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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 9, 2025 has been entered.
Summary
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted November 10, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 3, 5, 10-20, 23 are cancelled, claims 1, 6, 21, 24 are amended, claims 33-34 are new, and claims 26-32 are withdrawn from consideration, resulting in claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 21-22, 24-25, and 33-34 pending for examination.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 6, 21, and 24 recite “B is selected from the group consisting of: chloride (Cl), bromide (Br), Clx Br(x-1) (where 0 < x < 1), and combinations thereof”. This limitation of claims 1, 6, 21, and 24 is interpretated as meaning B can be Cl, Br, Clx Br(x-1) (where 0 < x < 1), or comprise any stoichiometric amounts of Cl and Br that sum to 6, such as Cl4Br2.
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, 8-9, 21, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asano (US 2020/0328464 A1) in view of Lin (Lin, R. et al. Hierarchical nickel valence gradient stabilizes high-nickel content layered cathode materials. Nature Communications. 12, 2350 (2021)) and Liang (Liang, J. et al. Site-Occupation-Tuned Superionic LixScCl3+x Halide Solid Electrolytes for All-Solid-State Batteries. Journal of the American Chemical Society. 142, 7012-7022 (2020)).
Regarding claim 1, Asano teaches an all-solid-state battery (Production of Secondary Battery, Example 8) comprising: a positive electrode (positive electrode layer, Example 8 [187]) comprising a positive electroactive material (LiCoO2, Production of Positive Electrode Material [133]; “a positive electrode material composed of a material mixture were produced as in Example 1”, Example 8 [184]) and a solid-state electrolyte material represented by Li3AB6, where A is yttrium and B is chloride, (Li3YCl6, first solid electrolyte material, Production of Positive Electrode Material [133]; “a first solid electrolyte material…were produced as in Example 1 [184]; Table 1 Example 8, positive electrode layer); a negative electrode (negative electrode [189]) comprising a negative electroactive material (metal Li [189]); and a solid-state electrolyte layer disposed between and separating the positive electrode and the negative electrode (a layered product composed of the positive electrode, the solid electrolyte layer, and a negative electrode [188-189]).
Asano further teaches that lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide is a suitable positive electrode active material for use in positive electrodes for all-solid-state batteries (Asano Table 1, Example 11). Asano does not expressly teach positive electrode active material having a chemical formula claimed in instant claim 1.
However, Lin teaches the use of lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2) in positive electrode materials (cathode materials, Lin Abstract) with high-nickel content, which satisfies LiNi1-x-yCoxMnyO2 (where 0.10 ≤ x ≤ 0.33, 0.10 ≤ y ≤ 0.33), as claimed in instant claim 1. Lin further teaches that cathode materials with high-nickel content have high energy density and capacity (Lin, Introduction first paragraph).
Since Lin teaches that LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2 is suitable for use in positive electrodes, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the LiCoO2 of Asano Example 8 for LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2 in order to achieve a battery with high energy density and capacity. The simple substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to someone of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2413(I)(B).
Asano does not teach A being Sc or Er.
Liang teaches a solid electrolyte material having the formula Li3ScCl6 for use in all-solid-state batteries (Liang abstract). Liang teaches that chlorine-based solid electrolyte materials have a wide electrochemical window and that Li3ScCl6 “stands out from others due to the potential of simultaneously possessing high ionic conductivity and a wide electrochemical stability window” (Liang pg. 7013 right column first paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the chloride-based solid electrolyte material of Asano (Li3YCl6) for Li3ScCl6 in order to achieve high ionic conductivity and a wide electrochemical stability window.
Regarding claim 8, Asano in view of Lin and Liang teaches all features of claim 1. Asano further teaches the negative electrode comprising a lithium metal foil (Li metal [189]).
Regarding claim 9, Asano in view of Lin and Liang teaches all features of claim 1. Asano further teaches the negative electrode comprising a negative electroactive material selected from the group consisting of: lithium, silicon, silicon oxide, graphite, Li4+xTi5O12 (where 0 ≤ x ≤ 3), and combinations thereof (Li, Table 1 Example 8).
Regarding claim 21, Asano teaches an all-solid-state battery (Production of Secondary Battery, Example 8) comprising: a positive electrode (positive electrode layer, Example 8 [187]) comprising a positive electroactive material (LiCoO2, Production of Positive Electrode Material [133]; “a positive electrode material composed of a material mixture were produced as in Example 1”, Example 8 [184]); a negative electrode (negative electrode [189]) comprising a negative electroactive material (metal Li [189]); and a solid-state electrolyte layer disposed between and separating the positive electrode and the negative electrode (a layered product composed of the positive electrode, the solid electrolyte layer, and a negative electrode [188-189]), the solid-state electrolyte layer comprising a solid-state electrolyte material represented by Li3AB6, where A yttrium and B chloride (Li3YCl6, solid electrolyte layer, Table 1 Example 8).
Asano further teaches that lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide is a suitable positive electrode active material for use in positive electrodes for all-solid-state batteries (Asano Table 1, Example 11). Asano does not expressly teach positive electrode active material having a chemical formula claimed in instant claim 21.
However, Lin teaches the use of lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2) in positive electrode materials (cathode materials, Lin Abstract) with high-nickel content, which satisfies LiNi1-x-yCoxMnyO2 (where 0.10 ≤ x ≤ 0.33, 0.10 ≤ y ≤ 0.33), as claimed in instant claim 21. Lin further teaches that cathode materials with high-nickel content have high energy density and capacity (Lin, Introduction first paragraph).
Since Lin teaches that LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2 is suitable for use in positive electrodes, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the LiCoO2 of Asano Example 8 for LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2 in order to achieve a battery with high energy density and capacity. The simple substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to someone of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2413(I)(B).
Asano does not teach A being Sc or Er.
Liang teaches a solid electrolyte material having the formula Li3ScCl6 for use in all-solid-state batteries (Liang abstract). Liang teaches that chlorine-based solid electrolyte materials have a wide electrochemical window and that Li3ScCl6 “stands out from others due to the potential of simultaneously possessing high ionic conductivity and a wide electrochemical stability window” (Liang pg. 7013 right column first paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the chloride-based solid electrolyte material of Asano (Li3YCl6) for Li3ScCl6 in order to achieve high ionic conductivity and a wide electrochemical stability window.
Regarding claim 24, Asano in view of Lin and Liang teaches all features of claim 21, as described above. Asano further teaches the solid-state electrolyte material being a first solid-state electrolyte material, as described above for claim 21, and the positive electrode further comprising a second solid-state electrolyte material represented by Li3AB6, where A is yttrium and B is chloride (Table 1 Example 8, Positive electrode layer comprises positive electrode active material and Li3YCl6).
Regarding claim 25, Asano in view of Lin and Liang teaches all features of claim 21, as described above. Asano further teaches the solid-state electrolyte material being a first-solid-state electrolyte material (first solid electrolyte material, Table 1 Example 8) and the solid-state electrolyte layer further comprising a second solid-state electrolyte material that is a sulfide-based solid-state electrolyte material (Li2S-P2S5, sulfide solid electrolyte material, Table 1 Example 8).
Claims 2, 4, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asano in view of Lin and Liang, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Tanaka (US 2020/0280047 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Asano in view of Lin and Liang teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Asano further teaches the positive electrode having a positive electroactive material loading greater than or equal to about 70 wt% (7 mg active material / 8.5 mg positive electrode material = 0.82 (approximately 82% active material), Example 8 [187]). Asano is silent regarding the porosity of the positive electrode.
However, Tanaka teaches an all-solid-state lithium battery including a positive electrode (Tanaka abstract) and that the positive electrode preferably has a porosity of 1 to 35 vol% (“the porosity refers to the proportion of the volume of pore over the total volume of the positive-electrode plate”, Tanaka [38]) in order to “achieve desirable effects of stress release by pores and high capacity” (Tanaka [38]).
Since Asano and Tanaka both teach positive electrodes for solid-state batteries and Tanaka teaches that the positive electrode preferably has a porosity of 1 to 35 vol%, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the positive electrode of modified Asano to have a porosity of 1 to 35 vol% in order to achieve “stress release by pores and high capacity”.
The porosity range of Tanaka substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 2. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Tanaka, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claim 4, Asano in view of Lin, Liang, and Tanaka teaches all features of claims 1 and 2, as described above. Asano further teaches the solid-state electrolyte layer comprising a sulfide-based solid-state electrolyte material (Li2S-P2S5, Table 1 Example 8).
Regarding claim 33, Asano in view of Lin and Liang teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Asano teaches that the negative electrode comprises a negative electroactive material “that has a property of occluding and releasing metal ions” (Asano [121]).
Asano in view of Lin and Liang does not teach the negative electrode comprising a negative electroactive material comprising Li4+xTi5O12, where 0 ≤ x ≤ 3.
However, Tanaka teaches all-solid-state lithium batteries (Tanaka title) and that Li4Ti5O12 (x = 0) is a known and suitable negative electroactive material for use in these batteries (Tanaka [42]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the negative electroactive material of modified Asano for Li4Ti5O12. The simple substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to someone of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2413(I)(B).
Claims 6-7 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Asano in view of Lin and Liang, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Inda (US 2007/0087269 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Asano in view of Lin and Liang teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Asano further teaches the solid-state electrolyte layer comprising a solid-state electrolyte material represented by Li3AB6, where A is yttrium and B is chloride (Li3YCl6, solid electrolyte layer, Table 1 Example 8).
Asano is silent regarding the porosity of the solid-state electrolyte layer.
However, Inda teaches a solid electrolyte suitable for use in all-solid-state lithium ion secondary batteries (Inda Abstract). Inda teaches that the porosity of a solid electrolyte “should preferably be lower” in order to achieve “a battery of a high output” (Inda [41]) and that a porosity of “15 vol% or below” is preferable (Inda [41]).
Since Inda teaches the porosity is preferably 15 vol% or below in order to achieve a battery of high output, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate a solid electrolyte layer of the invention of modified Asano with a porosity within the claimed range of less than or equal to about 15 vol% in order to achieve a battery with high output.
Regarding claim 7, Asano in view of Lin, Liang, and Inda teaches all features of claims 1 and 6, as described above. Asano further teaches the solid-state electrolyte layer further comprising a second solid-state electrolyte material that is a sulfide-based solid-state electrolyte material (Li2S-P2S5, sulfide solid electrolyte material, Table 1 Example 8).
Regarding claim 34, Asano in view of Lin and Liang teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Asano further teaches the solid-state electrolyte layer comprising a solid-state electrolyte material represented by Li3AB6, where A is yttrium and B is chloride (Li3YCl6, solid electrolyte layer, Table 1 Example 8).
Asano does not teach A being Sc or Er.
Liang teaches a solid electrolyte material having the formula Li3ScCl6 for use in all-solid-state batteries (Liang abstract). Liang teaches that chlorine-based solid electrolyte materials have a wide electrochemical window and that Li3ScCl6 “stands out from others due to the potential of simultaneously possessing high ionic conductivity and a wide electrochemical stability window” (Liang pg. 7013 right column first paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the chloride-based solid electrolyte material of Asano (Li3YCl6) for Li3ScCl6 in order to achieve high ionic conductivity and a wide electrochemical stability window.
Asano is silent regarding the porosity of the solid-state electrolyte layer.
However, Inda teaches a solid electrolyte suitable for use in all-solid-state lithium ion secondary batteries (Inda Abstract). Inda teaches that the porosity of a solid electrolyte “should preferably be lower” in order to achieve “a battery of a high output” (Inda [41]) and that a porosity of “15 vol% or below” is preferable (Inda [41]).
Since Inda teaches the porosity is preferably 15 vol% or below in order to achieve a battery of high output, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate a solid electrolyte layer of the invention of modified Asano with a porosity within the claimed range of less than or equal to about 15 vol% in order to achieve a battery with high output.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Asano in view of Lin and Liang, as applied to instant claim 21 above, and in further view of Tanaka and Inda.
Regarding claim 22, Asano in view of Lin and Liang teaches all features of claim 21, as described above. Asano is silent regarding the porosity of the solid-state electrolyte layer and the porosity of the positive electrode.
Tanaka teaches an all-solid-state lithium battery including a positive electrode (Tanaka abstract) and that the positive electrode preferably has a porosity of 1 to 35 vol% (“the porosity refers to the proportion of the volume of pore over the total volume of the positive-electrode plate”, Tanaka [38]) in order to “achieve desirable effects of stress release by pores and high capacity” (Tanaka [38]).
Since Asano and Tanaka both teach positive electrodes for solid-state batteries and Tanaka teaches that the positive electrode preferably has a porosity of 1 to 35 vol%, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the positive electrode of modified Asano to have a porosity of 1 to 35 vol% in order to achieve “stress release by pores and high capacity”.
The porosity range of Tanaka substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 2. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Tanaka, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Inda teaches a solid electrolyte suitable for use in all-solid-state lithium ion secondary batteries (Inda Abstract). Inda teaches that the porosity of a solid electrolyte “should preferably be lower” in order to achieve “a battery of a high output” (Inda [41]) and that a porosity of “15 vol% or below” is preferable (Inda [41]).
Since Inda teaches the porosity is preferably 15 vol% or below in order to achieve a battery of high output, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate a solid electrolyte layer of the invention of modified Asano with a porosity within the claimed range of less than or equal to about 15 vol% in order to achieve a battery with high output.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen (US 2022/0399569 A1): appears to disclose a cathode comprising a lithium transition metal oxide and a lithium metal halide soldi electrolyte (abstract, claim 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/J.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights