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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/18/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/17/2025 has been entered. Claim 1 and 21 have been amended, and Claims 1-2, 4, and 6-22 are pending.
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.
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 1-2, 4, 6-11, 13, 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xin et al. (WO 2022094412 A1 – Machine Translation), hereinafter “Xin” in view of Wang et al. (Single crystal cathodes enabling high-performance all-solid-state lithium-ion batteries, Energy Storage Materials, 30 (2020) 98–103), hereinafter “Wang”, Zhu et al. (Journal of Materials Chemistry A, Single-Crystal Based Studies for Correlating Properties and High-Voltage Performance of LiNixMnyCo1-x-y O2 Cathodes, 02/01/2019), hereinafter “Zhu” and Liu et al. (Electrochemo-Mechanical Effects on Structural Integrity of Ni-Rich Cathodes with Different Microstructures in All Solid-State Batteries, Adv. Energy Mater. 2021, 11, 2003583), hereinafter “Liu”. Xin, Wang, Zhu and Liu et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely NMC cathode materials.
Regarding Claim 1, Xin et al. discloses an all solid-state battery comprising: a composite cathode (Xin, Paragraph [0005]) comprising LiNixMnyCo1-x-y O2, x ≥ 0.33 with 100% of the LiNixMnyCo1-x-y O2 comprising single crystals of LiNixMnyCo1-x-y O2 (Xin, Paragraph [0118]). Further, Xin et al. discloses the LiNixMnyCo1-x-y O2 being embedded in a matrix of a first lithium metal halide solid electrolyte comprising Li6-3a Ma X6, 0 < a < 2, M being an element from a group of magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), strontium (Sr), barium (Ba), scandium (Sc), indium (In), zirconium (Zr), niobium (Nb), hafnium (Hf), tantalum (Ta), yttrium (Y), lanthanum (La), samarium (Sm), bismuth (Bi), holmium (Ho), erbium (Er), ytterbium (Yb), and combinations thereof, and X being a halide from a group of chlorine (Cl), bromine (Br), iodine (I), and combinations thereof (Xin, Paragraph [0011] & Table 1, Item 36) and a separator, the separator comprising a second lithium metal halide solid electrolyte comprising Li6-3bNbZ6, 0 < b < 2, N being an element from a group of magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), strontium (Sr), barium (Ba), scandium (Sc), indium (In), zirconium (Zr), niobium (Nb), hafnium (Hf), tantalum (Ta), yttrium (Y), lanthanum (La), samarium (Sm), bismuth (Bi), holmium (Ho), erbium (Er), ytterbium (Yb), and combinations thereof, and Z being a halide from a group of chlorine (Cl), bromine (Br), iodine (I), and combinations thereof (Xin, Paragraph [0012] & Table 1, Item 36) as well as an anode (Xin, Paragraph [0005], Line 2).
While Xin discloses a specific example of single crystal NMC811 cathode materials with a sulfide based electrolyte (LPSCI) (Xin, Example 4), and generally that the cathode material may be uncoated wherein interfaces between bare 811 and sulfide electrolytes are good for high-rate capacity (Xin, [0131]), it fails to explicitly disclose wherein the single crystal particles are uncoated.
Liu et al. discloses single crystal NMC811 with a sulfide based electrolyte (LPSCI) where the 100% uncoated single crystal NMC 811 particles achieve exceptional electrochemical performance at the wide voltage window of 2.85–4.35 V versus Li+/Li, with high initial capacity of 187 mAh g−1 at 0.1C, stable cycling over 100 cycles and outstanding rate performance of 54% capacity retention when current density increases ten times (Liu, Introduction). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide uncoated single crystal NMC 811 particles with a sulfide based electrolyte (LPSCI) as taught in Liu as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Liu and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
While Xin discloses single crystal cathode materials, it is silent as to the morphology or crystallographic faceting wherein about 90% or more of the single crystals of LiNixMnyCo1-x-y O2 are polyhedron-shaped particles with (104)-family surfaces.
Wang et al. teaches that in conventional liquid cells, single-crystal cathode materials have shown substantial advantages over polycrystalline counterparts and that providing single crystal particles of Li(Ni0⋅5Mn0⋅3Co0.2)O2 for use with solid state electrolytes is beneficial because the single-crystal cathodes are such that they do not contain grain boundaries inside one particle, thus providing continuous Liþ conduction pathways inside one particle. Therefore, the single-crystal cathode shows faster Liþ kinetics in solid-state batteries than the polycrystalline cathode. (Wang, Page 99-100). While acknowledging that in conventional liquid cells, single-crystal cathode materials have shown substantial advantages over polycrystalline counterparts (Wang, Page 99) and exploring the benefits of single crystals and their use with solid electrolytes, the shape and family surfaces would be of interest to the skilled artisans of Xin and Wang and they would reasonably look further to Zhu et al. for their study of the electrochemical performance of single crystals based on the combination of particle shape and family facet.
Zhu et al. teaches single crystal NMC with polyhedron shaped particles and (104)-family facets (Zhu, Abstract). Zhu et al. also provides beneficial experimental data on the different variations of particle shape and family facet. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a single crystal material with polyhedron-shaped particles and (104)-family surfaces, as doing so would be obvious to try for the skilled artisans of Xin and Wang and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of a single crystal for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 2, Xin et al. in view of Wang, Zhu and Liu et al. discloses the all solid-state battery of claim 1. Xin et al. also discloses wherein about 95% or more of the LiNixMnyCo1-x-y O2 comprises single crystals of LiNixMnyCo1-x-y O2 (Xin, Paragraph [0118]). Xin discloses use of 100% single crystal NMC811 which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 4, Xin et al. in view of Wang, Zhu and Liu et al. discloses the all solid-state battery of claim 1. Both Xin and Wang disclose the use of 100% single crystal NMC and Zhu et al. teaches the benefits of single crystal NMC with polyhedron-shaped particles and (104)-family surfaces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide 100% single crystal NMC material as disclosed in Xin and Wang et al. with the polyhedron-shaped particles and (104)-family surfaces as disclosed in Zhu et al as doing so would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one known variation of the material for another.
Regarding Claim 6, Xin et al. in view of Wang, Zhu and Liu et al. discloses the all solid-state battery of claim 1. Xin et al. also discloses wherein the composite cathode comprises LiNixMnyCo1-x-y O2, x ≥ 0.8 (Xin, Paragraph [0010]).
Regarding Claim 7, Xin et al in view of Wang, Zhu and Liu et al. discloses the all solid-state battery of claim 1. Xin et al. also discloses wherein single crystals of LiNixMnyCo1-x-y O2 are LiNi0.8 Co 0.1 Mn 0.1 O2 (Xin, Paragraph [0010, 0118]).
Regarding Claim 8, Xin et al. in view of Wang, Zhu and Liu et al. discloses the all solid-state battery of claim 1. Xin et al. also discloses the use of SC-NMC811 for the cathode material and wherein each of the single crystals of LiNixMnyCo1-x-y O2 has a size of about 30 nanometers to 10 microns (Xin, Paragraph [0092]), which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 9, Xin et al. in view of Wang, Zhu and Liu et al. discloses the all solid-state battery of claim 1. Xin et al. also discloses the use of SC-NMC811 for the cathode wherein each of the single crystals of LiNixMnyCo1-x-y O2 has a size of about 3 microns to 5 microns (Xin, Paragraph [0092]), which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 10, Xin et al. in view of Wang, Zhu and Liu et al. discloses the all solid-state battery of claim 1. Xin et al. also discloses wherein a weight percentage of the LiNixMnyCo1-x-y O2 in the composite cathode is about 50% to 90%, and wherein a weight percentage of the first lithium metal halide solid electrolyte in the composite cathode is about 10% to 50% (Xin, Paragraph [0144]), which overlaps the claimed ranges. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 11, Xin et al. in view of Wang, Zhu and Liu et al. discloses the all solid-state battery of claim 1. Xin et al. also discloses wherein the composite cathode further comprises carbon (Xin, Paragraph [0010]).
Regarding Claim 13, Xin et al. in view of Wang, Zhu and Liu et al. discloses the all solid-state battery of claim 11. Xin et al. also discloses wherein the carbon in the composite cathode comprises particles having a size of about 5 nanometers to 50 microns (Xin, Paragraph [0092]), which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 16, Xin et al. in view of Wang, Zhu and Liu et al. discloses the all solid-state battery of claim 1. Xin et al. also discloses wherein the first lithium metal halide solid electrolyte and the second lithium metal halide solid electrolyte have different compositions (Xin, Paragraphs [0011-0012], Table 1 and 2). Xin discloses the first and second electrolyte can be one of any selected from Table 1 or Table 2, and therefore could reasonably be expected to have different compositions if the skilled artisan so chooses.
Regarding Claim 17, Xin et al. in view of Wang, Zhu and Liu et al. discloses the all solid-state battery of claim 1. Xin et al. also discloses wherein the first lithium metal halide solid electrolyte comprises comprise Li3YCl6, and wherein the second lithium metal halide solid electrolyte comprises Li3YCl6 (Xin, Paragraphs [0011-0012[, Table 1 and 2). Xin discloses the first and second electrolyte can be one of any selected from Table 1 or Table 2, and therefore they could reasonably be expected to have the same composition of Li3YCl6 if the skilled artisan so chooses.
Regarding Claim 18, Xin et al. in view of Wang, Zhu and Liu et al. discloses the all solid-state battery of claim 1. Xin et al. also discloses wherein the anode comprises Li metal (Xin, Paragraph [0009]).
Regarding Claim 19, Xin et al in view of Wang, Zhu and Liu et al. discloses the all solid-state battery of claim 1. Xin et al. also discloses wherein the anode comprises a LiA alloy, and wherein A is an element from a group of Mg, Si, In, and Sn (Xin, Paragraph [0009]).
Regarding Claim 20, Xin et al. in view of Wang, Zhu and Liu et al. discloses the all solid-state battery of claim 1. Xin et al. also discloses embodiments wherein the anode material is chosen by the skilled artisan from a group of materials such as an LiIn alloy (Xin, Paragraph [0009]). Therefore, the skilled artisan could reasonably select an LiIn alloy for the anode.
Regarding Claim 21, Xin et al. discloses an all solid-state battery comprising: a composite cathode (Xin, Paragraph [0005]) comprising LiNixMnyCo1-x-y O2, x ≥ 0.33 with a specific example with 100% of the LiNixMnyCo1-x-y O2 comprising single crystals of LiNixMnyCo1-x-y O2 (Xin, Paragraph [0118]). Further, Xin et al. discloses the LiNixMnyCo1-x-y O2 being embedded in a matrix of a first lithium metal halide solid electrolyte comprising Li6-3a Ma X6, 0 < a < 2, M being an element from a group of magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), strontium (Sr), barium (Ba), scandium (Sc), indium (In), zirconium (Zr), niobium (Nb), hafnium (Hf), tantalum (Ta), yttrium (Y), lanthanum (La), samarium (Sm), bismuth (Bi), holmium (Ho), erbium (Er), ytterbium (Yb), and combinations thereof, and X being a halide from a group of chlorine (Cl), bromine (Br), iodine (I), and combinations thereof (Xin, Paragraph [0011] & Table 1, Item 36) and a separator, the separator comprising a second lithium metal halide solid electrolyte comprising Li6-3bNbZ6, 0 < b < 2, N being an element from a group of magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), strontium (Sr), barium (Ba), scandium (Sc), indium (In), zirconium (Zr), niobium (Nb), hafnium (Hf), tantalum (Ta), yttrium (Y), lanthanum (La), samarium (Sm), bismuth (Bi), holmium (Ho), erbium (Er), ytterbium (Yb), and combinations thereof, and Z being a halide from a group of chlorine (Cl), bromine (Br), iodine (I), and combinations thereof (Xin, Paragraph [0012] & Table 1, Item 36) as well as an anode (Xin, Paragraph [0005], Line 2).
While Xin discloses a specific example of single crystal NMC811 cathode materials with a sulfide based electrolyte (LPSCI) (Xin, Example 4), and generally that the cathode material may be uncoated wherein interfaces between bare 811 and sulfide electrolytes are good for high-rate capacity (Xin, [0131]), it fails to explicitly disclose wherein the single crystal particles are uncoated.
Liu et al. discloses single crystal NMC811 with a sulfide based electrolyte (LPSCI) where the 100% uncoated single crystal NMC 811 particles achieve exceptional electrochemical performance at the wide voltage window of 2.85–4.35 V versus Li+/Li, with high initial capacity of 187 mAh g−1 at 0.1C, stable cycling over 100 cycles and outstanding rate performance of 54% capacity retention when current density increases ten times (Liu, Introduction). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide uncoated single crystal NMC 811 particles with a sulfide based electrolyte (LPSCI) as taught in Liu as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Liu and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
While Xin discloses single crystal cathode materials, it is silent as to the morphology or crystallographic faceting wherein about 90% or more of the single crystals of LiNixMnyCo1-x-y O2 are octahedron-shaped particles with (012)-family surfaces.
Wang et al. teaches that in conventional liquid cells, single-crystal cathode materials have shown substantial advantages over polycrystalline counterparts and that providing single crystal particles of Li(Ni0⋅5Mn0⋅3Co0.2)O2 for use with solid state electrolytes is beneficial because the single-crystal cathodes are such that they do not contain grain boundaries inside one particle, thus providing continuous Liþ conduction pathways inside one particle. Therefore, the single-crystal cathode shows faster Liþ kinetics in solid-state batteries than the polycrystalline cathode. (Wang, Page 99-100). While acknowledging that in conventional liquid cells, single-crystal cathode materials have shown substantial advantages over polycrystalline counterparts (Wang, Page 99) and exploring the benefits of single crystals and their use with solid electrolytes, the shape and family surfaces would be of interest to the skilled artisans of Xin and Wang and they would reasonably look further to Zhu et al. for their study of the electrochemical performance of single crystals based on the combination of particle shape and family facet.
Zhu et al. teaches single crystal NMC with octahedron shaped particles and (012)-family facets (Zhu, Abstract). Zhu et al. also provides beneficial experimental data on the different variations of particle shape and family facet. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a single crystal material with octahedron-shaped particles and (012)-family surfaces, as doing so would be obvious to try for the skilled artisans of Xin and Wang and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of a single crystal for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 22, Xin et al. in view of Wang, Zhu and Liu et al. discloses the all solid-state battery of claim 1. Both Xin and Wang disclose the use of 100% single crystal NMC and Zhu et al. teaches the benefits of single crystal NMC with octahedron-shaped particles with (012)-family surfaces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide 100% single crystal NMC material as disclosed in Xin and Wang et al. with the octahedron-shaped particles with (012)-family surfaces as disclosed in Zhu et al as doing so would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one known variation of the material for another.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Xin et al. (WO 2022094412 A1 – Machine Translation), hereinafter “Xin” in view of Wang et al. (Single crystal cathodes enabling high-performance all-solid-state lithium-ion batteries, Energy Storage Materials, 30 (2020) 98–103), hereinafter “Wang”, Zhu et al. (Journal of Materials Chemistry A, Single-Crystal Based Studies for Correlating Properties and High-Voltage Performance of LiNixMnyCo1-x-y O2 Cathodes, 02/01/2019), hereinafter “Zhu” and Liu et al. (Electrochemo-Mechanical Effects on Structural Integrity of Ni-Rich Cathodes with Different Microstructures in All Solid-State Batteries, Adv. Energy Mater. 2021, 11, 2003583), hereinafter “Liu” as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of Lai et al. (US 20210175509 A1), hereinafter “Lai”. Xin, Wang, Zhu, Liu and Lai et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely NMC cathode materials.
Regarding Claim 12, Xin et al. in view of Wang, Zhu and Liu et al. discloses the all solid-state battery of claim 11, but fails to explicitly disclose the weight percentage of carbon in the composite cathode is about 0.1 to 5%.
Lai et al. discloses an addition of carbon at a wt% that falls within the claimed range (Lai, Paragraph [0057]). Lai teaches the benefits of which are creating increased conductivity as shown in experimental data (Lai, Table 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide carbon in the composite cathode at the wt% taught in Lai as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Lai and as doing so would amount to nothing more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xin et al. (WO 2022094412 A1 – Machine Translation), hereinafter “Xin” in view of Wang et al. (Single crystal cathodes enabling high-performance all-solid-state lithium-ion batteries, Energy Storage Materials, 30 (2020) 98–103), hereinafter “Wang”, Zhu et al. (Journal of Materials Chemistry A, Single-Crystal Based Studies for Correlating Properties and High-Voltage Performance of LiNixMnyCo1-x-y O2 Cathodes, 02/01/2019), hereinafter “Zhu” and Liu et al. (Electrochemo-Mechanical Effects on Structural Integrity of Ni-Rich Cathodes with Different Microstructures in All Solid-State Batteries, Adv. Energy Mater. 2021, 11, 2003583), hereinafter “Liu” as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of He et al. (CN 112952184 A – Machine Translation), hereinafter “He”. Xin, Wang, Zhu, Liu and He et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely NMC cathode materials.
Regarding Claim 14, Xin et al. in view of Wang, Zhu and Liu et al. discloses the all solid-state battery of claim 11. However, they fail to explicitly disclose wherein a weight percentage of the LiNixMnyCo1-x-y O2 in the composite cathode is about 57%, wherein a weight percentage of the first lithium metal halide solid electrolyte in the composite cathode is about 40.5%, and wherein a weight percentage of the carbon in the composite cathode is about 2.5%.
He et al. teaches an NMC811 cathode (He, Paragraphs [0095]) with a wt% of greater than or equal to about 50 wt% and a carbon greater than or equal to about 2% (He, Paragraphs [0097]). This would imply the solid electrolyte makes up the remaining weight percent, totaling 100 wt %. This would reasonably predict a weight percentage of the first lithium metal halide solid electrolyte in the composite cathode to be greater than or equal to about 40 wt%. This example in He is taught as a preferred embodiment which improves battery energy density and post first cycle performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide materials at the ratios taught in He et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in He et al. and as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xin et al. (WO 2022094412 A1 – Machine Translation), hereinafter “Xin” in view of Wang et al. (Single crystal cathodes enabling high-performance all-solid-state lithium-ion batteries, Energy Storage Materials, 30 (2020) 98–103), hereinafter “Wang”, Zhu et al. (Journal of Materials Chemistry A, Single-Crystal Based Studies for Correlating Properties and High-Voltage Performance of LiNixMnyCo1-x-y O2 Cathodes, 02/01/2019), hereinafter “Zhu” and Liu et al. (Electrochemo-Mechanical Effects on Structural Integrity of Ni-Rich Cathodes with Different Microstructures in All Solid-State Batteries, Adv. Energy Mater. 2021, 11, 2003583), hereinafter “Liu” as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiaona et al. (Royal Society of Chemistry, Air-stable Li3InCl6 electrolyte with high voltage compatibility for all-solid-state batteries, July 2019), hereinafter “Xiaona”. Xin, Wang, Zhu, Liu and Xiona et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely NMC cathode materials.
Regarding Claim 15, Xin et al. in view of Wang, Zhu, and Liu et al. discloses the all solid-state battery of claim 1 but they are silent as to the particles of the first lithium metal halide solid electrolyte having a size of about 30 nanometers to 10 microns.
Xiaona teaches a Li3InCl6 solid electrolyte having a particle size that falls within the claimed range (Xiona, Page 2, Paragraph 3). This particle size is taught by Xiaona to have the benefit of providing higher flexibility to accommodate the volume expansion of electrode materials (Xiona, Page 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a solid electrolyte with a particle size in the range taught by Xiaona as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Xiona and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known variation of particle size to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the ground of rejection applies an additional reference not included in the prior rejection of record, Liu et al. (Electrochemo-Mechanical Effects on Structural Integrity of Ni-Rich Cathodes with Different Microstructures in All Solid-State Batteries, Adv. Energy Mater. 2021, 11, 2003583). Although Xin provides specific examples of uncoated NMC cathode materials and goes so far as to mention the interface between sulfide based electrolytes and bare NMC 811 being beneficial (Xin, Example 4, [0131], Xin doesn’t explicitly provide uncoated NMC 811 single crystal particles in a specific example. However, Liu et al. teaches the application of uncoated single crystal NMC 811 and its benefits, which would be of interest to the skilled artisan of Xin.
Further, in regard to applicants’ arguments about there being no motivation to apply Zhu to ASSB’s and as discussed in the Final Rejection dated 09/23/2025, the motivation for applying a single crystal particle NMC to both a liquid and a solid electrolyte is disclosed in Wang et al. This would reasonably lead the skilled artisan to apply the teachings of Zhu regarding a beneficial shape and facet of single crystal NMC to a battery comprising both a liquid and a solid electrolyte as doing so would yield predictable results that could be achieved without undo experimentation and would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one commercially available material for another.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725