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 .
Examiner’s Comments
The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the references as applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2023/0411603) in view of (JP 5902579 B2 OR Jeon et al. (US 2017/0263977)).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Kim discloses an all-solid rechargeable battery (Title, [0104]) comprising a negative electrode (300, 1300), a first solid electrolyte layer (220, 1220) on one surface of the negative electrode, a second solid electrolyte layer (210, 1230) on one surface of the first solid electrolyte layer, a positive electrode (100, 1100) on one surface of the second solid electrolyte layer, wherein the first solid electrolyte layer includes rounded first solid electrolyte particles (Fig. 1-2, [0065]).
Although Kim discloses a ratio thickness between the first and second solid electrolyte layer [0068], Kim fails to explicitly disclose that the first solid electrolyte layer has a thickness of 2 µm or less as presently claimed.
JP ‘579 discloses an all-solid rechargeable battery comprising a first and second electrolyte layer between a negative and positive electrode layer, wherein the first electrolyte layer has a thickness of preferable less than 1 µm or 0.5 µm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s first solid electrolyte layer to be within the claimed range, since JP ‘579 discloses that it is advantageous to be as thin as possible in order to reduce internal resistance thereby contributing an improved energy density.
Alternatively, Jeon discloses a secondary battery comprising a first and second electrolyte layer between a positive and negative electrode, wherein the first solid electrode layer has a thickness of 1-10 µm [0011]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s first solid electrolyte layer to be within the claimed range, as suggested by Jeon, in order to achieve a small internal resistance, which thereby the lifespan characteristics of the secondary battery is improved [0043].
Regarding claim 2, please see Fig. 1-2 and [0065].
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses the second solid electrolyte layer includes second solid electrolyte particles, and the second electrolyte particles have a sharp shape (Fig. 2, [0090]).
Regarding claims 4-5, Kim discloses the first and second solid electrolyte particles are in a powder ([0062], [0140-0142], Fig. 2).
Regarding the limitations the second solid electrolyte particle “are prepared by dry process” per claim 4, and the rounded first solid electrolyte particles “are prepared by a wet process” per claim 5, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. 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.”, (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113)
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses the second solid electrolyte layer includes second solid electrolyte particles, however, fails to explicitly disclose that the second solid electrolyte layer has a second thickness of 3-5 µm as presently claimed.
JP ‘579 discloses an all-solid rechargeable battery comprising a first and second electrolyte layer between a negative and positive electrode layer, wherein the total electrolyte layers is 1-10 µm, which thereby overlaps the claimed range of the second solid electrolyte layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s second solid electrolyte layer to be within the claimed range, since JP ‘579 discloses that it is advantageous to be as thin as possible in order to reduce internal resistance thereby contributing an improved energy density.
Alternatively, Jeon discloses a secondary battery comprising a first and second electrolyte layer between a positive and negative electrode, wherein the second solid electrode layer has a thickness greater than the first electrolyte layer [0042]. In light that the first solid electrode layer includes 1 µm, thereby Jeon discloses an overlapping thickness range of the second electrode layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s second solid electrolyte layer to be within the claimed range, as suggested by Jeon, in order to achieve a small internal resistance, which thereby the lifespan characteristics of the secondary battery is improved [0043].
Regarding claims 8-9, Kim discloses the rounded first solid electrolyte particles and second solid electrolyte particles having an average particle size that overlaps the claimed range [0062-0064]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
With regards that the first solid layer having a thickness of 50-100 µm before pressure is applied and the second solid electrolyte layer has a thickness of 25-50 µm before pressure is applied, it is the examiner’s contention that intermediate final product does not give patentable weight. As set forth above, Kim in view of (JP ‘579 OR Jeon) discloses the final end thickness of said layers as claimed.
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses the second solid electrolyte layer has a second thickness that is greater than the first thickness (Fig. 2). The examiner is taking the position that the combination of two sublayers (1230 and 1210) would equate to the claimed second solid electrolyte layer given that they comprise of the same material [0088].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA N CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5835. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)272-1291. 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.
Linda Chau
/L.N.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights