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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 20-22, 26, 28-29, and 34-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Enabling “lithium-free” manufacturing of pure lithium metal solid-state batteries through in situ plating”), Liu (“Surface resistivity and bonding strength of atmosphere plasma sprayed copper-coated alumina substrate”) in view of Isoyama et al. (“Key Factors for Dense Copper Coating by HVOF Spraying”).
As to claim 20, Wang et al. teaches an anode-free solid state battery having a copper current collector arranged directly against the surface of a solid ion-conducting LLZO substrate. Wang teaches that the battery is initially manufactured without lithium metal or other anode active material at the Cu/LLZ interface. The copper layer is laminated onto the LLZO under pressure and elevated temperature (see Fig. 5a; Methods section).
Wang et al. fails to teach spraying metal particles in a molten or partially molten condition onto the substrate and allowing the particles to solidify on the substrate as required by claim 20.
Liu teaches atmospheric plasma spray metallization of a ceramic substrate using high purity copper particles rather than Cu/ceramic composite and teaches controlling the spray conditions to obtain a dense copper coating firmly bonded to the ceramic substrate. Liu teaches an alternative process for directly applying a copper layer on a ceramic substrate. In Liu’s process, copper particles are heated by the plasma, directed towards the ceramic substrate, deposited thereon, and solidify to build the copper coating.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Wang et al. to use Liu’s plasma spay process to form the copper layer. One would have been motivated to do so since Liu teaches plasma spraying as a technique for directly forming an adherent, dense, copper layer. It has been established that the mere substitution of one known method of applying copper layer for another would provide predictable results.
Liu describes the coating as dense but does not expressly state the coating has “no gas conducting properties.”
Isoyama et al. teaches that compactness of thermally sprayed coatings is required when an impermeable coating is desired. Isoyama teaches that particle plastic deformity and the molten fraction of the sprayed particles are important factors in obtaining desired dense copper coating. Isoyama et al. states the layer formed is impermeable (see page 759).
It would have been further obvious to control the thermal-spraying conditions of Wang modified by Liu copper layer according to Isoyama so as to obtain a compact, dense, impermeable copper coating through routine experimentation in order to avoid defects in the sprayed layer.
As to claim 21, Liu teaches plasma spraying.
As to claim 22, Liu teaches atmospheric plasma spraying where the copper containing feedstock is introduced into a high temperature plasma jet and heated to a molten condition before being propelled toward the substrate.
As to claim 26, Liu states the particles having a regular sphere shape (see 2.1 Powders and coating process).
As to claim 28, the metal is copper.
As to claim 29, Wang teaches the use of a 10 micron copper current collector which overlaps the claimed thickness. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)
As to claim 34, Wang et al. states the ion-conducting substrate is LLZO .
As to claim 35, the substrate can be a composite of solid electrolyte material and an anode (Li) material (see Wang).
As to claim 36, Wang teaches applying a Li source at the opposite side of the surface that has the copper of the LLZO.
Claim(s) 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Enabling “lithium-free” manufacturing of pure lithium metal solid-state batteries through in situ plating”), Liu (“Surface resistivity and bonding strength of atmosphere plasma sprayed copper-coated alumina substrate”) and Isoyama et al. (“Key Factors for Dense Copper Coating by HVOF Spraying”) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Masoumeh et al. (“ Investigation of stand-off distance effect on structure, adhesion and hardness of copper coatings obtained by the APS technique”).
The teachings of Wang et al. modified by Liu and Isoyama et al. as applied to claim 20 are a stated above.
Wang et al. modified by Liu and Isoyama et al. fail to teach the use of an inert gas plasma as required by claim 23.
Masoumeh et al. teaches plasma spraying copper using argon plasma. The copper powder is introduced into the plasma jet, melted, and accelerated towards the substrate (see Methods)..
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Wang, Liu and Isoyama et al. to include the use of the argon plasma of Masoumeh et al. since both are directed to plasma spraying copper and Masoumeh et al. teaches an operable plasma for heating and accelerating copper particles in atmospheric plasma spraying.
As to claim 24, Masoumeh et al. operates the plasma spray system at 30V when spraying copper (see methods).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Enabling “lithium-free” manufacturing of pure lithium metal solid-state batteries through in situ plating”), Liu (“Surface resistivity and bonding strength of atmosphere plasma sprayed copper-coated alumina substrate”) and Isoyama et al. (“Key Factors for Dense Copper Coating by HVOF Spraying”) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Spengler et al. (US 5426003).
The teachings of Wang et al. modified by Liu and Isoyama et al. as applied to claim 20 are a stated above.
Wang et al. modified by Liu and Isoyama et al. fail to teach the parameters are selected to prevent bursting of the metal particles as required by claim 25.l
Spengler teaches a process for plasma spraying particles onto a substrate. Splenger desires uniform splat formation of the particles during the plasma spraying (see col. 10, lines 49-65). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the parameters of Wang modified by Liu and Isoyama to provide particles so that they are free flowing allowing for uniform splat formation (preventing bursting) as taught by Splenger.
Claim(s) 27 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Enabling “lithium-free” manufacturing of pure lithium metal solid-state batteries through in situ plating”), Liu (“Surface resistivity and bonding strength of atmosphere plasma sprayed copper-coated alumina substrate”) and Isoyama et al. (“Key Factors for Dense Copper Coating by HVOF Spraying”) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Lupart (DE102016214399).
The teachings of Wang et al. modified by Liu and Isoyama et al. as applied to claim 20 are a stated above.
Wang et al. modified by Liu and Isoyama et al. fail to teach the claimed spray rate as required by claim 27.
Lupart discloses a method of forming a metal layer onto a solid electrolyte by plasma spraying (see 0022-32). Lupart states that the physical properties of the powder affect the mass flow rate which affects the melting of the particles (see col. 11, lines 17-38) therefore the spray rate is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed spray rate range through routine experimentation in order to optimize the melting of the particles to form the desired copper layer as taught by Spengler et al.
As to claim 32, Lupart teaches movement of the substrate relative to the coating device using a transport frame (see 0018).
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Enabling “lithium-free” manufacturing of pure lithium metal solid-state batteries through in situ plating”), Liu (“Surface resistivity and bonding strength of atmosphere plasma sprayed copper-coated alumina substrate”), Isoyama et al. (“Key Factors for Dense Copper Coating by HVOF Spraying”) and Lupart (DE102016214399) as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Deng et al. (US 20170301958).
The teachings of Wang et al. modified by Liu, Isoyama et al. and Lupart as applied to claim 32 are a stated above.
Wang et al. modified by Liu and Isoyama et al. fail to teach the substrate is transported on a moving belt and the metal layer is continuously applied as required by claim 33.
Deng et al. discloses a process for forming batteries which comprises conveying a substrate past multiple plasma spray devices (see Fig. 2) to form layers which allow for flexibility and lower production costs (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Wang et al. modified by Liu, Isoyama et al. and Lupart to include the transporting the substrate using a conveyor system and multiple spray nozzles as taught by Deng et al. One would have been obvious to do so since both are directed to forming batteries by depositing a metal layer where Deng et al. further teaches an alternative system that allows for uniform coating and a more efficient system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30-31 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cachet I Proctor whose telephone number is (571)272-0691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3 pm.
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 571-272-1418. 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.
/CACHET I. PROCTOR/
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/CACHET I PROCTOR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
