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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/16/2024 has/have been received and complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner, and a copy with initials is attached herewith.
Drawings
3. The drawings were received on 4/11/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 1-10 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al (US 20160126558 A1) in view of Chiang et al (WO 03012908 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Lewis discloses a solid state battery comprising an electrically insulating substrate (glass substrate) (110); first and second conductive contact layers (114, 118) deposited on the substrate (110), the first contact layer (110) having a first pattern, and the second contact layer (118) having a second pattern. A cathode layer (106) deposited on the first contact layer (114) and conforming to the first pattern; an anode layer (102) deposited on the second contact layer (118) and conforming to the second pattern. and a solid electrolyte supported by the cathode layer (106) [Fig. 1; paragraph 0002, 0020-0023, 0040, 0045]. Lewis fails to explicitly disclose wherein the cathode layer is infiltrated with the solid electrolyte. However, Chiang is in the field of lithium ion batteries and teaches the cathode layer is infiltrated with the solid electrolyte. The infiltration and drying steps are optionally repeated until the interior surfaces of the porous cathode structure are everywhere coated with a layer of the PEO electrolyte [page 18, line 22; page 81, line 14-16]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the battery of Lewis to include the cathode layer is infiltrated with the solid electrolyte as taught by Chiang. The motivation being to provide an electrochemical device that maximizes electrode interface area with the ionically conductive medium and minimizes the distance or path length that ions and/or electrons must reliably traverse during operation of the device [Chiang: page 5, lines 2-4].
Regarding claim 2, Lewis teaches that the first and second patterns (114, 118) are formed on a substrate 110 in an interdigitated configuration [Fig. 1a; paragraph 0020].
Regarding claim 3, Chiang teaches that the cathode layer is a composite comprising carbon coated lithium iron phosphate (CLiFePO4) nanoparticles or microparticles embedded in a polymer matrix (A suspension is prepared of a fine powder (particles) lithium storage cathode such as LiFePO4 or other such cathodes well-known to those skilled in the art in a solvent with a binder, optionally a conductive additive such as carbon (LiFePO4 that is in a solvent and a conductive additive carbon becomes CLiFePO4)) [page 56, lines 8-11]. The binder is, for example, a solid polymer electrolyte (polymer matrix) [page 57, line 8].
Regarding claim 4, Chiang teaches that the polymer matrix comprises polypyrrole (PPy) or a derivative thereof (in those embodiments where a coating is used for materials 1 or 3, the coatings include, but are not limited to blends of the electronically conductive polymers poly(o- methoxyaniline) (POMA) or poly (3-octylthiophene) (POTh) with PVDF or PEO, or polypyrrole, polyanilne and derivatives thereof) [page 45, lines 3-6].
Regarding claim 5, Lewis teaches that the anode layer comprises nickel [paragraph 0024].
Regarding claim 6, Lewis teaches that the solid electrolyte (gel electrolyte) comprises polyethylene oxide (Polymer and gel electrolytes typically add a polymer host and a cross-linking agent to a non-aqueous electrolyte system. Exemplary polymer hosts include polyethylene oxide) [paragraph 0046].
Regarding claim 7, Lewis teaches that the first and/or second conductive contact layers comprise a metal or metal alloy selected from the group consisting of gold, gold alloys, and nickel/gold alloys ( interdigitated gold current collector patterns) [paragraph 0049].
Regarding claim 8, Lewis teaches that the substrate comprises silicon dioxide, glass, silicon, or a non-conductive polymer (a glass substrate) [paragraph 0040].
Regarding claim 9, Lewis teaches that the substrate is flexible or rigid (a glass substrate) [paragraph 0040].
Regarding claim 10, Lewis teaches that the battery is a microbattery ([paragraph 0020].
Regarding claim 14, Lewis teaches an electronic device comprising the battery of claim 1 (The proliferation of microscale devices, such as micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS), biomedical sensors, wireless sensors, and actuators drives demand for power sources with commensurate form factors) [paragraph 0003].
Regarding claim 15, Lewis teaches that the electronic device of claim 14 which is a sensor, a biosensor, a biomedical sensor, an RFID tag, a device for use in the Internet of Things, a wearable electronic item, a flexible electronic device, or a micro actuator (The proliferation of microscale devices, such as micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS), biomedical sensors, wireless sensors, and actuators drives demand for power sources with commensurate form factors ) [paragraph 0003].
8. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al (US 20160126558 A1) in view of Chiang et al (WO 03012908 A2) as applied in claim 1 and further in view of Amiruddin et al (US 20110236751 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Lewis fails to explicitly disclose the loss of original capacity after 200 charging cycles. However, Amiruddin is in the field of the batteries and teaches that during operation of a device using a lithium ion battery, the user may pick various states of charge at which to perform a recharging step. On the other hand, the battery formed with formation protocol B has a specific capacity at the 200th cycle of about 193 mAh/g and experiences a 16-17 percent capacity fade (loss) between the 5th discharge cycle (232 MAh/g) and the 200th cycle [paragraph 0001, 0035, 0106].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the teachings of capacity with charging cycles as taught by Amiruddin in order to provide relatively high voltage operation and procedures for preparing the batteries and cycling the batteries such that the batteries exhibit good cycling in high voltage operation [Amiruddin: paragraph 0001].
9. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al (US 20160126558 A1) in view of Chiang et al (WO 03012908 A2) as applied in claim 1 and further in view of Berland et al (US 20190165342 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Lewis teaches the battery, wherein the first and second conductive patterns (114,118) are formed on a substrate (110) in an interdigitated configuration [paragraph 0020]. Lewis teaches that the interdigitated gold current collector patterns are patterned on glass substrates by a combination of lithographic patterning and e-beam deposition [paragraph 0049]. Lewis also teaches that the anode layer comprises Li4Ti5O12 (LTO) [paragraph 0024]. Lewis further teaches that the polymer and gel electrolytes typically add a polymer host and a cross-linking agent to a non-aqueous electrolyte system. Exemplary polymer hosts include polyethylene oxide [paragraph 0046].
Chiang teaches that the cathode layer comprises carbon coated lithium iron phosphate (CLiFePO4) nanoparticles or microparticles embedded in a PPy polymer matrix [page 56, lines 8-11, page 45, lines 3-6].
Lewis/Chiang fails to explicitly teach that the first and second contact layers comprise a Ni/Au alloy. However, Berland is in the field of a solid-state thin-film rechargeable battery and teaches the first and second contact layers comprise a Ni/Au alloy [paragraph 0002, 0072].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the battery of Lewis/Chiang to include the first and second contact layers comprising a Ni/Au alloy as taught by Berland in order to provide batteries with improved water vapor transmission rates, improved thermal stability, higher operating temperatures, and greater electrical isolation [ Berland: paragraph 0028].
10. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al (US 20160126558 A1) in view of Chiang et al (WO 03012908 A2) as applied in claim 1 and further in view of Xu et al (US 20210218062 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Lewis/Chiang fails to explicitly disclose the battery has a discharge capacity of at least about 157 mAh g-1 at 35 oC and a cycling stability of at least about 78 % capacity retention and 99.7 % coulombic efficiency after 200 cycles.
Xu is in the field of lithium-ion batteries and teaches that the battery has a discharge capacity of at least about 157 mAh g-1 at 35 oC and a cycling stability of at least about 78 % capacity retention and 99.7 % coulombic efficiency after 200 cycles [paragraph 0075, 0195, 0229].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the battery characteristics as taught by Xu in order to provide the lithium ion battery having stability of cycling life, discharge capacity, capacity retention, and/or Coulombic efficiency [Xu: paragraph 0003, 0154].
Reasons for Allowance
11. Claims 16-24 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As for claim 16, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or suggest or render obvious a method of fabricating a solid state battery, the method comprising the steps of:(a) depositing first and second interdigitated conductive contact layers onto a surface of an insulating substrate, the first contact layer having a first pattern, and the second contact layer having a second pattern; (b) depositing a self-assembling monolayer onto the substrate at exposed areas not covered by the first and second conductive contact layers; (c) depositing a cathode layer onto the first conductive contact layer by electrodeposition using cyclic voltammetry to form a cathode; (d) removing the self-assembled monolayer, (e) depositing an anode film onto the second conductive contact layer by electroplating to form an anode; (f) depositing a solid electrolyte layer by dip coating the structure resulting from (e) in a suspension of solid electrolyte particles and drying the resulting covered structure to form the solid state battery, whereby a portion of the solid electrolyte particles become embedded in the cathode layer.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
