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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 18, 2026 has been entered.
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received February 11, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claim 1 is amended; claim 3 is cancelled; and claims 8-11 are withdrawn; resulting in claims 1-2, 4-7, and 12-13 pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “elemental constituents” of “a native film on a surface of the lithium-containing metal foil including one or more of oxygen and carbon” in lines 10-12. This limitation is unclear as the native film on the lithium surface is previously referred to as “a surface passivated lithium-containing metal foil” in line 4 of claim 1. Paragraph [0008] of the specification clarifies that “surface passivated” means an oxidated or carbonated surface that is present on the lithium-containing metal foil prior to lamination, and later refers to this oxidized or carbonated surface as a “native film.” It is recommended to amend claim 1 to clarify that the native film on the lithium surface is the surface passivation layer on the lithium-containing metal foil and not two separate components, either by amending the limitation regarding “a surface passivated lithium-containing metal foil” in line 4 to refer to a lithium-containing metal foil having a native film, or by amending the limitation regarding elemental constituents of “a native film on a surface of the lithium-containing metal foil” in lines 11-12 to refer to elemental constituents of the surface passivation layer on the lithium-containing metal foil. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “wherein the laminating layer is free of a continuous aluminum-oxide passivation layer on the sulfide glass electrolyte layer” in lines 13-14 is considered new matter that is not supported by the original specification. In looking to the instant specification, paragraph [0017] defines the laminating layer as the interface between the negative electrode and the glass electrolyte layer which is formed by reaction of the lithium-containing metal and a sulfide-based glass electrolyte. Paragraph [0041] discloses that the lithium-containing metal foil may include a metal forming an alloy with lithium, such as aluminum, and paragraphs [0044]-[0045] disclose that the sulfide-based electrolyte forming the glass electrolyte layer is not particularly limited and may include aluminum. A teaching regarding an aluminum-oxide passivation layer is not included. Lastly, paragraph [0070] discloses that the laminating layer is composed of elemental constituents of the sulfide glass electrolyte, lithium, and other elements of the native film on the lithium surface. The instant specification does not teach that the sulfide glass electrolyte layer must be free of a continuous aluminum-oxide passivation layer or that the laminating layer is free of a continuous aluminum-oxide passivation layer. Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure (MPEP 2173.05(i)).
Regarding claims 2, 4-7, and 12-13, these claims are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Andre, et al. (US 2019/0165423 A1), cited on IDS.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Andre teaches a solid-state battery comprising a negative electrode, a positive electrode, and a lithium-ion-conducting solid electrolyte arranged between the negative electrode and the positive electrode (¶ [0034], Ln. 1-5). Andre teaches that the solid electrolyte may be based on lithium sulfide and glasses composed of lithium sulfide (sulfide glass electrolyte layer) (¶ [0023], Ln. 14-18). The negative electrode is a layer of metallic lithium that is directly adjacent to the solid electrolyte, and a layer of lithium-metal alloy on the metallic lithium which is used as a current collector (¶ [0025], Ln. 1-5), ¶ [0027], Ln. 1-5). To produce the battery, a stack formed from the metallic lithium and lithium-metal alloy is heated and then pressed onto the solid electrolyte (¶ [0030], Ln. 1-10). Andre teaches that the lithium is softened by heating so that the contact and adhesion to the solid electrolyte is improved and the interface resistance is reduced (¶ [0030], Ln. 12-16). After the lithium film solidifies, an improved interface (laminating layer) is formed between the metallic lithium film and the solid electrolyte (¶ [0014], Ln. 1-3). As Andre does not teach the inclusion of an aluminum oxide passivation layer, the interface would inherently be free of a continuous aluminum oxide passivation layer.
While it is acknowledged that Andre does not expressly teach the presence of a native film on the surface of the metallic lithium film, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that surface-passivation is inherent to lithium metal. Andre does not teach any process of preventing the passivation of the metallic lithium film or process to remove the passivation layer and thus, the metallic lithium film used as the anode of Andre inherently includes a native film.
While it is acknowledged that an interfacial resistance between the metallic lithium film and the solid electrolyte decreasing by less than 10% when a pressure of 0.3 kgf/cm2 is applied to the laminate, and an interface between the metallic lithium film and solid electrolyte composed of lithium, elements of the solid electrolyte, and one or more of oxygen and carbon, are not expressly recited by Andre, these properties would be inherent to a metallic lithium/solid electrolyte laminate with substantially the same composition formed by substantially the same process. The instant specification has not provided adequate teachings that the claimed property is only obtainable with the claimed material.
As evidence that the claimed properties are inherent to the metallic lithium/solid electrolyte laminate taught by Andre, the reference teaches substantially the same composition formed by substantially the same process. Paragraph [0070] of the instant specification discloses that the laminating layer is formed by the lithium metal and glass electrolyte mixing at the interface due to the softening of the lithium metal, further teaching that accordingly, the laminating layer is composed of elemental constituents of the sulfide glass electrolyte, lithium, oxygen, and carbon. Paragraph [0050] of the instant specification teaches that improved contactability between the negative electrode including a lithium-containing metal foil and the glass electrolyte layer decreases interfacial resistance. Additionally, paragraph [0061] of the instant specification teaches that heating for laminating is performed at a high homologous temperature in the range of 0.85 to less than 1, providing the range of 120 °C to 180 °C when lithium metal foil is used.
With respect to the composition of the lamination layer, Andre teaches that the interface contact between the metallic lithium and the solid electrolyte is improved because the lithium film is heated to soften it, and the brought into contact with the solid electrolyte under slight contact pressure (¶ [0013], Ln. 1-6). Thus, as the interface is formed by softening the lithium metal and applying pressure, the interface would include the same mixing of the lithium metal, inherent native film, and solid electrolyte including sulfide.
With respect to the reduced interfacial resistance, Andre teaches the lithium is softened by heating so that the contact and adhesion to the solid electrolyte is improved and the interface resistance is reduced (¶ [0030], Ln. 12-16). Specifically, Andre teaches that the metallic lithium is heated to preferably approximately 120 °C and up to approximately 180 °C, teaching that it is not necessary to melt the metallic lithium, but soften it to the extent that the solid electrolyte is moistened with the metallic lithium to a sufficient degree (¶ [0021], Ln. 1-10).
Thus, Andre teaches all of the essential features to achieving the claimed properties of an interfacial resistance between the metallic lithium film and the solid electrolyte decreasing by less than 10% when a pressure of 0.3 kgf/cm2 is applied to the laminate, and an interface between the metallic lithium film and solid electrolyte composed of lithium, elements of the solid electrolyte, and one or more of oxygen and carbon.
Regarding claim 2, Andre teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As Andre teaches that the lithium film is softened and brought into contact with the solid electrolyte under pressure (¶ [0013], Ln. 1-6), the reference teaches an interface layer with no pore.
Regarding claim 6, Andre teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the softened metallic lithium is laminated onto the solid electrolyte (¶ [0030], Ln. 8-11), shown in Figure 1 wherein the solid electrolyte (16) is a monolithic structure.
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 4-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andre, et al. (US 2019/0165423 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Okamoto, et al. (US 2020/0044283 A1).
Regarding claims 4-5 and 7, Andre teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the thickness of the metallic lithium ranges from 0.00001-0.9 mm, or 0.01-900 µm (¶ [0029], Ln. 7-10). Andre does not expressly teach the thickness of the solid electrolyte layer or of the interface layer.
Okamoto teaches an all-solid battery including a positive electrode, negative electrode, and ion-conductive solid electrolyte layer interposed between the positive electrode and negative electrode (¶ [0017], Ln. 1-5). Okamoto teaches that the solid electrolyte is a sulfide-based solid electrolyte (¶ [0028], Ln. 1-4) and that the negative electrode may be a simple substance such as lithium metal (¶ [0051], Ln. 15-17). Okamoto teaches that the thickness of the solid electrolyte is 20-200 µm (¶ [0036], Ln. 1-3) and the thickness of the negative electrode is 50-200 µm (¶ [0059], Ln. 1-2). Okamoto teaches the all-solid battery with the purpose of reducing interfacial resistance, ensuring high capacity (¶ [0014], Ln. 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the thickness of the layers of the metallic lithium anode layer and solid electrolyte layer of Andre based on the teachings of Okamoto. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to modify the thickness of the metallic lithium layer within the range of 50-200 µm and the thickness of the solid electrolyte layer within the range of 20-200 µm, within the claimed range of 200 µm or less. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the teachings of Okamoto to determine the thicknesses of the metallic lithium anode and solid electrolyte later as Okamoto teaches a similar all-solid battery having a sulfide-based solid electrolyte with the purpose of reducing interfacial resistance.
While it is acknowledged that an interface thickness of 0-20 µm, or 0.1-5 µm is not expressly taught by either reference, this property would be inherent to a metallic lithium/solid electrolyte laminate with substantially the same composition formed by substantially the same process. The instant specification has not provided adequate teachings that the claimed property is only obtainable with the claimed material.
As evidence that the claimed property is inherent to the metallic lithium/solid electrolyte laminate taught by the Andre in view of Okamoto, the combination of references teaches substantially the same composition formed by substantially the same process. Paragraph [0070] of the instant specification discloses that the laminating layer is formed by the lithium metal and glass electrolyte mixing at the interface due to the softening of the lithium metal, further teaching that heating for laminating is performed at a high homologous temperature in the range of 0.85 to less than 1, providing the range of 120 °C to 180 °C when lithium metal foil is used in paragraph [0061]. Paragraph [0066] teaches that the thickness of the negative electrode is most preferably 50-100 µm and the thickness of the glass electrolyte layer is most preferably 100-200 µm.
With respect to the process, Andre teaches that the lithium is softened by heating so that the contact and adhesion to the solid electrolyte is improved and the interface resistance is reduced (¶ [0030], Ln. 12-16). Specifically, Andre teaches that the metallic lithium is heated to preferably approximately 120 °C and up to approximately 180 °C in order to soften it to the extent that the solid electrolyte is moistened with the metallic lithium to a sufficient degree (¶ [0021], Ln. 1-10).
With respect to the thickness of the layers, Andre in view of Okamoto teaches a negative electrode thickness within the range of 50-200 µm a solid electrolyte layer thickness within the range of 20-200 µm, substantially overlapping the most preferred ranges taught in the instant specification. Thus, Andre in view of Okamoto teaches all of the essential features to achieving the claimed properties of an interface layer having a thickness within the range of 0.1-5 µm.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andre, et al. (US 2019/0165423 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Kato, et al. (US 2015/0147659 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Andre teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 above. Andre does not expressly teach that the lithium battery cell further comprises a solid electrolyte layer between the electrolyte glass layer and the cathode.
Kato teaches an all-solid-state battery including a cathode layer, an anode layer, and an electrolyte layer arranged between the cathode layer and the anode layer, wherein the electrolyte layer includes a first solid electrolyte layer including a sulfide solid electrolyte and a second solid electrolyte layer including a sulfide solid electrolyte (¶ [0014], Ln.1-1). Kato teaches that the multilayer configuration in which a first and second solid electrolyte layer are arranged between the cathode layer and anode layer inhibits short circuit (¶ [0015], Ln. 7-15). Kato also teaches that when the first solid electrolyte layer and the second solid electrolyte layer both include a sulfide solid electrolyte, the ion conductivity resistance at the interface may be reduced (¶ [0015], Ln. 15-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the lithium battery cell of Andre to include an additional solid electrolyte layer in between the electrolyte glass layer and the cathode based on the teachings of Kato. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include an additional solid electrolyte layer including a sulfide solid electrolyte in order to prevent short circuit and to reduce ion conductivity resistance.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Objections
The previous objection to claim 1 for minor informalities is maintained in the office action
above. It is recommended to clarify that the surface passivation layer of the lithium-containing foil referenced in line 4 of the claim is the same as the native film referenced in line 11 of the claim. See the objection above for more details.
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112
The previous rejection of claims 1, and by dependency claims 2, 4-7, and 12-13 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 are overcome by Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in the response filed February 11, 2026.
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103
In light of Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 to limit the laminating layer to being free of a continuous aluminum-oxide passivation layer, the previous rejections of claims 1-4, 6-7, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Yersak, et al. (US 2018/0309166 A1) are withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
Zhai, et al. (WO 2022/267414 A1) teaches an all-solid-state battery including a multilayer solid electrolyte membrane (¶ [0009], Ln. 1-2). Specifically, Zhai teaches an all-solid-state battery in Example 2 wherein a positive electrode is coated with a first solid electrolyte membrane (¶ [0031], Ln. 3-5); the first solid electrolyte membrane is coated with a second solid electrolyte membrane (¶ [0032], Ln. 1-3); a third solid electrolyte membrane having the formula Li7P2S8BrI is coated onto a lithium metal negative electrode sheet; the sheets are laminated together such that the third solid electrolyte membrane is laminated onto the second solid electrolyte membrane; and the laminate is hot pressed at 150 °C to obtain an all-solid-state battery (¶ [0033], Ln. 1-7). As Zhai does not teach any process to prevent passivation or remove a passivating layer of the lithium metal negative electrode sheet, the sheet would inherently include a passivated surface. Zhai further teaches that the first and third solid electrolyte membranes comprise an amorphous sulfide solid electrolyte (sulfide glass electrolyte).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH J JACOBSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291.
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.
/SARAH J JACOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights