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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending;
Claims 13-20 are currently withdrawn;
Claims 1-13, 16 and 18-19 are currently amended.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending Since the Office Action of 07/29/2025
The 112(b) rejections of claims 1-12 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and argument;
The 102 rejections of claims 1,7, and 9 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and argument and replaced with new 103 rejections;
The 103 rejections of claims 2-6, 8-9, and 10-12 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and argument and replaced with new 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 10/27/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 7, and 9 under 102(a)(1) and rejections of claims 2-6, 8, and 10-12 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hippauf, Hippauf in view of Kashiwagi, Hippauf in view of Ito, Hippauf in view of Kashiwagi and Yamamoto, Hippauf in view of Kashiwagi and Ito.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hippauf et al. (DE-102019211857-B3), hereinafter Hippauf, as translated in the IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Hippauf teaches an electrode for an all-solid-state electrochemical cell ([0002] solid state batteries), the electrode comprising: a plurality of silicon columns defining an electroactive material layer ([0012] silicon columns for the anode), the electroactive material layer having a vacant space defined by openings between the plurality of silicon columns ([0045] spaces between the columns); and a solid sulfide electrolyte formed in-situ ([0012]), the electroactive material layer and the solid sulfide electrolyte together defining the electrode for the all-solid-state electrochemical cell ([0029] the solid sulfide electrolyte contacts up to 75% of the columns at the surface of the column, meaning it is within the active material layer and defines the electrode).
Hippauf does not explicitly teach the solid sulfide electrolyte filling greater than or equal to about 60 vol. % to less than or equal to about 100 vol. % of the vacant space in the electroactive material layer, the electroactive material layer and the solid sulfide electrolyte together defining the electrode for the all-solid-state electrochemical cell.
Hippauf does teach that the solid sulfide electrolyte contacts up to substantially 100% of the columns at a base surface of the column facing away from the current collector ([0028]), and that the solid sulfide electrolyte contacts up to 75% of the columns at the surface of the column ([0029]). Hippauf also teaches that the columns expand into the spaces during lithium intercalation during charging. As such, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that, at least during charging, the solid sulfide electrolyte would fill greater than or equal to about 60 vol. % to less than or equal to about 100 vol. % of the vacant space in the electroactive material layer.
Claims 2-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hippauf as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kashiwagi et al. (US-20100129711-A1), hereinafter Kashiwagi.
Regarding claim 2, Hippauf teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Hippauf also teaches wherein each of the silicon columns has an areal capacity greater than or equal to about 0.5 mAh/cm2 to less than or equal to 20 mAh/cm2 ([0014]-[0015] at least 2.5 mAh/cm2). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Hippauf fails to specify wherein each of the silicon columns has a general oval shape where a first radius is larger than a second radius, the first radius being greater than or equal to about 0.5 micrometers to less than or equal to about 40 micrometers, and the second radius being greater than or equal to 0.5 micrometers to less than or equal to about 40 micrometers.
Kashiwagi is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of silicon anodes ([0028]). Kashiwagi teaches wherein each of the silicon columns has a general oval shape where a first radius is larger than a second radius (fig. 6; [0063]-[0064]) the first radius being greater than or equal to about 0.5 micrometers to less than or equal to about 40 micrometers ([0064] total height 15 micrometers or less), and the second radius being greater than or equal to 0.5 micrometers to less than or equal to about 40 micrometers ([0063] total width 1 to 20 micrometers).
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 modified Hippauf and defined the dimensions of the silicon columns such as in Kashiwagi. Doing so helps prevent deformation of the negative electrode due to the expansion stress of the columns (Kashiwagi [0063]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Regarding claim 3, modified Hippauf teaches all of the limitations of claim 2. Modified Hippauf also teaches wherein the first radius is about 3.5 micrometers and the second radius is about 3 micrometers (Kashiwagi [0063]-[0064]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Regarding claim 7, modified Hippauf teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Hippauf also teaches wherein the electrode further comprises: a current collector ([0050] current collector 1)
Hippauf fails to teach the current collector having a roughened surface disposed on or adjacent to the electroactive material layer, wherein a longest dimension of each silicon column is perpendicular to a major axis of the current collector.
Kashiwagi is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of silicon anodes ([0028]). Kashiwagi teaches the current collector having a roughened surface disposed on or adjacent to the electroactive material layer ([0059]-[0061]; figs. 5-7 ), wherein a longest dimension of each silicon column is perpendicular to a major axis of the current collector (see annotated fig. 7 below of Kashiwagi below).
PNG
media_image1.png
680
571
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill I the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further defined the shape of the silicon columns of Hippauf such that each silicon columns being perpendicular to the major axis of the second current collector and to have roughened the current collector. Doing so provides a shape of the silicon columns that helps prevent deformation of the negative electrode due to the expansion of the columnar parts (Kashiwagi [0063]).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hippauf as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ito et al. (US-20240128437-A1), hereinafter Ito.
Regarding claim 4, modified Hippauf teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Hippauf fails to disclose wherein the electroactive material layer comprises: greater than or equal to about or exactly 70 wt.% to less than or equal to about or exactly 100 wt.% of the plurality of silicon columns; greater than 5 wt.% to less than or equal to about or exactly 30 wt.% of the solid sulfide electrolyte. Hippauf only discloses that the columnar layer covers more than 90%, in particular at least 98% of the total area of one side of the current collector ([0040]).
Ito is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of silicon columnar anodes ([0005]). Ito teaches wherein the electroactive material layer comprises: greater than or equal to about or exactly 70 wt.% to less than or equal to about or exactly 100 wt.% of the plurality of silicon columns ([0060]); greater than 5 wt.% to less than or equal to about or exactly 30 wt.% of the solid sulfide electrolyte ([0075] 10 mass% or less). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
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 modified Hippauf and further define the content of the silicon columns and solid sulfide electrolyte such as in Ito. Doing so allows the battery to maintain rate characteristics (Ito [0074]) and improve energy density (Ito [0060]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Hippauf teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Hippauf fails to teach wherein the electroactive material layer further comprises solid-state graphite particles coated on or dispersed between the silicon columns, wherein the vacant spaces are defined as any openings in the electroactive material layer not occupied by the plurality of silicon columns and the solid-state graphite particles.
Ito is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of silicon columnar anodes ([0005]). Ito teaches wherein the electroactive material layer further comprises solid-state graphite particles coated on or dispersed between the silicon columns ([0062] carbon material such as graphites in filler 27; fig. 2), wherein the vacant spaces are defined as any openings in the electroactive material layer not occupied by the plurality of silicon columns and the solid-state graphite particles (fig. 2).
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 modified Hippauf and added solid state graphite particles such as in Ito. Doing so improves conductivity and cycle characteristics of the battery (Ito [0027]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Hippauf teaches all of the limitations of claim 5. Modified Hippauf also teaches wherein the electroactive material layer comprises greater than 0 wt.% to less than or equal to about 70 wt.% of the solid-state graphite particles (Ito [0066]-[0067] 10 mass% or less), the solid-state graphite particles having an average particle size greater than or equal to about 0.05 micrometers to less than or equal to about 20 micrometers (Ito [0067] 10 nm to 1000 nm). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hippauf in view of Kashiwagi as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (US-20110020536-A1), hereinafter Yamamoto.
Regarding claim 8, modified Hippauf teaches all of the limitations of claim 7. Modified Hippauf fails to teach wherein the roughened surface has a Rz greater than 1 micrometer to less than or equal to about 12 micrometers.
Yamamoto is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrodes for lithium secondary batteries ([0001]) that can include solid electrolyte ([0141]). Yamamoto teaches that the roughened surface has a Rz greater than 1 µm to less than or equal to about 12 µm ([0133]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the surface roughness of the current collector of Hippauf to be in the range prescribed by Yamamoto. Doing so provides sufficient adhesion between the current collector and the active material members, and precents peeling of the active material members (Yamamoto [0133]).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hippauf in view of Kashiwagi et al. (US-20100129711-A1), hereinafter Kashiwagi.
Regarding claim 9, Hippauf teaches an all-solid-state electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions ([0001]; [0007] solid state lithium battery), wherein the all-solid-state electrochemical cell comprises: a first electrode comprising: a first current collector, and a first electroactive material layer disposed on or adjacent to the first current collector (fig. 1; [0012]; [0030]); a second electrode comprising a second current collector defining a major axis, and a second electroactive material layer disposed on or adjacent to the second current collector, the second electroactive material layer comprising: a plurality of silicon columns ([0012]), and a solid sulfide electrolyte formed in-situ ([0012]) , the voids being defined by openings between the silicon columns ([0045] spaces between the columns), and a solid-state electrolyte layer disposed between the first electroactive material layer and the second electroactive material layer, the first and second electrodes and the solid-state electrolyte layer together defining the all-solid-state electrochemical cell (fig. 1; [0050]).
Hippauf does not explicitly teach the solid sulfide electrolyte filling greater than or equal to about 60 vol. % to less than or equal to about 100 vol. % of the vacant space in the electroactive material layer, the electroactive material layer and the solid sulfide electrolyte together defining the electrode for the all-solid-state electrochemical cell.
