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 § 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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamitake et al. (US 2020/0350561 A1), further in view of Komura (US 2021/0143434 A1) and Orikasa et al. ("Transient Phase Change in Two Phase Reaction between LiFePO4 and FePO4 under Battery Operation", Chemistry of Materials, 9 April 2013; 25 (7): Pages 1032-1039).
Regarding Claim 1, Kamitake teaches a battery comprising a cathode, an electrolyte layer, and an anode (Paragraph [0123]; Fig. 2, Items 2000, 201, 202, and 203) wherein the electrolyte layer is a solid electrolyte material (Paragraph [0129]) and the cathode material includes a cathode active material and a first solid electrolyte material (Paragraph [0016]) and the anode may include a solid electrolyte material (Paragraph [0220]). Kamitake also teaches the cathode material to include the compound LiFePO4 as the cathode active material (Paragraph [0245]), and the first solid electrolyte material is represented by LiαMβXγ (Paragraph [0017], “Formula (1)”), where M includes at least one selected from the group consisting of metalloid elements and metal elements other than Li (Paragraph [0020]) and X includes at least one of Cl, Br, and I (Paragraph [0021]). Kamitake does not teach the negative electrode or anode layer to include an anode active material and a solid electrolyte material, or that the positive electrode active material compound including a transition metal element and an oxoanion is capable of an electrochemical two-phase coexistence reaction with lithium.
Komura teaches an electrode of an all-solid-state battery is produced by a wet process wherein an electrode active material, a sulfide solid electrolyte, a dispersion medium, and the like are mixed to prepare a slurry, and the resulting slurry is applied to a surface of an electrode current collector and dried to form an electrode active material layer (Paragraph [0005]) and this process is used to produce both a positive electrode (Paragraph [0138]) and a negative electrode (Paragraph [0186]).
Orikasa teaches a two-phase reaction of LiFePO4 in phase transition dynamics relevant to rate capability of LIBs (Introduction, ¶ 1-2). Orikasa further proves a two-phase reaction between LFP (Li-rich Li1-αFePO4) and FP (Li-poor LiβFePO4) indicating a fraction of each phase changes during the charge reaction (Result and Discussion, ¶ 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the electrode manufacturing process as taught by Komura and the two-phase reactions of LiFePO4 as taught by Orikasa with, respectively, the positive and negative electrode compositions and LiFePO4 in a positive electrode active material of Kamitake in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as utilizing electrode manufacturing methods well-known in the art and achieving thermodynamic stability with the gradual decrease of a nonequilibrium FP (Li-poor LiβFePO4) phase as taught by Orikasa (Conclusion). See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008 in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
Regarding Claims 2-4 and 6-7, Kamitake teaches the cathode material to include the compound LiFePO4 as the cathode active material (Paragraph [0245]), which includes Fe as a transition metal element and PO43- as an oxoanion which further includes the element P.
Regarding Claim 8, Kamitake teaches “metal elements” as used in M of Formula (1) to describe the solid electrolyte (Paragraph [0017]) to include all elements included in Group 1 to Group 12 of the periodic table except for hydrogen (Paragraph [0033]), which encompasses the claimed elements for M1 of the instant claims in Group 1 (Na and K), Group 2 (Mg, Ca, Sr, and Ba), Group 3 (Sc, Y) and lanthanides (La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu), and Group 4 (Zr, Hf) .
Regarding Claim 9, Kamitake teaches that M of Formula (1) may include Y, namely, yttrium (Paragraph [0036]).
Regarding Claim 10, Kamitake teaches the solid electrolyte material may be represented by Li6-3dYdX6 (Paragraph [0046], “Formula (B1)”) where X includes at least one of Cl, Br, and I (Paragraph [0047]) and 0<d<2 (Paragraph [0048]). Kamitake further teaches Li2.7Y1.1Cl6 (Paragraph [0254]), which fulfills Formula (B1) when d=1.1. In the instant claim, Li3-3αY1+αCl6 and -0.2≤α≤0.2 may apply α=0.1 to achieve the same solution for the formula, Li2.7Y1.1Cl6.
Regarding Claim 11, Kamitake does not teach the negative electrode active material to include Li4Ti5O12. Komura teaches the negative electrode active material may include at least one selected from the group consisting of a lithium-titanium composite oxide (LTO), a silicon oxide (SiO), and Si, wherein LTO is a composite oxide including Li and Ti and LTO may have any chemical composition and may be Li4Ti5O12 (Paragraphs [0053], [0054]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the negative electrode active material comprising LTO as Li4Ti5O12 as taught by Komura with the negative electrode of the battery as taught by Kamitake in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as low resistance of the all-solid-state battery due to forming an electrode active material layer with smooth ionic conduction in the thickness direction as taught by Komura (Paragraph [0028]). See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008 in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
Regarding Claim 12, Kamitake teaches all elements of the first solid electrolyte in Claim 1 above which may be the same as those of the second solid electrolyte. Komura further teaches a sulfide solid electrolyte with formulas having P and S (which fulfill M2 of the instant claim) and Br and I (which fulfill X2 of the instant claim), which may also be included in the electrode (Paragraph [0060]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamitake et al. (US 2020/0350561 A1) in view of Komura (US 2021/0143434 A1) and Orikasa et al. ("Transient Phase Change in Two Phase Reaction between LiFePO4 and FePO4 under Battery Operation", Chemistry of Materials, 9 April 2013; 25 (7): Pages 1032-1039) as in Claims 1-4 and 6-12 above, further in view of Wu et al. ("LiFePO4 Cathode Material, Electric Vehicles -- The Benefits and Barriers", Dr. Seref Soylu (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-307-287-6, InTech 6 September 2011; Pages 199-216).
Kamitake does not teach the compound LiFePO4 to have an olivine structure. Wu teaches LiFePO4 to own an ordered olivine structure (2.1 Crystal structure of LiFePO4, ¶ 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings regarding the olivine structure of LiFePO4 as taught by Wu with the battery using LiFePO4 as a cathode active material as taught by Kamitake in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as utilizing the advantages of phospho-olivine LiFePO4 such as low cost, low toxicity, high thermal stability, and high specific capacity as taught by Wu (1. Introduction, ¶ 2). See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008 in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vivian Cheng whose telephone number is (571)270-1930. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:30am-5pm ET, Fri 7:30am-12pm ET.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/V.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights