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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/31/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 10/31/2025 have been entered. Claims 28 and 45 are amended.
Support for the amendments can be found on page 18.
Claims 28, 31, 33, and 40-45 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/2025 with respect to Claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 4, applicant argues that the use of ionic liquids in the cathodes of Shao would results in semi-solid cathodes that are incompressible and would not be able to have confining pressure applied to them. However, assuming for the purposes of argument that the cathodes are incompressible, the battery still comprises other components (i.e., electrolyte or anode) that are non-liquid/compressible. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would still have motivation to compress the battery as taught by Yoshida and/or Sakuda.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) to amended Claim 1 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 28, 43, and 45 objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 17-18 of Claim 28, lines 1-2 of Claim 43, and lines 1-2 of Claim 45, “the interfacially stabilizing coating” should specify whether it refers to the first, second, or both interfacially stabilizing coating(s). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 28, 31, 33, 41, 43, and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta (LiNbO3-coated LiCoO2 as Cathode Material for All Solid-State Lithium Secondary batteries) in view of Shao (Drawing a Soft Interface: An Effective Interfacial Modification Strategy for garnet-Type Solid-State Li Batteries), Yoshida (US 20200020929 A1), and Sakuda (Sulfide Solid Electrolyte with Favorable Mechanical Property for All-Solid-State Lithium Battery).
Regarding Claim 28, Ohta teaches a solid-state secondary battery/rechargeable battery (Title). The battery comprises a first electrode, a second electrode, and a solid-state electrolyte (Fig. 2 description: In-Li anode, Li3.25Ge0.25P0.75S4 solid electrolyte, and a LiNbO2-coated LiCoO2 cathode). As there is an interface between the cathode and solid electrolyte (Pg. 1486, Col. 1, paragraph 2), the solid-state electrolyte would be disposed between the first and second electrodes (anode and cathode).
The solid-state electrolyte is Li3.25Ge0.25P0.75S4 (Pg. 1487, Col. 2, paragraph 1), which would be considered a sulfide comprising an alkali metal.
The LiNbO3-coated LiCoO2 cathode (Fig. 2 description) can be viewed as an electrode including a first interfacially stabilizing coating material (LiNbO3), where the first interfacially stabilizing coating material forms a first interface between the first electrode and the solid-state electrolyte (Abstract – The LiNbO3 coating serves as a buffer layer between the cathode and electrolyte and reduces interfacial resistance in the cathode).
Ohta does not teach that the second electrode (anode) includes a second interfacially stabilizing coating different from the first interfacially stabilizing coating, the second interfacially stabilizing coating including at least one of Si or a carbonaceous material, the second stabilizing coating forming a second interface between the second electrode and the solid-state electrolyte.
Shao teaches an anode for a solid-state battery (Title, Abstract) comprising lithium metal and an interfacially stabilizing coating (graphite) that forms an interface between the anode and the solid-state electrolyte (Abstract). The graphite coating allows for excellent stability and good cycling performance (Pg. 1213, Col. 2. Paragraph 1).
Ohta and Shao are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely solid-state batteries.
Although Shao teaches that the solid-state electrolyte is a garnet-type solid-state electrolyte rather than a sulfide-based electrolyte (Abstract), Shao teaches that both the garnet-type solid-state electrolytes and the sulfide-based solid-state electrolytes share the same issue of forming a stable interface against metallic Li (Pg. 1213, Col. 1, paragraph 1) and that the graphite layer can improve the interfacial connection between a solid-state electrolyte and Li metal (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anode of Ohta to be the graphite coating Li metal taught by Shao in order to in order to improve the interfacial connection between the solid-state electrolyte and the anode and therefore provide excellent stability and good cycling performance.
Modified Ohta does not teach an external stress on the rechargeable battery or teach that the solid-state electrolyte is pre-compressed before inclusion in the rechargeable battery.
Yoshida teaches that a confining pressure, which can be interpreted as an external stress, can be applied to a solid-state battery to suppress the volume variation from charge/discharge (0043). As such, the confining pressure would result in the solid-state electrolyte being under mechanical constriction. The confining pressure can be in a range of 0.1 MPa to 100 MPa (0107). This range would overlap the claimed range of about 1 MPa to about 50 MPa.
Yoshida is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely solid-state batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the battery of modified Ohta to apply a confining pressure (external stress) on the battery in a range of 0.1 MPa to 100 MPa in order to suppress volume variation from charge/discharge.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have routinely selected the overlapping portions of the disclosed pressure ranges as selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Modified Ohta does not teach that the solid-state electrolyte is pre-compressed before inclusion in the rechargeable battery.
Sakuda teaches that sulfide solid-state electrolytes densify when pressed and show high ionic conductivity (Pg. 1, paragraphs 4 and 5). The pressing occurs prior to inclusion in a battery (Pg. 5 – Preparation of Li2S-P2S5 and Na2S-P2S5 glass electrolytes, Evaluation of all-solid-state batteries) and can occur between 40 MPa and 360 MPa (Fig. 4). This overlaps the claimed range of about 70 MPa to about 1000 MPa.