Hippauf does teach that the solid sulfide electrolyte contacts up to substantially 100% of the columns at a base surface of the column facing away from the current collector ([0028]), and that the solid sulfide electrolyte contacts up to 75% of the columns at the surface of the column ([0029]). Hippauf also teaches that the columns expand into the spaces during lithium intercalation during charging. As such, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that, at least during charging, the solid sulfide electrolyte would fill greater than or equal to about 60 vol. % to less than or equal to about 100 vol. % of the vacant space in the electroactive material layer.
Hippauf is also silent as to a longest dimension of each silicon columns being perpendicular to the major axis of the second current collector.
Kashiwagi is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of silicon anodes ([0028]). Kashiwagi teaches that each silicon columns being perpendicular to the major axis of the second current collector (see annotated fig. 7 of Kashiwagi below).
PNG
media_image1.png
680
571
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill I the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further defined the shape of the silicon columns of Hippauf such that each silicon columns being perpendicular to the major axis of the second current collector. Doing so provides a shape of the silicon columns that helps prevent deformation of the negative electrode due to the expansion of the columnar parts (Kashiwagi [0063]).
Regarding claim 10, Hippauf teaches all of the limitations of claim 9. Hippauf also teaches wherein each of the silicon columns has an areal capacity greater than or equal to about 0.5 mAh/cm2 to less than or equal to 20 mAh/cm2 ([0014]-[0015] at least 2.5 mAh/cm2). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Hippauf fails to specify wherein each of the silicon columns has a general oval shape where a first radius is larger than a second radius, the first radius being greater than or equal to about 0.5 micrometers to less than or equal to about 40 micrometers, and the second radius being greater than or equal to 0.5 micrometers to less than or equal to about 40 micrometers.
Kashiwagi is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of silicon anodes ([0028]). Kashiwagi teaches wherein each of the silicon columns has a general oval shape where a first radius is larger than a second radius (fig. 6; [0063]-[0064]) the first radius being greater than or equal to about 0.5 micrometers to less than or equal to about 40 micrometers ([0064] total height 15 micrometers or less), and the second radius being greater than or equal to 0.5 micrometers to less than or equal to about 40 micrometers ([0063] total width 1 to 20 micrometers).
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 modified Hippauf and defined the dimensions of the silicon columns such as in Kashiwagi. Doing so helps prevent deformation of the negative electrode due to the expansion stress of the columns (Kashiwagi [0063]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hippauf in view of Kashiwagi as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Ito et al. (US-20240128437-A1), hereinafter Ito.
Regarding claim 11, Hippauf teaches all of the limitations of claim 9. Hippauf fails to teach wherein the electroactive material layer further comprises: greater than 0 wt.% to less than or equal to about 70 wt.% of solid-state graphite particles coated on or disbursed between the silicon columns, the voids defined by any openings in the second electroactive material layer not occupied by the silicon columns and the solid-state graphite particles, the solid-state graphite particles having an average particle size greater than or equal to about 0.05 micrometers to less than or equal to about 20 micrometers.
Ito is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of silicon columnar anodes ([0005]). Ito teaches wherein the electroactive material layer further comprises: greater than 0 wt.% to less than or equal to about 70 wt.% of solid-state graphite particles coated on or disbursed between the silicon columns (Ito [0066]-[0067] 10 mass% or less; fig. 2), the voids defined by any openings in the second electroactive material layer not occupied by the silicon columns and the solid-state graphite particles (fig. 2), the solid-state graphite particles having an average particle size greater than or equal to about 0.05 micrometers to less than or equal to about 20 micrometers (Ito [0067] 10 nm to 1000 nm). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
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 modified Hippauf and added solid state graphite particles such as in Ito. Doing so improves conductivity and cycle characteristics of the battery (Ito [0027]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hippauf in view of Kashiwagi as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (US-20110020536-A1), hereinafter Yamamoto.
Regarding claim 12, Hippauf teaches all of the limitations of claim 9. Modified Hippauf teaches wherein the current collector has a roughened surface and the electroactive material layer is disposed on or adjacent to roughened surface of the current collector layer (Kashiwagi [0059]-[0061]; figs. 5-7).
Hippauf fails to teach the roughened surface having a Rz greater than 1 micrometer to less than or equal to about 12 micrometers.
Yamamoto is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrodes for lithium secondary batteries ([0001]) that can include solid electrolyte ([0141]). Yamamoto teaches the roughened surface having a Rz greater than 1 micrometer to less than or equal to about 12 micrometers ([0133]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the surface roughness of the current collector of Hippauf to be in the range prescribed by Yamamoto. Doing so provides sufficient adhesion between the current collector and the active material members, and precents peeling of the active material members (Yamamoto [0133]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20200274151 A1 teaches silicon based anode material ([0002]);
US 20130052537 A1 teaches an anode silicon layer including projected portions ([0039]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/M.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722 /NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722