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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/14/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Amendments have been entered. Amendments do overcome the 112(b) rejection as previously set forth in non-final Office Action mailed 11/14/2025 , do not overcome a new 103 rejection necessitated by amendments, see rejection 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.
Claims 1, 3,4-5, 7, and 9-10are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by (US-20170263977-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Jeon’ in view of (US-20180219254-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Tamura’, in further view of (US 20180309134 A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Honda’.
Regarding Claim 1,
Jeon teaches a lithium ion secondary battery (Jeon, “In some embodiments, the lithium battery 1 may be a lithium ion battery.”, see [0080]),wherein at least one positive electrode layer including a positive electrode active material layer and at least one negative electrode layer including a negative electrode active material layer are laminated in sequence with at least one solid electrolyte layer interposed therebetween (Jeon, “Embodiments are directed to a secondary battery including a cathode, an anode, and an electrolyte between the cathode and the anode”, see [0006]), wherein a ratio t1/t2 of an average thickness t1 of the thickest solid electrolyte layer to an average thickness t2 of the thinnest solid electrolyte layer satisfies 1.02 <t1/t2 <1.99 when an average thickness of each of the solid electrolyte layer is defined as t (Jeon, “A total thickness of the first electrolyte layer and the second electrolyte layer may be 20 μm or less.”, see [0009]) (Jeon, “A thickness of the first electrolyte layer may be in a range of about 1 μm to about 10 μm”, see [0011]) (The examiner notes that these parameters create a condition where the first electrolyte layer could be 9 μm and the second layer could be 11 μm. The ratio between the layers would be 1.11,which is within the range of the claim. Considering the conditions, wherein the first layer can be from 1 to 10 μm, and the sum of the two layers is 20 μm, the second layer reasonably could be as low as 1 to as high as 19 μm, therefore, the ratio t1/t2between the layers could be as low as 0.05 and as high as 10)(Jeon, “second electrolyte layer 17 is within the above described range of total thickness, and/or a thickness of the first electrolyte layer 16 is within above-described range of first electrolyte layer thickness, an internal resistance of the secondary battery 10 may be small. In this regard, lifespan characteristics of the secondary battery 10 may be improved.”, see [0043]).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of ratio 0.05<t1/t2<10 broadly overlaps the claimed range 1.02 <t1/t2 <1.99. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Jeon does not teach the lithium-ion secondary battery further comprises the solid electrolyte and one of the positive active materials and negative active material in at least one part between the solid electrolyte layer and one of the positive electrode layer and negative electrode layer.
Tamura teaches an secondary battery further comprises the solid electrolyte and one of the positive active materials and negative active material in at least one part between the solid and electrolyte layer and one of the positive electrode layer and negative electrode layer. (Tamura, “Here, in a battery using the electrolyte layer containing the negative electrode active material, a more excellent effect can be obtained.”, see [0143]).
Tamura teaches that the modification of the electrolyte layer with the active material is capable of improving the cycling characteristics. (Tamura, “electrolyte layer containing the negative electrode active material, that is, an effect capable of improving the cycle characteristics can be obtained, see [0143]).
Jeon and Tamura are analogous as they both relate to the field of non-aqueous electrolyte layers for lithium-ion batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify either the first or second electrolyte as taught in Jeon with the active material as taught in Tamura in order to improve the cycling characteristics of the battery.
Modified Jeon does note teach the lithium ion secondary battery includes a plurality of positive electrode layers, a plurality of negative electrode layers and a plurality of solid electrolyte layers, and a number of the solid electrolyte layers provided between one of the plurality of positive electrode layers and one of the plurality of negative electrode layers is one.
Honda teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery (Honda, “The present disclosure relates to a battery and a battery manufacturing method.”, see [0001]))includes a plurality of positive electrode layers (Honda, counter electrode layer 312, see [0109]), a plurality of negative electrode layers (Honda, first electrode layer, 311, see [0109]) and a plurality of solid electrolyte layers, and a number of the solid electrolyte layers provided between one of the plurality of positive electrode layers and one of the plurality of negative electrode layers is one (Honda, solid electrolyte layer, 316 and 313, Fig. 17) (See Fig. 17) (Honda, “Configurations of the first solid electrolyte layer 313, second solid electrolyte layer 323, and third solid electrolyte layer 333 (e.g., thicknesses of the layers, area, shape, materials included, etc.) may be the same as each other, or may be different.”, see [0199]).
Honda teaches that this arrangement of the electrolyte and of the electrodes allows for the cells to shift during shock and vibration when manufacturing the cell (Honda, “Accordingly, the layers (e.g., the third electrode layer 331 and third counter electrode layer 332) making up the battery can be prevented from exhibiting positional shifting or separation due to shock, vibration, and so forth, when manufacturing the battery or using the battery, for example.”, see [0178]).
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 cell as taught in Modified Jeon into the arrangement as taught in Honda to improve the positioning of the cell while allowing from the benefits of varied electrolyte layer thicknesses as taught in Jeon (The examiner notes that Jeon modified with Honda would have first and second electrolyte layers of Jeon modified as the electrolyte layers of Honda 312 and 311) .
Regarding Claim 3,
Modified Jeon teaches an intermediate layer in at least one part between the positive layer or the negative layer and the solid electrolyte layer, which includes each constituent element of the positive layer or the negative layer and the solid electrolyte layer (Tamura, “Here, in a battery using the electrolyte layer containing the negative electrode active material, a more excellent effect can be obtained.”, see [0143]).
Regarding Claim 4,
Modified Jeon teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1, an average thickness T, which is an average of the average thickness t of each of the solid electrolyte layer, satisfying 4.8<T<9.8 (μm) (Jeon, “For example, a thickness of the first electrolyte layer 16 may be in a range of about 2 μm to about 9 μm”, see [0042])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of the thickness of 2 μm to about 9 μm broadly overlaps the claimed range the thickness within the range of 4.8<T<9.8 (μm). Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 5,
Modified Jeon teaches the lithium ion secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the ratio t1/t2 satisfies 1.21<=t1/t2<= 1.79 (Jeon, “A total thickness of the first electrolyte layer and the second electrolyte layer may be 20 μm or less.”, see [0009]) (Jeon, “A thickness of the first electrolyte layer may be in a range of about 1 μm to about 10 μm”, see [0011]) (The examiner notes that these parameters create a condition where the first electrolyte layer could be 9 μm and the second layer could be 11 μm. The ratio between the layers would be 1.11,which is within the range of the claim. Considering the conditions, wherein the first layer can be from 1 to 10 μm, and the sum of the two layers is 20 μm, the second layer reasonably could be as low as 1 to as high as 19 μm, therefore, the ratio t1/t2between the layers could be as low as 0.05 and as high as 10).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of ratio 0.05<t1/t2<10 broadly overlaps the claimed range 1.21 <t1/t2 <1.79. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 7,
Modified Jeon teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the intermediate layer is provided between the negative layer and the solid electrolyte layer, and the intermediate layer includes the negative active material and the solid electrolyte (Tamura, “Here, in a battery using the electrolyte layer containing the negative electrode active material, a more excellent effect can be obtained.”, see [0143]).
Regarding Claim 9,
Modified Jeon teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 1, further comprising a first outer layer on an upper outermost layer and a second outer layer on a lower outermost layer in a lamination direction, and the first outer layer and the second outer layer includes the solid electrolyte (see annotated figure below from Jeon).
PNG
media_image1.png
358
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10,
Modified Jeon teaches the lithium ion secondary battery according to claim 9, comprising a plurality of the solid electrolyte layers, and the solid electrolyte layers are layers of increasing thickness from the first outer layer to the second outer layer (Jeon, “A total thickness of the first electrolyte layer and the second electrolyte layer may be 20 μm or less.”, see [0009]) (Jeon, “A thickness of the first electrolyte layer may be in a range of about 1 μm to about 10 μm”, see [0011])(see annotated figure above).
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20170263977-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Jeon’ in view of (JP-2017-157362-A; see IDS filed 08/03/2022) in view of (US-20180219254-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Tamura’, in view of (US-20180309134-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Honda’, hereinafter referred to as ‘Matsuyama’.
Regarding Claim 2,
Jeon does not teach the standard deviation σ of an average thickness of the at least one solid electrolyte layer satisfies 0.15< σ <1.66 (μm).
Matsuyama teaches teach the standard deviation σ of an average thickness of the at least one solid electrolyte layer satisfies 0.15< σ <1.66 (Matsuyama,” The standard deviation of the thickness of the solid electrolyte membrane is 5.0 μm or less, preferably 4.0 μm or less, more preferably 3.5 μm or less, see [0016]).
Matsuyama teaches that this can improve the overall battery characteristics of the cells (Matsuyama, “When the standard deviation of the thickness of the solid electrolyte membrane according to the present embodiment is the above-described upper limit value or less, the battery characteristics of the obtained all-solid-state lithium-ion battery can be improved.”, see [0016]).
Jeon and Matsuyama are analogous as they both relate to the field of solid-state lithium-ion batteries.
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art standard deviation of 5.0 μm or less broadly overlaps the claimed range 0.15< σ <1.66 (μm). Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte as taught in Jeon with the standard deviation taught in Matsuyama in order to improve the cycling characteristics of the battery.
Regarding Claim 6,
Jeon does not teach the standard deviation σ satisfies 0.21< σ <1.24 (μm).
Matsuyama teaches teach the standard deviation σ of an average thickness of the at least one solid electrolyte layer satisfies 0.21< σ <1.24 (μm). (Matsuyama,” The standard deviation of the thickness of the solid electrolyte membrane is 5.0 μm or less, preferably 4.0 μm or less, more preferably 3.5 μm or less, see [0016]).
Matsuyama teaches that this can improve the overall battery characteristics of the cells (Mastuyama, “When the standard deviation of the thickness of the solid electrolyte membrane according to the present embodiment is the above-described upper limit value or less, the battery characteristics of the obtained all-solid-state lithium-ion battery can be improved.”, see [0016]).
Jeon and Matsuyama are analogous as they both relate to the field of solid-state lithium-ion batteries.
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art standard deviation of 5.0 μm or less broadly overlaps the claimed range 0.21< σ <1.24 (μm). Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte as taught in Jeon with the standard deviation taught in Matsuyama in order to improve the cycling characteristics of the battery.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by (US-20170263977-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Jeon’ in view of (US-20180219254-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Tamura’, in view of (US-20180309134-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Honda’, in further view of ‘Interfacial Processes and Influence of Composite Cathode Microstructure Controlling the Performance of All-Solid-State Lithium Batteries’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Zhang’
Regarding Claim 8,
Modified Jeon does not teach the lithium-ion secondary battery and the intermediate layer includes the positive active material and the solid electrolyte.
Zhang teaches and the intermediate layer includes the positive active material and the solid electrolyte (Zhang, “shows a scanning electron microscopy (SEM) micrograph of the composite cathode (m(LiCoO2):m(LGPS) = 70:30”, pg. 17837)
Zhang teaches that this mixture can improve the ion transport kinetics of the structure (Zhang,” In consequence, the active material can be fully accessed and used in the electrochemical processes. Therefore, at cycling below 2 C, a small fraction of solid electrolyte (e.g., 20 wt %) appears to be sufficient to ensure Li+ transport and good battery performance.”, see pg. 17841).
Modified Jeon and Zhang are analogous as they both relate to the field of solid-state batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte layer as taught in Modified Jeon with the composite of electrolyte and positive material as taught in Zhang in order to improve the ion transport kinetics.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed 11/14/2025 on have been entered. Arguments are fully considered.
On pg. 5 The applicant argues:
“In Jeon, the number of solid electrolyte layers between the cathode 11 and the anode 15 is two (The first electrolyte layer 14 and the second electrolyte layer 17). It makes no sense to compare the ratio of the first electrolyte layer 16 and the second electrolyte layer 17. Both of which are provided between the positive electrolyte layer and the second electrolyte layer.”
However, this is not convincing. Further search and consideration has found ‘Honda’ which teaches electrolytes with varied layer thickness (see [0199]) and a similar arrangement to the instant application as claimed and that such an arrangement has the benefit of keeping the arrangement stable (see [0168]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am to 5pm.
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 on (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.
/S.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752