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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claim 1; claims 1-5 are pending and considered in the present Office action.
The 103 rejections of the claims are withdrawn in view of the amendment. However, upon further consideration a new ground of rejection is necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. New art (Baba) is presented to address the new sintering feature as it relates to the all solid type battery of the preamble; and Kondo provides motivation for applying the end portions suggested by Tanaka to the all solid state type batteries of Baba.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baba et al. (US 2010/0216032), Tanaka et al. (US 5,989,747), and Kondo (JP 2009-093968), hereinafter Baba, Tanaka and Kondo.
Regarding Claims 1-2, Baba suggests an all-solid battery comprising: a multilayer body in which each of a plurality of electrode layers and each of a plurality of solid electrolyte layers are alternately stacked and sintered (see e.g., [0120, 0127-0128]).
Baba does not provide any particular details about the end portion of either electrode; thus, Baba does not suggest herein at least one of the plurality of electrode layers includes an end portion, a first portion in which a film thickness thereof increases at a first increase rate of 0.15 or more from the end portion to a first point, and a second portion in which the film thickness increases at a second increase rate of 0.1 or less from the first point to a second point, wherein the film thickness of the at least one of the plurality of electrode layers at the second point is a local maximum thickness and is 1.5 times or less as an average film thickness of the at least one of the plurality of electrode layers, wherein an intersection of a straight line N and an upper surface of the at least one of the plurality of electrode layers is defined as the first point, when a tangent M is drawn that passes through a point Q that is 35 pm away from the end portion in an in-plane direction, a point P that is 20 pm apart in the in-plane direction from the second point where the film thickness is maximum toward the first point is specified, a tangent L passing through the point P is drawn, an intersection R of each of the tangents L and M is specified, and the straight line N passing through the intersection R among perpendicular lines to a bottom surface of the at least one of the plurality of electrode layers is determined. Baba does not suggest the film thickness of the at least one of the plurality of electrode layers at the second point is 1.2 times or less as the average film thickness.
However, Tanaka suggests an end portion of an electrode is specifically shaped, as claimed (detailed next), to enable generally flat characteristics of potential in the range from the end of the electrode to the central area of the electrode, such that dendrites and shorts can be prevented, see e.g., col. 12 lines 4-25.
Specifically, Tanaka suggests at least one of the plurality of electrode layers includes an end portion (e.g., labelled “end”), a first portion (e.g., labelled “1st”), and a second portion (e.g., labelled “2nd”, apex of S1), as annotated Fig. 2B below.
PNG
media_image1.png
471
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated FIG. 2B.
Tanaka suggests a first increase rate of 0.15 or more from the end portion to a first point (e.g., column 10 lines 25-42 suggest the angle from the end portion (end) to the first point (1st) is 30°, 45°, 60°; 45° suggests a first increase rate of 0.58, which overlaps with that claimed).
Tanka describes the tip portion (S1, located from the first portion to the second portion) is not sharp and the apex angle of the triangle approximating the area S1 is 60° or larger, such that the angle between one of the two sides forming the apex angle of the triangle and the flat current collector is 60° or smaller; as the apex angle approaches greater than 60°, the angle between one of the two sides forming the apex angle of the triangle and the flat current collector is smaller than 60°, thus, a second increase rate, from the first point to a second point, approaches 0.1 or less (e.g., smaller angles approach 0.1 or less, e.g., tan 6° = 0.1, tan 4° = 0.07, etc.).
Tanaka further suggest the film thickness of the at least one of the plurality of electrode layers at the second point is a local maximum thickness (e.g., d0, Fig. 2A) and is 1.2 times or less as an average film thickness (e.g., d, Fig. 2A) of the at least one of the plurality of electrode layers (e.g., 290/250 = 1.16, Table 5, see also col. 10 lines 9-12).
Finally, Tanaka suggests an intersection of a straight line N and an upper surface of the at least one of the plurality of electrode layers is defined as the first point (labelled below).
PNG
media_image2.png
421
588
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Further, considering the increasing rates are suggested by Tanaka and the length L (Fig. 2A, e.g., WD2 in Table 3) is 50-200 µm, when a tangent M is drawn it is expected to pass through a point Q that is close to 35 µ away from the end portion in an in-plane direction. Similarly, based on the increasing rates and the length L, from the second point where the film thickness is maximum toward the first point, a tangent L passes through the point P and a distance from the second portion to the point P is close to 20 µm in the in-plane direction, and a point of intersection of tangents L and M is an intersection R, and the straight line N passing through the intersection R which is perpendicular to a bottom surface of the at least one of the plurality of electrode layers. The values suggested by Tanaka overlap with that claimed or are close, and resultant through routine experimentation (provided the disclosed angles and lengths of Tanaka); absent evidence of criticality, the claims are obvious, MPEP 2144.05.
Tanaka notes that lithium is taken out more easily at the edge of the positive electrode compared to the central area when the thickness of the edge portion (i.e., tip portion) is thinner than the central area (see e.g., Fig. 3, line b, high potential is observed at the edge compared to the central area). Thus, a higher current is expected at the edge of the positive electrode, which deviates from that observed in the central area of the positive electrode; in other words, current is non-uniform along the positive electrode area. Conversely, when the tip portion (edge) of the positive electrode is thicker with respect to the central area of the positive electrode, the amount of lithium taken out at the edge of the positive electrode is less than at the central area of the positive electrode, thereby resulting in a reduced potential at the edge compared to the central area of the electrode (see e.g., Fig. 3, line c). Thus, a lower current is expected at the edge of the positive electrode which deviates from that observed in the central area of the positive electrode; in other words, current is non-uniform along the positive electrode area. While the amount of lithium taken out at the edge of the positive electrode (i.e., line c) is less than at the central area of the electrode, the amount of lithium ions moving to the tip portion of the negative electrode is larger than the central portion, such that lithium dendrites are expected and shorts may occur. See e.g., col. 12. Tanaka offers an improved electrode edge shape that enables more uniform current flow across the entire electrode (i.e., edge and central area). As is apparent in Fig. 3, line a, the shape of the edge (detailed above) of the positive electrode allows generally flat characteristics of potential from the end of the electrode to the central area; since more uniform current flow is expected (as evidenced by the potential), the prevalence of lithium dendrites and shorts is reduced. Kondo describes that, like the batteries described by Tanaka, non-uniform current flow is also a concern with all-solid state batteries/electrodes; current concentrates on portions of the electrode where current flows most easily, thereby resulting in a difference in current density distribution ([0005-0007]). Specifically, current flows intensively at the edge/peripheral portions of the all-solid state electrodes such that the volume expansion phenomenon accompanying charging/discharging becomes larger at the ends than at the center of the electrodes. As a result, the battery discharge capacity decreases, and continues to reduce with cycling. Tanaka offers a solution (modification of the electrode edge shape, detailed above) to reduce the non-uniform current flow that occurs in all solid state electrodes. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate electrodes having the end shapes detailed by Tanaka in the solid state battery electrodes of Baba since there is an expectation of more uniform current flow across the electrode, which is further expected to reduced dendrites/shorts and improving the discharge capacity observed with cycling, as suggested by Tanaka and Kondo.
Regarding Claim 4, Baba was modified by Tanaka and Kondo as set forth in the rejection of claims 1-2 above; further, Tanaka suggests the average film thickness (e.g., d) of the at least one of the plurality of electrode layers between 5-40 µm (col. 10, lines 52-63) and an average film thickness of each of the plurality of solid electrolyte layers (e.g., separators) is between 5-15 µm (col. 14 lines 1-15).
Regarding Claim 5, Baba was modified by Tanaka and Kondo as set forth in the rejection of claims 1-2 above; further, Tanaka suggests the length L is 50-200 µm (e.g., based on Table 3, WD2), thereby suggesting the distance between the end portion and the second point is 70 µm or more, thus, also suggesting a distance between the end portion and the first point is between 40-60µm, or close thereto. Absent evidence of criticality, Tanaka’s ranges, which overlap with that claimed or are close, suggest a prima facie case of obvious, MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baba, Tanaka, and Kondo, further in view of Hinoki et al. (US 2005/0214647), hereinafter Hinoki.
Regarding Claim 3, as set forth under the rejection of claim 1, Tanaka suggests the second increase rage is 0.03 or more and 0.09 or less (e.g., as the apex angle approaches greater than 60°, the angle between one of the two sides forming the apex angle of the triangle and the flat current collector is smaller than 60°, thus, a second increase rate, from the first point to a second point, approaches 0.1 or less; smaller angles approach 0.03 to 0.09, e.g., tan 5° = 0.087, tan 4° = 0.07, etc.
Tanaka suggests the first increase rate is 0.15 or more (e.g., see rejection of claim 1); Tanaka’s disclosure of the rise angle (30° or larger) suggests the first increase rate is 0.58, which is close to 0.4 or less, thus obvious absent evidence of criticality, MPEP 2144.05. Further, Hinoki appreciates smaller angles (e.g., less than 30 °) at the electrode edge because chipping and peeling of the active layer can be suppressed, [0020, 0083]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the first increase rate between 0.15 to 0.4 with the expectation of suppressing electrode active layer chipping and peeling, as suggested by Hinoki.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
