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.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirobe et al. (JP 2013157195A) in view of Ito et al. (US 2016/0141716).
Regarding claim 1, Hirobe teaches solid electrolyte layer of a phosphate-based material having a NASICON structure, or LAGP glass 11 (P18); a negative electrode layer that includes a negative electrode active material 31 and a solid electrolyte not containing Co, or LAGP glass 11 (P25-26); and
a positive electrode layer that includes a Co-containing phosphate-based positive electrode active material, or well-known and conventionally used LiCoPO4 (P21-22) and a phosphate-based solid electrolyte, or LAGP glass 11 (P21-22).
Hirobe teaches sintering the product at a temperature of 750oC (P51), but is silent in teaching the phosphate-based solid electrolyte contains Co; however, as evidenced by Ito, when a (phosphate-based solid electrolyte) NASICON solid electrolyte is sintered with a transition metal (as Co, Mn, or Ni) olivine active material (LIMPO4 such as LICoPO4) above 650oC, a portion of the transition metal will diffuse out of the olivine and into the electrolyte (P6.81-82.85.95-96.101.104-106.127).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that when sintered the positive electrode layer of Hirobe (comprising LiCoPO4) would comprise a Co-containing phosphate-based solid electrolyte, as evidenced by the teaching of Ito wherein when a phosphate-based solid electrolyte is sintered with a transition metal olivine oxide, the transition metal will diffuse into the electrolyte. It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. in re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Furthermore, Ito teaches that by preemptively including the transition metal of the olivine in the phosphate-based solid electrolyte compound, further diffusion can be inhibited to maintain the amount of active material promoting densification with high density (P6.81-106.126-127.212-214).
Therefore, while it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that the phosphate-based solid electrolyte of Hirobe comprises Co when the active material is LiCoPO4, it would also have been obvious to have Co-containing phosphate-based solid electrolyte in place of the phosphate-based solid electrolyte to maintain a specified amount of active material, as taught by Ito. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
With respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, modified Hirobe teaches the all-solid battery operating at 2.5 V or more (P53). Furthermore, the solid battery of modified Hirobe in view of Ito meets the structural requirements of claim 1 and thus is capable of operating at the claimed voltage. Language in a product claim directed to the function, operation, intent-of-use, and materials upon which the components of the structure work that does not structurally limit the components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus or product from an otherwise identical prior art structure will not support patentability. MPEP 2114 & 2173.05
Regarding claim 3, modified Hirobe is silent in teaching the positive electrode active material operates at an average operating voltage of 4.5V vs. Li/Li+ or more; and the negative electrode active material operates at an average operating voltage of 2.0 V vs. Li/Li+ or less.
However, the solid battery of modified Hirobe in view of Ito meets the structural requirements of claim 2 and thus is capable of operating at the claimed voltage. A product claim generally covers what the product is, not what the product does. "The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114 & 2173.05 Claims directed to an apparatus or device must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure. Language in a product claim directed to the function, operation, intent-of-use, and materials upon which the components of the structure work that does not structurally limit the components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus or product from an otherwise identical prior art structure will not support patentability.
Regarding claim 4, modified Hirobe teaches wherein the Co-containing phosphate-based solid electrolyte of the positive electrode layer includes a glass ceramic in which a Co-containing solid electrolyte glass is crystallized (P14.47.51)
Regarding claim 5, modified Hirobe in view of Ito teaches a molar ratio of Co/P is 5 mol% to 30 mol% in the Co-containing phosphate-based solid electrolyte, overlapping the claimed range of 16.8 mol% or less (P11). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05- I “[W]here 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.” MPEP 2144.05
Regarding claim 6, modified Hirobe in view of Ito teaches having a Co-containing phosphate-based solid electrolyte material with an average grain diameter of 1 µm to 10 µm wherein the solid electrolyte comprises an average size of 1 µm for desired results (P77.119-121.147.191-192.198; Fig. 18.20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have an average grain diameter of the solid electrolyte and precipitate solid-electrolyte, of Co-containing phosphate-based solid electrolyte that produce the desired results, and arrive, as shown by Ito, at an average grain diameter of 1 µm to 10 µm wherein the solid electrolyte comprises an average size of 1 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05- I Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Hirobe in view of Ito as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Ito’20 et al. (US 20200091522).
Regarding claim 7, modified Hirobe teaches a content of the solid electrolyte in each layer between 30 mass% and 70 mass% to secure physical properties (P31)
Modified Hirobe is silent in teaching a volume ratio of the Co-containing phosphate-based solid electrolyte of the positive electrode layer and a volume ratio of the solid electrolyte not containing Co of the negative electrode layer are 20 vol.% or more and 75 vol.% or less; however, Ito’20 in a similar field of endeavor, teaches providing a solid electrolyte in an electrode with a predetermined volume ratio as a result effective variable to sufficiently secure an ionic path in the electrode layer while not so much that capacity density is degraded (P6.31.34). The solid electrolyte in the electrode layer in a volume ratio is 20 vol.% or more and 70 vol.% or less to increase capacity of regular capacity while securing the conduction path (P6.34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to find a volume ratio of the Co-containing phosphate-based solid electrolyte in the positive electrode and phosphate-based electrolyte in the negative electrode, or volume ratio of solid electrolyte in electrode and arrive at an amount between 20 vol.% and 70 vol.% as taught by Ito’20, to be an amount of the result effective variable volume ratio such that a conduction path is created while still maintaining a strong capacity. “Where 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.” The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/Amanda Rosenbaum/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights