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.
Claim 54 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 54 depends from itself and should depend from claim 53.
Claim 62 refers to “density” as measured by a 2D cross section. It is not clear how this 2D cross section is sliced through the top surface and bulk material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 50-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WACHSMAN et al. (US 2014/0287305).
Regarding claim 50-52,
WACHSMAN teaches a garnet solid electrolyte that extends from through both anode and cathode [0016] and Fig. 3. The solid electrolyte has a “top surface” interfacing with a porous/scaffold (bulk) layer that are formed into anode/cathode and are in contact with the current collector. The solid electrolyte is a garnet-type [0015] and examples described qualify as “lithium stuffed” Fig. 4A.
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.
Claim(s) 50-57 and 65-68 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANAMURA et al. (US 2009/0229700) in view of WACHSMAN et al. (US 2014/0287305).
Regarding claims 50-52,
KANAMURA teaches a solid electrolyte (inhomogenous) that includes a porous portion (bulk) and a dense portion (surface) abstract and [0056]. The porous portion of the solid electrolyte is loaded with active material [0058]. The porous layer is can be formed on only one surface of the dense solid electrolyte [0071] (a “top” surface and with a bulk layer) The reference does not expressly teach a current collector in contact (stacked) with the electrode layer. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a completed cell would require a current collector in electrical connection with the electrodes. For example, WACHSMAN teaches anode and cathode in contact with current collectors in a completed cell [0016] and Fig. 3. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to include current collectors in contact with the electrode materials as a known cell architecture for functioning batteries.
Regarding claim 53,
KANAMURA teaches formation of a solid electrolyte structure that includes a dense portion (top surface) that is coated with a paste that converts to a porous solid electrolyte.
Regarding claim 53-55,
KANAMURA teaches a dense portion of the solid electrolyte which is less porous than the specifically porous layer. Insofar as the dense portion of the solid electrolyte has pores, the pores will be smaller in terms of both volume and aspect ratio (size).
Regarding claim 56 and 57,
KANAMURA teaches a dense portion of the solid electrolyte with lower porosity. The pores are “defects” as defined by applicant. Accordingly, the dense layer will have lower surface defects than the porous (bulk) layer.
Regarding claim 65,
WACHSMAN teaches the current collectors can be aluminum (anode) or copper (cathode) Fig. 3.
Regarding claims 66-67,
KANAMURA teaches the solid electrolyte can be LLZ type [0104]. The WACHSMAN reference Fig. 4a teaches the same LLZ type of solid electrolyte and specifically teaches cubic and tetragonal stoichiometric structure which fall within the generic formulas (when Al2O3 is not present; q=0).
Regarding claim 68,
KANAMURA does not teach the thicknesses of the solid electrolyte and porous solid electrolyte used in the electrode layers. However, WACHSMAN teaches anodes and cathodes can have a thickness of 20-200µm [0041] when the dense region can be 1-100µm [0052]. A single electrode (porous bulk) formed on a dense (top surface) layer will have a total thickness of 21-300µm which overlaps the claimed range and is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I. In addition the examiner notes that thicker electrodes hold more active material which increases capacity, but also decrease conductivity because there is more material to pass through.
Claim(s) 57-59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANAMURA et al. (US 2009/0229700) in view of WACHSMAN et al. (US 2014/0287305) further in view of ALLIE et al. (US 2017/0179472).
Regarding claims 57-59,
KANAMURA teaches making a dense portion of a solid electrolyte but does not expressly teach the number of “defects” in the layer. However, ALLIE teaches that a defect free solid electrolyte layer can be made using a hot pressing [0081]. At the time of filing ht invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a defect density of 0 (less than 1 defect per 1 cm2 or mm2) using known techniques for making dense solid electrolyte separators.
Claim(s) 60, 61 and 63 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANAMURA et al. (US 2009/0229700) in view of WACHSMAN et al. (US 2014/0287305) further in view of CHENG et al. “Effect of Surface Microstructure on Electrochemical Performance of Garnet Solid Electrolytes” (Jan 2015).
Regarding claims 60, 61, and 63
KANAMURA teaches a dense and porous layer of solid electrolyte but does not teach an inhomogenous grain size. However, CHENG teaches that using different microstructures (layers with smaller and larger grains) the battery cycling behavior can be improved results page 2076. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have an inhomogenous grain size in the layers of solid electrolyte to improve cycling. Larger grains will have lower density (grains per area).
Claim(s) 53-55, 62 and 64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANAMURA et al. (US 2009/0229700) in view of WACHSMAN et al. (US 2014/0287305) further in view of LI et al. “Densification and ionic-conduction improvement of lithium garnet solid electrolytes by flowing oxygen sintering” (Oct. 2013).
Regarding claim 62,
KANAMURA teaches a dense solid electrolyte but does not expressly teach the density as a percent. However, LI teaches that when making a garnet solid electrolyte the density can be 96% abstract. The high density is achieved by controlling atmosphere to be an oxygen atmosphere and is comparable to densities obtained by hot pressing results page 643. The oxygen sintered sample has the highest conductivity. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to make a solid electrolyte according to LI to improve conductivity of the solid electrolyte.
Regarding claim 53-55,
KANAMURA teaches a dense portion of the solid electrolyte which is less porous than the specifically porous layer by definition. Insofar as the dense portion of the solid electrolyte has pores, the pores will be smaller in terms of both volume and aspect ratio (size). The reference does not expressly state there are pores present. However, LI clearly shows that a “dense” solid electrolyte will still contain some pores. At the time of filing the invention one of ordinary skill in the art could use a dense solid electrolyte layer that still contains pores according to LI as a known morphology of “dense” solid electrolytes.
Regarding claim 64,
When using the oxygen rich atmosphere to make the dense solid electrolyte, the oxygen diffuses into oxygen vacancies, LI page 645. When making the porous solid electrolyte layer, there is no need to use the oxygen atmosphere and the oxygen vacancies will remain unfilled, and therefore there will be inhomogenous oxygen vacancies between the dense and porous layers when incorporating the techniques of LI.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571272-1418. 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.
/AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712