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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/20/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 05/20/2026, has been entered. Claims 1 and 18 are amended; claims 3-6 and 9-11 stand as originally or previously presented; claims 2 and 7-8 are cancelled; and claims 12-17 are withdrawn. Support for the amendments is found in the original filing, and there is no new matter.
Upon considered said amendments and arguments, the previous Claim Objection set forth in Office Action mailed 02/24/2026 has been withdrawn. The previous 35 U.S.C.103 rejection set forth in Office Action mailed 02/24/2026 has been maintained (and altered as required by amendment), as set forth below.
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.
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, 4-5, 9-10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US 20150111110 A1, hereinafter Watanabe), in view of Chen et al. (US 20170331092 A1, hereinafter Chen).
Regarding Claim 1, Watanabe discloses the limitations for a solid electrolyte sheet (Watanabe, solid electrolyte has a sheet shape, Abstract) in which a second solid electrolyte layer is formed on each of both surfaces of a first solid electrolyte layer, the second solid electrolyte layer being a porous solid electrolyte layer (Watanabe, a porous portion is formed on both of the front and rear faces of the dense portion, [0037]; the Examiner notes that the disclosed porous portion refers to the claimed second solid electrolyte layer, and the disclosed dense portion refers to the claimed first solid electrolyte layer) having three-dimensionally connected voids (Watanabe, a porosity of the porous portion being 50% or more results in forming a large number of pores in the porous portion, and thereby ion-conductive paths are made abundantly, [0038]; the Examiner notes that the ion-conductive paths formed by the pores will be three-dimensional because the solid electrolyte is physical),
a voidage (Watanabe, an open porosity is computed, for example, from a bulk density and a sintered density, [0075]; as evidenced in Instant Specification [0037], Voidage = ((1 – p/p0) x 100 (%), wherein p is the bulk density and p0 is the true density. The Examiner notes that the method of finding Watanabe’s open porosity and the method of finding the claimed voidage are substantially similar, so the disclosed open porosity is analogous to the claimed voidage) of the second solid electrolyte layer being 30% or more and not more than 99% (Watanabe, an allowable rate of the open porosity of the porous portion to the porosity thereof is from 60% or more to 100% or less, and the electrolytic solution becomes likely to infiltrate into the porous portion, and thereby ions become likely to be sorbed therein and desorbed therefrom, so the resulting battery capacity increases more, [0043]; the disclosed range of 60% or more to 100% or less substantially overlaps with the claimed range of 30% or more and not more than 99%),
a porosity rate (Watanabe, a porosity is found, for example, by observing a cross section (or a fractured face, a CIP-processed face, and so on) with a scanning electron microscope (or SEM), [0075]; as evidenced in Instant Specification [0056], the porosity rate is defined in the following manner: A backscattered electron topographic image of a depthwise torn surface of the second solid electrolyte layer 2 is binarized to be divided into a porous portion and a non-porous portion. The rate of the area of the porous portion to the total area is defined as the porosity rate. The Examiner notes that the method of finding Watanabe’s porosity and the method of finding the claimed porosity rate are substantially similar, so the disclosed porosity is analogous to the claimed porosity rate) of the second solid electrolyte layer being 20% or more not more than 99% (Watanabe, a porosity of the porous portion is 50% or more, which allows for the resulting battery capacity to be enlarged, [0038]; the disclosed range of 50% or more substantially overlaps the claimed range of being 20% or more not more than 99%),
a thickness of the first solid electrolyte layer being 74 μm or more (Watanabe, a preferable thickness of the dense portion is from 1 μm or more to 1,000 μm or less, [0035]; the disclosed thickness range of 1 μm or more to 1,000 μm or less overlaps with the claimed range of 74 μm or more), and
a thickness of the second solid electrolyte layer being 20 μm or more (Watanabe, a preferable thickness of the porous portion is from 0.1 μm or more to 500 μm or less, [0048]; the disclosed thickness range of 0.1 μm or more to 500 μm or less overlaps with the claimed thickness of 20 μm or more).
Watanabe teaches that by having a solid electrolyte that has both a dense portion and a porous portion, the solid electrolyte is prevented from being penetrated by dendrites of electrode components, and the solid electrolyte a high ion-conductive property (Watanabe, [0017]). Watanabe discloses that the solid electrolyte is produced from a solid-electrolyte powder (Watanabe, [0053]).
Watanabe is silent regarding the second solid electrolyte layer having an arithmetic mean roughness Ra of 6.9 µm or more.
Chen discloses a solid electrolyte layer (Chen, solid electrolyte separator, Abstract) having an arithmetic mean roughness Ra of 6.9 µm or more (Chen, the solid electrolyte separator has a surface roughness Ra on at least one surface from about 0.1 μm to 10 μm, wherein Ra is an arithmetic average of absolute values of sampled surface roughness amplitudes, [0035, 0139]; the disclosed surface roughness of about 0.1 μm to 10 μm overlaps the claimed range of 6.9 µm or more). Chen discloses that the solid electrolyte separator is characterized by a thickness of about 0.1 μm to about 150 μm (Chen, [0193]).
Chen discloses that surface roughness increases the contact between the electrolyte and the electrode (Chen, [0033]).
Watanabe and Chen are analogous to the current invention as they are all directed towards a solid electrolyte.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to routinely design the solid electrolyte of Watanabe to have a surface roughness of about 0.1 μm to 10 μm, as taught by Chen, in order to increase the contact between the electrolyte and the electrode. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Watanabe discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Watanabe discloses the limitations for a solid electrolyte sheet (Watanabe, solid electrolyte has a sheet shape, Abstract), wherein the second solid electrolyte layer is composed of a plurality of layers having different porosity rates (Watanabe, each layer of the porous portion 2’ has a different number of openings, or pores, Annotated Figure 4 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
332
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Watanabe discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Watanabe discloses the limitations for a solid electrolyte sheet (Watanabe, solid electrolyte has a sheet shape, Abstract), wherein in the plurality of layers having different porosity rates, the layer closer to the first solid electrolyte layer has a lower porosity rate (Watanabe, less openings, or pores, towards the dense portion (first layer), Annotated Figure 4 above).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Watanabe discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Watanabe discloses the limitations for a solid electrolyte sheet (Watanabe, solid electrolyte has a sheet shape, Abstract) having a thickness of 2400 µm or less (Watanabe, the most allowable overall thickness of the solid electrolyte is 100 μm or less, [0050]).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Watanabe discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Watanabe discloses the limitations for a solid electrolyte sheet (Watanabe, solid electrolyte has a sheet shape, Abstract), wherein the first solid electrolyte layer and/or the second solid electrolyte layer (Watanabe, a solid electrolyte has a sheet shape, and is composed of an oxide sintered body, Abstract) contain at least one material selected from β’’-alumina, β-alumina, and NASICON crystals (Watanabe, the oxide sintered body composing the electrolyte comprises such a crystal structure as a NASICON-type crystal structure, a β’’-Al2O3 type crystal structure, or a β’-Al2O3 type crystal structure, [0051]).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Watanabe discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Watanabe discloses the limitations for a solid electrolyte sheet (Watanabe, solid electrolyte has a sheet shape, Abstract), wherein the thickness of the first solid electrolyte layer is 89 μm or more (Watanabe, a preferable thickness of the dense portion is from 1 μm or more to 1,000 μm or less, [0035]; the disclosed thickness range of 1 μm or more to 1,000 μm or less overlaps with the claimed range of 89 μm or more).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US 20150111110 A1, hereinafter Watanabe) in view of Chen et al. (US 20170331092 A1, hereinafter Chen), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Kato (US 20090197183 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Watanabe discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Watanabe discloses the limitations for a solid electrolyte sheet (Watanabe, solid electrolyte has a sheet shape, Abstract), wherein assuming that in a cross-sectional image of an interface between the first solid electrolyte layer and the second solid electrolyte layer and around the interface, a curved line drawn along a surface of the second solid electrolyte layer is a profile line (Watanabe, the “average depth L” refers to an average value of thickness-wise lengths from the opening end of the open pores opened to the exterior of the porous portion to the potion of the open pores, and the preferable average depth “L” is from 1 μm or more to 100 μm or less, [0045], Figure 1; the Examiner notes that the average depth “L” may account for the curvatures of the claimed “profile line” because “L” is an average).
Modified Watanabe is silent regarding a straight line drawn along a surface of the first solid electrolyte layer is a reference line and a ratio of a length of the profile line to a length of the reference line ((profile line length) / (reference line length)) is 1.3 to 50.
Kato discloses a solid electrolyte (Kato, [0032]), wherein the width of the solid electrolyte should be preferably 0.1 μm or over and 40 μm or below, [0032]). Kato teaches that from the standpoint of ion conductivity in the electrode, a too narrow width of the solid electrolyte hampers smooth ion conduction resulting imposing limitation to the length of the active material from the electrolyte and thereby exercising an adverse effect to the capacity of the battery (Kato, [0032]).
Modified Watanabe and Kato are analogous to the current invention as they are all directed towards a solid electrolyte.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to routinely design the solid electrolyte of modified Watanabe to have a width of 0.1 μm or over and 40 μm or below, as taught by Kato, in order to have smooth ion conduction through the electrolyte.
Modified Watanabe discloses a ratio of a length of the profile line to a length of the reference line ((profile line length) / (reference line length)) is 1.3 to 50. The Examiner notes that by using the average depth “L” of Watanabe, 1 μm or more to 100 μm or less, and the solid electrolyte thickness of Kato, 0.1 μm or over and 40 μm or below, the ratio of the length of a profile length to a length of a reference line will overlap the claimed range of 1.3 to 50. For example, 100 μm “L” / 40 μm Width = 2.5; for example, 1 μm “L” / 0.1 μm Width = 10.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the instant invention to select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US 20150111110 A1, hereinafter Watanabe), in view of Chen et al. (US 20170331092 A1, hereinafter Chen), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Iwasaki (US 20170250407 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Watanabe discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Watanabe discloses the limitations for a solid electrolyte sheet (Watanabe, solid electrolyte has a sheet shape, Abstract). Modified Watanabe is silent regarding a surface area of the second solid electrolyte layer per cm2 in plan view is 3 cm2 or more.
Iwasaki discloses a sulfide solid electrolyte layer (Iwasaki, [0039]) with a specific surface area range of 1.06 m2/g to 1.22 m2/g (Iwasaki, [0039]). Iwasaki teaches that when the solid electrolyte layer has a specific surface area within the disclosed range of 1.06 m2/g to 1.22 m2/g, there is sufficient adherence between the active material and the solid electrolyte layer, and the ion conducting path will be secure (Iwasaki, [0039]). Iwasaki discloses an example where 4.8 g of sulfide solid electrolyte material was used to form a sulfide solid electrolyte layer (Iwasaki, [0108]); thus, the surface area of the solid electrolyte layer may be be 5.088 m2 to 5.856 m2. The disclosed surface area range of 5.088 m2 to 5.856 m2 falls within the claimed surface area range of 3 cm2 or more.
Iwasaki is analogous to the current invention as they are both directed towards solid electrolytes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to routinely design the solid electrolyte of modified Watanabe with a specific surface area of 1.06 m2/g to 1.22 m2/g, as taught by Iwasaki, in order to improve adhesion between the active material and the solid electrolyte layer and to secure the ion conducting path.
The Examiner notes that while Iwasaki may be using a different solid electrolyte, the effects of having a specific surface area within the above range, i.e., adhesion, will be realized when imparted onto the solid electrolyte of Watanabe.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Watanabe et al. (US 20150111110 A1, hereinafter Watanabe) in view of Chen et al. (US 20170331092 A1, hereinafter Chen), as applied to Claim 1 above, and as evidenced by Chae et al. (US 20150147619 A1, hereinafter Chae).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Watanabe discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Watanabe discloses the limitations for a solid electrolyte sheet (Watanabe, solid electrolyte has a sheet shape, Abstract). Modified Watanabe inherently discloses the limitations for the solid electrolyte being for use in an all solid-state sodium ion secondary battery, disclosed by evidence of Chae.
Modified Watanabe discloses that the solid electrolyte sheet (Watanabe, solid electrolyte has a sheet shape, Abstract) may be composed of a β’’-Al2O3 crystal structure (Watanabe, [0051]), the negative-electrode material may be sodium (Watanabe, [0085]), and the positive electrode active material may be a sulfur-modified compound (Watanabe, [0081]).
As evidenced by Chae, a sodium-sulfur battery has a form in which a beta alumina has selective conductivity for a sodium ion is used, an anode contains sodium, and a cathode contains sulfur has been currently used as a large scale power storage device (Chae, [0004]). It is further evidenced by Chae that β’’-alumina is a Na super ionic conductor (Chae, [0069]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the solid electrolyte of modified Watanabe would be suitable to be used in a sodium ion battery because β’’-alumina is a Na super ionic conductor, as evidenced by Chae. Further, modified Watanabe discloses that the negative-electrode material may be sodium and positive electrode active material may be a sulfur-modified compound, which are known components for a sodium ion battery. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a battery disclosed by modified Watanabe that includes the components listed above would be an all solid-state sodium ion secondary battery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (filed 05/20/2026), see Pages 6-7, with respect to Claim(s) 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Watanabe discloses that the porosity of the second solid electrolyte layer (porous portion 2) is 50% or more, but does not disclose anything about the porosity rate.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the porosity of Watanabe corresponds to the claimed porosity rate. Watanabe discloses that a porosity is found, for example, by observing a cross section (or a fractured face, a CIP-processed face, and so on) with a scanning electron microscope (or SEM), (Watanabe, [0075]).
As evidenced in Instant Specification [0056], the porosity rate is defined in the following manner: A backscattered electron topographic image of a depthwise torn surface of the second solid electrolyte layer 2 is binarized to be divided into a porous portion and a non-porous portion. The rate of the area of the porous portion to the total area is defined as the porosity rate.
The Examiner notes that the method of finding Watanabe’s porosity and the method of finding the claimed porosity rate are substantially similar, so the disclosed porosity is analogous to the claimed porosity rate.
Thus, Watanabe discloses that a porosity of the porous portion is 50% or more, which allows for the resulting battery capacity to be enlarged, (Watanabe, [0038]); the disclosed range of 50% or more substantially overlaps the claimed range of being 20% or more not more than 99%.
Furthermore, the porosity of the porous portion of Watanabe would at least overlap the claimed porosity rate range of 20% or more not more than 99%, especially since Watanabe discloses that a large porosity value allows for the resulting battery capacity to be enlarged.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to select the overlapping portions of the disclosed because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 7824795 B2 discloses a solid electrolyte structure (1) for all-solid-state batteries includes a plate-like dense body (2) formed of a ceramic that includes a solid electrolyte, and a porous layer (3) formed of a ceramic that includes a solid electrolyte (Abstract, Figure 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:50 - 7:50 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 A 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.
/K.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights