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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 12 depends on Claim 11, where Claim 11 recites that “a thickness T2 of the second anode active material layer is greater than a thickness T1 of the first anode active material layer”, but Formula 1 in Claim 12 recites 0.25 ≤ T1/(T1+T2) ≤ 0.5 wherein T1 can be less than or equal to half the sum of T1 and T2, and therefore T1 and T2 could have the same value.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Note on References
Two references are made to the works of Adrian Yao et al.: US 2020/0161628 A1 and US 2023/0011811 A1. The primary Yao reference is US 2020/0161628 A1 and will be referred to as only “Yao”, whereas US 2023/0011811 A1 will be denoted specifically when referenced.
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, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (US 2020/0161628 A1) and Yao et al. (US 2023/0011811 A1) further evidenced by Hagiwara et al. (US 2020/0335772 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 5, and 6, Yao teaches a solid-state (Paragraphs [0005]-[0006], drawn to active material solid-state diffusivities, which are specific to solid-state batteries) electrochemical cell having an anode which includes a first layer and a second layer, and the first layer is adjacent to the current collector with the second layer adjacent (intermediate) the first layer and separator (Paragraph [0198]; Fig. 12, Items 1204, 1240, and 1242). Yao teaches the first layer to include first active material particles and the second layer includes second active material particles (Paragraph [0199]), and the first active material of the first layer includes one or more of a hard carbon (e.g., a non-graphitic carbon) and silicon monoxide, and the second active material of the second layer includes graphitic carbons (Paragraph [0200]).
Yao teaches the anode as a composite structure which comprises active material particles, binders, conductive additives, and pores (i.e., void space) into which an electrolyte may penetrate (Paragraph [0065]). Yao teaches examples of the conductive additive to include a ketjen black, a graphitic carbon, a low dimensional carbon (e.g., carbon nanotubes), and/or a carbon fiber (Paragraph [0065]). As evidenced by Hagiwara, ketjen black and carbon nanotubes are examples of particle-shape and fiber-shape carbon materials, respectively (Paragraph [0058]).
Yao teaches an electrolyte which includes a polymer gel or solid ion conductor, augmenting or replacing (and performing the function of) a separator (Paragraph [0064]) wherein the electrolyte is disposed throughout the electrodes to enable the transport of ions (Paragraph [0064]).
Yao also teaches a particle size distribution of the first active material includes particles that are substantially smaller than a particle size distribution of the second active material (Paragraph [0078]).
Yao does not teach a different electrolyte particle for each anode layer, or that the first electrolyte in the first layer would have a smaller particle size than the second electrolyte in the second layer. Yao (US 2023/0011811 A1) teaches a solid-state electrode including a current collector substrate, a first electrically conductive composite layer comprising a plurality of active material particles and a first sulfide solid electrolyte buffer material and a second nonconductive composite layer comprising a second sulfide solid electrolyte buffer material (Paragraph [0045]), wherein the second plurality of solid electrolyte particles are larger than the first plurality of solid electrolyte particles (Paragraph [0046]).
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 configuration of larger second sulfide solid electrolyte particles of Yao (US 2023/0011811 A1) with the multi-layered solid-state anode of Yao in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as selecting configurations of the sulfide materials to have increased stability for their location within the cell as taught by Yao (US 2023/0011811 A1) (Paragraph [0045]). See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (D).
Regarding Claim 10, Yao teaches an anode active material may include silicon in both the first active material of the first layer and the second active material of the second layer (Paragraph [0083]).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (US 2020/0161628 A1) and Yao et al. (US 2023/0011811 A1) further evidenced by Hagiwara et al. (US 2020/0335772 A1) as in Claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 above, further in view of Kikuchi et al. (US 2023/0381787 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Yao does not teach average particle sizes of the first and second solid electrolytes. Kikuchi teaches preparing a sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte having average particle size d50 of 4.5 μm (Paragraph [0139]) and a different sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte having average particle size d50 of 2.0 μm (Paragraph [0142]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pick a part of the claimed range of the instant application, since “if the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim.” UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). See MPEP §2131.03.
Furthermore, 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 different solid electrolytes having the particle sizes of Kikuchi with the multi-layered solid-state anode of Yao in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as suppressing formation of an aggregate as taught by Kikuchi (Paragraph [0031]). See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (D). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the smaller 2.0 μm electrolyte particles in the first anode layer and the larger 4.5 μm electrolyte particles in the second anode layer due to the teachings of Yao to use smaller particles in the first layer to counteract the naturally formed gradient fields (Paragraph [0055]) as in Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 3, Yao does not teach a material of a solid electrolyte. Kikuchi teaches an inorganic solid electrolyte material may be a sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material, an oxide-based inorganic solid electrolyte material, and other lithium-based inorganic solid electrolyte materials (Paragraph [0036]).
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 sulfide-based, oxide-based, or other lithium-based inorganic solid electrolyte materials of Kikuchi with the multi-layered solid-state anode of Yao in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as optimal ion transport using desirable materials well-known in the art. See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (US 2020/0161628 A1) and Yao et al. (US 2023/0011811 A1) further evidenced by Hagiwara et al. (US 2020/0335772 A1) as in Claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 above, further in view of Kusakabe et al. (US 2023/0368983 A1) and Kim et al. (US 2022/0020987 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Yao does not teach the BET specific surface area of the first conductive material in a range from 50 to 100 m2/g and the BET specific surface area of the second conductive material is in a range from 180 to 300 m2/g. Kusakabe teaches the BET specific surface area for general carbon black as usually greater than or equal to 60 m2/g (Paragraph [0027]), and Kim teaches a single-walled carbon nanotube may have a BET of 200 m2/g to 1000 m2/g (Paragraph [0016]) and a multi-walled nanotube may have a BET of 100 to 700 m2/g (Paragraph [0017]), wherein the carbon black of Kusakabe could be used as the first conductive material and the carbon nanotubes of Kim could be used as the second conductive material of the instant claims.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pick any part of the claimed range of the instant application, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. See re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Furthermore, 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 carbon black having the BET specific surface area as taught by Kusakabe and carbon nanotubes having the BET specific surface areas as taught by Kim with the multi-layered solid-state anode of Yao in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as the standard cost and durability qualities of carbon black widely known in the art and the high conductivity, tensile strength, and heat resistance of carbon nanotubes as taught by Kim (Paragraphs [0008]-[0009]). See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (D).
Regarding Claim 7, Yao does not specifically teach a single-walled carbon nanotube, a double-walled carbon nanotube, a multi-walled carbon nanotube, or any combination thereof. Kim teaches single-walled carbon nanotubes and multi-walled carbon nanotubes (Paragraph [0034]).
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 single-walled and multi-walled carbon nanotubes of Kim with the multi-layered solid-state anode of Yao in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as achieving excellent electrical and thermal conductivity with single-walled carbon nanotubes and excellent mechanical properties and easy fabrication with multi-walled carbon nanotubes, as taught by Kim (Paragraph [0034]). See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (D).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (US 2020/0161628 A1) and Yao et al. (US 2023/0011811 A1) further evidenced by Hagiwara et al. (US 2020/0335772 A1) as in Claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 above, further in view of Koestner et al. (US 2023/0246182 A1) and Caban-Acevedo et al. (US 2023/0411595 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Yao does not teach the average aspect ratio of the first conductive material as equal to or higher than 2 and equal to or lower than 10, and an average aspect ratio of the second conductive material as equal to or higher than 50 and equal to or lower than 100. Koestner teaches an aspect ratio of carbon black as approximately 1-2 (Paragraph [0086], Table 2). Caban-Acevedo teaches carbon nanotubes with aspect ratios above 30 (Paragraph [0170]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pick any part of the claimed range of the instant application, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. See re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Furthermore, 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 carbon black having the average aspect ratio of Koestner and carbon nanotubes having the average aspect ratio of Caban-Acevedo with the multi-layered solid-state anode of Yao in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as the standard cost and durability qualities of carbon black widely known in the art and reducing gas generation and enhancing mechanical strength of the electrodes at elevated temperatures by using such thermally-stable elongated particles as taught by Caban-Acevedo (Paragraph [0170]). See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (D).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (US 2020/0161628 A1) and Yao et al. (US 2023/0011811 A1) further evidenced by Hagiwara et al. (US 2020/0335772 A1) as in Claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 above, further in view of Kusama et al. (US 2021/0083268 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Yao does not teach the average length of the second conductive material in a range from 5 to 50 μm. Kusama teaches carbon nanotubes having an average length of 20 μm (Paragraph [0196]), or in another embodiment, 50 μm (Paragraph [0199]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pick a part of the claimed range of the instant application, since “if the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim.” UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). See MPEP §2131.03.
Furthermore, 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 carbon nanotubes having the average length of Kusama with the multi-layered solid-state anode of Yao in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as increasing the electronic conductivity of the active material-containing layer as taught by Kusama (Paragraph [0061]). See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976)]] in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (D).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (US 2020/0161628 A1) and Yao et al. (US 2023/0011811 A1) further evidenced by Hagiwara et al. (US 2020/0335772 A1) as in Claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 above, further in view of Lee et al. (US 2023/0307793 A1).
Regarding Claims 11 and 12, Yao does not teach a thickness of the second anode active material as greater than a thickness of the first anode active material layer, or thicknesses of each that would satisfy Formula 1 and Formula 2 of the instant claims. Lee teaches the thickness of a first anode active material layer may be in the range of 1 μm to 20 μm (Paragraph [0107]) and the thickness of a second anode active material layer may be in the range of 1 μm to 200 μm (Paragraph [0112]). Lee also teaches optimizing the individual thicknesses in order to prevent cyclic characteristic deterioration if the active material layer were to be too thick (Paragraphs [0107] and [0112]). Additionally, both Formula 1 and Formula 2 of the instant claim may be satisfied by assigning T1 a value of 20 μm and T2 a value of 50 μm, chosen from the ranges 1 μm to 20 μm and 1 μm to 200 μm of Lee, respectively.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pick a part of the claimed range of the instant application to satisfy Formula 1 and Formula 2, since “if the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim.” UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). See MPEP §2131.03.
It would have also 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 Lee to optimize the thicknesses of the anode active material layers 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).
Furthermore, 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 optimized first and second anode active material layers having optimized thicknesses in the ranges as taught by Lee with the multi-layer solid-state anode of Yao in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as preventing cyclic characteristic deterioration as taught by Lee (Paragraphs [0107] and [0112]). See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (D).
Regarding Claim 13, Yao does not teach the general components of an all-solid-state battery regarding an anode, cathode, and solid electrolyte layer interposed between. Lee teaches an all-solid secondary battery including an electrode assembly including a cathode layer, an anode layer, a solid electrolyte layer between the anode layer and the cathode layer (Abstract).
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 all-solid secondary battery including an electrode assembly including a cathode layer, an anode layer, a solid electrolyte layer between the anode layer and the cathode layer of Lee with multi-layer solid-state anode for a solid-state battery of Yao in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as incorporation of the entity in application to the general structure and components of solid-state batteries well-known in the art. See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
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
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights