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.
Claim 1 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (US20170250447) in view of Iyer (US20100156353) further in view of Nakazawa (US20090029264) further in view of Singh (US20150263382).
Regarding Claim 1, Jiang discloses a battery that comprises: a cathode comprising a cathode layer (Fig. 6, cathode layer-610, [0060]), an anode comprising an anode current collector and an anode layer (Fig. 6, anode layer-606, anode current collector-602, [0060]), and a solid electrolyte layer disposed between the cathode layer and the anode layer (separator contains an electrolyte which can be a solid electrolyte-[0080],[0085],Fig. 6, separator with electrolyte-608 placed between anode layer-606 and cathode layer-610, [0060]);
Wherein the solid electrolyte layer electrolyte can be a sulfide-based material ([0085]).
Wherein the anode layer contains, as an anode material, an alloy of a lithium metal and a magnesium metal (lithium based anode electrode can be Li-Mg alloy, [0064]).
Jiang discloses wherein the fully charged all-solid state battery has a percentage of lithium element in the alloy is 81.80 atomic % or more and 99.97 atomic % or less when the battery is fully charged (lithium mass% in Li-Mg alloy is preferably 90 to 99.9 %, [0064]).
Jiang does not directly disclose that the lithium-magnesium metal alloy is a single β-phase alloy.
Iyer teaches that Li-Mg alloys change their crystal structure from hexagonal to cubic when the lithium wt% is greater than 8.5%, and that beyond this composition the alloy system is isomorphous as a single β-phase alloy ([0042]). Iyer further teaches that the use of this Li-Mg alloy can advantageously minimize crystallographic expansion during the charging process ([0042]).
Furthermore, it appears based upon the disclosure of Iyer, that the composition of Jiang, with the percentage of Lithium between 90 to 99 mass percent, based on the teachings of Iyer would provide a single β-phase alloy of lithium and magnesium.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Jiang’s disclosure with the teachings of Iyer to have a single β-phase alloy of lithium and magnesium for the anode material. This anode would yield the expected result of minimized crystallographic expansion during the charging process.
Jiang does not directly disclose wherein the fully discharged battery has a percentage of the lithium element in the Li-Mg alloy layer of 2.21 atomic % or more and 5.97 atomic % or less.
Nakazawa discloses a negative electrode active material layer that can be formed of a lithium magnesium ([0028]). Nakazawa further discloses wherein the negative electrode is used in a solid electrolyte battery ([0025]). Nakazawa further discloses wherein the lithium magnesium alloy can have a ratio of Mg:Li at 95:5 %, which overlaps the instant claim range of 2.21 atomic % to 5.97 % atomic ([0096]). Nakazawa teaches that this structure provides improved charge/discharge capacity ([0032]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Jiang with the teachings of Nakazawa to have wherein the battery has a percentage of lithium element in the Li-Mg allow layer of 2.21 atomic % or more and 5.97 atomic % or less. This modified structure would yield the expected result of improved charge/discharge capacity.
The examiner notes that Jiang in view of Iyer further in view of Nakazawa discloses a Li-Mg alloy active material, that is reversible, and can be optimized to be within the claimed lithium atomic percentages during charging and discharging.
Jiang does not directly disclose wherein the Li-Mg alloy is configured to reversible transition between the first alloy structure and the second alloy structure in response to electrochemical lithiation and delithiation.
Singh discloses wherein a high-capacity electrode that is formed from a lithium metal alloy ([006]). Singh further discloses wherein the metal used can be Magnesium ([006]). Singh further discloses wherein this reaction is a reversible lithiation reaction ([006]). Singh further discloses the formula for the reversible lithiation reaction showing that the Li metal alloy’s lithium atomic percent would be altered as the reaction takes place ([006]). Singh further teaches that the Li metal alloys form intermetallic/intercalation phases ([006]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Jiang with the teachings of Singh to have wherein the Li-Mg alloy is configured to reversible transition between the first alloy structure and the second alloy structure in response to electrochemical lithiation and delithiation.
Regarding Claim 17, Jiang in view of Iyer further in view of Nakazawa further in view of Singh discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Jiang does not directly disclose wherein the mass percentage of the magnesium metal in the Li-Mg alloy layer of 98.22 mass % or more and 99.36 mass % or less.
Nakazawa further discloses wherein the lithium magnesium alloy can have a ratio of Mg:Li at 95:5 %, which overlaps the instant claim range of 2.21 atomic % to 5.97 % atomic ([0096]), which provides a mass percentage of magnesium of 98.52 mass %, which is overlapped by the instant claim range of 99.36 mass% or less.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Jiang with the teachings of Nakazawa to have wherein the mass percentage of the magnesium metal in the Li-Mg alloy layer of 98.22 mass % or more and 99.36 mass % or less. This modified structure would yield the expected result of improved charge/discharge capacity.
Claim 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (US20170250447) in view of Iyer (US20100156353) further in view of Nakazawa (US20090029264) in view of Chen (US20190348705).
Regarding Claim 13, Jiang in view of Iyer further in view of Nakazawa further in view of Chen discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Jiang does not directly disclose wherein the Li-Mg alloy layer is 100 nm or more.
Chen discloses wherein the anode can have a thickness in the range of 25 um to about 2000 um ([0091]), which meets the instant claim range of 100 nm or more.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Jiang with the teachings of Chen to have a thickness of the Li-Mg alloy layer is 100 nm or more.
Regarding Claim 14, Jiang in view of Iyer further in view of Nakazawa further in view of Chen discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Jiang does not directly disclose wherein the fully discharged battery has a percentage of the lithium element in the Li-Mg alloy layer of 2.21 atomic % or more and 5.97 atomic % or less.
Jiang discloses wherein the fully charged all-solid state battery has a percentage of lithium element in the alloy is 81.80 atomic % or more and 99.97 atomic % or less when the battery is fully charged (lithium mass% in Li-Mg alloy is preferably 90 to 99.9 %, [0064]).
Chen discloses an all solid battery with a sulfide based solid electrolyte ([0078]). Chen further discloses wherein a Li-Mg alloy can be used ([0095]). Chen further discloses wherein the Mg atomic percentage can range from 0.5 % to 50 %, ([0095]), which is equal to 15.6 mass % of Mg to 77.8 mass % of Mg, which overlaps the claimed range of 72.01 mass% to 99.36 mass %.
The examiner notes that the limitations of claim 1 recite “when the fully discharged battery has a percentage of the lithium element in the Li-Mg alloy layer of 2.21 atomic % or more and 57.65 atomic % or less” while although are characteristics of the battery at specified state, the state of the battery at a fully discharged state and fully charged state do not make any structural differences to the all-solid-state battery. The instant specifications do not make any distinction as to the benefit or difference of the instant solid-state battery for these properties at the specified states. Therefore, because claim 1 is directed to an all solid state battery the limitations of recite “when the fully discharged battery has a percentage of the lithium element in the Li-Mg alloy layer of 2.21 atomic % or more and 57.65 atomic % or less” are intended use limitations.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jiang with the teachings of Chen to have wherein the fully discharged battery has a percentage of the lithium element in the Li-Mg alloy layer of 2.21 atomic % or more and 57.65 atomic % or less.
Regarding Claim 15, Jiang in view of Iyer further in view of Nakazawa further in view of Chen discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Jiang does not directly disclose wherein the Lig-Mg alloy layer contained 0.2 mass % or less of impurity elements, and wherein the impurity elements are Na, K, Ca, Fe and N.
Jiang teaches that the Magnesium oxide used may contain a small amount of impurities which can enter the product process and would eventually be deposited into the Li-Mg metal layer which is the acting anode of Jiang. It is the examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Na, K, Ca, Fe and N are impurities of a Li-Mg alloy layer. Therefore, since the lithium alloy content is the same as the instant, and Mg content is the same as the instant, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill using the disclosure of Jiang to have wherein the Lig-Mg alloy layer contained 0.2 mass % or less of impurity elements, and wherein the impurity elements are Na, K, Ca, Fe and N.
Regarding Claim 16, Jiang in view of Iyer further in view of Nakazawa further in view of Chen discloses the limitations as set forth above. Jiang further discloses wherein the anode layer contains, as an anode material, an alloy of a lithium metal and a magnesium metal (lithium based anode electrode can be Li-Mg alloy, [0064]), wherein the fully charged all-solid state battery has a percentage of lithium element in the alloy is 81.80 atomic % or more and 99.97 atomic % or less when the battery is fully charged (lithium mass% in Li-Mg alloy is preferably 90 to 99.9 %, [0064], which substantially overlaps instant atomic % range of 81.80 to 99.97%, the examiner notes that the claim language of “when the all-solid-state battery is fully charged” and “ wherein the fully discharged all-solid-state battery” are intended use language, and therefore because Jiang discloses a lithium range within the claimed range, it is the examiner’s position that these claim limitations are met).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (US20170250447) in view of Iyer (US20100156353) further in view of Nakazawa (US20090029264) further in view of Laramie (US20200395585).
Regarding Claim 18, Jiang in view of Iyer further in view of Nakazawa further in view of Singh discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Jiang does not directly disclose wherein the battery has the percentage of the lithium element in the Li-Mg alloy layer of 2.21 atomic %, and wherein the battery has a mass percentage of the magnesium metal in the Li-Mg alloy layer of 99.36 mass.
Laramie discloses a lithium magnesium active material layer ([0030]). Laramie further discloses wherein the magnesium may be present in the active material layer of up to 95 wt% to 99.9 wt% ([0030]), which overlaps the instant claim mass of 99.36 mass. Laramie teaches that this structure provides improved capacity ([0173]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jiang with the teachings of Laramie to have wherein the battery has the percentage of the lithium element in the Li-Mg alloy layer of 2.21 atomic %, and wherein the battery has a mass percentage of the magnesium metal in the Li-Mg alloy layer of 99.36 mass. This modified structure would yield the expected result of improved capacity.
Response to Arguments
Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Jiang in view of Iyer further in view of Nakazawa further in view of Singh under 35 USC 103.
Applicant's arguments filed December 23rd, 2025 in regards to the Jiang reference have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner notes that Jiang in view of Iyer further in view of Nakazawa discloses a Li-Mg alloy active material, that is reversible, and can be optimized to be within the claimed lithium atomic percentages during charging and discharging.
Jiang does not directly disclose wherein the Li-Mg alloy is configured to reversible transition between the first alloy structure and the second alloy structure in response to electrochemical lithiation and delithiation.
Singh discloses wherein a high-capacity electrode that is formed from a lithium metal alloy ([006]). Singh further discloses wherein the metal used can be Magnesium ([006]). Singh further discloses wherein this reaction is a reversible lithiation reaction ([006]). Singh further discloses the formula for the reversible lithiation reaction showing that the Li metal alloy’s lithium atomic percent would be altered as the reaction takes place ([006]). Singh further teaches that the Li metal alloys form intermetallic/intercalation phases ([006]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Jiang with the teachings of Singh to have wherein the Li-Mg alloy is configured to reversible transition between the first alloy structure and the second alloy structure in response to electrochemical lithiation and delithiation.
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 ANKITH R SRIPATHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 am - 5:00pm.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
/ANKITH R SRIPATHI/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights