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 .
Claim Status
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on September 23rd, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently claims 1, 3-6 are amended, claim 2 is cancelled, and claims 7-20 are withdrawn, resulting in claims 1, 3-6 pending for examination.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed September 23rd, 2025 have been entered into the file.
Applicant’s amendments to the specification to change the second diffusion path reference sign from 131a to 152 have overcome the objection to the drawings previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed August 26th, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 have overcome the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection of claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4, 6 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed August 26th, 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 5 have overcome the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed August 26th, 2025.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakayama (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220085374 A1) in view of Lee (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210020945 A1) and Zhang (Chinese Patent Publication No. 111777984 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kakayama discloses an all-solid-state battery comprising: an electrode manufactured with an electrode composition, which includes electrode active material and a binder and does not contain electrolyte (Paragraphs 0015-0017). Kakayama teaches a counter electrode disposed to face the electrode (Paragraph 0030); and a solid electrolyte layer disposed between the electrode and the counter electrode (Paragraph 0100).
The recitation of an all-solid-state battery for an ion-conducting binder evaluation system for a secondary battery is a recitation of intended use that occurs in the preamble. As Kakayama teaches the solid-state battery meeting the instant structural requirements as discussed above, Kakayama meets this limitation. See MPEP 2111.02.
Kakayama is silent as to the ion transport in the electrode being dependent on a mechanism of ion diffusion between electrode active materials.
However, as discussed above, Kakayama teaches the electrode for the all-solid secondary battery comprising active material and a binder, the electrode active material layer containing no electrolyte (Paragraph 0032). Kakayama also teaches the electrode active material layers as reversibly insert and releasing lithium ions (Paragraphs 0048, 0057).
Therefore as the electrode of the solid-state battery of Kakayama comprises the same features as the electrode of the instant application, notably the exclusion of the electrolyte component from the electrode, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the ion transport in the electrode of Kakayama depends on a mechanism of ion diffusion between the electrode active materials or would be capable of performing ion transport in this way, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Kakayama is silent as to the binder of the electrode composition being an ion-conducting binder.
Kakayama discloses a polyimide binder (Paragraph 0034), which is taught by Kakayama to generally have limited ionic conductivity (Paragraph 0033).
However, Zhang teaches a sulfonated polyimide as an electrode binder in a lithium ion battery (Paragraph 3). Zhang teaches the sulfonation of a polyimide binder results in strong mechanical properties, improves tensile strength, inhibits slippage between the binder and the active material particles, improves ion conductivity, and enhances the performance of the lithium ion battery (Paragraph 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polyimide binder of Kakayama to incorporate the teachings of Zhang in which the polyimide binder is a sulfonated polyimide binder. Doing so would advantageously result in stronger mechanical properties, improved tensile strength and ion conductivity, and enhancement of the performance of the lithium ion battery, as recognized by Zhang. The result of this modification is an ion-conducting component (sulfonate group) in the imide polymer structure, meeting the instant claimed limitations of the binder being an ion-conducting binder.
The recitation of the electrode is provided for evaluation of ion conductivity of the ion-conducting binder is a recitation of intended use that occurs in the preamble. As Kakayama in view of Zhang teaches the solid-state battery meeting the instant structural requirements as discussed above, Kakayama in view of Zhang meets this limitation. See MPEP 2111.02.
Kakayama is silent as to the pore density of the electrolyte-free electrode being less than or equal to 15% of an electrode bulk density.
However, Lee discloses an all solid-state battery cell (Paragraph 0002) comprising an electrode with an electrode active material layer having a porosity in the range of 0 to 20% (Paragraph 0055). Lee teaches the porosity meaning a ratio of volume occupied by pores based on the total volume of a given structure (Paragraph 0057), expressed in the unit of percent, which is considered equivalent to the instant pore density expressed as a percentage of the electrode bulk density. Lee teaches that the low porosity of the electrode realizes the desired level of ion conductivity in the all solid-state battery (Paragraph 0055).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pore density (porosity) of the electrode of Kakayama to incorporate the teachings of Lee in which it is between 0 and 20%. Doing so would advantageously result in desired ion conductivity, as recognized by Lee. The resulting range of pore density of Kakayama in view of Lee overlaps the instant claimed range of pore density. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 3, Kakayama teaches the all-solid-state battery as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
As discussed above, Kakayama teaches the polyimide binder including a functional group (carboxylic acid) (Paragraph 0040) in a polymer structure (repeating unit having an imide structure) (Paragraph 0034). The modification of Kakayama by Zhang discussed above in the rejection of claim 1 resulted in the sulfonation of the polyimide binder of Kakayama according to the teachings of Zhang, leading to an ion-conducting component (sulfonate group) and a functional group in a polymer structure, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 4, Kakayama teaches the all-solid-state battery as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Kakayama is silent as to the ion transport in the electrode being performed through a diffusion path through contact between the electrode active materials, and an additional path through the ion-conducting binder, wherein the additional path is generated by the ion-conducting binder.
However, as discussed above, Kakayama teaches the (positive or negative) electrode for the all-solid secondary battery comprising active material and a binder, the electrode active material layer containing no electrolyte (Paragraph 0032). Kakayama also teaches the electrode active material layers as reversibly insert and releasing lithium ions (Paragraphs 0048, 0057). Kakayama in view of Zhang, as discussed above, teaches the electrode binder being ion-conducting with an ion-conducting component and a functional group in a polymer structure.
Therefore as the electrode of the solid-state battery of Kakayama comprises the same features as the electrode of the instant application, notably the exclusion of the electrolyte component from the electrode and the ion conducting binder, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the ion transport in the electrode of Kakayama is performed through a diffusion path through contact between the electrode active materials and an additional path through the ion-conducting binder and generated by the ion conducting binder, or would be capable of performing ion transport in this way, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
The all-solid-state battery wherein the ion transport in the electrode being performed through a diffusion path through contact between the electrode active materials, and an additional path through the ion-conducting binder, wherein the additional path is generated by the ion-conducting binder defines the battery by what it does, rather than what it is. See MPEP 2173.05(g). Kakayama teaches the claimed structure as stated in the above rejection, and therefore would be capable of performing in the manner claimed.
Regarding claim 6, Kakayama teaches the all-solid-state battery as discussed above with respect to claim 2.
Kakayama teaches the electrode active material present in the electrode active material layer at a composition of 10 to 95 mass % while the content of the binder resin in the electrode active material layer is 5 to 90 mass % (Paragraph 0065). The composition ratio of the electrode active material and the binder of Kakayama is determined to be in a range from 95:5 to 10:90, which overlaps the instant claimed composition ratio of the electrode active material and the binder. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakayama in view of Lee as applied to claims 1-2, 6 above, further in view of Lemke (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20140233200 A1) and Chen (Non-Patent Literature “Porous Cathode Optimization for Lithium Cells: Ionic and Electronic Conductivity, Capacity, and Selectin of Materials”).
Regarding claim 5, Kakayama teaches the all-solid-state battery as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
As discussed above, Kakayama teaches an electrode composition which includes electrode active materials, including a negative electrode material (Paragraph 0032). Kakayama teaches that the electrode active material may further include a conductive auxiliary agent to aid electron conductivity, which may be graphites such as natural graphite and artificial graphite, carbon blacks, amorphous carbon, carbon fibers, and graphene (Paragraph 0068).
Kakayama does not teach the negative electrode material is coated with an electron-conductive (conductive auxiliary agent) layer.
However, Lemke teaches a solid-state battery (Figure 5F, Element 516) comprising an anode (Figure 5F, Element 522), a cathode (Figure 5F, Element 526), and an electrolyte (Figure 5F, Element 524). The battery also includes an additional functional layer of carbon (Figure 5F, Element 522a) which is added to improve the electrical properties of the anode (Paragraph 0107).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the conductive auxiliary agent of Kakayama to incorporate the teachings of Lemke in which the electron-conducting material is coated onto the negative electrode material as an electron-conducting layer. Doing so would improve the electrical properties of the anode, as recognized by Lemke.
Kakayama is silent as to the electron conductivity of the electrode active material being greater than or equal to 2 S/cm.
However, Chen discloses various factors which affect electronic conductivity of an electrode, notably porosity (Page 2852, Column 1, Paragraph 2). Chen teaches the relationship between porosity and electronic conductivity of the electrode, highlighting a 2.5-fold increase in electronic conductivity from 59 S/m to 150 S/m as the porosity decreased from 50% to 30 % (Figure 10; Page 2857, Column 2, Paragraph 1). Chen teaches the desire to adjust electronic conductivity so as to improve cell performance (Page 2851, Column 1, Paragraphs 1-2).
Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the electron conductivity of the electrode active material since it has been held where general conditions of a claim are discloses in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. In the present invention one would have been motivated to tune the porosity of the electrode to obtain an optimized electron conductivity that is within the instant claimed ranges in order to achieve desired battery performance. As taught by Chen, decreasing the porosity of the electrode leads to higher electron conductivity.
Response to Arguments
Response – Rejections Under 35 USC § 103
On pages 11-12 of the Remarks filed September 23rd, 2025, applicant argues that there is no teaching or suggestion in the references cited of the newly amended claim 1.
Applicant's arguments filed September 23rd, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As discussed above in the rejection of amended claim 1, Kakayama in view of Zhang teaches “an electrode manufactured with an electrode composition, which includes an electrode active material and a binder, so that ion transport in the electrode is dependent on a mechanism of ion diffusion between the electrode active materials, wherein the electrode is free of an electrolyte component and the binder is an ion-conducting binder, wherein the electrode is provided for evaluation of ion conductivity of the ion-conducting binder.”
On pages 12-13 of the Remarks filed September 23rd, 2025, applicant argues Kakayama teaches that the binder should be polyimide resin, which has almost no ionic conductivity, which differs from the instant ion conductive binder.
Applicant's arguments filed September 23rd, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As discussed above in the rejection of amended claim 1, Zhang teaches sulfonating polyimide binders to obtain strong mechanical properties, improve tensile strength, inhibit slippage between the binder and the active material particles, improve ion conductivity, and enhance the performance of the lithium ion battery. The modification of Kakayama by Zhang resulted in a sulfonated polyimide binder, which contains an ion-conducting component and is therefore considered an ion-conducting polymer and meets the instant claimed limitations.
On pages 13-14 of the Remarks filed September 23rd, 2025, applicant argues the pore density of Lee related to an electrode where an electrolyte is included.
Applicant's arguments filed September 23rd, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, Lee teaches that it is known in the art that an electrode of an all-solid state battery cell desirably has a low porosity which is in a specified range in order to recognize sufficient ionic conductivity of the battery. While there exist technical differences between the components of the electrode of Lee and that of the instant application, both are electrodes with some degree of porosity, therefore the range of the pore density remains obvious. The structure of the primary reference, Kakayama discloses an electrode for a solid state battery which comprises a binder and is free of electrolyte, which meets the structural limitations of the instant claim. Obviousness was established according to the teaching of the range of porosity of the electrode of Lee which modified the porosity of the electrode layer of Kakayama, in order to achieve the desired ionic conductivity.
Further, the examiner presents that there is additional ways to control the porosity of the electrode that are known in the art, such as through a calendaring process. Calendaring in the electrode manufacturing process is known to decrease electrode porosity and thickness, which impacts both electric and ionic conductivity. Electric conductivity increases by compacting while ionic conductivity decreases as the pore network is gradually compressed (Schmidt et. al.; Page 213, Column 2). Therefore, the examiner presents the ordinary artisan being able to tune the porosity of the electrode of Kakayama to lie within the range disclosed by Zhang through calendaring while also obtaining sufficient ionic conductivity as required by the instant claim.
On pages 14-15 of the Remarks filed September 23rd, 2025, applicant argues that claims 2-6 are allowable for the lack of remedy of the deficiencies of Kakayama and Lee discussed with respect to claim 1.
Applicant's arguments filed September 23rd, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the same reasons previously presents for claim 1.
Cited Art Not Relied Upon
Schmidt et. al. teaches the effect of densification of battery electrodes through compaction on the energy density of the battery while maintaining high ionic conductivity and good pore structure (Page 214, Column 1, Paragraph 2).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 OLIVIA A JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/O.A.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789