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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on July 21, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently, claim 3 is cancelled, resulting in claims 1-2 and 4-5 pending for examination.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai (WO 2018/168550 A1) in view of Hupfer, et al. (US 2020/0266479 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Imai teaches an all-solid secondary battery comprising:
an anode mixture layer (Fig. 1, Ref. 21e; ¶ [0016]), a solid electrolyte layer (Fig. 1, Ref. 21a; ¶ [0016]), and a cathode mixture layer (Fig. 1, Ref. 21c; ¶ [0016]) laminated in that order in a layering direction;
a Li-occluding solid disposed on at least part of the peripheral end faces on the solid electrolyte layer, in this case, a mixture of inorganic insulating material and inorganic insulating particles disposed on both ends of the solid electrolyte layer (¶ [0064] Ln. 1035-1036) that is heated and allowed to spread over the ends of the inorganic solid electrolyte layer (¶ [0064] Ln. 1039-1040); and
the Li-occluding solid is responsive to Li, in this case, the inorganic insulating coating is made of a material harder than dendrites in a solid state (¶ [0020] Ln. 388-389), such as sulfur and/or modified sulfur, iodine, and a mixture of iodine and sulfur (¶ [0020] Ln. 391-393), such that when the lithium dendrites come into contact with sulfur, a reaction occurs and the growth of dendrites is stopped in the inorganic insulating coating (¶ [0021] Ln. 405-409).
Imai teaches multiple configurations of the inorganic insulating coating, including providing the inorganic insulating coating only on the ends of the solid electrolyte layer (¶ [0064], Ln. 1021-1023), wherein it covers the peripheral end faces of the solid electrolyte layer. Imai does not explicitly teach that the Li-occluding solid is disposed on the part of the peripheral end faces on the solid electrolyte layer specifically on an anode mixture layer side.
Hupfer teaches a lithium solid-state battery with a first and second separator layer, where the second separator layer includes a sulfidic solid-state electrolyte which may be doped with halogen ions (¶ [0039] Ln. 1-3) and reliably prevents dendrite growth (¶ [0007] Ln. 5-7). The second separator layer is situated between the first separator layer and lithium anode (¶ [0006] Ln. 7-9) and prevents the formation or penetration of lithium dendrites into the second separator layer, (¶ [0045] Ln. 2-3), thereby preventing a short circuit and increasing the service life of the battery (¶ [0045) Ln. 6-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose the Li-occluding solid of Imai on the part of the peripheral end faces on the solid electrolyte layer specifically on the anode mixture layer side based on the teachings of Hupfer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to dispose the Li-occluding solid on the anode side of the solid electrolyte layer in order to reliably prevent lithium dendrite growth from the anode to the cathode, preventing a short circuit.
Imai does not explicitly teach that the Li-occluding solid has a thickness in the layering direction that is at most 50% of a length between the anode mixture layer and the cathode mixture layer. Hupfer teaches that the thickness of the first separator layer is at least twice that of the second separator layer, and preferably at least ten times that of the second separator layer (¶ [0006], Ln. 6-17), resulting in a second separator layer that is less than 50% the length between the anode and cathode. Hupfer teaches that the thinner second separator layer allows the battery to be manufactured more cost-effectively, even when the second separator layer is relatively expensive and technically complicated (¶ [0009], Ln. 13-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the Li-occluding solid of Imai thinner, so that the thickness of the solid electrolyte layer is at least twice the thickness of the Li-occluding solid in the layering direction, based on the teachings of Hupfer. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a smaller amount of the Li-occluding solid could be disposed on the anode side of the solid electrolyte and allowed to melt to cover a thinner portion of the solid electrolyte, such that it does not cover the entire thickness of the solid electrolyte layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, as the thin second separator layer of Hupfer is effective in preventing dendrite growth from the anode to the cathode, a smaller amount of Li-occluding solid could successfully prevent dendrite growth in the secondary battery of Imai. In modifying the Li-occluding solid layer such that the thickness is less than twice the total thickness of the solid electrolyte layer, the thickness of the Li-occluding solid would be less than 50% of the length between the anode and the cathode layer in the layering direction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow the battery to be manufactured more cost-effectively, as less material would be needed to cover less area.
Regarding claim 2, Imai in view of Hupfer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches that the peripheral end faces on the solid electrolyte layer are flat, and the peripheral end faces on the anode mixture layer and the peripheral end faces on the cathode mixture layer are flat (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Imai in view of Hupfer teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches that the Li-occluding solid is disposed across the part of the peripheral end faces on the solid electrolyte layer in a circumferential direction, in this case, the mixture of inorganic insulating material and inorganic insulating particles is disposed on both ends of the solid electrolyte layer (¶ [0064] Ln. 1035-1036) and allowed to spread over the ends of the inorganic solid electrolyte material (¶ [0064] Ln. 1039-1040), and the battery sheet is wound in a roll to form a cylindrical battery (Fig. 2; ¶ [0070] Ln. 1126-1127).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai (WO 2018/168550) in view of Hupfer, et al. (US 2020/0266479 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yao, et al. (Tab Design and Failures in Cylindrical Li-ion Batteries), available February 15, 2019 in IEEE Access Vol. 7, hereinafter "Yao."
Regarding claim 4, Imai in view of Hupfer teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Imai additionally teaches the solid-state lithium battery comprising an anode current collector disposed on a surface of the anode mixture layer, the surface being on an opposite side of the solid electrolyte layer (Fig. 1, Ref. 1; ¶ [0014] Ln. 236-237); and a cathode current collector disposed on a surface of the cathode mixture layer, the surface being on an opposite side of the solid electrolyte layer (Fig. 1, Ref. 5; ¶ [0014] 237-239), wherein the anode current collector includes an anode current collector tab (Fig. 2, Ref. 27; ¶ [0088] Ln. 1382), and the cathode current collector includes a cathode current collector tab (Fig. 2, Ref. 25; ¶ [0088} Ln. 1381-1382). Imai additionally teaches that the Li-occluding solid, in this case, inorganic insulating cover, is disposed on same peripheral end faces where the anode current collector tab and cathode current collector tab are disposed (Fig. 2, Ref. 24; ¶ [0088] Ln. 1381-1382). Imai does not explicitly teach that the anode current collector tab and cathode current collector tab are disposed on one same peripheral end face. Yao teaches that companies often place tabs on the same side of a battery for small ohmic resistance (Pg. 24093, Col. 2, Ln. 19-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the tabs of Imai to be on the same side of the battery. It is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art that tab placement can be configured based on manufacturing needs and overall battery design. One would have been motivated to make this modification based on manufacturing design and to reduce the ohmic resistance.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 103
The Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-8 of the response filed July 21, 2025, regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Imai (WO 2018/168550) in view of Hupfer, et al. (US 2020/0266479 A1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the second separator layer of Hupfer is situated differently than the inorganic insulating coating of Imai, that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify the thickness of the inorganic insulating coating of Imai based on the teachings of Hupfer, that the modification would render the inorganic insulating layer of Imai inoperable, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to modify the thickness of the inorganic insulating coating without a very complicated manufacturing process.
With respect to the argument that the second separator layer of Hupfer is situated differently than the inorganic insulating coating of Imai, this argument is not persuasive. The teachings of Hupfer are used to modify the placement and thickness of the inorganic insulating coating of Imai. Hupfer teaches that the second separator layer is situated between the first separator layer and lithium anode (¶ [0006] Ln. 7-9) and prevents the formation or penetration of lithium dendrites into the second separator layer, (¶ [0045] Ln. 2-3), thereby preventing a short circuit and increasing the service life of the battery (¶ [0045) Ln. 6-8). Although the second separator layer of Hupfer is not disposed on the peripheral end faces of the solid electrolyte layer, one of ordinary skill in the art could apply the teachings of Hupfer that the lithium dendrite-preventing layer is disposed on the side of the electrolyte closest to the anode in order to reliably prevent dendrite growth from the anode to the cathode to the inorganic insulating material of Imai. As the inorganic insulating material of Imai is disposed on the peripheral end faces of the solid electrolyte layer in order to prevent dendrite growth, one would be motivated to use the teachings of Hupfer to dispose the lithium dendrite-preventing layer closest to the anode.
With respect to the argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify the thickness of the inorganic insulating coating of Imai based on the teachings of Hupfer, this argument is not persuasive. Hupfer teaches that the thickness of the first separator layer is at least twice that of the second separator layer, and preferably at least ten times that of the second separator layer (¶ [0006], Ln. 6-17), and that the thinner second separator layer allows the battery to be manufactured more cost-effectively, even when the second separator layer is relatively expensive and technically complicated (¶ [0009], Ln. 13-20). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the teachings of Hupfer that the lithium dendrite-preventing layer can be made with less material and still reliably prevent dendrite growth to the inorganic insulating material of Imai in order to form a dendrite-preventing layer using less material and allowing the battery to be manufactured more cost-effectively.
With respect to the argument that the modification would render the inorganic insulating layer of Imai inoperable, Imai teaches that the inorganic insulating coating prevents the growth of metallic lithium from growing from the negative electrode end during charge and discharge (¶ [0008], Ln. 126-128). Although it is acknowledged that the method of covering the battery ends further prevents moisture from penetrating into the electrolyte, the intended purpose of the inorganic insulating coating is to effectively prevent the growth of dendrite that tend to protrude from the ends of the battery element members (¶ [0013], Ln. 220-224). Further, including the inorganic insulating coating on the anode side of the peripheral end faces of the solid electrolyte layer would still aid in preventing moisture from penetrating into the electrolyte. The modification would not render the inorganic insulating layer of Imai inoperable.
With respect to the argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to modify the thickness of the inorganic insulating coating without a very complicated manufacturing process, this argument is not persuasive. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to figure out how to dispose the inorganic insulating coating on the anode side of the solid electrolyte and allow it to melt such that it spreads over less than 50% of the solid electrolyte layer in the layering direction. If a prima facie case of obviousness is established, the burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with arguments and/or evidence to rebut the prima facie case (MPEP 2145).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH J JACOBSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/SARAH J JACOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785