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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 08/27/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/27/2025.
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 1-2, and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holme et al. (US 20150099190 A1, “Holme”) in view of Kojima et al. (US 20200212479 A1, “Kojima”) and in view of Umeyama et al. (US 20170309945 A1, “Umeyama”).
Regarding claim 1, Holme discloses a powder layer composite for an energy device (see [0196] “layered material for an electrochemical device” & see FIG. 21 & [0027] describes “powders”), the powder layer composite comprising: a current collector (see [0196] “current collector”); and a powder layer formed on the current collector (see [0196] “at least one layer comprising an aluminum cathode current collector in contact with the porous Garnet” & “porous Garnet layer” reads on powder layer).
Regarding the limitation and having a film thickness of 50 µm or more, Holme discloses in [0210] “film thickness is less than 100 µm” & in [0264] describes “more negative electrode materials (e.g., Li-metal) can be incorporated into the same volume and thereby increase the battery’s energy density, e.g., energy per volume. It is therefore advantageous” & “result in film thickness less than 500 µm but greater than 1 nm” & “less than 100 µm but greater than 1 nm” & see [0325] “thin layer typically of thickness 10-100 µm”.
Holme discloses a range of less than 100 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 50 µm or more. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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)'.
Therefore, 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 have a film thickness less than 100 µm, as suggested by Holme because doing so utilizes a typical thickness as suggested by Holme (see [0325]).
Regarding the limitation wherein the powder layer contains a powder made of at least one type of particle material, Holme discloses in [0325] films are formed by making a “slurry of the powdered ceramic component(s) (e.g. electrolyte:Lithium stuffed garnet, Lithium Lanthanum, Zirconium Oxide; electrode: Lithium-Nickel-Manganese-Cobalt oxide)” which describes at least one type of particle material.
Regarding the limitation a concentration of a solvent contained in the powder layer is 50 ppm or less, Holme discloses in [0325] “an organic binder-solvent system (e.g. polyvinyl butyral in toluene:ethanol)” & “solvent is evaporated” which describes a small amount of solvent. Holme does not explicitly disclose 50 ppm or less.
Kojima teaches solvent concentration (see [0010], [0028] “solvent is less than or equal to 50 ppm” & see [0076] “solvent contained in positive-electrode mixture layer 21 is preferably less than or equal to 50 ppm” & “solvent contained in negative-electrode mixture layer 31 is preferably less than or equal to 50 ppm”).
Holme and Kojima are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely composite materials (see Kojima [0116]).
Therefore, 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 keep the amount of solvent remaining in the dried layer to 50 ppm or less, as suggested by Kojima (see [0010] & [0028]), and which falls within the recited range.
Holme discloses “the sintering process increases the density and uniformity of the garnet thin film” in [0487] & “high energy density” & “sintering composite electrodes having well developed contact points between particles and reduced particle-particle electrical resistance, which permits higher current flow without making a significant voltage drop” in [0192], but does not explicitly disclose a variation in a weight per unit area of the powder layer is 10% or less in an optional region with 30 mm x 30 mm in the powder layer, however, a skilled artisan would find it obvious that “uniformity” in the deposition of the layer disclosed by Holme equates to as low of a “variation” in density as possible, i.e., a perfectly “uniform” layer would have a “variation” of 0%. Holme suggests sintering increases the density and uniformity of the film (see [0487]) and doing so provides a sintered composite electrode “having well developed contact points between particles and reduced particle-particle electrical resistance, which permits higher current flow without making a significant voltage drop” as suggested by Holme (see [0192]) and the skilled artisan would find it further obvious that Holme, in desiring a uniform layer, would desire as little variation in the layer, and would thus reasonably find it obvious a variation in a weight per unit area of the powder layer is as low as possible.
Umeyama teaches “a substantially uniform density of the composite material” means that density of the composite material in a portion smallest in thickness (a bottom of the communication groove) of the negative electrode composite material layer is at least 0.90 and at most 1.10 time[s] as high as density of the composite material in a portion largest in thickness” (see [0018]) which describes 0.90 times (equivalent to 10% less) and 1.10 times (equivalent to 10% more). A skilled artisan would recognize density has units (mass/volume) and Holme describes a film thickness of less than 100 µm (see [0210]) and density × thickness = mass/area.
Holme and Umeyama are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely composite material layer (see abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the powder layer composite disclosed by Holme with increased uniformity (see [0487]) and incorporating a composite material layer is at least 0.90 times and at most 1.10 times as high as density of the composite material as suggested by Umeyama (see [0018] which reads on within 10%) into the powder layer composite of Holme would have “substantially uniform density of the composite material” (see [0018]) with a variation within 10%.
Regarding claim 2, Holme discloses the powder layer composite for an energy device of claim 1. Holme does not explicitly disclose wherein a filling rate of the powder in the powder layer is equal to a tap filling rate of the powder.
Kojima teaches filling rate (see [0223]-[0226]) and teaches pressing and filling in [0025] “In order to increase the filling rate of positive-electrode mixture layer 21, it is preferable that pressing and filling are performed at a high pressure in the positive-electrode layer forming process. If pressing is performed at a high pressure in the subsequent stacking process, negative-electrode mixture layer 31 contacts positive-electrode mixture layer 21 because solid electrolyte layer 40 is thin, and thus a problem such as a short-circuit may occur.” Kojima teaches in [0224] “By increasing the filling rate of positive-electrode mixture layer 21, lithium ion conductivity and electron conductivity can be improved in positive-electrode mixture layer 21, and good battery characteristics can be obtained”.
Therefore, 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 incorporate “pressing and filling” (see [0225]) and “increasing the filling rate” (see [0224]), as suggested by Kojima into the powder layer of Holme because doing so provides “good battery characteristics” (see Kojima [0224]) and prevents short-circuit (see Kojima [0225]).
Regarding claim 5, Holme discloses the powder layer composite for an energy device of claim 1 and further discloses wherein: the current collector is a positive electrode current collector (see [0269] describes “positive electrode (e.g., cathode) active material coated on two sides of the current collector substrate”), and the powder contains a positive electrode active material and a solid electrolyte having ion conductivity as the at least one type of particle material (see [0196] describes “at least one layer comprising an aluminum cathode current collector in contact with the porous Garnet” & “porous Garnet layer” describes powder layer; see [0050] describes “lithium stuffed garnet material which optionally includes an active material”; see abstract “electrolytes”; see [0380] “garnet material has high ion conductivity”).
Regarding claim 6, Holme discloses the powder layer composite for an energy device of claim 1 and further discloses wherein: the current collector is a negative electrode current collector, and the powder contains a negative electrode active material and a solid electrolyte having ion conductivity as the at least one type of particle material (see [0287] “the powders, fluxes, and reaction mixtures are deposited onto current collectors, positive electrodes, negative electrodes, or electrolytes” & see [0050] “lithium stuffed garnet material which optionally includes an active material” & see abstract “electrolytes” & see [0050] “lithium stuffed garnet material which optionally includes an active material” & see [0380] “garnet material has high ion conductivity”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holme et al. (US 20150099190 A1, “Holme”) and Kojima et al. (US 20200212479 A1, “Kojima”) in view of Umeyama et al. (US 20170309945 A1, “Umeyama”) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (JP 2004185989 A, “Suzuki”). The machine translation is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 3, Holme discloses the powder layer composite for an energy device of claim 2 and further discloses wherein: the at least one type of particle material includes a main powder that is a particle material having a largest volume ratio among the at least one type of particle material (see [0325] describes films are formed by making a “slurry of the powdered ceramic component(s) (e.g. electrolyte:Lithium stuffed garnet, Lithium Lanthanum, Zirconium Oxide; electrode: Lithium-Nickel-Manganese-Cobalt oxide)” which describes at least one type of particle material; see [0315] “porous Garnet layer is infiltrated with the active cathode material in an amount greater than 55% by volume” which describes main powder and volume ratio).
Regarding the limitation a particle size distribution of the main powder represented by (D90-D10)/D50 is larger than 75%, discloses milling & particle size distribution (see [0480] describes milling “produces particle size distribution of about d50 ~ 100 nm” & see FIG. 32 describes the particle size distribution of the powders). Holme does not explicitly disclose (D90-D10)/D50 is larger than 75%.
Suzuki teaches particle size distribution (see [0021]) and in [0021] “When the average particle diameter exceeds 50 μm, irregularities are formed on the surface of the produced electrode, and short circuit is likely to occur. On the other hand, when the average particle diameter is less than 10 μm, since the specific surface area becomes large, the irreversible capacity at the time of initial charge and discharge increases (that is, the charge and discharge efficiency decreases), and the battery safety tends to decrease.”
A result effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious. MPEP § 2144.05.
Thus, the average particle diameter is a variable that achieves the recognized result of improved battery safety. That makes the average particle size a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to routinely experiment with the average particle size and come up with (D90-D10)/D50 is larger than 75% for the purpose of improving the battery safety.
Regarding the limitation and the filling rate of the powder in the powder layer is 1.1 times or more the tap filling rate of the powder, Holme does not explicitly disclose.
Kojima teaches filling rate (see [0223]-[0226]) and teaches pressing and filling in [0025] “In order to increase the filling rate of positive-electrode mixture layer 21, it is preferable that pressing and filling are performed at a high pressure in the positive-electrode layer forming process. If pressing is performed at a high pressure in the subsequent stacking process, negative-electrode mixture layer 31 contacts positive-electrode mixture layer 21 because solid electrolyte layer 40 is thin, and thus a problem such as a short-circuit may occur.” Kojima teaches in [0224] “By increasing the filling rate of positive-electrode mixture layer 21, lithium ion conductivity and electron conductivity can be improved in positive-electrode mixture layer 21, and good battery characteristics can be obtained”.
Therefore, 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 incorporate “pressing and filling” (see [0225]) and “increasing the filling rate” (see [0224]), as suggested by Kojima into the powder layer of Holme because doing so provides “good battery characteristics” (see Kojima [0224]) and prevents short-circuit (see Kojima [0225]).
Regarding the method limitations recited in claim 3 in lines 6-8, “the filling rate of the powder in the powder layer is 1.1 times or more the tap filling rate of the powder”, the Office notes that even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F. 2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process). See MPEP § 2113.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holme et al. (US 20150099190 A1, “Holme”) and Kojima et al. (US 20200212479 A1, “Kojima”) in view of Umeyama et al. (US 20170309945 A1, “Umeyama”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hashimoto et al. (JP 2017147054 A, “Hashimoto”). The machine translation is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 4, Holme discloses the powder layer composite for an energy device of claim 1. Holme does not explicitly disclose wherein a filling rate of the powder in the powder layer is 80% or more.
Kojima teaches filling rate (see [0223]-[0226]) and teaches pressing and filling in [0025] “In order to increase the filling rate of positive-electrode mixture layer 21, it is preferable that pressing and filling are performed at a high pressure in the positive-electrode layer forming process. If pressing is performed at a high pressure in the subsequent stacking process, negative-electrode mixture layer 31 contacts positive-electrode mixture layer 21 because solid electrolyte layer 40 is thin, and thus a problem such as a short-circuit may occur.” Kojima teaches in [0224] “By increasing the filling rate of positive-electrode mixture layer 21, lithium ion conductivity and electron conductivity can be improved in positive-electrode mixture layer 21, and good battery characteristics can be obtained”.
Therefore, 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 incorporate “pressing and filling” (see [0225]) and “increasing the filling rate” (see [0224]), as suggested by Kojima into the powder layer of Holme because doing so provides “good battery characteristics” (see Kojima [0224]) and prevents short-circuit (see Kojima [0225]).
Hashimoto teaches filling rate (see [0062] “preferable that the filling rate is 83% or less”).
Holme and Hashimoto are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely electrode layers (see [0062]).
Hashimoto teaches a range of 83% or less, which overlaps with the claimed range of 80% or more. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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)'.
Regarding the method limitations recited in claim 4 in line 2, “a filling rate of the powder in the powder layer is 80% or more”, the Office notes that even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F. 2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process). See MPEP § 2113.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on P8 that “prior art fails to teach or even suggest variation in a weight per unit area of a powder layer being 10% or less in an optional region with 30 mm x 30 mm in the powder layer, and does not even hit that minimizing such variation would have any effect on the results”, and in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Holme is analogous to the current invention because it is related to the same field of endeavor, namely composite electrodes (see Holme [0192]) and a skilled artisan would find it obvious that “uniformity” in the deposition of the layer disclosed by Holme equates to as low of a “variation” in density as possible, i.e., a perfectly “uniform” layer would have a “variation” of 0%. Holme suggests sintering increases the density and uniformity of the film (see [0487]) and doing so provides a sintered composite electrode “having well developed contact points between particles and reduced particle-particle electrical resistance, which permits higher current flow without making a significant voltage drop” as suggested by Holme (see [0192]). The skilled artisan would find it further obvious that Holme, in desiring a uniform layer, would desire as little variation in the layer, and would thus reasonably find it obvious a variation in a weight per unit area of the powder layer is as low as possible.
Umeyama teaches a “substantially uniform density of the composite material” means that density of the composite material in a portion smallest in thickness (a bottom of the communication groove) of the negative electrode composite material layer is at least 0.90 and at most 1.10 time[s] as high as density of the composite material in a portion largest in thickness” (see [0018]) which describes 0.90 times (equivalent to 10% less) and 1.10 times (equivalent to 10% more). A skilled artisan would recognize density has units (mass/volume) and Holme describes a film thickness of less than 100 µm (see [0210]) and density × thickness = mass/area.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the powder layer composite disclosed by Holme with increased uniformity (see [0487]) and incorporating a composite material layer is at least 0.90 times and at most 1.10 times as high as density of the composite material as suggested by Umeyama (see [0018] which reads on within 10%) into the powder layer composite of Holme would have “substantially uniform density of the composite material” (see [0018]) with a variation within 10%.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/S.A.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 03/13/2026