DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 06/29/2026, has been entered. Claims 1 and 10-11 and 13 have been amended. Claims 8-9, 12, and 15 are cancelled. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-11, and 13 are currently pending examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 1-4, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masafumi (JP2019033053A) (refer to enclosed translations for citations) in view of He (US 20190393485 A1), Lee (US-20200144599-A1), and Zhang (“3D Lithiophilic Matrix Enabled Smooth Lithium Metal Anode”).
Regarding claim 1,
Masafumi teaches an all-solid-state [0021] battery (Fig. 2, 10; [0021]), comprising:
an anode current collector layer (Fig. 2, 1 [0022]);
a porous [0022] layer (Fig 2, 2; [0022]) disposed on the anode current collector layer (see Fig. 2);
and having a porous structure [0022] including a fibrous material [0030];
an electrolyte layer (Fig. 2, 3; [0022]) disposed on the porous layer (see Fig. 2, 3 on 2; [0022]);
and a composite [0045-0046] cathode layer (Fig. 2, 4; [0022], [0045-0046]),
wherein at least a portion of a surface (Fig. 2, surface of 2) of the fibrous material (Fig. 2, 2) is coated with a sulfide solid electrolyte [0032],
wherein the porous layer includes pores [0022] formed by a network ([0030], “vapor grown carbon fiber” wherein vapor grown carbon fiber (VGCF) forms a network carbon fiber,)
in which the fibrous material (Fig. 2, material of 2; [0030]) is interconnected (wherein all elements of Masafumi are directly or indirectly connected; see https://www.dictionary.com/browse/interconnect) in three dimensions ([0030], wherein the interconnected carbon fiber spans three dimensions of length, width, and height),
wherein the pores [0022] are spaces for storing lithium [0029] that is precipitated during charging [0029-0030] of the all-solid-state battery 10,
and wherein the porous layer 2 is in contact (wherein all elements of 10 are directly or indirectly contacting) with the anode current collector layer 1 (see Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
778
1060
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the porous layer 2 comprises a first region (annotated Fig. 2, first region), ranging to a predetermined depth (see Fig.) from one surface of the anode current collector layer (upper surface of 1), and a second region, which is a remaining portion other than the first region (see Fig., remaining portion is the second region), wherein the first region and the second region constitute a single layer 2 formed of the same network skeleton ([0029]-[0030], carbon skeleton)
But fails to teach wherein an amount of the solid electrolyte applied on the first region is less than an amount of the solid electrolyte applied on the second region and wherein the first region comprises metal particles forming an alloy with lithium.
He teaches wherein the amount of solid electrolyte applied on the first region (He, see Fig. 2, 1st region, wherein the solid electrolyte is applied on the second region; [0050]) is less than the amount of solid electrolyte applied on the second region (He, see Fig. 2, wherein the solid electrolyte is contacting the 2nd region such that more solid electrolyte is applied on the 2nd region; [0050]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to substitute the porous layer of Masafumi with the porous double layer as taught by He as the double layer protection provides superior protection against capacity decay (He, [0149-0150])
Lee teaches wherein the first region (Fig. 3, thin film 24 relative to a second region 22; [0086-0088]) comprises metal particles (Fig. 3, thin film 24; see [0088] wherein the thin film comprises various particles of elements) forming an alloy with lithium [0088]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have the first region comprise metal particles forming an alloy with lithium, as taught by Lee, such that the first region may serve as a lithium reservoir improving battery characteristics (Lee, [0120]).
Additionally, it would be within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to localize those particles near the current-collector side portions of He’s protective structure because Lee teaches alloyable metal particles as lithophilic Li-nucleation sites (Lee, [0120]), and because Zhang demonstrates an understood principle within materials science that lithophilic sites improve uniformity (see Zhang, Results and Discussion, “nucleation overpotential improving uniformity of Li deposition”), such that such placement would have predictably promoted uniform lithium nucleation.
Regarding claim 2,
Masafumi in view of He, Le, and Zhang teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1 (see elements of claim 1 above), wherein the fibrous material [0030] is interconnected in three dimensions (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 3,
Masafumi in view of He, Le, and Zhang teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the fibrous material [0030] comprises vapor- grown carbon fiber [0030].
Regarding claim 4,
Masafumi in view of He, Le, and Zhang teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1 (see elements of claim 1 above), but fails to teach wherein the solid electrolyte has a thickness of about 0.1 μm to 20 μm. However, Masafumi teaches wherein the solid electrolyte has a thickness of 0.1 μm to 700 μm [0043], it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the thickness of the solid electrolyte to be 0.1 μm to 20 μm as the selection of the overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 7,
Masafumi in view of He, Le, and Zhang teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach wherein the porous layer has a porosity of 10% to 80%. However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the porous layer to have a porosity of 10% to 80%, as Masafumi teaches the porous layer has a porosity of about 60% to 100% [0022], and because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 13,
Masafumi in view of He and Lee and Zhang teaches all-solid-state battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the metal particles (Lee, [0088]) comprise one or more selected from the group consisting of indium (In) (Lee, [0088]), gold (Au) (Lee, [0088]), bismuth (Bi) (Lee, [0088]), zinc (Zn) (Lee, [0088]), and aluminum (Al) (Lee, [0088]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masafumi (JP2019033053A) in view of He (US 20190393485 A1), Wachsman (US 20140287305 A1), Lee (US-20200144599-A1), Zhang (“3D Lithiophilic Matrix Enabled Smooth Lithium Metal Anode”), and Kato (US-20150147659-A1) (refer to enclosed translations for citations).
Regarding claim 6,
Masafumi in view of He, Le, and Zhang teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1 (see elements of claim 1 above); however, Masafumi is silent to wherein the porous layer has a thickness of about 100 μm to 500 μm. Kato teaches the porous (see carbons in [0047] which are porous) layer has a thickness of about 1 μm to 100 μm [0048], which overlaps with, and thus obviates the claimed range of 100-500 μm. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to form the porous layer of Masafumi with the thickness disclosed by Kato of about 1 μm to 100 μm [0048] because Kato teaches it as known in the art [0048] and that pressing the porous layer to this thickness improves the performance of the battery [0048]. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masafumi (JP2019033053A) (refer to enclosed translations for citations) in view of He (US 20190393485 A1), Lee (US-20200144599-A1), Zhang (“3D Lithiophilic Matrix Enabled Smooth Lithium Metal Anode”), and Yushin (US-20200083542-A1)
Regarding claim 10,
Masafumi in view of He Le, and Zhang, teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1 (see element of claim 1 above), but fails to teach wherein the lithium ionic conductivity of the solid electrolyte of the first region is greater than a lithium ionic conductivity of the solid electrolyte of the second region. Yushin teaches a solid electrolyte having a lithium-ion conductive polymer binder [0026], wherein the volume fraction of the polymer binder is higher [0026] in an interlayer nearer the current collector ([0026], “conductive interlayer… near current collector”), thereby providing higher lithium ionic conductivity in the interlayer nearer the current collector ([0026, [0113] – [0114]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have wherein the lithium ionic conductivity of the solid electrolyte of the first region is greater than a lithium ionic conductivity of the solid electrolyte of the second region, as Yushin teaches that higher conductivity near the current collector is advantageous for attaining enhanced stability or rate performance [0023].
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masafumi (JP2019033053A) (refer to enclosed translations for citations) in view of Lee (US-20200144599-A1), Zhang (“3D Lithiophilic Matrix Enabled Smooth Lithium Metal Anode”), and He (US 20190393485 A1),.
Regarding claim 11,
Masafumi in view of He teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1 (see elements of claim 1 above), but fails to teach wherein an electronic conductivity of the fibrous material of the first region is greater than an electronic conductivity of the fibrous material of the second region. He teaches wherein an electronic conductivity of the fibrous material in the first region (He, Fig. 2, 1st region; [0075], 10−4 S/cm to 1000 S/cm.) is greater than an electronic conductivity of the fibrous material in the second region (He, Fig. 2, 2nd region; see [0077], wherein the conductive material is dispersed within an elastomer rather than forming the entire layer [0075]; resulting in a fibrous material having a lower electronic conductivity relative to first region). porous layer of Masafumi with the porous double layer as taught by He as the double layer protection provides superior protection against capacity decay (He, [0149-0150])
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks”, filed 06/29/2026, have been fully considered and, due to the amendments, are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zhang (see above)
Similarly, the following arguments hinging off an allowable claim 1 are also not persuasive as the rejection on claim 1 has been sustained.
Applicant argues that Lee disperse particles throughout. However, this is not persuasive, as it would be within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to localize those particles of Lee near the current-collector side portions of He’s protective structure because Lee teaches alloyable metal particles as lithophilic Li-nucleation sites (Lee, [0120]), and because Zhang demonstrates an understood principle within materials science that lithophilic sites improve uniformity (see Zhang, Results and Discussion, “nucleation overpotential improving uniformity of Li deposition”), such that such placement would have predictably promoted uniform lithium nucleation.
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 PAUL WYROUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-4806. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10am-5pm.
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, TIFFANY LEGETTE can be reached on (571) 270-7078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL CHRISTIAN ST WYROUGH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights