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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “rain size” should instead be “grain size.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the porosity." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (“a porosity” is suggested).
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.
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 1-7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (US 2020/0091522), and further in view of Tu et al. (US 2020/0220159).
Regarding Claim 1, Ito teaches an all solid battery (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 1, Ito teaches that the battery comprises a solid electrolyte layer (30) (“solid electrolyte layer”) that includes a phosphate-based solid electrolyte having a NASICON type crystal structure (“first solid electrolyte”), a positive electrode layer (11) (“positive electrode layer”) that is provided on a bottom face of the solid electrolyte layer (“first main face”), and a negative electrode layer (21) (“negative electrode layer”) that is provided on a top face of the solid electrolyte layer (“second main face”) ([0021]-[0022]). Ito teaches that the positive electrode layer includes a positive electrode active material and a phosphate-based solid electrolyte having a NASICON type crystal structure (“second solid electrolyte”), and that the negative electrode layer includes a negative electrode active material and a phosphate-based solid electrolyte having a NASICON type crystal structure (“third solid electrolyte”) ([0023]-[0024], [0033]).
Ito does not explicitly teach that the average grain size of the solid electrolyte in the positive or negative electrode layer is in accordance with the instantly claimed range. Furthermore, Ito does not explicitly teach an average grain size ratio as instantly claimed in accordance with the instantly claimed range.
However, Tu teaches a solid-state battery (Abstract, [0036]-[0037]). Tu teaches that the battery comprises a positive electrode including a positive active material and a first solid electrolyte, wherein it is noted that the first solid electrolyte of Tu is, for example, a phosphate-based solid electrolyte having a NASICON type crystal structure ([0004], [0026]). Tu teaches that (1) the positive active material has an average particle diameter of 1-30 µm, (2) the first solid electrolyte has an average particle diameter of 0.1-4.0 µm, and (3) a ratio of the average particle diameter of the positive active material to the average particle diameter of the first solid electrolyte is 3-40 ([0004]-[0020]). Tu teaches that said average particle size characteristics provide for improved charge transport performance characteristics ([0020], [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the positive electrode layer such that (1) the positive electrode active material has an average particle diameter (“average grain size”) of 1-30 µm, (2) the solid electrolyte in the positive electrode layer has an average particle diameter (“average grain size”) of 0.1-4.0 µm, and (3) a ratio (“average grain size ratio”) of the average particle diameter of the positive electrode active material to the average particle diameter of the solid electrolyte in the positive electrode layer is 3-40, as taught by Tu, given that such average particle size characteristics would help provide for improve charge transport performance characteristics. It is noted that in the case where the claimed range “overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 2, Ito, as modified by Tu, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Furthermore, Ito teaches that the solid electrolyte in the positive electrode layer is present in an amount of up to 70 vol% in order to secure a conduction path of ions ([0034]).
Therefore, given that the solid electrolyte in the positive electrode layer may form up to 70 vol% of the overall positive electrode layer (i.e. all other components of the positive electrode layer may only form 30 vol% of the positive electrode layer), an occupancy ratio of the solid electrolyte in the positive electrode layer in a cross section viewed in the instantly claimed manner would at least overlap with the instantly claimed occupancy ratio of the second solid electrolyte. It is noted that in the case where the claimed range “overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Applicant is welcome to provide explicit evidence that the positive electrode layer of Ito, as modified by Tu, cannot exhibit an occupancy ratio as claimed despite the solid electrolyte forming up to 70 vol% of the overall positive electrode layer
Regarding Claim 3, Ito, as modified by Tu, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the average particle diameter of the solid electrolyte in the positive electrode layer is 0.1-4.0 µm.
Regarding Claim 4, Ito, as modified by Tu, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Ito, as modified by Tu, does not explicitly teach that the porosity in the positive electrode layer is in accordance with the instantly claimed range.
However, Tu teaches a solid-state battery (Abstract, [0036]-[0037]). Tu teaches that the battery comprises a positive electrode including a positive active material and a first solid electrolyte, wherein it is noted that the first solid electrolyte of Tu is, for example, a phosphate-based solid electrolyte having a NASICON type crystal structure ([0004], [0026]). Tu teaches that the positive electrode has a porosity of 1-10% ([0032]). Tu teaches that said porosity helps provide for improved packing density that results in improved specific energy and energy density characteristics ([0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the positive electrode layer of Ito, as modified by Tu, such that it has a porosity of 1-10%, as taught by Tu, given that such a porosity would help provide for improved packing density that results in improved specific energy and energy density characteristics. It is noted that in the case where the claimed range “overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 5, Ito, as modified by Tu, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the solid electrolyte in the positive electrode layer includes a phosphate-based solid electrolyte having a NASICON type crystal structure.
Regarding Claim 6, Ito, as modified by Tu, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the solid electrolyte in the positive electrode layer includes a phosphate-based solid electrolyte having a NASICON type crystal structure.
Regarding Claim 7, Ito, as modified by Tu, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), Ito teaches that the positive electrode layer includes a positive electrode active material. In particular, Ito teaches that the positive electrode active material is LiCoPO4 ([0023]-[0024]).
Regarding Claim 9, Ito, as modified by Tu, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 7, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 7), the positive electrode active material is LiCoPO4.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (US 2020/0091522), and further in view of Tu et al. (US 2020/0220159) and Masuda et al. (“Internal potential mapping of charged solid-state-lithium ion batteries using in situ Kelvin probe force microscopy”).
Regarding Claim 8, Ito, as modified by Tu, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 7, as previously described.
Ito, as modified by Tu, does not explicitly teach that the solid electrolyte in the positive electrode layer includes cobalt.
However, and as previously described (See Claim 7), the positive electrode active material is LiCoPO4. Furthermore, Ito teaches that the solid electrolyte in the positive electrode layer is, for example, LATP (i.e. the phosphate-based solid electrolyte having a NASICON type crystal structure is LATP) ([0033]).
Masuda teaches a solid state lithium battery (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 1(a), Masuda teaches that the battery includes a positive electrode including LiCoPO4 as a positive active material, and LATP as a solid electrolyte, wherein the LATP solid electrolyte is doped with cobalt (Results and discussion, “Sample preparation” of Methods). Masuda teaches that LiCoPO4 and LATP are known to react with one another during co-sintering at high temperature, so the LATP is doped with cobalt to suppress said reaction (“Sample preparation” of Methods).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would dope the solid electrolyte in the positive electrolyte layer of Ito, as modified by Tu, with cobalt, as taught by Masuda, given that such a dopant would help suppress reactions between the positive active material and the solid electrolyte, especially during co-sintering at high temperature.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
