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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 03/26/26, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1 is/are amended, and claim(s) 2–9 is/are canceled; no new matter is added. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 12/31/25 has/have been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendment—specifically the new combination of former claims 1, 6, 8, and 9 (see 10/14/25 claim set)—necessitated the new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto et al. (RU 2725177 C1; citations to English equivalent US 20200280102 A1) (Sakamoto) in view of (1) Joo et al. (US 20150099185 A1), (2) Ueno et al. (WO 2021024876 A1; citations to English equivalent US 20220294007 A1) (Ueno), (3) Shishihara et al. (JP 2015028854 A) (Shishihara) or Matsuyama et al. (JP 2017168387 A) (Matsuyama), (4) Hirose et al. (US 20090035651 A1) (Hirose), and (5) Kato (US 20200067143 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sakamoto discloses an all solid state battery (Title) comprising an electrode stacked body including a cathode layer, an anode layer, a solid electrolyte layer placed between the cathode layer and the anode layer (e.g., fig. 1), and an anode current collector at a location on an opposite side to the solid electrolyte layer, with respect to the anode layer (e.g., 1a of fig. 1; see also Sakamoto’s ¶ 0171), wherein the electrode stacked body is confined under confining pressure of, e.g., 0.08 MPa in a thickness direction (binding at 0.08 MPa at atmospheric pressure in, e.g., Table 1’s Ex. 1), falling within 0–2 MPa.
Sakamoto further discloses that the anode layer may include an active material of Si (¶ 0167) but fails to explicitly that such is an anode active material with a volume expansion rate due to charge of 105% or more.
Joo teaches nanofibers for battery negative electrode active material (Abstract, 0014), where the nanofibers may be Si-based (¶ 0014, 0281). Joo recognizes that in conventional anodes, Si’s volume contraction/expansion from (dis)charging leads to pulverization, breaking, and degradation, but this nanofibrous material avoids these issues, allowing the active material to expand its volume at least, e.g., 150% while yielding high energy density and stability (¶ 0118).
Sakamoto and Joo are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery anode active material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Joo’s Si nanofibers as Sakamoto’s anode active material—such that the active material would exhibit a volume-expansion rate due to charge of ≥ 150%, satisfying ≥ 105%—with a reasonable expectation of yielding high energy density and stability with accommodated volume expansion, as taught by Joo.
Sakamoto further discloses that the solid electrolyte layer includes a sulfide solid electrolyte and a rubber based binder (see sulfide-based ceramic and butadiene rubber, respectively, in Ex. 1, ¶ 0182), but, in being unconcerned with the binder’s concentration, fails to explicitly disclose that a ratio of the binder in the solid electrolyte layer is 20–30 vol%.
Ueno, in teaching a solid battery (Title), teaches incorporating the binder at 0.1–30 vol% of the solid electrolyte layer (¶ 0074).
Ueno is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely solid batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Sakamoto's binder must necessarily be incorporated into the solid electrolyte layer with some concentration, and, as demonstrated by Ueno, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to employ a concentration of 0.1–30 vol% as an appropriate concentration.
Additionally, Ueno teaches that the binder maintains favorable joining within the solid electrolyte of the solid electrolyte layer, prevents cracking within the solid electrolyte, and minimizes a decrease in ion conductivity and an increase in grain-boundary resistance (¶ 0074). The skilled artisan, meanwhile, would appreciate that Sakamoto’s solid electrolyte provides ion conductivity (as implied in Sakamoto’s ¶ 0156–0161). To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the binder’s vol%, including within the overlap (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
As noted above, Sakamoto discloses a sulfide solid electrolyte (¶ 0182) but fails to explicitly disclose that a bending elastic modulus in the solid electrolyte layer is 4.1–5.0 GPa.
Per instant Table 1, however, the bending modulus inversely varies with binder content at a given confining pressure, meaning that, in balancing the binder and sulfide-electrolyte contents as discussed above, it would have been further obvious to arrive at the instant elastic modulus by routinely optimizing the binder content and, thus, necessarily controlling the modulus (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Nonetheless, Shishihara, in teaching a solid battery with a sulfide electrolyte layer between the electrodes (Abstract), teaches that it is desirable that the sulfide electrolyte membrane is sufficiently soft, displaying a low Young’s modulus—which reasonably constitutes a “bending” elastic modulus because the elastic modulus reflects a material’s resistance to elastic deformation and, thus, flexibility—of preferably 0.08–20 GPa (¶ 0027, 0028).
Shishihara is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely solid batteries with sulfide electrolytes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Sakamoto's sulfide electrolyte layer must necessarily be incorporated with some degree of elasticity/rigidity, and, as demonstrated by Shishihara, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to employ a Young’s modulus/bending elastic modulus of 0.08–20 GPa with the reasonable expectation of forming a successful sulfide electrolyte and battery. Moreover, this range overlaps the recited 4.1–5.0 GPa such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful sulfide electrolyte (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
More importantly, though, the artisan would recognize that a compromise necessarily exists in the elastic modulus, where a higher modulus yields a more rigid or deformation-resistant material, while a lower modulus yields a more flexible or resilient material. To balance these effects, then, it would have been further obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the bending elastic modulus, including within each overlap in claims 1 and 7 (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Additionally or alternatively, Matsuyama, in teaching a solid electrolyte sheet for a solid battery (¶ 0001), where the electrolyte is preferably sulfide-based (¶ 0021), teaches that the sheet’s Young’s modulus is preferably 1.0 GPa to 1.0 TPa (¶ 0038, 0039). Matsuyama teaches that setting the modulus to the lower limit improves the layer’s strength and prevents cracking from electrode volume change during (dis)charge, while setting the modulus no higher than the upper limit improves the layer’s stress relaxation to further prevent cracking and improve battery characteristics (¶ 0039).
Matsuyama is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely sulfide electrolytes for solid batteries.
To balance improved strength with improved stress relaxation to prevent cracking, it would have been further obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the solid electrolyte layer’s Young’s/bending modulus, including within Matsuyama’s broader range or Shishihara’s narrower, encompassed range and, thus, within the overlap, as taught by Matsuyama (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Sakamoto further discloses that the first/anode current collector (e.g., 1a) is bonded to the anode layer (active layer such as 1b) via adhesive at the “anode layer side surface” (e.g., ¶ 0038, 0039, fig. 1), and, thus, although clearly desiring sufficient adhesion between these layers, Sakamoto fails to explicitly disclose that a rough surface, which is a surface with a roughness Rz of ≥ 0.6 μm, is formed on the anode layer side surface of the anode current collector.
Hirose, in teaching a battery anode (Title), teaches roughening the anode collector’s surface to improve adhesion between the collector and active material layer (¶ 0048)—and, thus, the roughened surface is the anode-layer-side surface. Hirose teaches a roughness Rz of ≥ 1.5 μm for sufficient adhesion (¶ 0049).
Hirose is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery anodes. Alternatively, Hirose is reasonably pertinent to a problem the inventor would have faced, namely roughening electrodes to improve adhesion (see spec.’s ¶ 0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to roughen Sakamoto’s anode collector’s anode-layer-side surface to an Rz of ≥ 1.5 μm—falling within ≥ 0.6 μm—with the reasonable expectation of improving adhesion between the collector and active material layer, as taught by Hirose.
Sakamoto further exemplifies many possible sulfide electrolytes, including Li2S–P2S5-based glass ceramics (Ex. 1, ¶ 0182) as well as LiI–LiBr–Li2S–P2S5 (¶ 0157), yet, while disclosing that the sulfide is not limited to the exemplified compounds and may be any suitable solid electrolyte (¶ 0156, 0157), Sakamoto fails to explicitly disclose, in Ex. 1, the recited material with the recited molar ratios.
Kato teaches a solid battery (Title), where the solid electrolyte may comprise a sulfide of Li2S, P2S5, LiI, and LiBr (¶ 0102). Kato exemplifies a composition of 10LiI•15LiBr•75(0.75Li2S•0.25P2S5) as a successful solid electrolyte (e.g., ¶ 0109).
Kato is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely sulfide-based solid batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely substitute Sakamoto’s or Li2S–P2S5-based ceramic or LiI–LiBr–Li2S–P2S5 general electrolyte for Kato’s 10LiI•15LiBr•75(0.75Li2S•0.25P2S5) with the reasonable expectation of achieving a successful sulfide electrolyte, as suggested by Kato.
Thus, per Kato’s formula, modified Sakamoto would disclose the instant composition, where y = 10, z = 15, and x = 0.75.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Hirose is non-analogous because it is neither 1) in the same field of endeavor nor 2) reasonably pertinent to a problem the inventor would have faced. Regarding 1), Applicant argues that Hirose is directed to liquid-electrolyte batteries versus solid-type. Regarding 2), Applicant argues that there is no prima facie showing that Hirose is reasonably pertinent.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with 1) because Hirose still pertains to battery anodes—whether used in liquid or solid batteries—as does the instant invention (see consideration of like structure and function when applying “field of endeavor” test in MPEP 2141.01(a)(I)). Examiner further disagrees with 2) because Hirose appears independently pertinent to a problem the inventor would have faced, specifically how to treat a current collector to improve adhesion to the coated electrode (see spec.’s ¶ 0051). Moreover, Sakamoto appears to recognize a similar need by bonding the anode current collector and anode layer with adhesive and, thus, clearly desiring sufficient adhesion between these layers. Thus, Hirose merely motivates the skilled artisan, when aiming to secure adhesion between a current collector and its coated electrode, to roughen the collector’s surface to enhance adhesion, as desired.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Sakamoto’s solid battery and Hirose’s liquid battery are fundamentally different and, thus, incompatible such that the skilled artisan could not expect success from combining, the anodes are solid in either battery, so the adhesion teachings would apply regardless of electrolyte. Further, Hirose’s liquid electrolyte is not bodily incorporated into Sakamoto (MPEP 2145 (III)). Thus, this argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
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 JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Leong, can be reached on 571-270-192. 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.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 5/11/2026
Prosecution Insights