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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on September 3, 2025, in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on June 11, 2025, have been received. Claim 1, 10 and 11 have been amended. Claims 2-8 and 14-19 have been cancelled. Claims 20-23 have been added. Claims 1, 9-13 and 20-23 are pending in this application.
On the Non-Final Office Action mailed on June 11, 2025, claim 3 was rejected under 35 USC 112(b) 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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Because claim 3 was cancelled, this rejection is moot.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 1 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teraoka et al. (US 20160359191 A1) in view of Robinson, J.P., et al. (J. Appl. Electrochem. 48, 2018, 1297-1304, see NPL documents for citation).
Applicant argues that Teraoka in view of Robinson fail to suggest at least a thickness of the sintered electrode between the first surface and the second surface ranges between 10 µm and 200 µm, as required by claim 1 (p. 6). Robinson discusses that existing composite electrolytes can have thickness below 250 µm but have low active material volume fractions. (Robinson, page 1298 first full paragraph). However, Robinson's discussion of this thickness range is not Robinson suggesting by Robinson; instead, Robinson seeks to improve on the deficiencies of such articles. In fact, the experimental article of Robinson has a thickness of 440 µm. (Robinson, page 1298, section 2.1 second paragraph). Further, Robinson, indicates that thicker electrodes can be accommodated by eliminating other elements of the battery. (Robinson, page 1298, last paragraph on left column). Consequently, Robinson fails to motivate at least a thickness of the sintered electrode between the first surface and the second surface ranges between 10 µm and 200 µm, as required by claim 1.
Applicant argues that Teraoka in view of Robinson fail to suggest at least a second phase comprising solid-state Li-ion conductors present in a range of 5% to 35% by volume of the sintered electrode, as required by claim 1 (p. 6). Teraoka also discloses that solid electrolyte layers are provided on opposing surfaces of the active material molded body having different compositions from each other (Teraoka, Abstract and [0010]). Teraoka discloses that voids remain even after some of the pores of the fine active material molded body 2 is filled with granular bodies 31. (Teraoka, [0139]). However, Teraoka is silent on how much of the electrode composite body comprises the solid electrolyte layers. As such, Teraoka fails to render obvious at least a second phase comprising solid-state Li-ion conductors present in a range of 5% to 35% by volume of the sintered electrode, as required by claim 1.
Applicant argues that Teraoka and Robinson fail to suggest at least the solid-state Li-ion conductors, as required by claim 1 (p. 7). Teraoka discloses that the second inorganic solid electrolyte contains boron. (Teraoka, Abstract, [0010], [0019], [0021], [0025], [0054], [0073], and [0079]-[0080]). However, the materials listed for the solid-state Li-ion conductors required by claim 1 do not contain boron. Robinson fails to remedy this deficiency since Robinson is silent on the second phase required by claim 1.
Also, Robinson teaches increasing the active material volume fraction of the sintered material in the sintered battery (not just the cathode). (Robinson, Abstract, page 1298 first full sentence, page 1298 last sentence of first full paragraph). Consequently, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to decrease (if not eliminate) the porosity of Teraoka since the porosity decreases the active material volume fraction of the sintered material in the sintered battery of Robinson.
Regarding the “thickness of the sintered electrode between the first surface and the second surface ranges between 10 µm and 200 µm” arguments, as acknowledged on the Non-Final Office Action mailed on June 11, 2025, Teraoka does not teach such feature. Robinson in fact mention the “most composite electrodes reported for Li-ion batteries have thicknesses below 250 µm and active material volume fractions below 60%” [p. 1298; par. 1, which is closer to the upper thickness limit of the sintered electrode, as required by claim 1. Further Robinson teaches that the “thicknesses below 250 µm” feature is selected because thick and dense electrodes can be difficult to manufacture without cracking or delamination [p. 1298; par. 1]. Because of the proximity of the thickness range referred by Robinson and the provided reasons for selecting it, the overlapping range obviousness rejection as applied on the Non-Final Office Action mailed on June 11, 2025, is maintained.
Regarding the “at least a second phase comprising solid-state Li-ion conductors present in a range of 5% to 35% by volume of the sintered electrode” arguments, Teraoka teaches that the first and second solid electrolyte layers have a different composition but they are provided on a surface of the active material molded body [0010]. As stated on the Non-Final Office Action mailed on June 11, 2025, for cancelled claim 6, Teraoka further teaches that the second solid electrolyte (3, 31) is formed to partially fill the pores (second phase) of the active material molded body (2) (first phase), but a part of the voids also remains even after the filling (par. 0074, 0139 and Fig. 5A). As described, the second solid electrolyte (3, 31), is composed of solid-state Li-ion conductors and it is configured as a porous body (par. 0065, 0074 and 0075). Because it is configured as a porous body and is in contact with the pores (second phase) of the active material molded body (2) (first phase), it can be considered part of the second phase. Considering that the porosity of the electrode composite body (4) (sintered electrode) is 30% to 50% as stated on claim 2, and because the porosity is based on the volume of the volume (apparent volume) of the active material molded body (2) (first phase), if 30% is taken as the porosity value the feature “present in a range of 5% to 35% by volume of the sintered electrode” can be considered met.
Regarding the “the solid-state Li-ion conductors” argument, Teraoka specifies that the second solid electrolyte (5), which can be related to the “5% to 35% by volume of the sintered electrode” feature contains boron as a constituent element [0079], which fails to teach the Li-ion conductors of claim 1. Robinson does not cure the teaching deficiencies of Teraoka.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed on September 3, 2025, with respect to claim 1 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teraoka et al. (US 20160359191 A1) in view of Robinson, J.P., et al. (J. Appl. Electrochem. 48, 2018, 1297-1304, see NPL documents for citation). have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Because of the direct or indirect dependency of claims 9-13 on claim 1, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections applied to these claims respectively has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sugiura et al (US 20120009471 A1) in view of Thokchom et al. (Superionic conductivity in a lithium aluminum germanium phosphate glass–ceramic. Journal of the Electrochemical Society 155.12 (2008): A915, see NPL documents for citation).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected 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.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “second electrode” in line 1. Claim 21 makes reference to claim 20, which depends on claim 1, and both claims describe a single “sintered electrode”, therefore there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 9-12 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura et al. (US 20120009471 A1) in view of Thokchom et al. (Superionic conductivity in a lithium aluminum germanium phosphate glass–ceramic. Journal of the Electrochemical Society 155.12 (2008): A915, see NPL documents for citation).
Regarding claim 1, Sugiura teaches a cathode (15) for a lithium secondary battery (10), formed of a sintered lithium composite oxide sheet [0046, 0054 and Fig. 1B]. The sintered cathode active material layer (15b) is positioned on a cathode collector (15a) and is in contact with an electrolyte (13) (first surface positioned to face a current collector and a second surface positioned to face an electrolyte layer) [0047, 0048 and 0054].
Sugiura further teaches that its sintered lithium composite oxide sheet and has a
thickness of 30 µm or more (specifically 30 to 200 µm), a voidage of 3 to 30%, and an open pore ratio of 70% or higher [0054]. From this description where the sintered electrode comprises “a first phase comprising a lithium compound” is met. The electrolyte (13) may be a polymer electrolyte, a gel electrolyte, an organic solid electrolyte, or an inorganic solid electrolyte, and no problem arises when such an electrolyte is employed. In a preferred mode, the electrolyte is charged into open pores provided in the cathode active material layer [0048]. From this description a solid-state Li-ion conductor (second phase) can be present on the open pores provided in the cathode active material layer. Taking the maximum voidage (porosity) as 30% and the open pore ratio of 70%, the available volume to be filed by the solid-state Li-ion conductor would be 21%, which met the feature “solid- state Li-ion conductors present in a range of 5% to 35% by volume of the sintered electrode”.
Sugiura does not teach the feature “wherein the solid-state Li-ion conductors are at least one of: lithium garnet (LLZO), lithium lanthanum titanate (LTO), lithium aluminum titanium phosphate (LATP), lithium aluminum germanium phosphate (LAGP), Li11AlP2S12, lithium phosphosulfide (LPS), combinations thereof, or doped variations thereof and wherein the solid-state Li-ion conductors have a lithium ion conductivity exceeding 10-4 S/cm”.
Regarding the employment of LAGP as a solid-state Li-ion conductor, Thokchom teaches the preparation of a glass-ceramic LAGP ionic conductor as possible electrolyte for a battery (analogous to the field of endeavor of Sugiura), with >10-3 S/cm conductivity around ambient temperature [p. A915; par. 4]. It is taught that this material exhibits superior stability in contact with lithium metal, therefore, based on the ionic conductivity and interfacial stability, the LAGP material is very attractive for fabricating cells with superior electrochemical performance [p. A915; par. 3].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sintered electrode of Sugiura to include the feature “wherein the solid-state Li-ion conductors lithium aluminum germanium phosphate (LAGP) and wherein the solid-state Li-ion conductor have a lithium ion conductivity exceeding 10-4 S/cm”, because Thokchom teaches that this material exhibits superior stability in contact with lithium metal, therefore, based on the ionic conductivity (>10-3 S/cm) and interfacial stability, the LAGP material is very attractive for fabricating cells with superior electrochemical performance.
Regarding claim 9, Sugiura and Thokchom teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Sugiura further teaches that its sintered lithium composite oxide sheet may comprise LiMO2, where M can be Co [0033], from which lithium cobaltite (LCO) can be obtained.
Regarding claim 10, Sugiura and Thokchom teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Sugiura further teaches that its sintered lithium composite oxide is prepared as an “independent’ sheet-like compact. As used herein, “independent’ sheet (may be referred to as “self-standing film’) refers to a sheet which is independent of another support and can be handled by itself (self-supporting substrate of the battery) [0058]. In addition on Fig. 7 is taught a modification of its invention comprising an all solid-state lithium secondary battery (20) formed by stacking, on the cathode collector (21), the cathode active material layer (22), the solid electrolyte layer (23), the anode active material layer (24), and the anode collector (25), in this order. The sintered lithium composite oxide sheet of the present invention preferably formed the cathode active material layer (22) of the aforementioned secondary battery. In this case, preferably, the open pores of the cathode active material layer (22) are continuously filled with the solid electrolyte (23), which is part of the possibilities of the electrolyte (13) as taught for claim 1 [0126].
Regarding claim 11, Sugiura and Thokchom teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Sugiura teaches that its cathode collector (15a) (substrate/current collector) is formed of a conductive material such as a metal [0054], therefore it is not inactive. No inactive substrate is described for any of the remaining components of the lithium secondary battery taught by Sugiura in any of its embodiments.
Regarding claim 12, Sugiura and Thokchom teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Sugiura further teaches that its electrode sheet prior to the calcination step is cut into square pieces of 70 mm x 70 mm [0085]. From this description a perimeter of the first phase will be 140 mm (140,000 µm). From Thokchom procedure is taught that its prepared glass-ceramic LAGP were crushed to powder and screened to obtain a powder with a particle size range of 1–38 µm [p. A915; par. 5]. Assuming a spherical particle shape and the higher particle size as the diameter of the sphere, the area for the LAGP ion conductor particle (second phase) of Thokchom would be 4,534.16 µm2. Taking the perimeter to surface area ratio, it would be 30.88 µm-1, which meets the feature “at least 0.4 µm-1”.
Regarding claim 20, Sugiura and Thokchom teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From the features discussed on claim 1, because Sugiura teaches that the open pores are surrounded by a face through which intercalation and deintercalation of lithium ions occur [0029] and because through incorporation of electrolyte, conductive material, or the like into an open pore, the inner wall of the open pore favorably serves as a lithium ion intercalation/deintercalation face [0030], the feature “a porous structure continuous with the first phase, wherein the second phase is positioned within the porous structure” can be considered met.
Regarding claim 21, Sugiura and Thokchom teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 20. The features of this claim were discussed for claims 1 and 20.
Regarding claim 22, Sugiura and Thokchom teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. The features of this claim were discussed for claim 1.
Regarding claim 23, Sugiura and Thokchom teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 22. Sugiura further teaches that its sintered lithium composite oxide sheet may comprise LiMO2, where M can be Co [0033], from which lithium cobaltite (LCO) can be obtained.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura et al. (US 20120009471 A1) in view of Thokchom et al. (Superionic conductivity in a lithium aluminum germanium phosphate glass–ceramic. Journal of the Electrochemical Society 155.12 (2008): A915, see NPL documents for citation) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Shimmura et al. (WO 2018025594 A1, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 13, Sugiura and Thokchom teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1, except “wherein a cross-sectional area of the sintered electrode is at least 3 cm2”.
Shimmura teaches an all-solid-state lithium battery comprising an oriented positive electrode plate (12), made of an oriented sintered body, and the oriented sintered body contains a plurality of primary particles made of a lithium composite oxide having a layered rock salt structure (sintered electrode/cathode) (analogous to Sugiura’s electrode) [0010]. The size (area) of the oriented positive plate (12) (sintered electrode/cathode) is preferably 100 to 10,000 mm2 (1 to 100 cm2) [0020]. Given that the term “cross-sectional area” is defined on this application as the area of the face contacting a solid electrolyte separator or porous separator [0052 and 0060], the oriented positive plate (12) (sintered electrode/cathode) size (area) range taught by Shimmura is considered to meet the feature “wherein a cross-sectional area of the sintered electrode is at least 3 cm2”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the oriented positive plate (sintered electrode/cathode) size (area) ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GILBERTO RAMOS RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)272-2740. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/G.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725