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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miki (US 2017/0170467) (of record) in view of Kato (US 2019/0379029).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Miki discloses a battery comprising a unit electrode body (title; abstract), the unit electrode body comprising: a positive electrode (1, 2a, 2b); a negative electrode (4, 5); and a solid electrolyte (3) layer that is interposed between the positive electrode (1, 2a, 2b) and the negative electrode (4, 5) (see Fig. 1; [0062]), wherein the positive electrode active material (2a, 2b) contains a material having an olivine structure ([0065]-[0066]; [0100]-[0101]). Examiner notes that the limitations in claims 1 and 3 indicating that the battery is to be used in a battery system that charges the battery are merely intended use limitations that fail to require additional structure to the claimed battery. Thus, the battery disclosed by Miki only needs to be capable of performing the claimed function to satisfy these limitations. As it stands, Miki discloses that the battery is subjected to charge-discharge cycles at charge/discharge rates between 0.02 C and 1.0 C ([0128]-[0131]; see Figs. 11A-11E; see Table 1), encompassing the claimed charge/discharge rates. Miki further discloses that these charge/discharge cycles yielded measured capacities of the LiFePO4 positive electrode active material ([0176]; [0198]; see Figs. 11A-11E; see Table 1). Specifically, Miki discloses that, at a charge/discharge rate of 0.05 C, a measured charging capacity (Qobs) of one of the cycles is equal to about 115 mAh (see Modified Figure 11B below; [0046]; [0199]). Furthermore, given that the theoretical capacity of the LiFePO4 positive electrode active material is equal to about 170 mAh, it is clear that Miki discloses a ratio (Qobs/Qthe) between the measured capacity (Qobs) and the theoretical capacity (Qthe) of about 68% ((115/170)*100), suggesting the claimed range of 60 to 90%. Miki also discloses that, at a charge/discharge rate of 0.5 C, a measured charging capacity of one of the cycles is equal to about 140 mAh (see Modified Figure 11D below; [0048]; [0199]), making a ratio (Qobs/Qthe) for this example equal to about 82% ((140/170)*100), suggesting the claimed range of 60 to 90%. While Miki does not explicitly disclose a charging value of 0.2 C, given that charging values both below (0.05 C) and above (0.5 C) the claimed charging value lead to ratios (Qobs/Qthe) within the claimed range, it is clear that a charging value of 0.2 C would also lead to a ratio (Qobs/Qthe) within the claimed range. Thus, the battery disclosed by Miki is clearly capable of meeting the claimed intended use limitations. Miki fails to explicitly disclose, however, that a plurality of the unit electrode bodies are stacked on top of each other, wherein adjacent ones of the unit batteries are connected with each other in series.
PNG
media_image1.png
603
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 11B, Miki
PNG
media_image2.png
634
811
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 11D, Miki
Kato teaches a similar battery (title), comprising a plurality of unit electrode bodies (13+14) (see Fig. 1; [0027]), wherein each unit electrode body comprises a positive electrode (14a), a negative electrode (14b), a solid electrolyte (14c) interposed between the positive electrode (14a) and the negative electrode (14b), and a current collector (13), making each unit electrode body (13+14) a bipolar electrode (see Figs. 1 and 2; [0027]). Kato further teaches that the plurality of unit electrode bodies (13+14) are stacked on top of each other, wherein adjacent ones of the unit electrode bodies (13+14) are connected with each other in series (see Fig. 1; [0027]). Kato further teaches that configuring the battery in this way makes it possible to secure a high energy level ([0020]; [0047]; [0057]; [0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery disclosed by Miki to have the claimed stacked structure including a plurality of unit electrode bodies stacked in series connection, as taught by Kato, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would make it possible to secure a high energy level. Thus, modified Miki satisfies all of the limitations in claims 1 and 3.
Regarding claim 2, modified Miki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. As set forth above, Kato teaches that a current collector (Kato: 13) is placed between the adjacent ones of the unit electrode bodies (Kato: 13+14), and the current collector (Kato: 13) connects the adjacent ones of the unit electrode bodies (Kato: 13+14) with each other in series (Kato: see Fig. 1; [0027]). Therefore, since modified Miki includes the teachings from Kato regarding the stacked structure of the battery, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Miki to have satisfied all of the limitations in claim 2.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, modified Miki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claims 1 and 3, respectively. Modified Miki further discloses that carriers of the active material contained in the positive electrode (Miki: 2a) and the negative electrode (Miki: 4) are lithium ions (Miki: [0076]; [0095]).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, modified Miki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claims 1 and 3, respectively. Modified Miki further discloses that the negative electrode contains a lithium titanium oxide (LTO) as the active material (Miki: [0095]).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, modified Miki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claims 1 and 3, respectively. Modified Miki further discloses that the battery is an all-solid-state battery (title), wherein the solid electrolyte layer (Miki: 3) is interposed between the positive electrode (Miki: 1, 2a, 2b) and the negative electrode (Miki: 4, 5) (Miki: see Fig. 1; [0062]), and the positive electrode (Miki: 1, 2a, 2b) contains a solid electrolyte (Miki: [0174]-[0176]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Miki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 7. Modified Miki further discloses that the negative electrode (Miki: 4, 5) contains a solid electrolyte (Miki: [0177]-[0178]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Miki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 8. Modified Miki further discloses that the solid electrolyte is a sulfide-based solid electrolyte (Miki: [0174]-[0180]).
Regarding claims 10 and 16, modified Miki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claims 1 and 3, respectively. As set forth above, modified Miki discloses that the battery can be charged so that a ratio (Qobs/Qthe) is between 60 to 90% (see above rejection of claims 1 and 3). Furthermore, because modified Miki discloses that the battery is charged (Miki: [0022]; [0064]; [0068]; [0102]; [0133]; [0198]-[0203]), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a charger to have done the charging. Thus, modified Miki suggests the limitations of a battery system including the battery and charger of claims 10 and 16.
Regarding claims 11 and 17, modified Miki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claims 1 and 3. As set forth above, modified Miki discloses a method in which the battery can be charged so that a ratio (Qobs/Qthe) is between 60 to 90% (see above rejection of claims 1 and 3; see also [0098]; [0133]). Modified Miki further discloses a step of discharging the battery after it has been charged (Miki: [0020]; [0098]; [0128]-[0137]; [0198]-[0203]), suggesting the claimed using step. Thus, modified Miki satisfies all of the limitations in claims 11 and 17.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miki (US 2017/0170467) (of record) in view of Kato (US 2019/0379029) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Nishiyama et al. (US 2015/0017499) (Nishiyama).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, modified Miki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claims 1 and 3, respectively. Modified Miki further discloses that the negative electrode (Miki: 4, 5) contains lithium titanate (LTO) as an active material (Miki: [0095]), which has a spinel structure. Modified Miki fails to disclose, however, that the positive electrode (Miki: 1, 2a, 2b) contains a material that has a layered structure represented by the claimed formula as an active material. Instead, modified Miki discloses that the positive electrode (Miki: 1, 2a, 2b) contains a material having an olivine structure as an active material (Miki: [0029]; [0100]-[0101]).
Nishiyama teaches a similar battery (title) having a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator, and an electrolyte (abstract; [0026]). Nishiyama further teaches that the positive electrode can contain both a material with an olivine structure and a material with a layered structure as an active material (abstract; [0032]). Specifically, Nishiyama teaches that the material with the layered structure has the formula Li(1+δ)MnxNiyCo(1-x-y-z)MzO2, where -0.15≤δ≤0.15, 0.1<x≤0.5, 0.6<x+y+z≤1.0, 0≤z≤0.1, and M represents a metal ([0041]-[0044]), which suggests the claimed formula when z=0. Nishiyama further teaches that configuring the positive electrode active material in this way makes it possible to achieve larger capacity and higher input and output in the battery while guaranteeing safety even in abnormal conditions ([0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode disclosed by modified Miki such that it includes the claimed material with a layered structure, as taught by Nishiyama, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would make it possible to achieve larger capacity and higher input and output in the battery while also guaranteeing safety in abnormal conditions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDON C DARBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at (571) 270-5545. 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.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights