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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed March 11th 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8 & 10-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s arguments to the 103 rejections of the claims has been fully considered but is not persuasive, thus the rejections have been maintained. Additionally, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made over O’Toole in view of Bell and additionally Zhou et al. CN 10866613 B. New rejections follow.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10, & 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O'Toole et al. US 2021/0066702 A1 in view of Bell et al. US 2021/0126258 A1 and Lim et al. KR 2020/0128256 A. Citations to Lim are mapped to the English machine translation.
Regarding Claims 1 & 3, as best understood by the examiner, O’Toole discloses a negative electrode structure (“an anode” [0023]) comprising:
a current collecting layer [0023, Figure 1 - Item 101]
a porous layer with a plurality of pores (“porous lithium storage layer” Figure 1 Item 107 [0023,0059])
a solid-state electrolyte layer on the porous layer (“supplemental layer acts as a solid-state electrolyte” Figure 6 Item 150-1 [0091-0092])
comprising a plurality of solid-state electrolytes [0101]
This is further illustrated in Figures 1 & 6 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
209
349
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
326
527
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 6
However, O’Toole fails to disclose lithiophilic structures are in the pores of the porous layer and that the porous layer comprises a first portion and a second portion, where the first portion is between the current collecting layer and the second portion, and the abundance of the lithiophilic structures in the first portion is greater than the abundance of the lithiophilic structures in the second portion.
Bell discloses an anode for a lithium battery comprising a porous layer (Figure 3 “carbon scaffold 300” [0218]) coated on a current collector (Figure 3 Item 306 [0232]). Bell discloses that the porous layer comprises carbon-based particles (Figure 1A Item 100A, Figure 3 Item 302) that comprise open porous scaffolds (Figure 1A Item 102A). The open porous scaffolds are defined by contiguous microstructures (Figure 1E Item 107E) which comprise microporous frameworks of carbon based particles configured to be lithium ion conduits [0154]. As shown in Figure 3, the carbon based particles (shown as Item 302 in Figure 3 below) are contained in the pores of a carbon scaffold (Item 300 in Figure 3 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
446
785
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thus Bell discloses a porous layer with a plurality of pores (carbon scaffold 300 with open pores) located on a current collector (Item 306 in Figure 3 above) comprising a plurality of lithiophilic structures (carbon based particles 302 that comprise microporous frameworks) in the pores of the porous layer.
Bell discloses that the porous layer (carbon scaffold Item 300) can have a multilayer structure (Figure 4A [0246]) and more specifically discloses that the first portion (Figure 4A Item 406A) has a different pore concentration than the second portion (Figure 4A Item 408A) [0246]. Bell further discloses a “progressively declining” concentration of lithiophilic structures (carbon-based particles, configured as Li ion conduits [0241]) from the first portion (406A) to the second portion (408A) and subsequent layers [0246] within the porous layer (carbon scaffold). Further, Bell discloses that the first portion (406A) is between the current collector (420A) and the second portion (408A) as illustrated in Figure 4A below.
PNG
media_image4.png
454
715
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Bell discloses that structure of the porous layer has the benefit of enabling better conductivity of the Li ions through the porous layer from the anode to the cathode, and better electric conductivity capacity of the battery [0263-0264]. Bell further discloses that the porous layer inhibits Li dendrite growth [0007], and discloses that Li dendrites cause safety concerns due to short circuiting [0068].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to incorporate the porous layer of Bell as the porous layer of O’Toole, such that the porous layer comprises a plurality of lithiophilic structures accommodated in some of the pores of the porous layer, wherein the porous layer comprises a first portion and a second portion, the first portion is between the current collecting layer and the second portion, and the abundance of the lithiophilic structures in the first portion is greater than the abundance of the lithiophilic structures in the second portion, thus creating a battery with the advantageous configuration having better Li ion conductivity and electric conductivity capacity and preventing Li dendrite growth.
Modified O’Toole discloses that the pore size of the pores of the porous layer is greater than 0.05μm [Bell 0241]. Modified O’Toole discloses that the solid electrolytes are disposed outside the pores (layer 150-1 shown outside of the porous layer 107 in Figure 6). Modified O’Toole is silent as to a particle size of the solid-state electrolyte, and thus fails to specifically disclose that the average particle size of the solid-state electrolyte is larger than the pore size of the pores.
Lim discloses a composite anode comprising a porous layer (negative active material layer that is porous) and a current collector [0012], similar to that of modified O’Toole. Lim further discloses a solid-state electrolyte layer [0029], and as further shown in Lim Annotated Figure 1, Lim discloses that the solid-state electrolyte layer is disposed on the porous layer [0042]:
PNG
media_image5.png
215
551
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Lim Annotated Figure 1
Lim discloses that the solid-state electrolyte layer comprises a solid electrolyte, similar to that of the solid electrolyte contained in the negative electrode active material layer [0094], which Lim discloses has a particle size of 0.1-10 µm [0061].
Lim discloses that a solid-state electrolyte such as this creates empty space between the particles (or “voids”) [0058] which creates a porosity that enables secure storage of lithium for better performance [0074].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the particle size of the solid electrolyte as suggested by Lim in the solid electrolyte layer of modified O’Toole to provide an electrolyte layer with the ability to securely store lithium for better performance. Thus, modified O’Toole discloses that the solid electrolyte has an average particle size of 0.1-10 µm, which is larger than the pore size of the pores in the porous layer (0.05 µm or greater).
Regarding Claim 2, modified O’Toole discloses that the solid-state electrolyte layer can be applied in a variety of ways in [0091] and that the solid electrolyte layer is on the porous layer, thus, reading “embedded” (surrounded or implanted).
Regarding Claims 5 & 14, modified O’Toole discloses, with the modification of Bell, that the lithiophilic structures have an average particle size ranging from 0.01 µm to 10 µm, which overlaps with the range recited in Claims 5 & 14 [0394]. In regards to the lithiophilic structure average particle size, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Bell because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding Claims 6 & 15, modified O’Toole discloses, with the modification of Bell, an average pore size of the pores within the porous layer greater than 0.05μm which overlaps with the range recited in Claims 6 & 15 [0241]. In regards to the porous layer pore size, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Bell because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding Claims 7 & 16, modified O’Toole discloses, with the modification of Bell, a porous layer comprising a plurality of carbon nanomaterials [0146]. The immediate disclosure specifies these carbon nanomaterials to include “carbon nanowires, carbon nanotubes, carbon nanofilaments, carbon nanofibers, or combinations thereof” and describes that “the carbon nanomaterials are staggeredly stacked on each other, and the pores are located between the adjacent carbon nanomaterials” [Claim 7]. Bell discloses a porous layer comprising carbon-based particles (Figure 1A Item 100A [0146]) that comprise carbon nanotubes, nano-balls, and nano-sized amorphous carbon [0108]. As shown in Figure 4A above, the carbon based particles are contained in the pores of the carbon scaffold (Item 400A) and layered in a random order, and illustrates that the pores are located adjacent to the carbon-based particles (Item 402A in Figure 4A).
Regarding Claims 8 & 17, modified O’Toole discloses a total thickness of the porous layer (carbon interface layer comprising the carbon scaffold) ranging from 0.1 to 20 µm [0006], and a total thickness of the lithiophilic structures (carbon-based particles in the carbon scaffold) is 0.1 µm [0258]. In regards to the total thickness of the porous layer and the lithiophilic structures, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Bell because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding Claims 10 & 19, modified O’Toole discloses a solid state electrolyte layer that comprises a lithium salt, a polymer, and a solid state electrolyte [Paragraphs 0122 and 0128]. Specifically, O’Toole discloses that the polymer portion of the solid state electrolyte layer can comprise polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), polyacrylonitrile (PAN), polyethylene oxide (PEO), combinations of the foregoing polymers, or physical mixtures of any of the foregoing polymers [Paragraph 0128]. Furthermore, in Paragraphs 0091-0099, O’Toole discloses that a supplementary layer can be added to the anode current collector and acts as a solid-state electrolyte with compositions of a metal oxide containing aluminum, titanium, zirconium, or a lithium-containing material lithium phosphate, a lithium aluminum oxide, or a lithium lanthanum titanate.
Regarding Claim 18, modified O’Toole discloses, with the modification of Bell, that the materials of the lithiophilic structures (“carbon-based particles”) can further comprise silicon [0438].
Claims 11 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Toole, Bell, and Lim, as applied to claims 10 & 19 above, and further in view of Gaben FR 3108791 A1.
Regarding Claims 11 & 20, modified O’Toole discloses the electrolyte layer comprising a solid electrolyte material as listed above regarding Claims 10 & 19.
However, modified O’Toole is silent as to the specific formula for the lithium aluminium titanium phosphate, the lithium lanthanum titanium oxide, and the lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide.
Gaben discloses a method of manufacturing inorganic layers for use in electrochemical devices, the layers specifically being electrolytes for multilayer batteries. Gaben further discloses electrolyte materials chosen from a preferred list [0084], including:
Lithium aluminum titanium phosphates with formula Li1+xAlxTi2-x(PO4)3 where 0≤x≤1, which reads on the immediate disclosure’s claimed formula Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3 when x=0.3.
Lithium lanthanum titanium oxide with formula La0.57Li0.29TiO3
Gaben discloses LLTO having the formula Li3XLa2/3-XTiO3 where 0≤x≤0.16, which reads on the immediate disclosure’s claimed formula Li0.29La0.57TiO3 when x = 0.096.
and lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide with formula Li7La3Zr2O12, which reads directly on the immediate disclosure’s claimed formula.
Gaben discloses the benefits of using these preferred materials for the electrolytes as they “have a high ionic conductivity, a stable mechanical structure, good thermal stability, and a long lifetime” [Paragraph 0032].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the immediate disclosure to modify the solid-state electrolyte layer of O’Toole to include one of the specific solid electrolyte materials of Gaben to achieve a more stable battery with good thermal stability and a longer battery life.
Claims 1-8, 10, & 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O'Toole et al. US 2021/0066702 A1 in view of Bell et al. US 2021/0126258 A1 and Zhou et al. CN 108666613 B A. Citations to Zhou are mapped to the English machine translation.
Regarding Claims 1 & 3, as best understood by the examiner, O’Toole discloses a negative electrode structure (“an anode” [0023]) comprising:
a current collecting layer [0023, Figure 1 - Item 101]
a porous layer with a plurality of pores (“porous lithium storage layer” Figure 1 Item 107 [0023,0059])
a solid-state electrolyte layer on the porous layer (“supplemental layer acts as a solid-state electrolyte” Figure 6 Item 150-1 [0091-0092])
comprising a plurality of solid-state electrolytes [0101]
This is further illustrated in Figures 1 & 6 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
209
349
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
326
527
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 6
However, O’Toole fails to disclose lithiophilic structures are in the pores of the porous layer and that the porous layer comprises a first portion and a second portion, where the first portion is between the current collecting layer and the second portion, and the abundance of the lithiophilic structures in the first portion is greater than the abundance of the lithiophilic structures in the second portion.
Bell discloses an anode for a lithium battery comprising a porous layer (Figure 3 “carbon scaffold 300” [0218]) coated on a current collector (Figure 3 Item 306 [0232]). Bell discloses that the porous layer comprises carbon-based particles (Figure 1A Item 100A, Figure 3 Item 302) that comprise open porous scaffolds (Figure 1A Item 102A). The open porous scaffolds are defined by contiguous microstructures (Figure 1E Item 107E) which comprise microporous frameworks of carbon based particles configured to be lithium ion conduits [0154]. As shown in Figure 3, the carbon based particles (shown as Item 302 in Figure 3 below) are contained in the pores of a carbon scaffold (Item 300 in Figure 3 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
446
785
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thus Bell discloses a porous layer with a plurality of pores (carbon scaffold 300 with open pores) located on a current collector (Item 306 in Figure 3 above) comprising a plurality of lithiophilic structures (carbon based particles 302 that comprise microporous frameworks) in the pores of the porous layer.
Bell discloses that the porous layer (carbon scaffold Item 300) can have a multilayer structure (Figure 4A [0246]) and more specifically discloses that the first portion (Figure 4A Item 406A) has a different pore concentration than the second portion (Figure 4A Item 408A) [0246]. Bell further discloses a “progressively declining” concentration of lithiophilic structures (carbon-based particles, configured as Li ion conduits [0241]) from the first portion (406A) to the second portion (408A) and subsequent layers [0246] within the porous layer (carbon scaffold). Further, Bell discloses that the first portion (406A) is between the current collector (420A) and the second portion (408A) as illustrated in Figure 4A below.
PNG
media_image4.png
454
715
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Bell discloses that structure of the porous layer has the benefit of enabling better conductivity of the Li ions through the porous layer from the anode to the cathode, and better electric conductivity capacity of the battery [0263-0264]. Bell further discloses that the porous layer inhibits Li dendrite growth [0007], and discloses that Li dendrites cause safety concerns due to short circuiting [0068].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to incorporate the porous layer of Bell as the porous layer of O’Toole, such that the porous layer comprises a plurality of lithiophilic structures accommodated in some of the pores of the porous layer, wherein the porous layer comprises a first portion and a second portion, the first portion is between the current collecting layer and the second portion, and the abundance of the lithiophilic structures in the first portion is greater than the abundance of the lithiophilic structures in the second portion, thus creating a battery with the advantageous configuration having better Li ion conductivity and electric conductivity capacity and preventing Li dendrite growth.
Modified O’Toole discloses that the pore size of the pores of the porous layer is greater than 0.05μm [Bell 0241]. Modified O’Toole discloses that the solid electrolytes are disposed outside the pores (layer 150-1 shown outside of the porous layer 107 in Figure 6). Modified O’Toole is silent as to a particle size of the solid-state electrolyte, and thus fails to specifically disclose that the average particle size of the solid-state electrolyte is larger than the pore size of the pores.
Zhou discloses a solid electrolyte structure for a battery [Page 1 Lines 14-15] comprising a first layer that is porous and a second layer that is dense [Page 1 Lines 50-51]. Zhou discloses that the porous layer of the solid electrolyte structure comprises pores that are coated with a conductive layer [Page 1 Lines 53-54] so that the porous layer can be filled with electrode active material [Page 1 Line 56], similar to the porous layer of modified O’Toole comprising lithiophilic structures. Zhou discloses that the pore size of the porous layer is 50nm-500µm [Page 8 Lines 27-31]. Zhou further discloses that the dense layer of the solid electrolyte structure is a dense compact of solid electrolyte particles having a particle size of 500nm-5µm [Page 10 Lines 14-15]. Thus, Zhou discloses that the solid electrolyte particles can have a particle size greater than the pore size of the porous layer.
Zhou discloses that the porous layer is layered on top of and outside of the dense layer [Page 1 Lines 50-51], and that the open pores of the porous layer allow electrode active material to enter the pores and stably adhere [Page 2 Lines 28-30]. Zhou discloses that having the pores of the porous layer open such as this increases the contact area with the electrode active material as well as enables more ion conduction sites to promote ion conduction between the electrodes and improve the ion conductivity of the battery [Page 2 Lines 1-4]. Zhou discloses that a solid electrolyte structure such as this creates a battery with high energy density and cycle stability [Page 2 Lines 11-14].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention, as suggested by the electrolyte structure of Zhou, to modify the structure of modified O’Toole to use a particle size for the solid electrolytes and a pore size of the porous layer such that the solid electrolytes have a greater particle size than the size of the pores in the porous layer and such that the solid electrolytes are disposed outside of the pores of the porous layer, for the benefit of creating an open pore structure in the porous layer to enable electrode active material to enter the porous layer and stably adhere which thereby improves ion conductivity, energy density, and cycling stability of the battery, as suggested by Zhou.
Regarding Claim 2, modified O’Toole discloses that the solid-state electrolyte layer can be applied in a variety of ways in [0091] and that the solid electrolyte layer is on the porous layer, thus, reading “embedded” (surrounded or implanted).
Regarding Claims 5 & 14, modified O’Toole discloses, with the modification of Bell, that the lithiophilic structures have an average particle size ranging from 0.01 µm to 10 µm, which overlaps with the range recited in Claims 5 & 14 [0394]. In regards to the lithiophilic structure average particle size, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Bell because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding Claims 6 & 15, modified O’Toole discloses, with the modification of Bell, an average pore size of the pores within the porous layer greater than 0.05μm which overlaps with the range recited in Claims 6 & 15 [0241]. In regards to the porous layer pore size, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Bell because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding Claims 7 & 16, modified O’Toole discloses, with the modification of Bell, a porous layer comprising a plurality of carbon nanomaterials [0146]. The immediate disclosure specifies these carbon nanomaterials to include “carbon nanowires, carbon nanotubes, carbon nanofilaments, carbon nanofibers, or combinations thereof” and describes that “the carbon nanomaterials are staggeredly stacked on each other, and the pores are located between the adjacent carbon nanomaterials” [Claim 7]. Bell discloses a porous layer comprising carbon-based particles (Figure 1A Item 100A [0146]) that comprise carbon nanotubes, nano-balls, and nano-sized amorphous carbon [0108]. As shown in Figure 4A above, the carbon based particles are contained in the pores of the carbon scaffold (Item 400A) and layered in a random order, and illustrates that the pores are located adjacent to the carbon-based particles (Item 402A in Figure 4A).
Regarding Claims 8 & 17, modified O’Toole discloses a total thickness of the porous layer (carbon interface layer comprising the carbon scaffold) ranging from 0.1 to 20 µm [0006], and a total thickness of the lithiophilic structures (carbon-based particles in the carbon scaffold) is 0.1 µm [0258]. In regards to the total thickness of the porous layer and the lithiophilic structures, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Bell because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding Claims 10 & 19, modified O’Toole discloses a solid state electrolyte layer that comprises a lithium salt, a polymer, and a solid state electrolyte [Paragraphs 0122 and 0128]. Specifically, O’Toole discloses that the polymer portion of the solid state electrolyte layer can comprise polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), polyacrylonitrile (PAN), polyethylene oxide (PEO), combinations of the foregoing polymers, or physical mixtures of any of the foregoing polymers [Paragraph 0128]. Furthermore, in Paragraphs 0091-0099, O’Toole discloses that a supplementary layer can be added to the anode current collector and acts as a solid-state electrolyte with compositions of a metal oxide containing aluminum, titanium, zirconium, or a lithium-containing material lithium phosphate, a lithium aluminum oxide, or a lithium lanthanum titanate.
Regarding Claim 18, modified O’Toole discloses, with the modification of Bell, that the materials of the lithiophilic structures (“carbon-based particles”) can further comprise silicon [0438].
Claims 11 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Toole, Bell, and Zhou, as applied to claims 10 & 19 above, and further in view of Gaben FR 3108791 A1.
Regarding Claims 11 & 20, modified O’Toole discloses the electrolyte layer comprising a solid electrolyte material as listed above regarding Claims 10 & 19.
However, modified O’Toole is silent as to the specific formula for the lithium aluminium titanium phosphate, the lithium lanthanum titanium oxide, and the lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide.
Gaben discloses a method of manufacturing inorganic layers for use in electrochemical devices, the layers specifically being electrolytes for multilayer batteries. Gaben further discloses electrolyte materials chosen from a preferred list [0084], including:
Lithium aluminum titanium phosphates with formula Li1+xAlxTi2-x(PO4)3 where 0≤x≤1, which reads on the immediate disclosure’s claimed formula Li1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3 when x=0.3.
Lithium lanthanum titanium oxide with formula La0.57Li0.29TiO3
Gaben discloses LLTO having the formula Li3XLa2/3-XTiO3 where 0≤x≤0.16, which reads on the immediate disclosure’s claimed formula Li0.29La0.57TiO3 when x = 0.096.
and lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide with formula Li7La3Zr2O12, which reads directly on the immediate disclosure’s claimed formula.
Gaben discloses the benefits of using these preferred materials for the electrolytes as they “have a high ionic conductivity, a stable mechanical structure, good thermal stability, and a long lifetime” [Paragraph 0032].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the immediate disclosure to modify the solid-state electrolyte layer of O’Toole to include one of the specific solid electrolyte materials of Gaben to achieve a more stable battery with good thermal stability and a longer battery life.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that a person skilled in the art would not be motivated to select a solid-state electrolyte from Lim with a particle size larger than the pore size of Bell (larger than 0.5 µm). Applicant argues that based on Lim’s disclosure of a porous layer comprising a mixture of solid electrolytes, carbon material, and metal particles, one of skill would be motivated to select a particle size suitable for adding the solid electrolyte into the porous layer. Examiner respectfully points out that while Lim does disclose a porous layer comprising a solid electrolyte, this argument is not relevant to the rejection. Lim discloses a separate solid electrolyte layer comprising particles of solid electrolytes, as stated in the rejection above. Examiner points out that the particles of the solid electrolyte in the solid electrolyte layer were used to teach an advantageous solid electrolyte particle size for the benefit of creating voids and porosity in the solid electrolyte layer for the secure storage of lithium to enable better performance, and thus one of skill in the art would be motivated to use the teaching of Lim’s solid electrolyte particle size in the absence of a specific particle size of the solid electrolytes in the solid electrolyte layer of O’Toole. As stated in the rejection above, by selecting the particle size of the solid electrolyte of Lim to use in combination with the pore size of Bell, this would create a porous layer having pore sizes (Bell) smaller than the particles of the solid electrolyte in the solid electrolyte layer (Lim), thus teaching the claimed limitation of the solid state electrolytes being disposed outside the pores. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA E GOULD whose telephone number is (571)270-1088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/A.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1726 /DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights