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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR 10-2023-0140696, filed on October 19, 2023.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 and 13-14 of copending Application No. 18/676,765 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1-12 of the instant application are taught entirely by claims 1-11 and 13-14 of copending Application No. 18/676,765.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0184253) as evidenced by Cardarelli (Materials Handbook: A Concise Desktop Reference. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2018).
Regarding Claim 1, Koga teaches a solid electrolyte, comprising: solid ion conductor particles ([0018]-[0019] and Figure 1 teach first particles 101 comprising solid electrolyte 1000); and a coating layer on a surface of the solid ion conductor particles ([0018]-[0022] and Figure 1 teach second particles 102 and particle boundary layer 103, each coating first particles 101, where 101, 102, and 103 all comprise solid electrolyte materials), wherein: the coating layer includes a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 and a compound represented by Chemical Formula 2, [Chemical Formula 1] Li3+aM1bX16+c in Chemical Formula 1, M-1 is a metal other than lithium; X1 is halogen element; and 0≤a<1, 0<b≤1, 0≤c<1 ([0037]-[0040] teach Li3YBr6 and Li3YCl6 are suitable solid electrolyte materials for first particles 101, second particles 102, and particle boundary layer 103 and thus may be used as a coating layer, as is the case in the instant application. First particle 101, corresponding to solid ion conductor material of the instant application, may be selected from a variety of solid electrolyte materials taught by Koga. Additionally, [0118] teaches Li3InBr6 and Li3InCl6 are suitable solid electrolyte materials); [Chemical Formula 2] LiX2 in chemical Formula 2, X2 is a halogen element ([0118] teaches LiI to be a suitable solid electrolyte material to be incorporated into a mixture with solid electrolyte 1000, thereby surrounding or coating first particles 101).
Koga does not teach the metal other than lithium has a modulus of less than or equal to 100 GPa at 25°C.
Cardarelli teaches the Young’s moduli of both Y and In are less than 100 GPa at 25°C (Table A.4).
Koga is analogous to the instant application as it relates to a solid electrolyte composite material. Cardarelli is analogous to the instant application as it teaches physical and mechanical properties of materials. As Young’s modulus is an intrinsic property of a material, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to understand that the metals contained in Chemical Formula 1 taught by Koga have a bulk modulus in the range claimed in the instant application, as taught by Cardarelli.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Koga teaches all the limitation of claim 1, as described above.
Koga goes on to teach M1 is In, Sn, Mg, Al, Sc, Ga, Y, As, Se, or a combination thereof ([0037]-[0040] teach Li3YBr6 and Li3YCl6 are suitable solid electrolyte materials for first particles 101, second particles 102, and particle boundary 103. Additionally, [0118] teaches Li3InCl6 and Li3InBr6 are suitable solid electrolyte materials).
To solve the same problem of providing a solid electrolyte in a lithium battery with high lithium conductivity, Koga teaches the inclusion of Li3YBr6 and Li3YCl6 as well as Li3InCl6 and Li3InBr6 as suitable materials in a solid electrolyte. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate either the lithium yttrium halide or lithium indium halide into the solid electrolyte of modified Koga described above.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Koga teaches all the limitation of claim 1, as described above.
Koga goes on to teach X1 is Cl, Br, or a combination thereof ([0037]-[0040] teach Li3YBr6 and Li3YCl6 are suitable solid electrolyte materials for first particles 101, second particles 102, and particle boundary 103. Additionally, [0118] teaches Li3InCl6 and Li3InBr6 are suitable solid electrolyte materials).
To solve the same problem of providing a solid electrolyte in a lithium battery with high lithium conductivity, Koga teaches the inclusion of Li3YBr6 and Li3YCl6 as well as Li3InCl6 and Li3InBr6 as suitable materials in a solid electrolyte. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate either the lithium metal bromide or lithium metal chloride into the solid electrolyte of modified Koga described above.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Koga teaches all the limitation of claim 1, as described above.
Koga goes on to teach a=0, b=1, and c=0 ([0037]-[0040] teach Li3YBr6 and Li3YCl6 are suitable solid electrolyte materials for first particles 101, second particles 102, particle boundary layer 103).
To solve the same problem of providing a solid electrolyte composition with high lithium conductivity, Koga teaches the values of a=0, b=1, and c=0 as suitable values in chemical formula 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the lithium metal halide into the solid electrolyte composition of modified Koga described above where the chemical formula of the lithium metal halide is Li3MX6.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Koga teaches all the limitation of claim 1, as described above.
Modified Koga as described above does not necessarily teach the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 is Li3InCl6, Li3InBr6, or Li3InCl3Br3.
Koga goes on to teach the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 is Li3InCl6, Li3InBr6, or Li3InCl3Br3 ([0118] teaches Li3InCl6 and Li3InBr6 are suitable and known solid electrolyte materials).
To solve the same problem of providing a solid electrolyte composition with high lithium conductivity, Koga teaches Li3InCl6 and Li3InBr6 are suitable solid electrolyte materials. While Koga does not explicitly teach Li3InCl6 or Li3InBr6 are used for the second particles 102 or particle boundary layer 103, Koga does teach that Li3InCl6 and Li3InBr6 may be mixed with solid electrolyte 1000, thereby surrounding or coating first particles 101. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate Li3InCl6 and Li3InBr6 into the solid electrolyte composition of modified Koga described above.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Koga teaches all the limitation of claim 1, as described above.
Koga goes on to teach the compound represented by Chemical Formula 2 is LiCl, LiBr, or LiI ([0118] teaches LiI to be a suitable solid electrolyte material).
To solve the same problem of providing a solid electrolyte composition with high lithium conductivity, Koga teaches the incorporation of LiI into the solid electrolyte composition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate LiI as the lithium halide of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Koga teaches all the limitation of claim 1, as described above.
Modified Koga as described above does not teach a molar ratio of the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 and the compound represented by Chemical Formula 2 is 1:1 to 1:10.
While Koga does not explicitly teach the ratio of the components corresponding to chemical formulas 1 and 2, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to adjust the ratios of components taught by modified Koga to optimize lithium conductivity. This would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at least one value in the claimed range of the instant application without undue experimentation.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Koga teaches all the limitation of claim 1, as described above.
Modified Koga as described above does not teach a molar content of the coating layer is 1 to 50 mol%, based on 100 mol% of the solid electrolyte.
Koga goes on to teach a molar content of the coating layer is 1 to 50 mol%, based on 100 mol% of the solid electrolyte (Table 1 and corresponding discussion).
To solve the same problem of optimizing lithium conductivity and limiting structural defects in a solid electrolyte composite, Koga varies the ratio of the first particles 101 to the second particles 102 and particle boundary layer 103, as summarized in Table 1, where specific samples, such as sample 3, fall within the range claimed in the instant application. While Koga defines the ratio of components by volume percent, sample 3 corresponds to the molar range claimed in the instant application. Table 2 of Koga and associated discussion further show the ratio of first particles 101 to second particles 102 and particle boundary layer 103 influences the ionic conductivity and structural defect rate of the solid electrolyte. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the ratio of solid electrolyte components previously identified to fall within the claimed range of the instant application in order to optimize lithium conductivity.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Koga teaches all the limitation of claim 1, as described above.
Modified Koga as described above does not necessarily teach the solid ion conductor particle includes an argyrodite-type sulfide.
Koga goes on to teach the solid ion conductor particle includes an argyrodite-type sulfide ([0050]-[0052] teach the use of an argyrodite sulfide as the first particles 101 to improve the conductivity of solid electrolyte 1000).
To solve the same problem of providing a solid electrolyte composition with high lithium conductivity, Koga teaches the use of an argyrodite sulfide for the first particles 101 in the solid electrolyte 1000. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use argyrodite sulfide particles in the solid electrolyte 1000 of modified Koga described above.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Koga teaches all the limitation of claim 9, as described above.
Modified Koga as described above does not necessarily teach the argyrodite-type sulfide includes Li3PS4, Li7P3S11, Li7PS6, Li6PS5Cl, Li6PS5Br, Li5.8PS4.8Cl1.2, Li6.2PS5.2Br0.8, or a combination thereof.
Koga goes on to teach the argyrodite-type sulfide includes Li3PS4, Li7P3S11, Li7PS6, Li6PS5Cl, Li6PS5Br, Li5.8PS4.8Cl1.2, Li6.2PS5.2Br0.8, or a combination thereof ([0052] teaches the use of Li6PS5Cl).
To solve the same problem of providing a solid electrolyte composition with high lithium conductivity, Koga teaches Li6PS5Cl is a suitable argyrodite sulfide to incorporate into the composition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize Li6PS5Cl in modified Koga.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Koga teaches all the limitation of claim 1, as described above.
Modified Koga as described above does not teach a positive electrode, comprising: the solid electrolyte as claimed in claim 1; and a positive electrode active material.
Koga goes on to teach a positive electrode, comprising: the solid electrolyte as claimed in claim 1; and a positive electrode active material ([0099]-[0101] and Figure 2 teach incorporating solid electrolyte 1000 into the positive electrode 201 with positive electrode active material particles 204).
To solve the same problem of providing a positive electrode composition with high lithium conductivity Koga teaches incorporating the solid electrolyte 1000 with a positive electrode active material to form a positive electrode with high lithium conductivity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the solid electrolyte composite of modified Koga into a positive electrode.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Koga teaches all the limitation of claim 11, as described above.
Modified Koga as described above does not teach an all-solid-state rechargeable battery, comprising: the positive electrode as claimed in claim 11; a negative electrode; and a solid electrolyte layer between the positive electrode and the negative electrode.
Koga goes on to teach an all-solid-state rechargeable battery, comprising: the positive electrode as claimed in claim 11; a negative electrode; and a solid electrolyte layer between the positive electrode and the negative electrode ([0099]-[0101] and Figure 2 teach a solid-state battery with a positive electrode 201, negative electrode 203, and solid electrolyte 202 separating the two electrodes).
To solve the same problem of creating a solid-state battery with high lithium conductivity throughout, Koga teaches incorporating the positive electrode of modified Koga discussed previously into a battery cell with a negative electrode and solid electrolyte separator. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the positive electrode of modified Koga into a solid-state battery.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li (US 2024/0234811) teaches a plurality of solid-state electrolyte particles selected from a group consisting of solid electrolyte materials including Li3PS4, Li7P3S11, Li6PS5Cl, Li6PS5Br, Li3InCl6, and LiI.
Zhang (CN 115395087) teaches coating Li6PS5Cl with Li3InCl6 for use as a solid electrolyte material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN G. DIAMOND whose telephone number is (571)270-5888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5 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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at (571) 270-5343. 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.
/B.G.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights