid electrolyte as taught by Liang (Paragraph [0041]).
Regarding Claim 5, Li teaches a protective layer between the anode layer and the solid electrolyte layer (Paragraph [0035]), wherein the protective layer comprises a composite metal oxide represented by Li-M-O where M is at least one metal element selected from the group consisting of Mg, Au, Al, and Sn (Paragraph [0036]).
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
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights