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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because in line 3 “SDGs” is an acronym and should read “Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)” as indicated in the instant specification on P2 line 6. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senoue (US 20190334178 A1, “Senoue”).
Regarding claim 1, Senoue discloses an all-solid-state battery (see abstract “all-solid-state battery”) comprising: a stacked body (see FIG. 1) provided with a positive electrode (see FIG. 1 “20 positive electrode”), a negative electrode (see FIG. 1 “40 negative electrode”), and a solid electrolyte sheet interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (see FIG. 1 “30 separator layer” between “20” & “40”), wherein the solid electrolyte sheet contains a porous substrate and a solid electrolyte (see [0033] “porous base material 32” reads on porous substrate & “separator layer 30” & “solid electrolyte” reads on solid electrolyte sheet), the solid electrolyte is retained in pores of the porous substrate (see [0063] “separator layer 30” & “retention of the solid electrolyte particles 34 on the base material 32”), and both surfaces of the porous substrate are covered with the solid electrolyte (see FIG. 2 describes “32 porous base material” which reads on porous substrate & “34 solid electrolyte particles” covers both sides & “30 separator layer”), in the solid electrolyte sheet, the porous substrate is located biased toward the positive electrode in a thickness direction of the solid electrolyte sheet (see FIG. 2 describes “20 positive electrode” & “32 porous base material” & “30 separator layer”), and the solid electrolyte sheet has a thickness of 50 µm or less (see [0065] “thickness of the separator layer 30 is not particularly limited” & “the thickness of 100 µm or less is preferable”).
Senoue discloses a range of 100 µm or less, which overlaps with the claimed range of 50 µm or less. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Regarding claim 2, Senoue discloses the all-solid-state battery of claim 1 and further discloses wherein, on the negative electrode side of the solid electrolyte sheet, a distance between a surface of the porous substrate and a negative electrode active material contained in the negative electrode in the thickness direction of the stacked body is 3 µm or more (see [0070] describes “negative electrode active material”; see FIG. 2 describes “32 porous base material” & “40 negative electrode”; see FIG. 5 & see [0070] describes “dense structure portion 33A is formed at a position satisfying A<B” and describes “distance”; FIG. 3 describes particle next to “40” & [0006] describes “average particle diameter of 5 µm”).
Senoue discloses a range of 5 µm to 100 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 3 µm or more. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Regarding claim 3, Senoue discloses the all-solid-state battery of claim 1 and regarding the limitation wherein the thickness of the porous substrate is in a range of 30% to 85% of the thickness of the solid electrolyte sheet, Senoue discloses 40% (see FIG. 2 “32 porous base material” which describes porous substrate, “30 separator layer” & see [0064] “porous base material 32 is a three-dimensional network structure having a porosity of preferably 80% or more, and the solid electrolyte particles 34 are held in the pores of the base material 32. This makes it possible to improve the mechanical strength while maintaining the lithium ion conductivity of the separator layer 30”; see [0088] describes “thickness of 40 um was used as a porous base material”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention thickness of the porous substrate 40 µm (see [0088]) is 40% of the thickness of the solid electrolyte sheet 100 µm (see [0065]) which lies within the claimed range of 30% to 85%.
Regarding claim 4, Senoue discloses the all-solid-state battery of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the solid electrolyte sheet has a thickness of 5 µm or more (see FIG. 2 & [0033] “30”; see [0065] “thickness of the separator layer 30 is not particularly limited” & “thickness of 100 μm or less is preferable”).
Senoue discloses a range of 100 µm or less, which overlaps with the claimed range of 5 µm or more. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Regarding claim 5, Senoue discloses the all-solid-state battery of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the porous substrate is constituted by fibrous articles (see [0088] “fibrous polyethylene film” & “used as a porous base material”).
Regarding claim 6, Senoue discloses the all-solid-state battery of claim 5 and further discloses wherein the fibrous articles are made of polyolefin (see [0088] “fibrous polyethylene film” & “used as porous base material”). The specification of the instant invention provides evidence in [0039] polyethylene is a polyolefin.
Regarding claim 7, Senoue discloses the all-solid-state battery of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the porous substrate is a nonwoven fabric (see [0066] “base material of nonwoven fabric”).
Regarding claim 8, Senoue discloses the all-solid-state battery of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the solid electrolyte sheet contains solid electrolyte particles as the solid electrolyte (see [0063] “separator layer 30” & “solid electrolyte particles 34 on the base material 32”).
Regarding claim 9, Senoue discloses the all-solid-state battery of claim 8 and further discloses wherein the solid electrolyte particles have an average particle size of 5 µm (see [0006] “solid electrolyte particles having an average particle diameter of 5 µm to 100 µm”).
Senoue discloses a range of 5 µm to 100, which overlaps with the claimed range of 3 µm to 5 µm. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Regarding claim 10, Senoue discloses the all-solid-state battery of claim 8 and further discloses wherein the solid electrolyte sheet contains sulfide-based solid electrolyte particles as the solid electrolyte particles (see [0037] “sulfide-based solid electrolytes”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights