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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 2025-168624, filed on September 28, 2023.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dopilka et al. (Advanced Energy and Sustainability Research 2.5 (2021): 2000114.) (Hereafter referred to as Dopilka).
Regarding claim 1 Dopilka teaches an electrode active material having a silicon-clathrate-II-type crystal phase (Pg. 14, Col. (right), Paragraph 1).
Dopilka does not teach the five-membered ring size in the crystal phase to be 3.572 Å or more and 3.780 Å or less.
The teachings of Dopilka indicate that the amount of Na in the silicon clathrate crystal phase is a result-effective variable that controls the contraction of the cage structure (Pg. 2, Col. Left, Paragraph 1; Pg. 2, Col. Right, Paragraph 1), and therefore, the five-membered ring size. The applicant teaches a similar conclusion, recognizing that the size of the cage structure is dependent on sodium concentration (Otaki et al. US 20250112231 A1 (the publication of the application under review); [0040]), and seeks to optimize the sodium concentration through controlling the burning temperature of the crystal phase ([0028-0032]). Dopilka teaches that the removal of Na from the silicon clathrate structure results in low volume expansion rates and increased capacity (Pg. 2, Col. (right), Paragraph 1); however, Dopilka further teaches that the complete removal of Na from the silicon clathrate structure prevents new ions from being able to optimally diffuse through the clathrate structure (Pg. 12, Col. (right), Paragraph 0). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would be motivated by Dopilka to balance these two considerations when engaging in routine optimization of the Na content within the silicon clathrate structure, and would be able to arrive at the claimed five-member ring size range without undue experimentation.
Note, under broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation “a five-membered ring size in the crystal phase is 3.752 Å or more and 3.780 Å or less,” is interpreted to require the silicon-clathrate-II-type crystal phase at one or more of the five-membered rings to at least transiently fall within the claimed ring size of 3.752 Å and 3.780 Å.
Regarding Claims 2-3: Dopilka teaches the silicon-clathrate-II-type structure having a gap on an inside of a primary particle (Figures 4(c-d), 6, 7(d), & 10), and an electrode mixture containing the active material of claim 1 with a conductive material and a binder (Pg. 14, Col. (Right), Paragraph 1).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dopilka et al. (Advanced Energy and Sustainability Research 2.5 (2021): 2000114.) in view of Otaki et al. US 2022-0190315 A1 (Hereafter referred to as Otaki).
Regarding claim 4: Dopilka teaches an electrode active material having a silicon-clathrate-II-type crystal phase, and that a positive or negative electrode is the electrode mixture of claim 3.
Dopilka does not teach a positive-electrode, a negative-electrode, or an electrolyte layer between the electrodes.
Otaki teaches a positive electrode, a negative electrode, an electrolyte layer between the positive and negative electrode ([0028]; Figure 2, items 1-3), and that the anode contains a silicon-clathrate-II-type crystal phase ([0032]; Figure 2, Item 3).
It would be obvious to one have ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the electrode active material mixture of Dopilka within the battery of Otaki for the purposes of obtaining an all-solid state battery which has excellent capacity durability while there is zero or low restraining pressure applied to the battery ([0008] & [0013]).
Regarding claim 5:
Otaki teaches the electrolyte layer containing a solid electrolyte ([0057-0059]; Figure 2, Item 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN ALDEN KURTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1924. The examiner can normally be reached PTA Full Time.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/J.A.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
