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 .
Response to Appeal Brief
In view of the appeal brief filed on 1/20/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A non-final rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/MIRIAM STAGG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Status
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4 of the appeal brief, filed 1/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 35 and 49 under Zhou, Affinito, and Koh have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zhou in view of Visco et al. (US 2008/0057386 A1, hereafter Visco) as provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 35-36, 44-46, and 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US 2015/0056517 A1, hereafter Zhou) in view of Visco et al. (US 2008/0057386 A1, hereafter Visco).
With regard to claim 35, Zhou teaches a battery comprising:
an anode [0049];
a cathode [0049];
a liquid electrolyte between the anode and cathode [0072-0073];
a flexible porous separator (membrane 28) having a surface [0018-0019]; and
at least one layer of material on the surface comprising at least one of an ionically conductive polymer, LiSICON, or LiPON [0024-0025, 0028-0030].
Zhou teaches a multi-layer laminate with coatings that may include polymers and solid electrolyte materials (which would be electrically non-conductive) [0022-0024] but does not explicitly teach a second coating. However, in the same field of endeavor, Visco teaches the use of multiple layers (second coating) to form a protective layer made of a non-conductive material (1x10-7 S/cm which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range) which may be incorporated into anode structures [0013, 0015]. Visco further teaches the use of materials with lower ion conductivity (1x10-7 S/cm) allows for the use of thinner layers [0054]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the second coating of Visco with the battery of Zhou for the benefit of protecting an anode from deleterious reactions [0013].
With regard to claim 36, Zhou teaches cathode and anode facing interfaces (sides) with the layer of material formed on both interfaces (formed on surfaces 19) [0030, 0049, fig. 5].
With regard to claim 44, Zhou teaches LiPF6 [0057].
With regard to claim 45, Zhou teaches lithium phosphorous sulfide [0025].
With regard to claim 46, Zhou teaches a deposition method using atomic layer deposition [0028].
With regard to claim 49, Zhou teaches a flexible porous separator (membrane 28) having a surface [0018-0019]; and
at least one layer of material on the surface comprising at least one of an ionically conductive polymer, LiSICON, or LiPON [0024-0025, 0028-0030].
Zhou teaches a multi-layer laminate with coatings that may include polymers and solid electrolyte materials (which would be electrically non-conductive) [0022-0024] but does not explicitly teach a second coating. However, in the same field of endeavor, Visco teaches the use of multiple layers (second coating) to form a protective layer made of a non-conductive material (1x10-7 S/cm which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range) [0013, 0015]. Visco further teaches the use of materials with lower ion conductivity (1x10-7 S/cm) allows for the use of thinner layers [0054]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the second coating of Visco with the battery of Zhou for the benefit of protecting an anode from deleterious reactions [0013].
Claim(s) 40 and 50-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou and Visco as applied to claims 35-36, 44-46, and 49 above, and further in view of Affinito et al. (US 2011/0177398 A1, hereafter Affinito).
With regard to claim 40, modified Zhou teaches a multi-layer laminate with coatings that may include polymers and solid electrolyte materials (which would be electrically non-conductive) [0022-0024] but does not explicitly teach a coating with the claimed thickness. However, in the same field of endeavor, Affinito teaches the use of multiple thin layers of solid electrolyte structures (which would act as protective coatings) [0072-0076] with thicknesses of 1-10 nm (which overlaps and obviates the claimed range) [0054]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the multiple thin coating layers of Affinito with the battery of Zhou for the benefit of crack resistance during handling [Affinito 0072-0075]. Modified Zhou would not explicitly teach the claimed cycle discharge capacity, however it should exhibit the claimed properties due to teaching the claimed layer materials and a substantially similar thickness range.
With regard to claims 50-52, modified Zhou teaches a multi-layer laminate with coatings that may include polymers and solid electrolyte materials (which would be electrically non-conductive) [0022-0024] as detailed in the rejection of claim 49 but does not explicitly teach a coating with the claimed thickness or arrangement. However, in the same field of endeavor, Affinito teaches the use of multiple thin layers of solid electrolyte structures (which would act as protective coatings) [0072-0076], teaches the layers have thicknesses of 10-100 nm (which falls within the claimed range) and teaches repeating alternating layers (which would read on the arrangement of claims 50-52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the multiple thin coating layers of Affinito with the battery of Zhou for the benefit of crack resistance during handling [Affinito 0072-0075].
Claim(s) 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou and Visco as applied to claims 35-36, 44-46, and 49 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0340741 A1, hereafter Kim).
With regard to claim 37, Zhou teaches solid electrolyte materials [0025] but does not explicitly teach the claimed Li2S-P2S5 material. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches the use of Li2S-P2S5 (which would be equivalent to the claimed formula when x=0.5) as a solid electrolyte [0048]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the Li2S-P2S5 material of Kim as the solid electrolyte of modified Zhou since it is known to be effective for ion diffusion [Kim 0042].
With regard to claim 38, Zhou teaches solid electrolyte materials in the layer [0025] but does not teach gradated materials. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches gradating electrolyte materials towards electrode materials [0042]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to gradate the electrolyte materials in the layer of modified Zhou towards the electrode materials based on the teachings of Kim for the benefit of enabling high ion diffusion and high battery capacity [Kim 0042, 0058].
Claim(s) 39, 41, and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou and Visco as applied to claims 35-36, 44-46, and 49 above, and further in view of Sun et al. (US 2013/0280581 A1, hereafter Sun).
With regard to claim 39, Zhou teaches the material comprises alumina materials (li-alumina) [0025] but does not explicitly teach the claimed Al2O3 or TiO2 materials. However, in the same field of endeavor, Sun teaches the use of a thin coating material that may comprise TiO2 [0027]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the TiO2 material of Sun as a solid electrolyte layer of modified Zhou for the benefit of promotion of ionic conductivity [Sun 0027].
With regard to claim 41, Zhou teaches atomic layer deposition [0028].
With regard to claim 43, Zhou teaches the material comprises alumina and ALD [0025, 0028] Zhou does not explicitly teach the number of ALD cycles, however this is a product by process limitation that would not further limit the claim since it would result in an alumina film deposited by ALD which is taught by Zhou.
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou and Visco as applied to claims 35-36, 44-46, and 49 above, and further in view of Sato et al. (US 2002/0009649 A1, hereafter Sato).
With regard to claim 42, Zhou teaches a thickness of 10 nm to 2 µm (which falls within and obviates the claimed range) [0035]. Zhou does not explicitly teach the claimed separator area, however this would be an obvious variant to one of ordinary skill in the art since separators with this area are well known in the art as evidenced by Sato, who teaches a separator with an area of 4 cm2 [0426].
Claim(s) 47-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou and Visco as applied to claims 35-36, 44-46, and 49 above, and further in view of Freeman et al. (US 2009/0081883 A1, hereafter Freeman).
With regard to claims 47-48, Zhou teaches atomic layer deposition but does not teach the claimed deposition while moving. However, in the same field of endeavor (atomic layer deposition) Freeman teaches atomic layer deposition on a substrate that is moving on a web conveyor [0095, fig. 10]. Since this may only coat one side of a substrate it would necessarily be sequential deposition (claim 47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the web conveyor coating method of Freeman with the deposition method of modified Zhou for the benefit of enabling coating a substrate that is in constant motion [Freeman 0095].
Claim(s) 53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou and Visco as applied to claims 35-36, 44-46, and 49 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (US 2013/0171500 A1, hereafter Xu).
With regard to claim 53, Zhou teaches porous polymer materials [0018] but does not explicitly teach they are flame retardant. However, in the same field of endeavor, Xu teaches the use of flame retardant polymers [0029]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the flame retardant material of Xu with the separator of Zhou for the benefit of a flame retardant separator [Xu 0029].
Claim(s) 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou and Visco as applied to claims 35-36, 44-46, and 49 above, and further in view of Ferla et al. (US 2003/0211397 A1, hereafter Ferla).
With regard to claim 54, Zhou teaches a porous separator material [0018] but does not explicitly teach foam materials. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ferla teaches the use of foam separator materials [0013]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the foam material of Ferla as the separator of modified Zhou for the benefit of being able to retain electrolyte even if the separator is punctured [Ferla 0013].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments are presented on page 4 that one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine the teachings of Affinito and Zhou due to Affinito not teaching coating separators. These arguments are not found persuasive due to the fact that Zhou teaches solid electrolyte materials are suitable coatings for separators [0022-0024] and Affinito is merely relied upon for teaching that multiple thin layers of solid electrolyte structures are more crack resistant including during handling [0072-0076]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use the multiple thin layers of Affinito with the separator coating of Zhou. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The arguments are presented on page 5 that Zhou would teach away from a polymer coating having a conductivity of less than 1 x 10-6 S/cm. These arguments are not found persuasive due to the fact that Zhou only requires the materials function as a solid electrolyte and does not require a minimum ionic conductivity. Visco teaches that materials with ionic conductivity in the claimed range may be used in materials considered to have an inherently high ionic conductivity [0053-0054]. Therefore, Zhou would not teach away from materials with the claimed conductivity.
The arguments are presented on page 5 regarding claim 40 that the invention has unexpectedly better results of increasing discharge capacity and conductivity. These arguments are not found persuasive due to the fact that unmodified Zhou teaches the materials used are ionically conductive and teaches they allow for increased discharge capacity [0079]. Therefore, these properties would not be unexpected in light of the teachings of Zhou.
The arguments are presented on page 6 that one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine the teachings of Zhou and Sun due to the claim being drawn to a nonconductive layer. These arguments are not found persuasive due to the fact that nonconductive is a relative term. For example, Visco et al. (US 2008/0057386 A1, hereafter Visco) teaches materials with ionic conductivity in the claimed range (1x10-7 S/cm) may be used in materials considered to have an inherently high ionic conductivity [0013, 0015, 0053-0054]. Therefore, materials such as those taught by Sun may still be considered to have ionic conductivity while still falling within the claimed range of below 1x10-6 S/cm.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT C THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7737. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible schedule, typical hours 11-7 M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/BRENT C THOMAS/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights