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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (i.e. Claims 1-11, 14, 16-17, 19-21) in the reply filed on 08/13/25 is acknowledged. Accordingly, non-elected Claims 12, 22, 28 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites that the single-crystalline ionically conductive material comprises the instantly claimed materials and/or “derivatives thereof.” Claim 8 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what constitutes a “derivative thereof” with respect to any of the instantly claimed materials (e.g. it is unclear if a “derivative thereof” means any material whatsoever which is made/formed using a given instantly claimed material, it is unclear if a “derivative thereof” means that the conductive material does or not structurally comprise any of the initial material, and to the extent that said initial material is present, it is unclear how much can or cannot be present such that the conductive material is considered a “derivative thereof,” etc.) Proper clarification is required.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the growth of the single-crystalline ionically conductive material." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (it is suggested for example that said phrase merely begin with “growth” instead of “the growth”).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites that the growth substrate comprises the instantly claimed materials and/or “derivatives thereof.” Claim 11 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what constitutes a “derivative thereof” with respect to any of the instantly claimed materials (e.g. it is unclear if a “derivative thereof” means any material whatsoever which is made/formed using a given instantly claimed material, it is unclear if a “derivative thereof” means that the growth substrate does or not structurally comprise any of the initial material, and to the extent that said initial material is present, it is unclear how much can or cannot be present such that the growth substrate is considered a “derivative thereof,” etc.) Proper clarification is required.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites that the first electrode comprises the instantly claimed materials and/or “derivatives thereof.” Claim 20 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what constitutes a “derivative thereof” with respect to any of the instantly claimed materials (e.g. it is unclear if a “derivative thereof” means any material whatsoever which is made/formed using a given instantly claimed material, it is unclear if a “derivative thereof” means that the first electrode does or not structurally comprise any of the initial material, and to the extent that said initial material is present, it is unclear how much can or cannot be present such that the first electrode is considered a “derivative thereof,” etc.) Proper clarification is required.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites that the second electrode comprises the instantly claimed materials and/or “derivatives thereof.” Claim 21 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what constitutes a “derivative thereof” with respect to any of the instantly claimed materials (e.g. it is unclear if a “derivative thereof” means any material whatsoever which is made/formed using a given instantly claimed material, it is unclear if a “derivative thereof” means that the second electrode does or not structurally comprise any of the initial material, and to the extent that said initial material is present, it is unclear how much can or cannot be present such that the second electrode is considered a “derivative thereof,” etc.) Proper clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-11, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta et al. (US 2014/0308590), and further in view of Kim (US 2018/0197736).
Regarding Claim 1, Ohta teaches a method of preparing a solid electrolyte (“method”) ([0001]). As illustrated in Figure 3, Ohta teaches that the method comprises forming an epitaxial thin film (10) over a single crystal substrate (20) (“growth substrate”), wherein the epitaxial thin film is formed as a single-crystalline solid electrolyte (“single-crystalline ionically conductive material”) ([0018], [0021]-[0023], [0062], [0064], [0068]). Ohta teaches that the method further comprises peeling off the epitaxial thin film from the single crystal substrate (“removing the single-crystalline ionically conductive material from the growth substrate”) ([0064]).
Ohta does not explicitly teach that the epitaxial thin film is formed on a two-dimensional material that is disposed over the single crystal substrate.
However, Kim teaches a graphene-based layer transfer technique (Abstract). As illustrated in Figures 1A-1D, Kim teaches that the technique comprises forming an epilayer (140) as a single-crystalline layer on a two-dimensional graphene layer (120) that is disposed over a growth substrate (130) ([0038]-[0048]). Kim teaches that sandwiching the two-dimensional graphene layer between the epilayer and the growth substrate not only facilitates quick and damage-free release and transfer of the epilayer, but also allows the epilayer to grow from the beginning with its own lattice constant forming an interface with a small amount of defects ([0045], [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to Ohta, form the epitaxial thin film on a two-dimensional graphene layer (“two-dimensional material”) disposed over the single crystal substrate, as taught by Kim, given that sandwiching the two-dimensional graphene layer between the epitaxial layer and the single crystal substrate would not only help facilitate quick and damage-free release and transfer of the epitaxial thin film, but also would allow the epitaxial thin film to grow from the beginning with its own lattice constant forming an interface with a small amount of defects.
Regarding Claim 2, Ohta, as modified by Kim, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As illustrated in Figure 13, Ohta teaches that the method further comprises disposing a positive electrode (40) (“first electrode”) on a first side of the epitaxial thin film ([0088]).
Regarding Claim 3, Ohta, as modified by Kim, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 2, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 2), the positive electrode is disposed on a first side of the epitaxial thin film.
Regarding Claim 4, Ohta, as modified by Kim, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 3, as previously described.
As illustrated in Figure 13, Ohta teaches that the method further comprises disposing a negative electrode (50) (“second electrode”) on a second side of the epitaxial thin film that is opposite the first side ([0088]).
Regarding Claim 5, Ohta, as modified by Kim, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 4, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 4), the negative electrode is disposed on a second side of the epitaxial thin film that is opposite the first side.
Regarding Claim 6, Ohta, as modified by Kim, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Ohta teaches that the epitaxial thin film has a thickness within the range of 0.4 nm to 5 µm ([0061]).
Regarding Claim 7, Ohta, as modified by Kim, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the two-dimensional graphene layer is disposed over the single crystal substrate.
Regarding Claim 8, Ohta, as modified by Kim, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Ohta teaches that the epitaxial thin film comprises LLTO, LLZO, LBLTO, and/or a LISICON ([0020]).
Regarding Claim 9, Ohta, as modified by Kim, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the epitaxial thin film is formed on the two-dimensional graphene layer that is disposed over the single crystal substrate. Accordingly, and due to the physical presence of the two-dimensional graphene layer and its functionality as a release layer for the epitaxial thin film, the epitaxial thin film is formed without being in direct contact with the single crystal substrate.
Regarding Claim 10, Ohta, as modified by Kim, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Ohta, as modified by Kim, does not explicitly teach that a potential field from the single crystal substrate reaches beyond the two-dimensional graphene layer and affects growth of the epitaxial layer during its formation.
However, and as illustrated in Figure 4A, Kim teaches that the substrate is structured such that a potential field from the substrate is strong enough to reach beyond the two-dimensional graphene layer an affect the growth of the epilayer, thereby allowing the epilayer to grow such that its structure resembles that of the substrate ([0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to Ohta, as modified by Kim, structure the single crystal substrate such that a potential field therefrom is strong enough to reach beyond the two-dimensional graphene layer and affect the growth of the epitaxial thin film, as taught by Kim, thereby allowing the epitaxial thin film to grow such that its structure resembles that of the single crystal substrate.
Regarding Claim 11, Ohta, as modified by Kim, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Ohta teaches that that single crystal substrate comprises STO and/or NdGaO3 ([0021]).
Regarding Claim 20, Ohta, as modified by Kim, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 2, as previously described.
Ohta teaches that that the positive electrode comprises LCO ([0088]).
Regarding Claim 21, Ohta, as modified by Kim, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 4, as previously described.
Ohta teaches that that the negative electrode comprises graphite (“carbon”) ([0088]).
Claims 14, 16-17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta et al. (US 2014/0308590), and further in view of Kim (US 2018/0197736) and Kubo et al. (US 2014/0004257).
Regarding Claim 14, Ohta, as modified by Kim, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 3, as previously described.
Ohta, as modified by Kim, does not explicitly teach that disposing the positive electrode on the first side of epitaxial thin film comprises forming the positive electrode on the first side of the epitaxial thin film.
However, Kubo teaches a method of making an all-solid state battery ([0068]-[0098]). As illustrated in Figure 1, Kubo teaches that the method comprises forming a solid electrolyte layer ([0068]-[0078]). As illustrated in Figure 2, Kubo teaches that the method further comprises forming an electrode active material layer ([0081]-[0096]). Given that the battery is an all-solid state battery, Kubo teaches that the electrode active material layer can be formed directly at the interface of the solid electrolyte layer (i.e. using the solid electrolyte layer as a substrate) ([0093], [0103]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would, with respect to Ohta, as modified by Kim, form the positive electrode on the first side of the epitaxial thin film, given that the epitaxial thin film is a solid electrolyte which would allow for the active material of the positive electrode to be formed directly at the interface of the epitaxial thin film, as taught by Kubo.
Regarding Claim 16, Ohta, as modified by Kim, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 3, as previously described.
Ohta, as modified by Kim, does not explicitly teach that disposing the positive electrode on the first side of epitaxial thin film comprises transferring positive electrode from a substrate to the first side of the epitaxial thin film.
However, Kubo teaches a method of making an all-solid state battery ([0068]-[0098]). As illustrated in Figure 1, Kubo teaches that the method comprises forming a solid electrolyte layer ([0068]-[0078]). As illustrated in Figure 2, Kubo teaches that the method further comprises forming an electrode active material layer ([0081]-[0096]). Kubo teaches that the electrode active material layer can be disposed at the interface of the solid electrolyte layer by being transferred from a peelable substrate (e.g. a fluorine-based resin sheet) ([0093], [0103]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would, with respect to Ohta, as modified by Kim, dispose the positive electrode on the first side of the epitaxial thin film by transferring the positive electrode from a peelable substrate (“substrate”), as taught by Kubo, given that such a transfer technique would allow for the active material of the positive electrode to be disposed directly at the interface of the epitaxial thin film.
Regarding Claim 17, Ohta, as modified by Kim, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 4, as previously described.
Ohta, as modified by Kim, does not explicitly teach that disposing the negative electrode on the second side of epitaxial thin film comprises forming the negative electrode on the second side of the epitaxial thin film.
However, Kubo teaches a method of making an all-solid state battery ([0068]-[0098]). As illustrated in Figure 1, Kubo teaches that the method comprises forming a solid electrolyte layer ([0068]-[0078]). As illustrated in Figure 2, Kubo teaches that the method further comprises forming an electrode active material layer ([0081]-[0096]). Given that the battery is an all-solid state battery, Kubo teaches that the electrode active material layer can be formed directly at the interface of the solid electrolyte layer (i.e. using the solid electrolyte layer as a substrate) ([0093], [0103]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would, with respect to Ohta, as modified by Kim, form the negative electrode on the second side of the epitaxial thin film, given that the epitaxial thin film is a solid electrolyte which would allow for the active material of the negative electrode to be formed directly at the interface of the epitaxial thin film, as taught by Kubo.
Regarding Claim 19, Ohta, as modified by Kim, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 4, as previously described.
Ohta, as modified by Kim, does not explicitly teach that disposing the negative electrode on the second side of epitaxial thin film comprises transferring negative electrode from a substrate to the second side of the epitaxial thin film.
However, Kubo teaches a method of making an all-solid state battery ([0068]-[0098]). As illustrated in Figure 1, Kubo teaches that the method comprises forming a solid electrolyte layer ([0068]-[0078]). As illustrated in Figure 2, Kubo teaches that the method further comprises forming an electrode active material layer ([0081]-[0096]). Kubo teaches that the electrode active material layer can be disposed at the interface of the solid electrolyte layer by being transferred from a peelable substrate (e.g. a fluorine-based resin sheet) ([0093], [0103]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would, with respect to Ohta, as modified by Kim, dispose the negative electrode on the first side of the epitaxial thin film by transferring the negative electrode from a peelable substrate (“substrate”), as taught by Kubo, given that such a transfer technique would allow for the active material of the negative electrode to be disposed directly at the interface of the epitaxial thin film.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728