POSITIVE ELECTRODE FOR SOLID-STATE SECONDARY BATTERY AND SOLID-STATE SECONDARY BATTERY INCLUDING THE SAME

§103 §112

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 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. Claims 1-10 are 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation, “when the amount of the positive electrode active material in the positive electrode active material layer is 100 wt%,”, and the claim also recites, “ the positive electrode active material layer is greater than or equal to 85 wt% and less than or equal to 92 wt%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 8 recites in part. “a volume density of the positive electrode active material layer after compressing is greater than or equal to 3.2 g/cm3.” The factors, pressure profile, dwell time, temperature, particle size, compound, affecting compressing are not claimed or disclosed, making the claim indefinite. 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. Claim(s) 1- 5, 7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yui et al. (US2019/0181432A1). Regarding claim 1,Yui discloses a positive electrode for a solid-state secondary battery [Abstract], comprising a positive electrode current collector (Cathode current collector 14 [0071]) and a positive electrode active material layer (Cathode active material layer 11 [0071]), wherein the positive electrode active material layer includes a positive electrode active material [0067], a solid electrolyte (Sulfide solid electrolyte [0067], a binder [0068], and a conductive auxiliary agent (Conductive material [0067], an amount of the positive electrode active material based on 100 wt% of the positive electrode active material layer is greater than or equal to 85 wt% and less than or equal to 92 wt%, an amount of the solid electrolyte based on 100 wt% of the positive electrode active material layer is greater than or equal to 7 wt% and less than or equal to 15 wt% (Total amount of active material, solid electrolyte, binder, and conductive material are mixed in the weight ratio of 80+20+12+1.5 +1.5= 115 [0117], where the total amount of active material, first and second cathode active material, is 80+20 =100 and 100/115 = 86.9 wt% which overlaps the claimed range, and the amount of solid electrolyte is 12/115 =10.4 wt% which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Regarding claim 2,Yui discloses a D50 [0035] based on a volume-based particle size distribution obtained by a laser diffraction/scattering particle size distribution measurement method of the positive electrode active material is greater than or equal to 1 µm and less than or equal to 20 µm. (first cathode active material is 6 μm or more and 13 μm or less [0015], which overlaps the claimed range). Claim 2, “particle size distribution obtained by a laser diffraction/scattering particle size distribution measurement method” is/are considered product-by-process. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). Regarding claim 3,Yui discloses the positive electrode active material includes two types of positive electrode active materials [0014] with different D50 (In the present disclosure, the average particle diameter refers to D.sub.50 in particle distribution [0035]), wherein one of the two types of positive electrode active materials, a small particle size positive electrode active material, has a D50 of greater than or equal to 1 µm and less than 10 µm (The average particle diameter of the second cathode active material is 3 μm or less [0016] which overlaps the claimed range), and the other large particle size positive electrode active material has a D50 of greater than or equal to 10 µm and less than or equal to 20 µm (The average particle diameter of the first cathode active material is 6 μm or more and 13 μm or less [0015], which overlaps the claimed range). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated, Yui discloses the small particle size positive electrode active material has the D50 of greater than or equal to 2 pm and less than 8 pm [0016] and the large particle size positive electrode active material has the D50 of greater than or equal to 8 pm and less than or equal to 20 pm [0015]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated, Yui discloses the small particle size positive electrode active material has the D50 of greater than or equal to 2 pm and less than 8 pm [0016] and the large particle size positive electrode active material has the D50 of greater than or equal to 10 pm and less than or equal to 20 pm [0015]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Regarding claim 7, Yui discloses the solid electrolyte is a sulfide-based solid electrolyte including lithium, phosphorus, and sulfur [0065], and a D50 based on a volume-based particle size distribution obtained by a laser diffraction/scattering particle size distribution measurement method is greater than or equal to 0.1 µm and less than or equal to 3 µm (The average particle diameter (D.sub.50) of the sulfide solid electrolyte in a granular shape is preferably in a range of 0.1 μm to 50 μm [0064]),. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claim 7, “particle size distribution obtained by a laser diffraction/scattering particle size distribution measurement method” is/are considered product-by-process. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). Regarding claim 9, Yui discloses a discharge specific capacity for a charging and discharging rate of 1/3 C [0151] buts does not explicitly disclose a discharge energy density ratio which is obtained by dividing the discharge energy density when a discharge current is 1 C by the discharge energy density when a discharge current is 0.1 C is greater than or equal to 0.70 and less than 1.00.However regarding the limitation of claim 9 it is noted the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) MPEP 2114 Claim(s) 6, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yui et al. (US2019/0181432A1), in further view of Yashiro et al. (JP2020191202A) Regarding claim 6, Yui discloses a cathode active material of Li NiCoMnO2 [0043], but does not explicitly disclose the active material of formula (1). In the same field of endeavor Yashiro discloses a solid-state secondary battery cathode active material [Abstract] and teaches in example (1) the positive electrode layer of LiNi .sub.0.8 Co .sub.0.15 Al .sub.0.05 O .sub.2 (NCA) which at a=1, x=0.8, y=0.15, and 1-x-y=0.05 meets the limitation of formula (1). Therefore it would be obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use active material as taught by Yashiro because the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. and at the time of the invention LiNi .sub.0.8 Co .sub.0.15 Al .sub.0.05 O .sub.2 was known to be used as an active material. (see MPEP § 2143, B.) Claim(s) 8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yui et al. (US2019/0181432A1), in further view of Paulsen et al. (US2016/0006032A1)) Regarding claim 8,Yui discloses the positive electrode structure as claimed in claim 1, however does not explicitly disclose a volume density of greater than or equal to 3.8 g/cm.sup.3. In the same field of endeavor Paulsen discloses a lithium metal oxide powder for use as a cathode material in a rechargeable battery, [Abstract] and teaches LiCoO.sub.2-based cathode materials is a high packing density, which allows increasing the energy density of commercial secondary batteries, and a pressed density is typically in the range of over 3.40 g/cm.sup.3 and preferably at least 3.70 g/cm.sup.3. In one embodiment, the pressed density is as high as 3.90 g/cm.sup.3 [0044], which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Yui with the pressed density as taught by Paulsen to improve energy density of the battery. Further, regarding the limitation of “compressing” is/are considered product-by-process. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yui et al. (US2019/0181432A1),as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Araki et al. (US2021/0257610A1, with foreign priority date of February 18, 2020.) Regarding claim 10, Yui discloses the method of producing a cathode active material by spray coat method [0091-0099] but does not explicitly disclose forming the positive electrode active material layer by a dry method to manufacture the positive electrode. In the same field of endeavor Araki discloses a lithium-ion secondary battery positive electrode active material [Abstract] and teaches a well-known method [0060] of a complex formation method include a method in which the covering layer adheres or bonds to the first positive electrode active material surface by mechanical milling [0061], where formation is formed by compression force or shear force [0062], and applying the same dry methods to form the solid state battery of Yui by applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fujiki et al. (US2016/0079597A1) LCO particle is used as the positive active material particle may have an improved volumetric density. Fujino et al. (US2020/0044284A1) Positive electrode active material weight Percents of Lithium, electrolyte, binder and conductive material. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BART A HORNSBY whose telephone number is (313)446-6637. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 EST. 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 T Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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. BART HORNSBY Examiner Art Unit 1728 /MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728