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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3/21/2024. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-12, 14-15, and 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishikura et al. (WO 2013-035519 A1, hereafter Ishikura).
With regard to claim 1, Ishikura teaches a solid-state electrochemical cell comprising:
a cathode current collector (current collector layer 4 in contact with positive electrode layer 1) [0023, fig. 1],
a sintered (fired) cathode layer (positive electrode layer 1) arranged on the cathode current collector [0023, 0026, fig. 1],
a sintered (fired) electrolyte layer (solid electrolyte layer 2) arranged on the sintered cathode layer [0023, 0026, fig. 1],
a sintered (fired) anode layer (negative electrode layer 3) arranged on the sintered electrolyte layer [0023, 0026, fig. 1], and
an anode current collector (current collector layer 4 in contact with negative electrode layer 3) arranged on the anode layer [0023, 0026, fig. 1].
With regard to claim 2, Ishikura teaches the sintered cathode layer (positive electrode layer 1) comprises electrolyte material [0025-0026].
With regard to claim 3, Ishikura teaches the electrolyte material is dispersed along a thickness of the sintered cathode layer (mixed throughout positive electrode layer 1 due to mixed slurry) [0025-0026, 0033-0034].
With regard to claim 9, Ishikura teaches the anode layer (negative electrode layer 3) comprises electrolyte material [0025-0026].
With regard to claim 10, Ishikura teaches a method of manufacturing a solid-state electrochemical cell comprising:
providing a precursor laminate (laminate 10), the precursor laminate comprising [0023, fig. 1]:
a cathode precursor layer (un-sintered body) comprising cathode precursor (positive electrode layer 1) [0026];
an electrolyte precursor (un-sintered body) layer comprising electrolyte precursor (solid electrolyte layer 2) [0026]; and
an anode precursor (un-sintered body) layer comprising anode precursor (negative electrode layer 3) [0026]; and
sintering (firing) the precursor laminate to provide a sintered laminate comprising a cathode layer, an electrolyte layer, and an anode layer [0026].
With regard to claim 11, Ishikura teaches a current collector precursor (un-sintered body of current collector layer 4) which would necessarily be a cathode or anode collector [0026, fig. 1].
With regard to claim 12, Ishikura teaches providing a cathode or anode current collector (current collector layer 4 would necessarily be a cathode or anode collector) to the sintered laminate (interposed with stacked bodies) [0030, fig. 1-2].
With regard to claim 14, Ishikura teaches cathode precursor layer (un-sintered positive electrode layer 1) comprises electrolyte precursor [0025-0026].
With regard to claim 15, Ishikura teaches the electrolyte material is dispersed along a thickness of the sintered cathode layer (mixed throughout positive electrode layer 1 due to mixed slurry) [0025-0026, 0033-0034].
With regard to claim 18, Ishikura teaches separating portions (laser cutting) of the sintered laminate along a plane orthogonal to the layers to provide a plurality of solid-state electrochemical cells [0026, 0028, 0030, fig. 3].
With regard to claim 19, Ishikura teaches a solid state electrochemical cell obtainable from the method of claim 10 [0023-0026, 0046].
With regard to claim 20, Ishikura teaches a sintered (fired) laminate material comprising a cathode layer (positive electrode layer 1) and an anode layer (negative electrode layer 3) on the electrolyte layer (solid electrolyte layer 2) [0023, 0026, fig. 1].
With regard to claim 21, Ishikura teaches a battery stack comprising a plurality of solid-state electrochemical cells according to claim 1 [0023-0026, 0030, 0060, fig. 2].
With regard to claim 22, Ishikura teaches the battery of claim 1 as described in the rejection of claim 1 and further teaches portable devices that use batteries [0002].
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikura as applied to claims 1-3, 9-12, 14-15, and 18-22 above, and further in view of Nakahara (US 2020/0227774 A1, hereafter Nakahara).
With regard to claims 4-5, Ishikura does not explicitly teach a concentration of the electrolyte material in the cathode layer decreasing. However, in the same field of endeavor, Nakahara teaches using layers to create gradients that transition from primarily solid state electrolyte material to primarily cathode material (which would be substantially free of electrolyte material, claim 5) [0039]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the gradient of Nakahara with the cathode layer of Ishikura for the benefit of creating interfaces that have high ionic conductivity and low degradation [Nakahara 0014-0015].
With regard to claim 16, Ishikura does not explicitly teach a concentration of the electrolyte material in the cathode layer decreasing. However, in the same field of endeavor, Nakahara teaches using layers to create gradients that transition from primarily solid state electrolyte material to primarily cathode material [0039]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the gradient of Nakahara with the method of Ishikura for the benefit of creating interfaces that have high ionic conductivity and low degradation [Nakahara 0014-0015].
Claim(s) 6-7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikura as applied to claims 1-3, 9-12, 14-15, and 18-22 above, and further in view of Nam et al. (US 2022/0069279 A1, hereafter Nam).
With regard to claims 6-7, Ishikura does not explicitly teach a concentration of the electrolyte material in the cathode layer increasing. However, in the same field of endeavor, Nam teaches the use of a cathode (positive electrode) layer with a concentration gradient of electrolyte material that increases towards the electrolyte layer (concentration of active material increases indicating balance of solid state electrolyte material decreases) [0007-0010]. Nam further teaches the concentration of positive active material adjacent the positive (cathode) current collector is as high as 97 wt% which may be considered substantially free of electrolyte material (claim 7) [0009]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the concentration gradient of Nam with the cathode layer of Ishikura for the benefit of lowering resistance generation and increasing battery capacity [Nam 0045].
With regard to claim 17, Ishikura does not explicitly teach a concentration of the electrolyte material in the cathode layer increasing. However, in the same field of endeavor, Nam teaches the use of a cathode (positive electrode) layer with a concentration gradient of electrolyte material that increases towards the electrolyte layer (concentration of active material increases indicating balance of solid state electrolyte material decreases) [0007-0010]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the concentration gradient of Nam with the method of Ishikura for the benefit of lowering resistance generation and increasing battery capacity [Nam 0045].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikura as applied to claims 1-3, 9-12, 14-15, and 18-22 above, and further in view of Mizutani (US 2016/0072120 A1, hereafter Mizutani).
With regard to claim 8, Ishikura does not explicitly teach the claimed weight percentage of electrolyte material. However, in the same field of endeavor, Mizutani teaches the use of 6 to 40 mass percent of solid electrolyte material in a cathode [0044]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the mass percentage of Mizutani with the electrochemical cell of Ishikura for the benefit of excellent ion and proton conductivity [Mizutani 0044].
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikura as applied to claims 1-3, 9-12, 14-15, and 18-22 above, and further in view of Sakamoto et al. (US 2019/0214650 A1).
With regard to claim 13, Ishikura does not teach an un-sintered portion of the current collector. However, in the same field of endeavor, Sakamoto teaches a current collector with a metal foil (un-sintered portion) clad with a sintered solid state electrolyte [0013, 0023, 0058]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the collector material with the method of Ishikura for the benefit of improved compatibility with a variety of electrode materials.[Sakamoto 0010].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT C THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7737. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible schedule, typical hours 11-7 M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/BRENT C THOMAS/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights