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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10 October 2025 has been entered.
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on 30 October 2025 fails to place the application in condition for allowance.
Claims 1-18, 20, 22-54, and 56-75 are currently pending.
Claims 1-18, 22, 23, 27-54, 56-60, and 75 are currently under examination.
Claims 20, 24-26, and 61-74 are currently withdrawn.
Status of Rejections
The rejection of claims 1-18, 22, 23, 27-54, and 56-60 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) is herein withdrawn due to Applicant’s Amendment filed 30 October 2025.
New rejections are provided herein.
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 1-14, 16-22, 30, 35-39, 42, 43, 45-50 and 53-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holme et al (US 9,761,861 B1) in view of Affinito et al (US 2013/0017441 A1) and Kazyal et al (Kazyak, Eric, et al. "Atomic layer deposition of the solid electrolyte garnet Li7La3Zr2O12." Chemistry of Materials 29.8 (2017): 3785-3792 as provided with the IDS dated 30 October 2025).
As to claims 1-3 and 22, Holme discloses a method of making an electrochemical device (claim 1), the method comprising:
(a) providing a current collector clad with a solid-state electrolyte material (claim 1 “negative current collector interfacing the bottom surface of the electrolyte region”, Fig. 2 # 205 current collector #203 electrolyte);
(b) placing the solid-state electrolyte material in contact with an electrode comprising an electroactive species to form a layered structure (claim 1 “providing a cathode…” #201/202 Fig. 2);
(d) passing a current using a series of pulse cycles through the layered structure to create an interfacial layer comprising the electroactive species, the interfacial layer being in surface contact (claim 1 “a formation of a layer of lithium metal anode positioned between the negative current collector and the bottom surface” [of the electrolyte region]) with the solid-state electrolyte material and the current collector (claim 1 “supplying a plurality of current pulses…”), the interfacial layer functioning as an anode of the electrochemical device and the electrode functioning as a cathode of the electrochemical device. (claim 3 “anode is formed in situ” col. 4 lines 13-24).
Holme further discloses wherein the solid electrolyte material comprises LiPON, polymers, LLZO, specifically Li2La3Zr2O12 that satisfies the equation of instant claim 22 ([0113]).
Holme fails to explicitly disclose applying a pressure greater than 0 MPa to the layers structure.
Affinito discloses (c) applying a pressure greater than 0 MPa to the layered structure ([0064],[0188] show in in Fig. 2 as normal directional arrow 62, [0191], claim 4 “at least 50 N/cm2” = 0.5 MPa); during formation of an in situ anode layer at a pressure that overlaps the instantly claimed ranges of 2 and 3 ([0191] where the range is discloses with sufficient specificity to property anticipate in accordance with MPEP 2131.03 II).
As to dependent claim 43, Affinito further discloses individually whereing step (b) comprises evaporating a first layer of lithium on the solid-state electrolyte material ([0147] via formation of the electro materials made of lithium as discloses above with respect to the specific cathode materials) and thereafter pressing a lithium foil to the first layer such that the electrode comprises the first layer of lithium and the lithium foil ([0052]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have applied a pressure to the layered structure and evaporating a layer of lithium as taught by Affinito in the method of Holme because it enhances the formation process of the electrode preventing the dendritic formation and a smoother electroactive layer being formed which enhances the current distribution and enhance the life cycle (Affinito [0188] “reduce mossy formations”) and would have been obvious to form the cathode lithium material via evaporation and use an lithium foil during the pressing because both methods allows for the introduction of lithium to form the anode in order to provide the appropriate amount needed (Affinito above).
Holme, as modified by Affinito, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the solid-state electrolyte material is clad onto the current collector using at least one of diffusion-bonding, atomic layer deposition, slurry casting and sintering, slurry casting and hot pressing, painting, powder coating, thermal spraying, cold spraying, aerosol deposition, flux deposition, electrodeposition, electroless chemical deposition, or combinations thereof.
Kazyak discloses using atomic layer deposition to deposit a solid electrolyte garnet Li2La3Zr2O12 (title).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used atomic layer deposition for depositing Li2La3Zr2O12 as taught by Kazyak in the method of Holme, as modified by Affinito, because atomic layer deposition is a powerful method to improve the stability and performance at the electrode-electrolyte interface, ability to tune the composition of the LLZO (Abstract Kazyak) with a low amount of impurities (Conclusion Kazyak).
As to claim 4, Holme further discloses wherein: each pulse cycle comprises (i) applying an on-current for a given pulse width, and (ii) applying an off-current for an amount of time based on a duty cycle and the pulse width, and the off-current has a first current density value which is less than a second current density value of the on-current. (claim1 “supplying a plurality of current pulses, the plurality of current pulses comprising a first pulse and a second pulse, the first pulse causing a formation of a layer of lithium metal anode positioned between the negative current collector and the bottom surface, the first pulse being characterized by a first amount of charge and first polarity during a first duration, the second pulse being characterized by a second amount of charge and second polarity during a second duration, the first amount of charge being greater than the second amount of charge” claim 4 “magnitude of 0”).
As to claim 5-7, Holme further discloses wherein the on-current is direct current in a range of 1 µAcm-2 to 1 Acm-2 (claim 8 as required by instant claim 5), wherein the on-current is direct current in a range of 0.01 mA cm-2 to 1 mA cm-2 (claim 8 as required by instant claim 6), and wherein the current is direct current in a range of 1 µA cm-2 to 1 mA cm-2 (claim 8 as required by instant claim 7 which overlaps the instantly claimed range).
As to claims 8 and 9, Holme further discloses wherein the pulse width is from 1 microsecond to 100 seconds (claim 6 lines 60-62 and line 52 thus falling within the instantly claimed ranges).
As to claim 10, Holme discloses wherein the off current is 0 thus falling within the instantly claimed range (claim 4).
As to claims 11-14, Holme further discloses wherein the duty cycle is 83% (col. 6 lines 52 which falls within the instantly claimed range).
As to claims 16 and 17, Holme further discloses the current collector comprises a metal or metal alloy, comprising aluminum, copper, nickel, titanium, and stainless steel (which is necessarily an alloy steel) (col. 3 line 64 – col. 4 lines 2).
As to claim 18, Holme fails to explicitly disclose the thickness of the current collector.
Affinito discloses suitable thicknesses for current collectors to be between 0.1 and 50 micrometers which falls within the instantly claimed range ([0135]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided a thickness of 0.1-50 micrometers as taught by Affinito for the thickness of the current collector in Holme because such a value is recognized for the intended use of current collectors for battery electrodes when provided with an SEI layer (See MPEP 2144.07). A range can be disclosed in multiple prior art references instead of in a single prior art reference depending on the specific facts of the case. Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1322, 73 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
As to claim 28, Holme further discloses wherein the solid-state electrolyte material has a thickness between 1 nanometer and 100 micrometers. (col. 4 lines 42-46).
As to claim 29, Holme fails to explicitly disclose the thickness of the interfacial layer.
Affinito discloses suitable thicknesses for interfacial layer (=electrode stabilization structures in Affinito) be between 0.1 and 100 micrometers which falls within the instantly claimed range ([0077]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided a thickness of 0.1-100 micrometers as taught by Affinito for the thickness of the interfacial in Holme because such a value is recognized for the intended use of interfacial layers as protective structures for battery electrodes when provided with an SEI layer (See MPEP 2144.07). A range can be disclosed in multiple prior art references instead of in a single prior art reference depending on the specific facts of the case. Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1322, 73 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
As to claims 30, Holme further discloses wherein the current collector is electrochemically blocking to the electroactive species (col. 3 line 64 – col. 4 lines 2 by virtue of their material properties being metals and where the layer is formed thereon thus being electrochemically blocking in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the as filed specification at [0015]).
As to claim 35, Holme fails to explicitly disclose the thickness of the current collector.
Affinito discloses suitable thicknesses for current collectors to be between 0.1 and 50 micrometers which falls within the instantly claimed range ([0135]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided a thickness of 0.1-50 micrometers as taught by Affinito for the thickness of the current collector in Holme because such a value is recognized for the intended use of current collectors for battery electrodes when provided with an SEI layer (See MPEP 2144.07). A range can be disclosed in multiple prior art references instead of in a single prior art reference depending on the specific facts of the case. Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1322, 73 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Thus, it would be obvious to provide the appropriate thickness of each layer within the instantly claimed range with a thickness which either falls within the prior art range with respect to each layer of the current collector OR with respect to the overall thickness of the current collector to add up to the prior art ranges of the thicknesses of the current collector.
As to claims 36-39, Holme further discloses wherein the electrode comprises lithium metal oxides (col. 3 lines 24-29).
As to claim 40 and 41, Holme fails to explicitly disclose the electrode further comprises a binder and conductive additive comprising carbon.
Affinito discloses wherein the cathode may further comprise a binder comprising a polymeric material ([0176]) and a conductive additive comprising a carbon compound ([0175] “conductive filler...conductive carbons, graphite...”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a polymeric binder and carbon conductive additive as taught by Affinito in the electrode of Holme, as modified by Affinito and Kayzak, in order to enhance conductivity of the electrode (Affinito [0175]) and allow for the ease of processing the composites (Affinito [0176]).
As to claim 42, Holme further discloses wherein the electrode is a conductive composite comprising the electroactive species (col. 3 lines 15-29).
As to claim 45, Holme discloses wherein no damage to the solid electrolyte material occurs during step (d). (where since the method is carried out and no damage reported, the evidence of record shows that no damage is formed to the solid electrolyte).
As to claims 46 and 60, Holme discloses wherein no dendrite penetration into the solid electrolyte material occurs during step (d). (col. 5 lines 59 where since the method is carried out and no dendrites are reported, the evidence of record shows that no dendrites are formed).
As to claims 47-50, Holme further discloses wherein the interfacial layer has a uniform thickness after step (d) with complete surface contact (col. 5 lines 1-2 where since the method is carried out a showing a complete layer with pressure applies over the entire surface of the layers Affinito [0183]).
As to claim 51 and 52, the structure of Holme are deemed to be nonporous as they hold the structure of the battery and they are formed via metal layers and provided with the interfacial layer according to the claimed process thus falling within the instantly claimed range.
As to claims 53-54, the instant claim limitations are all drawn towards a property of the as formed electrochemical cell, specifically the interfacial resistance between the solid electrolyte and the interfacial layer. Since the prior art makes the product via the same process as disclosure and claimed, said feature is deemed to be inherent to the as formed layers. The instant specification is silent as to any special materials, processing parameters, or the like which results in the claimed properties. Thus, the evidence of record suggests the property is a result of the claimed process, that of forming an in situ electrode layer via application of pressure and pulse currents, which is disclosed in Affinito. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith." In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972).
As to instant claim 56 “wherein an interfacial resistance between the interfacial layer and the solid state electrolyte after step (d) is less than 100 ohm cm2”, said limitation is drawn towards a property of the as formed electrochemical cell, specifically the interfacial resistance between the solid electrolyte and the interfacial layer. Since the prior art makes the product via the same process as disclosure and claimed, said feature is deemed to be inherent to the as formed layers. Particularly, Holmes discloses forming in contact a LLZO layer between the solid state electrolyte and the current collector as cited above. The materials used are the same as those claimed, as well as the combined process mimic the method claimed. Holmes further requires the uniformity of the region for electrical performance (col. 4 line 67-col. 5 line 2) where the anode region is formed in situ thus requires electrical contact through each current collector and solid state electrolyte.
The instant specification is silent as to any special materials, processing parameters, or the like which results in the claimed properties. Thus, the evidence of record suggests the property is a result of the claimed process, that of forming an in situ electrode layer via application of pressure and pulse currents, which is disclosed in Affinito.
As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith." In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972).
As to claim 57 and 58, Holme fails to explicitly disclose theRMS of the surface of the solid state electrolyte clad with the current collector.
Affinito further discloses wherein the RMS is less than 500 nm ([0045])
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided an RMS as taught by Affinito in the surface between the solid state electrolyte and current collector of Holme, as modified by Affinito and Kayzak, because the reduced roughness minimized the corrosion rate of the electrode an prevent any inactive corrosion related products from interfering with charge transport across the electroactive layer surface (Affinito [00203]).
As to claim 59, since the structure of Holme allows for the charging and discharging of the anode material layer at the interface, the interfacial layer cannot be blocking to the electroactive species because it is formed of the electroactive species.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holme, as modified by Affinito and Kayzak, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Motoyama et al (Motoyama, Munekazu, Makoto Ejiri, and Yasutoshi Iriyama. "In-situ electron microscope observations of electrochemical Li deposition/dissolution with a LiPON electrolyte." Electrochemistry 82.5 (2014): 364-368. As provided with the IDS dated 8 April 2024).
As to claim 15, Holme further discloses propagation of the electroactive species from the anode into the solid state electrolyte using microscopy during passing the current using the series of pulse cycles through the layered structure and ach pulse cycle comprises (i) applying an on-current for a given pulse width, and (ii) applying an off-current for an amount of time based on a duty cycle and the pulse width, and step (d) further comprises varying at least one of: (i) the pulse width, (ii) the amount of time, (iii) the duty cycle, (iv) a first current density value of the off-current, and (iv) a second current density value of the on-current (Abstract, Fig. 3A-B, col. 5 line 42 – col. 6 line 18)
Holme, as modified by Affinito and Kayzak, fail to disclose the monitoring method for step (d) as claimed.
Motoyama discloses s monitoring propagation of the electroactive species from the anode into the solid state electrolyte using microscopy during passing the current using the series of pulse cycles through the layered structure (section 2 “One frame during in-situ SEM observation is taken with a scan time of less than one second. A potentiostat installed outside an SEM measures the voltage between working and counter electrodes. Galvanostatic Li electrodeposition and dissolution were conducted at current densities from 50 µA cm¹2 to 1.0 mA cm¹2”), when a prediction of propagation of the electroactive species from the anode into the solid state electrolyte is made from the monitoring. (Fig. 4 in disclosing the nucleation density).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a monitoring method using microscopy as taught by Motoyama in the method of Holme, as modified by Affinito and Kayzak, because it allows for surface analysis that cannot be addressed via a liquid electrolyte system (Motoyama Conclusions) and allows to monitor transient electrochemical nucleation behaviors (Motoyama Introduction).
Claims 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holme, as modified by Affinito and Kayzak, as applied to claim 22, in further view of Badding et al (US 2018/0301754 A1).
As to claim 23, Holmes, as modified by Affinito and Kayzak, specifically disclose the use of LLZO electrolytes as cited with respect to claim 22, but fail to explicitly disclose the use of both Zr and Ta.
Badding discloses the use of LLZO electrolyte materials Li7-xLa3(Zr2-xMx)O12 where M may be Ta ([0003]) with a specific example of Li6.4La3(Zr1.4Ta0.6)O12 ([0128] [0042] example 13 among others).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the specific LLZO garnet of Badding for the solid electrolyte of Holmes, as modified by Affinito, because it allows for the more uniform distribution of the grain size ([0055] Badding) and enhanced mechanical stren whereing step (b) comprises evaporating a first layer of lithium on the solid-state electrolyte material ([0147] via formation of the electro materials made of lithium as discloses above with respect to the specific cathode materials) and thereafter pressing a lithium foil to the first layer such that the electrode comprises the first layer of lithium and the lithium foil ([0052]) thus would have been obvious to form the cathode lithium material via evaporation and use an lithium foil during the pressing because both methods allows for the introduction of lithium to form the anode in order to provide the appropriate amount needed.gth (Badding [0056]).
Claims 31-34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holme, as modified by Affinito and Kayzak, as applied to claim 31, in further view of Jo et al (US 2020/0185707 A1).
As to claims 31-34, Holme, as modified by Affinito, fails to explicitly disclose the specific materials of the first and second materials as instantly claimed.
Jo disclose using multilayer stainless steel current collectors with a layer of nickel ([0058]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was files to have used the specific material of stainless steel coated with nickel as taught by Jo in the method of Holme, as modified by Affinito, because such a modification amounts to a known exchange of materials recognized for their intended use as current collectors which provide a predictable result of providing electrical contact to the solid electrolyte of the cell (See MPEP 2143 B and 2144.07).
Claims 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holme, as modified by Affinito and Kayzak, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Wang et al ( Electroehcmial Acto 2016, as provided with the IDS dated 8 April 2024).
As to claim 44, Holme, as modified by Affinito and Kayzak fail to disclose the temperature.
Wang disclose appropriate temperatures for lithium deposition in a lithium cell that fall within the instantly claimed range (Section 2.2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an appropriate temperature from Wang in the method of Holme, as modified by Affinito and Kayzak, in order to enable in situ lithium deposition.
Claims 27 and 75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holme, as modified by Affinito and Kayzak, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Raj et al (US 2020/0087210 A1).
As to claim 27 and 75, Holme, as modified by Affinito and Kayzak fail to disclose using diffusion bonding to clad the current collector to the solid state electrolyte material.
Raj disclose using diffusion bonding to bond an LLZO solid electrolyte to a current collector ([0072])
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used diffusion bonding to form the solid electrolyte-electrode as taught by Raj in the method of Holme, as modified by Affinito and Kayzak, in order to promote the initial electrode-electrolyte bonding (Raj [0072]) where diffusion bonding is a recognized method of cladding the electrolyte to a current collector to provide the expected result of forming the as needed structure. See MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUIS J RUFO whose telephone number is (571)270-7716. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 am to 5 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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/LOUIS J RUFO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795