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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/26/2025 has been entered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification uses the reference number 40 to refer to both the “protective layer” (see [0065, 0066, 0067, 0068]) and the “coating layer” (see [0069, 0075]). For the sake of clarity, the specification should be corrected to recite either “protective layer” or “coating layer”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites, “an anodeless all-solid-state battery” (emphasis added) and each dependent claim recites “The anodeless all-solid-state battery” (emphasis added). Although the instant specification provides support for an “all-solid-state battery” [instant specification: 0008], it is unclear that the instant specification provides sufficient support that the all-solid-state battery is an anodeless all-solid-state battery. Specifically, the instant specification indicates that an anodeless all-solid-state battery is a battery which does not comprise active material (i.e. “without using an anode active material” [0005]). Absent a special definition provided in the instant specification for the term “active material”, an active material is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a material capable of storing ions (i.e. lithium ions in a lithium secondary battery) as evidenced by Zhamu et al. (US-20160043384-A1; see [0003]) and as further evidenced by Choi et al. (US-20230178752-A1; see [0004]). The instant specification indicates that the all-solid-state battery includes a metal which is capable of alloying with lithium, and that during charging, lithium ions are stored in a “lithium storage layer 50” [instant specification: 0059]. Therefore, it is understood that the all-solid-state battery includes an anode active material which is capable of storing lithium ions (i.e. an anode active material). Furthermore, the instant application indicates that the thickness of the protective layer, which is capable of alloying with lithium to form the lithium storage layer [instant specification 0059], is 0.1 µm to 20 µm (see instant Claim 11), which is consistent with the thickness of an active material layer in related art, as evidenced by Suzuki et al. (US-20190157723-A1; see [0086, 0102, 0104]). As such, it is unclear that the instant specification provides sufficient support for the all-solid-state battery as an “anodeless all-solid-state battery” as claimed. Accordingly, Claim 1 and dependent Claims 4, 6-8 and 10-11 are rejected as being indefinite.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6-8 and 10-11 are 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 1 recites, “an anodeless all-solid-state battery” (emphasis added) and each dependent claim recites “The anodeless all-solid-state battery” (emphasis added). The instant specification indicates that an anodeless all-solid-state battery is a battery which does not comprise active material (i.e. “without using an anode active material” [0005]). Absent a special definition provided for the term “active material”, an active material is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a material capable of storing ions (i.e. lithium ions in a lithium secondary battery) as evidenced by Zhamu et al. (US-20160043384-A1; see [0003]) and as further evidenced by Choi et al. (US-20230178752-A1; see [0004]). The instant specification indicates that the all-solid-state battery includes a metal which is capable of alloying with lithium, and that during charging, lithium ions are stored in a “lithium storage layer 50” [instant specification: 0059]. Therefore, it is understood that the all-solid-state battery includes an anode material which is capable of storing lithium ions (i.e. an anode active material).
Accordingly, it appears that Applicant is envisioning a special definition of either the term “anodeless” or the term “active material” which is not clearly laid out in the instant specification. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Since it is unclear what structure constitutes an “anodeless all-solid-state battery”, the term is unclear and Claim 1 and dependent Claims 4, 6-8 and 10-11 are rejected as being indefinite. Since the instant specification indicates that an anodeless all-solid-state battery deposits lithium on the surface of an anode current collector [instant specification: 0005], for the sake of compact prosecution as long as the all-solid-state battery of the prior art possesses a structure capable of precipitating lithium on the anode current collector, it will be interpreted as reading on the recited limitation of an “all-solid-state battery”.
Claim 1 recites, “wherein M includes molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), chromium (Cr), vanadium (V), manganese (Mn), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), or any combination thereof” (emphasis added), and later “wherein the metal includes silver (Ag), zinc (Zn), magnesium (Mg), indium (In), bismuth (Bi), germanium (Ge) or any combination thereof” (emphasis added). Claim language defined by a Markush grouping requires selection from a closed group “consisting of” the alternative members (see MPEP 2117). Here, since the Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (i.e. selected from a group which “includes” the alternatives), the claim is indefinite since it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claims (see MPEP 2173.05(h)). As such, Claim 1 and dependent Claims 4, 6-8 and 10-11 are rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, it will be interpreted that these limitations should read, respectively, “wherein M is selected from the group consisting of molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), chromium (Cr), vanadium (V), manganese (Mn), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), or any combination thereof” (emphasis added), and “wherein the metal is selected from the group consisting of silver (Ag), zinc (Zn), magnesium (Mg), indium (In), bismuth (Bi), germanium (Ge) or any combination thereof” (emphasis added).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (US-6402795-B1) in view of Yushin et al. (US-20150318530-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Chu discloses a battery comprising (Col. 2, line 58 – Col. 3, line 2; Col. 8, line 61 – Col. 9, line 4; Col. 11, lines 14-16, 33-43):
a cathode layer (positive electrode 318, Fig. 3);
an anode current collector (negative current collector 312, Fig. 3).
Chu discloses that the electrolyte can be a liquid, polymer or solid (Col. 11, lines 45-46; Col. 14, lines 36-39). Therefore, it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the electrolyte to be a solid electrolyte with a reasonable expectation that the use of a solid electrolyte would result in a successful battery. The battery is also therefore understood to read on an all-solid-state battery. The electrolyte is represented by electrolyte region 316 in Fig. 3 (Col. 11, lines 43-45). Therefore, as seen in the annotation of Chu Fig. 3 (see below), the solid electrolyte layer is “interposed between the cathode layer and the anode current collector”.
Chu further discloses that the all-solid-state battery comprises a protective layer (wetting layer 313, Fig. 3; Col. 5, lines 1-10; Col. 6, lines 33-52) interposed between the anode current collector and the solid electrolyte layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
822
1167
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Chu Fig. 3.
Chu discloses that the protective layer (wetting layer) can be formed of various materials that lower the energy of plating (Col. 6, lines 45-46), such as materials that alloy with lithium and materials that intercalate lithium (Col. 6, lines 46-49). Examples of such materials include 1) materials that alloy with lithium and 2) materials that intercalate lithium (Col. 6, lines 45-49). Examples of the first class of materials include silicon, magnesium, aluminum, lead, silver and tin (Col. 6, lines 49-50). Examples of the second class of materials include carbon and metal sulfides such as titanium sulfide and iron sulfide (Col. 6, lines 51-52).
Although Chu does not disclose a specific embodiment wherein both a material from the first class of materials and a material from the second class of materials is used, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined a material from the first class and a material from the second class since combining equivalents known for the same purpose represents a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.06, I). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that using both a material which alloys with lithium and a material which intercalates lithium would result in a successful protective layer.
Furthermore, since Chu discloses that magnesium and silver can be successfully used as the material which alloys with lithium (Col. 6, lines 47-50), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the material that alloys with lithium to be magnesium or silver with a reasonable expectation that such a material would result in a successful protective layer. The use of magnesium (Mg) or silver (Ag) corresponds to a protective layer which “comprises a metal, wherein the metal of the protective layer is capable of alloying with lithium”.
Chu discloses that the second class of materials include materials that intercalate lithium such as metal sulfides like titanium sulfide (TiS2) or iron sulfide (FeS2) (Col. 6, lines 45-52). Chu does not teach that the metal sulfide includes a compound represented by a chemical formula MSx, wherein M include wherein M includes molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), chromium (Cr), vanadium (V), manganese (Mn), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), or any combination thereof.
Yushin teaches a lithium-ion battery comprising active cathode particles and active anode particles [0159]. As an example of the active anode particles, metal sulfide particles that exhibit lithium intercalation can be used [0159]. Examples of suitable metal sulfide particles include, among a list of possible candidates MoS2, CoS, CoS2, NiS, FeS, FeS2, TiS, and TiS2 [0159]. The Examiner notes that this establishes molybdenum sulfide (MoS2), cobalt sulfide (CoS, CoS2), and nickel sulfide (NiS) as a suitable metal sulfide alternatives to titanium sulfide (TiS2) or iron sulfide (FeS, FeS2), all of which are capable of intercalating lithium ions.
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 used MoS2, CoS, CoS2 and/or NiS instead of or in addition to the titanium sulfide or iron sulfide taught by Chu, with a reasonable expectation that the use of such metal sulfides in the protective layer (wetting layer) would result in a successful all-solid-state battery (MPEP 2144.06; MPEP 2144.07). Molybdenum sulfide (MoS2), cobalt sulfide (CoS, CoS2), and nickel sulfide (NiS) are within the list of claimed metal sulfides (i.e. MSx wherein M = Mo, x = 2; or MSx wherein M = Co, x = 1 or 2; or MSx wherein M = Ni, x = 1).
Since modified Chu renders obvious the use of an overlapping scope of metal sulfides, it is understood that the protective layer includes “a metal sulfide incapable of alloying with lithium”.
Furthermore, the protective layer rendered obvious by modified Chu comprises a metal (i.e. Mg or Ag) and a metal sulfide (i.e. MoS2, CoS, CoS2, and/or NiS) and therefore is understood not to “include a material consisting of carbon”.
The protective layer (wetting layer) of modified Chu “has a single layer structure” (i.e. wetting layer 313, Fig. 3).
Although modified Chu does not teach the ratio of metal (i.e. Mg or Ag) to metal sulfide (MoS2, CoS, CoS2, NiS), modified Chu renders obvious a combination of metal and metal sulfide (see above; MPEP 2144.06, I). Therefore, absent showings of criticality, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any combination of metal sulfide and metal, including selecting the protective layer to comprise 70-90 wt% of metal sulfide and 10-30 wt% of metal with a reasonable expectation that such a content of metal sulfide and metal would result in a successful protective layer (MPEP 2144.05, I).
The limitation “wherein during a charging state, the anodeless all-solid-state battery comprises a lithium deposition layer deposited between a lithium storage layer and the anode current collector” is an intended use limitation. The recitation of intended use of a 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 is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the limitation of the claim. Here, the prior art renders obvious an anode current collector coated with a protective layer (wetting layer; Col. 5, lines 1-10), wherein the protective layer comprises a metal (i.e. Mg or Ag) and a metal sulfide (i.e. MoS2, CoS, CoS2, and/or NiS). Therefore, Chu renders obvious the anode structure necessary such that “during a charging state, the anodeless all-solid-state battery comprises a lithium deposition layer deposited between a lithium storage layer and the anode current collector”.
Additionally, since the structure rendered obvious by the prior art is substantially similar to the claimed anode structure (as laid out above), it is understood that the all-solid-state battery of the prior art necessarily and inherently undergoes the claimed transformation during charging, as evidenced by the instant specification [instant specification: 0059-0061, 0063].
Furthermore, as laid out above, the prior art is understood to possess a structure capable of precipitating lithium on the anode current collector, and therefore it is interpreted (see 112(b) rejection, above) as reading on an “all-solid-state battery”.
As laid out above, the metal includes silver (Ag) or magnesium (Mg) (Col. 6, lines 48-50), which are within the claimed list of metals.
Regarding Claims 4 and 10, modified Chu renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Chu further discloses that the that the protective layer (wetting layer) has a thickness of 50 and 1000 angstroms (Col. 6, lines 57-59). Since the metal sulfide and metal are each contained in the protective layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the average particle diameter (D50) of the metal sulfide particles and the metal particles to each be within the disclosed range of 50-1000 Å (i.e. 5-100 nm). The range rendered obvious by the prior art overlaps the claimed diameter of metal sulfide and metal. Therefore, although modified Chu does not explicitly teach that the metal sulfide has a particle diameter (D50) of “10 nm to 500 nm” as required by Claim 4 or that the metal has a particle diameter (D50) of “10 nm to 500 nm” as required by Claim 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any portion of the range rendered obvious by the prior art, including the overlapping portion (i.e. 10 nm to 100 nm), with a reasonable expectation that such a particle diameter of metal sulfide and metal would result in successful protective layer (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Chu renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Chu further discloses that the protective layer (wetting layer) has a thickness of 50 and 1000 angstroms (Col. 6, lines 57-59). Therefore, although Chu does not explicitly teach that the protective layer has a thickness of 0.1 µm to 20 µm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any portion of the range disclosed in the prior art, including selecting the protective layer to have a thickness of 1000 angstroms (i.e. 0.1 µm), with a reasonable expectation that such a thickness of the protective layer would result in a successful protective layer (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (US-6402795-B1) in view of Yushin et al. (US-20150318530-A1) as applied to Claim 1, and in further view of Ku et al. (US-20210242490-A1; previously cited).
Regarding Claims 6-8, modified Chu renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the protective layer (wetting layer) comprises a mixture of metal particles and metal sulfide particles (see rejection of Claim 1, above). Modified Chu does not teach the use of a binder in the protective layer.
Ku teaches a solid state battery comprising an anode layer which includes an anode current collector and a first anode active material layer disposed on the anode current collector (Abstract, [0122, 0126-0127]). Ku teaches that the first anode active material layer includes a binder such as, among other options, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) or polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) [0129]. In a specific embodiment, Ku teaches that 7 wt% of PVDF is used as the binder [0204].
Advantageously, Ku teaches that the addition of a binder stabilizes the first anode active material layer on the current collector and helps to prevent cracking [0130]. Ku teaches that when the first anode active material does not include a binder, it may be easily separated from the anode current collector [0130].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included 7 wt% of PVDF in the protective layer of modified Chu with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful protective layer capable of stabilizing the protective layer on the current collector.
The addition of a binder corresponds to the recited limitation of Claim 6. The use of PVDF as the binder reads on the recited limitation of Claim 7. The use of 7 wt% of binder falls within the range recited in Claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that the all-solid-state battery of the instant application should not be interpreted as performing the function of an anode active material through lithium storage (Remarks, Pg. 6). Applicant notes that the term anodeless can be defined based on two conditions 1) no anode active material is used, and 2) during charging, lithium metal is deposited on the surface of the anode current collector (Remarks, Pgs. 6-7). Applicant has argued that in a conventional lithium secondary battery, the anode active material stores most of the lithium in the battery, while in the present application, the lithium storage layer is an interfacial layer that stabilized the deposition of lithium metal (Remarks, Pg. 7). Applicant asserts that the lithium storage layer of the present application functions to provide a pathway and nucleation layer that enables uniform lithium metal deposition (Remarks, Pg. 7). Applicant has argued that this is consistent with well-known Ag-C protective layer systems, and is broadly understood in the art (Remarks, Pg. 7).
The Examiner has carefully considered these arguments, but respectfully does not find them persuasive. The Examiner notes that Applicant’s interpretation of “anodeless” appears to allow a small amount of active material to exist in the anode. However, the instant specification does not provide a special definition which would apprise one of ordinary skill in the art as to how much active material is acceptable. In other words, it is not clear where the line between “anodeless” and “active material” exists in the all-solid-state battery of the present invention.
Additionally, the Examiner notes that the instant specification indicates that 1) an anodeless all-solid-state battery deposits lithium metal on the surface of an anode current collector without using an anode active material [0005], and 2) that the battery of the present invention is consistently referred to as an “all-solid-state battery” (i.e. not as an “anodeless all-solid-state battery”; see, for example, [0009, 0012, 0022, 0026, 0086]).
Although the Examiner acknowledges that it is known in the art to provide a small amount of active material on the current collector of an anodeless all-solid-state battery, the thickness of the protective layer of the instant specification appears to overlap in scope with all-solid-state batteries which refer to such structures as “active material layers”. For instance in related prior art Suzuki et al. (US-20190157723-A1), active material layer 122 comprises a metal which can alloy with lithium [Suzuki: 0086] and has a thickness of 1 µm to 20 µm [Suzuki: 0104], which falls within the claimed thickness of the protective layer of the instant application (see instant Claim 8). Notably, Suzuki refers to such a battery as an “all-solid-state” battery [Suzuki: 0005], and refers to the layer 122 as the “anode active material layer” [Suzuki: 0098, 0102]. Additionally, Suzuki evidences that lithium can be precipitated on the anode current collector by overcharging the anode active material [Suzuki: 0098]. Accordingly, Suzuki appears to evidence that the protective layer of the instant application, under broadest reasonable interpretation, can function as an active material layer. Thus, the Examiner maintains that it is not clear that Applicant has sufficient support for “anodeless” in the limitation “An anodeless all-solid-state battery”.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejections of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW C NEWMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9873. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00 AM - 6:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/D.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 3/4/2026