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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 20 February 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1,8-10, 13-15, and 17 are currently pending
Claims 1 and 8 are amended
Claims 7, 11, and 16 have been cancelled
Status of Amendments
The amendment filed 20 February 2026 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Status of Objections and Rejections of the Office Action from 20 October 2025
The 103 rejections over Wataguchi in view of Asano further in view of Suzuki further in view of Osawa are maintained in view of Applicant’s amendment and have been modified to address the newly added limitations.
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.
Claims 1, 7-11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wataguchi et al. (JP 2018190513 A), hereinafter Wataguchi, in view of Asano et al. (WO 2018025582 A1, using US 20190088995 A1 as the English equivalent), hereinafter Asano, further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 10084202 B2), hereinafter Suzuki, further in view of Osawa et al. (JP 2004164897 A), hereinafter Osawa.
Regarding claim 1, Wataguchi teaches a solid-state battery 102 (Fig. 1), wherein:
the unit battery includes a cathode current collector 154, a cathode layer 114, a solid electrolyte layer 112, an anode layer 116, and an anode current collector 156 in this order;
the cathode layer in the unit battery contains a first halide solid electrolyte 144, in this case the electrolyte 144 is taught to be the same as the second solid electrolyte material 124 (pg. 4, ¶3) and the second solid electrolyte material 124 includes a halide solid electrolyte material (pg. 4, ¶2), and
the solid electrolyte layer 112 contains a sulfide solid electrolyte (pg. 4, ¶2).
Wataguchi is silent as to a plurality of unit batteries being arranged along a thickness direction and connected in series. However, Osawa teaches a battery assembly comprising at least two or more bipolar solid-state batteries that are connected in series or in parallel [0085]. Wataguchi and Osawa are both considered to be equivalent to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of bipolar solid-state batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the batteries of Wataguchi in series. Doing so would have allowed proper response to demand for battery capacity and output for each purpose of use [0085].
Wataguchi and Osawa are both silent as to the plurality of unit batteries being arranged along a thickness direction. However, it has been held that rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious because the way the batteries are arranged before being connected in series would not impact the operation of the device and is seen as an obvious matter of design choice. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)
Wataguchi is silent as to the first halide solid electrolyte being represented by Li6-3AM1AX16, provided that A satisfies 0 < A < 2, M1 is at least one kind of Y and In, and X1 is at least one kind of Cl and Br. However, Asano teaches a halide solid electrolyte represented by the composition formula Li6-3ZYZX6 where 0 < Z < 2 and X represents Cl or Br (abstract).
Wataguchi and Asano are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of halide solid electrolyte batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the halide solid electrolyte of Wataguchi with the halide solid electrolyte taught by Asano. The selection of a known material, in this case Li6-3ZYZX6, based on its suitability for its intended use, in this case as a halide solid electrolyte material, supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Wataguchi is silent as to the sulfide solid electrolyte in the solid electrolyte layer being represented by (100-a-b)(Li3PS4)-aLiBr-bLiI, provided that “a” satisfies 5 ≤ a ≤ 20 and “b” satisfies 5 ≤ b ≤ 20. However, Suzuki teaches a sulfide solid electrolyte material comprising 5-20% LiI, 5-20% LiBr, and 70-85% Li3PS4, corresponding to a formula of (100-a-b)(Li3PS4)-aLiBr-bLiI, where “a” satisfies 5 ≤ a ≤ 20 and “b” satisfies 5 ≤ b ≤ 20 (Table 5).
Wataguchi and Suzuki are both considered to be equivalent to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of solid-state lithium batteries with sulfide solid electrolytes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sulfide solid electrolyte of Wataguchi with the sulfide solid electrolyte of Suzuki. Doing so would have provided a material with high Li ion conductivity (abstract). Further, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, in this case as a sulfide solid electrolyte material, supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Wataguchi teaches wherein the solid electrolyte layer 112 containing a combination of a plurality of electrolyte materials, in this case a solid electrolyte layer 124 that may include a mixture of a second halide solid electrolyte material and a sulfide solid electrolyte material (pg. 4, ¶2). Wataguchi is silent as to the solid electrolyte layer including a plurality of layers. However, Asano further teaches a solid electrolyte containing a plurality of layers successively arranged in the lamination direction including a second halide solid electrolyte [0221] and a sulfide solid electrolyte [0229].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the single combination electrolyte layer of Wataguchi to be assembled in separate layers, as taught by Asano, with a first layer closest to the cathode layer containing a second halide solid electrolyte and a layer closest to the anode layer containing the sulfide solid electrolyte. Doing so would have provided uniformity in the production of the battery [Asano 0221] and improved charge and discharge characteristics of the battery [Asano 0205]. Further, it has been held that rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious, such as arranging the electrolyte materials in layers instead of combining them into a single layer and ordering them in such a manner that a layer closest to the cathode layer contains the second halide solid electrolyte and a layer closest to the anode layer contains the sulfide solid electrolyte. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) see also MPEP 2144.04 VI.C.
Regarding claim 8, modified Wataguchi teaches the solid-state battery according to claim 1. Asano further teaches the second halide solid electrolyte being represented by the composition formula (2): LipM2qX2r, where each of p, q, and r is a value larger than 0; M2 contains at least one selected from the group consisting of metal elements other than Li and metalloid elements; and X2 contains at least one selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, Br and I, in this case a lithium halide solid electrolyte represented by the composition formula Li6-3ZYZX6 where 0<Z<2 and X represents Cl or Br (abstract).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the halide solid electrolyte of Wataguchi with the halide solid electrolyte taught by Asano. Selection of a known material, in this case Li6-3ZYZX6, based on its suitability for its intended use, in this case as a halide solid electrolyte material, supports prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 9, modified Wataguchi teaches the solid-state battery according to claim 8, wherein the second halide solid electrolyte is represented by Li6-3BM2BX26, provided that B satisfies 0 < B < 2, M2 is at least one kind of Y and In, and X2 is at least one kind of Cl and Br, in this case represented by the formula Li6-3ZYZX6 where 0<Z<2 and X represents Cl or Br (Asano abstract).
Regarding claim 10, modified Wataguchi teaches the solid-state battery according to claim 9, wherein the M2 contains at least the Y, in this case represented by the formula Li6-3ZYZX6 where 0<Z<2 and X represents Cl or Br (Asano abstract).
Regarding claim 13, modified Wataguchi teaches the solid-state battery according to claim 1. Wataguchi further teaches the anode layer 116 containing a sulfide solid electrolyte 164, in this case the electrolyte 164 is taught to be the same as the second solid electrolyte material 124 (pg. 4, ¶4) and the second solid electrolyte material 124 includes a sulfide solid electrolyte material (pg. 4, ¶2).
Regarding claim 14, modified Wataguchi teaches the solid-state battery according to claim 13. Suzuki further teaches the sulfide solid electrolyte in the anode layer being represented by (100-a-b)(Li3PS4)-aLiBr-bLiI, provided that “a” satisfies 5 ≤ a ≤ 20 and “b” satisfies 5 ≤ b ≤ 20 (Table 5).
Regarding claim 15, modified Wataguchi teaches the solid-state battery according to claim 13. Wataguchi further teaches the anode layer containing Si as an anode active material 162 (pg. 4, ¶4).
Regarding claim 17, modified Wataguchi teaches the solid-state battery according to claim 1. Modified Wataguchi is silent as to a total voltage of the solid-state battery at an SOC of 100% being 30 V or more. However, Osawa teaches that connecting the batteries in series and/or in parallel allows for the response to demand for battery capacity and output for each purpose of use [0085]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that connecting enough batteries together would eventually produce a total voltage of the solid-state battery at an SOC of 100% of 30 V or more. Duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Asano is silent as to the electrolyte being used in the cathode layer and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to take the component from the anode and arbitrarily place it in the cathode. Examine respectfully points out that Wataguchi teaches a cathode layer comprising lithium transition metal oxides (pg. 4, paragraph 3), an anode layer comprising Li, LiAl, graphite, Si, or Sn (pg. 4, paragraph 4), and a halide solid electrolyte comprising lithium and a halogen that may be included in the cathode layer and the anode layer (pg. 4, paragraph 3) and Asano teaches a cathode layer comprising lithium transition metal oxides [0215], an anode layer comprising Li, Li alloys, graphite, Si, or Sn [0224], and a halide solid electrolyte comprising lithium and a halogen [0005]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte of Wataguchi with the electrolyte of Asano. The electrolyte material is taught to be compatible with the same materials as those used in Wataguchi and is suitable for the intended use as a halide solid electrolyte material, supporting a prime facie obviousness determination. Further, doing so would have provided a high lithium ion conductivity and a stable structure [Asano 0023].
Wataguchi teaches the halide solid electrolyte as being included in the cathode layer and the anode layer. Asano teaches a suitable halide solid electrolyte that may be used in Wataguchi and does not teach the electrolyte as being incompatible in a cathode layer, rather only showing a preference to include it in the anode layer as well. Therefore, Asano teaches a halide electrolyte that may be used in Wataguchi and Wataguchi teaches using the halide electrolyte in the cathode layer, resulting in a combination that meets the limitation of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN KENWOOD VAN KIRK whose telephone number is (703)756-4717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST.
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.
/DUSTIN VAN KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722