Sakuda is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely solid-state electrolytes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery of modified Ohta by pre-compressing the sulfide electrolyte as taught by Sakuda in order to obtain high ionic conductivity.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have routinely selected the overlapping portions of the disclosed pressure ranges as selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
As at least the second interfacially stabilizing coating (graphite layer) exhibits excellent stability (Shao: Pg. 1213, Col. 2) and inhibits lithium dendrite growth (Shao: Pg. 1213. Col. 1 and Pg. 1216, Col. 1) by itself, a combination of the interfacially stabilizing coating, the pre-compression, and the external stress would necessarily increase stability of the battery and inhibit dendrite growth.
Regarding Claim 31, modified Ohta teaches the battery of Claim 28. The alkali metal is Li and the solid astate electrolyte comprises GePS (Ohta: Pg. 1487, Col. 2, paragraph 1 – Li3.25Ge0.25P0.75S4).
Regarding Claim 33, modified Ohta teaches the battery of Claim 28. The first electrode is a cathode comprising LiCoO2 (Ohta: Title).
Examiner notes that Shao teaches Li9.54Si1.74P1.44S11.7Cl0.3 as a sulfide solid electrolyte with high conductivity (Shao: Pg. 1212, col. 2)
Regarding Claim 41, modified Ohta teaches the battery of Claim 28. The second electrolyte is an anode comprising lithium metal (Shao: Abstract).
Regarding Claim 43, modified Ohta teaches the battery of Claim 28. The interfacially stabilizing coating comprises graphite, and the alkali metal (Li) and the graphite form a composite (LiC6) (Shao: Abstract, Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 45, modified Ohta teaches the battery of Claim 28. The second interfacially stabilizing coating (graphite) forms a composite with the anode during cycling (Shao: Abstract, Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta, Shao, Yoshida, and Sakuda as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Sasaki (US 20190081352 A1).
Regarding Claim 40, modified Ohta teaches the battery of Claim 28. Modified Ohta does not teach that the solid-state electrolyte has a core shell morphology.
Sasaki teaches a sulfide solid-state electrolyte with an oxide layer (0023, Fig. 1). This can be viewed as a core-shell structure (0023). The oxide layer reduces the production of hazardous hydrogen sulfide production of the electrolyte material while leaving its ionic conductivity high (0014).
Sasaki is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely solid-state electrolytes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery of modified Ohta to have the core-shell structure taught by Sasaki (sulfide core and oxide shell) in order to reduce the production of hazardous hydrogen sulfide production maintaining high ionic conductivity.
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta, Shao, Yoshida, and Sakuda as applied to claim 28 above, and further as evidenced by ITASCA (Material Properties).
Regarding Claim 42, modified Ohta teaches the battery of Claim 28. Modified Ohta does not disclose the bulk modulus of the sulfide solid electrolyte (Li3.25Ge0.25P0.75S4)
Shao teaches Li9.54Si1.74P1.44S11.7Cl0.3 as a sulfide solid electrolyte with high conductivity (Shao: Pg. 1212, col. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the sulfide electrolyte of modified Ohta with the Li9.54Si1.74P1.44S11.7Cl0.3 taught by Shao to provide high conductivity.
The bulk modulus of a material is an intrinsic property (ITASCA: Intrinsic Deformability Properties). Thus, as the structure of the solid electrolyte of modified Ohta is identical to the solid electrolyte disclosed in the claimed invention (Li9.54Si1.74P1.44S11.7Cl0.3), the solid of modified Ohta necessarily comprises the same claimed properties (a bulk modulus of at least 15 GPa) as a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta, Shao, Yoshida, and Sakuda as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Liang (US 20150171463 A1) and as evidenced by Wang (Elastic Properties of New Solid State Electrolyte Material Li10GeP2S12: A Study from First-Principles Calculations).
Regarding Claim 42, modified Ohta teaches the battery of Claim 28. Modified Ohta does not disclose the bulk modulus of the sulfide solid electrolyte (Li3.25Ge0.25P0.75S4).
Liang teaches that Li10GeP2S12 is a sulfide-based solid electrolyte with a high ionic conductivity (0004).
Liang is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely solid electrolytes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the Li3.25Ge0.25P0.75S4 of modified Ohta with the Li10GeP2S12 taught by Liang as it is a known sulfide solid electrolyte with a high ionic conductivity.
Li10GeP2S12 is known to have a bulk modulus of greater than 15 GPa (Wang: Abstract – the bulk modulus of Li10GeP2S12 is calculated to be 30.36 GPa).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miki (US 20160315324 A1) teaches a cathode active material coated with LiNbO3 (0049, 0087) to suppress a reaction between a sulfide solid electrolyte material and the active material (0011).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIHENG LU whose telephone number is (703)756-1077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 - 5 ET.
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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/ZIHENG LU/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752