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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On Page 30, Line 17: “average valence a described above” should read as “average valence as described above”.
On Page 38, Line 18, there is a hyperlink which is impermissible content for the specification.
On Page 68, Line 23, there is a hyperlink which is impermissible content for the specification.
On Page 69, Line 06, “The XRD patters” should read as “the XRD patterns”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al (J. Matter. Chem. A, 2018, 6, p22478-22482.
Regarding Claim 6,
Kim teaches a lithium ion conductive solid electrolyte having a crystal structure based on LiTa2PO8, and having at least lithium, tantalum, phosphorus, oxygen, and zirconium as constituent elements. Analysis of crystal samples of this lithium ion conductive solid electrolyte revealed relative densities between 89.4% and 96.6% (Table S4). The relative density was calculated as the ratio of the measured density of the crystal compared to the theoretical density.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
Regarding Claim 1,
Kim teaches a method for producing a lithium ion conductive solid electrolyte material having a crystal structure based on LiTa2PO8 and having at least lithium, tantalum, phosphorous, oxygen, and zirconium as constituent elements. The electrolyte material is synthesized by mixing Li2CO3, Ta2O5, and (NH4)2HPO4 powders, heating the mixture between 600-1000°C, pulverizing the mixture using a ball-mill with zirconia balls, and pressing the mixture into pellets (Supplementary Information). Kim does not teach a specific size of the zirconia balls, but does list the mill used (Pulverisette 7, Fritsch GmbH, Idar–Oberstein, Germany). The manufacturer lists possible zirconia ball diameters from 0.1mm to 15mm and suggests a ball of less than or equal to 10 mm for homogenizing solid products. It is also common practice to use beads between 1 mm and 10 mm for this purpose. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a zirconia bead size between 1 mm and 10 mm to pulverize the mixture according to known procedures within the art and the recommended operating instructions of the mill.
Regarding Claim 2,
Kim teaches the method of producing a lithium ion conductive solid electrolyte material according to claim 1, wherein the raw material substance is free of zirconium. In the method taught by Kim, zirconium is introduced to the electrolyte material during the second pulverization step by the zirconia balls. This is the same process as disclosed by the instant application.
Regarding Claim 3,
Kim teaches the method for producing a lithium ion conductive solid electrolyte according to Claim 1, along with a sintering step performed after the mixture has been pressed into pellets (Supplementary Information).
Regarding Claim 4,
Kim teaches the structure and process for making the lithium ion conductive solid electrolyte material of Claim 4. Kim does not teach the specific half-width of the X-ray diffraction analysis or the specific zirconium content of the electrolyte material. However, the zirconium content is transferred from ball milling as part of the production method, so the amount of zirconium present in the electrolyte material would be within a similar range. The x-ray diffraction is a physical property of the compound and since the compound is of the same formula and made via the same method, it is reasonable to expect the product taught by Kim et al to exhibit the same physical properties as the product of the instant application. This is seen in Figure 1(a) where the maximum intensity is within the range 20° < 2θ < 40°.
PNG
media_image1.png
415
453
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Yokoyama (US 10784534 B2).
Regarding Claims 5 and 7,
Kim teaches the solid electrolyte material according to Claim 4 as well as the solid electrolyte according to Claim 6. However, Kim does not teach the presence of boron. Yokoyama teaches a lithium composite oxide containing boron to lower the melting point below 900° C (Column 10, Lines 1-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a boron additive to the solid electrolyte taught by Kim, based on the rationale disclosed by Yokoyama for the purpose of lowering the sintering temperature.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Sakaida et al (WO 2020137043 A1).
Regarding Claims 8-11,
Kim teaches the solid electrolyte according to claim 6, but does not teach an all-solid-state battery, comprising: a positive electrode having a positive electrode active material; a negative electrode having a negative electrode active material; and a solid electrolyte layer between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, wherein the solid electrolyte layer comprises the lithium ion conductive solid electrolyte according to claim 6. However, Sakaida teaches an all solid state secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, negative electrode, and a solid electrolyte layer, of which one or more comprise the lithium ion-conductive solid electrolyte (Second Embodiment). Sakaida further teaches a positive electrode active material which may be comprised of LiCoO2 and a negative electrode active material which may be comprised of Li4Ti5O12. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the solid electrolyte taught by Kim to the all-solid lithium battery disclosed by Sakaida to improve the performance and stability of the secondary battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M KNOWLAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571)272-8519. 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.
/KEVIN M KNOWLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights