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
Claims 1, 8-10, 13-15, and 17 are currently pending
Status of Remarks
The amendment filed 26 June 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 2 April 2026
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 remarks.
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, 8-10, 13-15, and 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 claims 1 and 8-10, Wataguchi teaches a solid-state battery 102 (Fig. 1), as required by claim 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 solid electrolyte material 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 [Osawa 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 contains at least the Y, and X1 is at least one kind of Cl and Br, as required by claim 1, as well as to the second halide solid electrolyte being represented by LipM2qX2r, wherein 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, as required by claim 8, or being 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, as required by claim 9, and wherein the M2 contains at least the Y, as required by claim 10. However, Asano teaches a halide solid electrolyte represented by the composition formula Li6-3ZYZX6, where 0 < Z < 2 and X represents Cl or Br [0005]. In this case, Z corresponds to A, in claim 1, and B, in claims 9 and 10, Y corresponds to M1, in claim 1, and M2, in claims 8-10, X corresponds to X1, in claim 1, and X2, in claims 8-10, and 6-3Z, Z, and 6, corresponding, respectively, to p, q, and r, of claim 8, each are a value larger than 0, as required by claim 8. Therefore, the compound of Asano is identical to the claimed formulas of claims 1, 9, and 10 and, subsequently, lies within the claimed formula of claim 8.
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 the electrolyte layer of Wataguchi, corresponding with the claimed second halide solid electrolyte of claim 1, with the specific halide solid electrolyte formula taught by Asano, as further required by claims 8-10. Doing so would have provided a material with high Li ion conductivity and a stable structure [Asano 0022] that would help to improve the charge and discharge characteristics of the battery [Asano 0205]. Also, 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). Further, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have the first halide solid electrolyte be represented by the same compositional formula, as required by claim 1, in light of the teaching of Wataguchi to include the same halide solid electrolyte material in both the electrolyte layer and the cathode (pg. 4, ¶3).
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 (Suzuki col. 2, lines 51-53). Further, the selection of a known material, in this case a 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, 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 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. 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].
Asano does not specify the order of the electrolytes when assembled in layers. However, given that there are two electrolytes present, there would only be two options available for orientation between a first layer closest to the cathode layer containing the second halide solid electrolyte and a layer closest to the anode layer containing the sulfide solid electrolyte or a first layer closest to the anode layer containing the second halide solid electrolyte and a layer closest to the cathode layer containing the sulfide solid electrolyte. Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success has supported a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2143.I.E. Therefore, the limitation is considered to be met because the claimed orientation would have been obvious to try for one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 26 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant's argument that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding the stratified solid electrolyte layer, Examiner acknowledges that, rather than MPEP 2144.04.VI.C, the more apt reference citation for the intended argument is MPEP 2143.I.E. Asano teaches a solid electrolyte layer being formed as a mixture or through successive arrangement of electrolyte materials. Although Asano does not specify what order the materials are arrange in, when there are a finite number of materials in the electrolyte layer, there are also a finite number of ways that they could be ordered. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to try each orientation and determine which setup is more advantageous.
Applicant argues that the halide sublayer being adjacent to the cathode suppresses oxidative decomposition at the cathode interface and the sulfide sublayer being adjacent to the anode provides the requisite Li-ion conductivity for anode performance. Examiner respectfully notes that the instant specification teaches the oxidative decomposition as being suppressed by the first halide solid electrolyte in the cathode layer [instant 0027], not the second halide solid electrolyte. Also, although the instant specification teaches the advantages of using a high ion conductivity sulfide solid electrolyte in a unit battery and a preference that the layer closest to the anode layer contains the sulfide solid electrolyte [instant 0076], there is no teaching of correlation between these benefits and the sulfide solid electrolyte’s proximity to the anode layer. Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Examples of statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration include statements regarding unexpected results, commercial success, solution of a long-felt need, inoperability of the prior art, invention before the date of the reference, and allegations that the author(s) of the prior art derived the disclosed subject matter from the inventor or at least one joint inventor. See MPEP 716.01(c).
In response to Applicant's argument that the layered solid electrolyte teaching of Asano addresses different concerns from the instant specification, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Asano is relied upon to teach a suitable halide solid electrolyte for use as the halide solid electrolyte taught to be in the electrolyte layer of Wataguchi. Wataguchi further teaches the same halide solid electrolyte of the electrolyte layer being used in the cathode. Therefore, in lieu of specific teaching away from incorporating the halide solid electrolyte in a cathode by Asano, the combination meets the limitation.
In addition, Examiner acknowledges that Asano teaches a positive electrode including positive electrode active material particles, without further specified inclusions [0209], and a negative electrode including negative electrode active material particles and solid electrolyte particles [0212]. However, Examiner notes that the secondary battery production of each example embodiment of Asano teaches an electrolyte comprising Li6-3ZYZX6 solid electrolyte material, a first electrode comprising a mixture of Li6-3ZYZX6 solid electrolyte material and an active material LiCoO2, and a second electrode comprising indium metal [Asano 0258-0260]. Asano and Wataguchi both teach LiCoO2 as a positive electrode active material [Asano 0215] (Wataguchi pg. 4, ¶ 3) and metal materials as a negative electrode active material [Asano 0224], with Wataguchi specifying indium (Wataguchi pg. 4, ¶ 4). Therefore, although not relied upon in the present rejection and despite the teachings of [Asano 0209] and [Asano 0212], one of ordinary skill in the art would agree that the examples of Asano appear to teach the halide solid electrolyte being included in the cathode layer, instead of the anode layer, and would have a reasonable expectation of success when incorporating the halide solid electrolyte into the electrolyte and the cathode layers of Wataguchi.
Applicant argues that there is no motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to specifically select the halide solid electrolyte of Asano or the sulfide solid electrolyte of Suzuki, as opposed to any of the many other respective solid electrolytes in the art. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the halide electrolyte of Asano and the sulfide solid electrolyte of Suzuki ire known materials suitable for the intended use of Wataguchi. Therefore, the selections are considered to be prima facie obvious based on Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Examiner respectfully points out that the Sinclair rationale of MPEP 2144.07 does not have the same requirement of selection from a finite number of candidates that would be obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success that MPEP 2143.I.E does.
Applicant argues that the limitation requiring a total voltage at an SOC of 100% of 30V or more is not met by mere duplication of parts because the claimed structural combination is what enables the battery to safely reach the claimed total voltage requirement, while prior art fails to do so. Examiner acknowledges the hazards associated with operating at high voltages. However, modified Wataguchi of the present rejection is considered to read on the claimed structural combination of the instant application. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the resultant solid-state battery of modified Wataguchi, comprising the claimed structural combination, to be able to also safely reach the claimed total voltage at an SOC of 100% of 30V or more by increasing the number of unit batteries present in the plurality of a unit battery.
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 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
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights