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 Application
Claims 1, 5-7, 9-11, 13-14, 16, and 18-19 are amended, claims 4 and 8 are cancelled, and claims 21-22 are new, submitted on 9/11/2025, with claims 11-20 remain withdrawn. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10 and 21-22 are presented for examination.
Specification
1. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities.
In Ln 5 of Paragraph [0055], “a non-sized,” seems to include a drafting error, and the Examiner could not figure out its real meaning.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 5 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities.
In claim 5, Ln 2, ”further comprises” should read “further comprise”;
In claim 22, Ln 3, “a non-sized,” seems to include a drafting error, thus its meaning is unclear since the only support found in the disclosure Paragraph [0055] shows the same.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6. Claims 1, 3, 7-9, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (US 20200403267 A1, IDS of 9/9/2022).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions (solid state lithium-ion battery cell 500, [0076] and FIGs. 1 and 5), the electrochemical cell comprising: an electrode (cathode material layer 516 and current collector 522, FIG. 5); a solid-state interlayer (solid electrolyte layer 512/112, FIG. 5) having a first surface (lower surface of 512, FIG. 5) in direct contact with a surface of the electrode (upper surface of 516, FIG. 5) and comprising a plurality of solid-state electrolyte particles (solid electrolyte particles 114/514, [0063] and FIG. 5), the plurality of solid-state electrolyte particles comprising Li1+xAlxTi2-x(PO4)3, where 0≤x≤2 (LATP) ([0048]) or Li7La3Zr2O12 ([0055]); a liquid electrolyte (black line dashes (-), [0076] and FIG. 5) disposed in (infiltrated [0076]) the electrode and solid-state interlayer; and a separator (interlayer 510/110, [0063] and FIG. 5) in direct contact with a second surface of the solid-state interlayer (upper surface of 512, FIG. 5), the second surface of the solid-state interlayer being parallel with and separate from the first surface of the solid-state interlayer (FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Li discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Li further discloses the solid-state interlayer covers greater than or equal to about 85 % of a total surface area of the surface of the electrode (FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Li discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Li has disclosed the electrode is a positive electrode (cathode material layer 516 and current collector 522, FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 9, Li discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Li further discloses the electrode is a first electrode (cathode 516 and 522), and the electrochemical cell further comprises: a second electrode (anode 504 plus 502, FIG. 5) disposed parallel with the first electrode (FIG. 5), the separator (interlayer 510, FIG. 5) disposed between the solid-state interlayer and the second electrode, the liquid electrolyte also disposed in the separator and the second electrode (FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 22, Li discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. As established above in claim 1, interlayer (510/110, [0063] and FIG. 5) corresponding to the separator in the claim; and Li further discloses examples of suitable composition for the separator (interlayer 510/110) particle compositions ([0056]) include Al2O3 ([0059]) which reads on the claimed “wherein the separator is alumina”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 nonobviousness.
9. Claims 5, 10, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20200403267 A1, IDS of 9/9/2022).
Regarding claim 5, Li discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Li further discloses the solid-state electrolyte particles ([0047-0055]) defined as particles for SE2 ([0019]) could be oxide-based solid-state particles ([0048]), sulfide-based solid-state particles ([0041-0045]), nitride-based solid-state particles ([0050]), halide-based solid-state particles ([0052]), borate-based solid-state particles ([0053]).
However, Li does not explicitly disclose in the embodiment of FIG. 5, the solid-state electrolyte particles 514 for SE2 further comprise these particles: oxide-based solid-state particles ([0048]), nitride-based solid-state particles ([0050]), halide-based solid-state particles ([0052]), borate-based solid-state particles ([0053]) in addition to Li1+xAlxTi2-x(PO4)3, where 0≤x≤2 (LATP) ([0048]) or Li7La3Zr2O12 ([0055]) of claim 1, nor further comprise metal-doped or aliovalent-substituted oxide solid-state particles ([0034]), sulfide solid electrolyte such as Li9.54Si1.74P1.44S11.7Cl0.3 ([0035]) which are categorized as for the cathode side as solid electrolyte particles for SE3 ([0030-0036]); or sulfide-based SE ([0041]) categorized as for the anode side as solid electrolyte particles for SE1 ([0040-0046]).
However, in another embodiment shown in FIG. 4A, Li teaches a combined use of solid electrolyte particles for the anode side SE1 (408, [0074] and FIG. 4A) and for the cathode side SE3 (420, [0074] and FIG. 4A) to form the solid-state electrolyte interlayer (412 plus 412’, [0074] and FIG. 4A), and the solid electrolyte particles for the anode side SE1 ([0019]) includes the sulfide-based solid-state particles ([0041] and [0074]) and the solid electrolyte particles for the cathode side SE3 ([0019]) includes Li1.4Al0.4Ti1.6(PO4)3 (LATP) or Li7La3Zr2O12 ([0031] and [0074]), which teaches the solid-state electrolyte interlayer particles comprise not only Li1.4Al0.4Ti1.6(PO4)3 (LATP) or Li7La3Zr2O12, and further comprise sulfide-based solid-state particles.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the configuration as taught by 412 plus 412’ in the FIG. 4A of Li, by adding a layer of 412 formed by the anode side SE1 which includes sulfide-based solid-state particles to form the solid-state electrolyte interlayer 512, thus arriving at the solid-state electrolyte particles at least further comprises sulfide-based solid-state particles.
Regarding claim 10, Li discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Li does not explicitly disclose in FIG. 5 a second solid-state interlayer disposed between the separator and the second electrode, the second solid-state interlayer comprising a second plurality of solid-state electrolyte particles, the second solid-state interlayer covering greater than or equal to about 85 % of a total surface area of a surface of the second electrode opposing the separator, the second solid-state interlayer being the same as or different from the first solid-state interlayer, and the liquid electrolyte also disposed in second solid-state interlayer.
However, Li further discloses another embodiment shown as FIG. 4B, in that the solid-state interlayer is a first solid-state interlayer (solid electrolyte 412’, [0074] and FIG. 4B), the plurality of solid-state electrolyte particles is a first plurality of solid-state electrolyte particles, and the electrochemical cell further comprises: a second solid-state interlayer (solid electrolyte 412, [0074] and FIG. 4B) disposed between the separator (interlayer 410, [0075]and FIG. 4B) and the second electrode (anode 404 plus 402 in FIG. 4B), the second solid-state interlayer comprising a second plurality of solid-state particles (408 [0074] and FIG. 4B), the second solid-state interlayer covering greater than or equal to about 85 % of a total surface area of a surface of the second electrode opposing the separator (FIG. 4B), the second solid-state interlayer being different from the first solid-state interlayer (408 and 420 are different in composition [0074] and FIG. 4B).
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the configuration of electrochemical cell of Li shown in FIG. 5 with an addition layer of a second solid-electrolyte interlayer, similar to layer 412 disposed between the separator and the second electrode, as configured in FIG. 4B, and thus arriving at the claimed “the electrochemical cell further comprises: a second solid-state interlayer disposed between the separator and the second electrode, the second solid-state interlayer comprising a second plurality of solid-state electrolyte particles, the second solid-state interlayer covering greater than or equal to about 85 % of a total surface area of a surface of the second electrode opposing the separator, the second solid-state interlayer being different from the first solid-state interlayer, and the liquid electrolyte also disposed in second solid-state interlayer”, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 21, Li discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Li does not explicitly disclose the electrode is free of a solid-state electrolyte.
However, Li further discloses in another embodiment, a common electrolyte composition may be used only in two members of the anode layer, the cathode layer, and solid electrolyte layer ([0008]). A skilled artisan would reasonably expect to choose the selected two members used with electrolyte composition are the anode layer and solid electrolyte layer, out of the only three possibilities as taught by Li, such that the cathode layer can be free of common electrolyte composition, arriving at the claimed the electrode (cathode) is free of a solid-state electrolyte.
10. Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20200403267 A1, IDS of 9/9/2022), as applied to claim 1 or 5, respectively, in view of Kaga (US 20180309167 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Li further discloses solid electrolyte particles for the solid electrolyte layer must provide high lithium ion conductivity and low electronic conductivity ([0011]) and it is desirable that SEs are not continuously decomposed during cycling, and that a stabilized micro-interface is built up to ensure a lower interfacial resistance and extend the cycling life ([0070]); and the solid electrolyte layer has a uniform thickness up to about 500 micrometers (claim 1), which encompasses the claimed range of “greater than or equal to about 0.5 micrometers to less than or equal to about 40 micrometers”. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the encompassed portion of the ranges by way of routine optimization, in order to achieve a desired balance between high lithium ion conductivity and low electronic conductivity.
While Li further discloses the solid-state electrolyte particles have maximum dimensions in the nanometer (2 nm or larger in [0010]) and micrometer range up to about 1000 micrometers (claim 1 and [0010]), Li does not explicitly disclose the solid-state electrolyte particles have an average particle size greater than or equal to about 0.02 micrometers to less than or equal to about 20 micrometers, establishing a case of necessarily overlapping ranges since average values are necessarily mathematically smaller than maximum dimensions. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the range with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully achieve a stabilized micro-interface to ensure a lower interfacial resistance and extend the cycling life.
Kaga further teaches a solid electrolyte composition for an all-solid state secondary battery ([0002]) and to satisfy both the battery performance and the interface resistance-reducing and maintaining properties (0104)), the average particle diameters of the particulate inorganic solid electrolyte are preferably 0.01 µm or more and the upper limit is more preferably 50 µm or less ([0101]), which teaches a preferable average particle size range encompassing the claimed range of greater than or equal to about 0.02 micrometers to less than or equal to about 20 micrometers.
It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to choose the encompassed portion of an average particle size of the solid-state electrolyte particles as taught by Kaga, with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully satisfy both battery performance and the interface resistance-reducing and maintaining properties.
Regarding claim 6, Li discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Li further discloses solid electrolyte particles for the solid electrolyte layer must provide high lithium ion conductivity and low electronic conductivity ([0011]) and it is desirable that SEs are not continuously decomposed during cycling, and that a stabilized micro-interface is built up to ensure a lower interfacial resistance and extend the cycling life ([0070]). However, Li does not explicitly disclose the solid-state interlayer comprises greater than or equal to about 80 wt.% to less than or equal to about 100 wt.% of the solid-state electrolyte particles, and greater than or equal to about 0 wt.% to less than or equal to about 20 wt.% of a polymeric binder.
Kaga teaches a solid electrolyte composition for an all-solid state secondary battery ([0002]) and for favorable interface resistance-reducing and maintaining properties, the content of the binder is preferably 0.01% by mass or more with respect to 100% by mass of the solid components, and from the view point of battery characteristics, the upper limit is preferably 20% by mass or less ([0134]), which teaches a range of 0.01% to 20%, that falls within the claimed range “greater than or equal to about 0 wt.% to less than or equal to about 20 wt.% of a polymeric binder”; and implicitly inherent the claimed limitation “greater than or equal to about 80 wt.% to less than or equal to about 100 wt.% of the solid-state electrolyte particles”. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to utilize the same amount of binder and solid-state electrolyte particles as taught by Kaga in the solid-state interlayer of Li, thus arriving at the claimed limitation with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving favorable interface resistance-reducing and maintaining properties and battery characteristics.
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments regarding the amended claim 1 filed on 9/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues the solid-state interlayer (112,512) is not disposed in direct contact with the electrode or a separator, and Li is silent with regard to the interlayer 110 including Li1+xAlxTi2-x(PO4)3, or Li7La3Zr2O12. (Remarks P14).
The Examiner respectfully submits that the claim limitation “a solid-state interlayer” is mapped as (solid electrolyte layer 512/112, FIG. 5) of Li, which includes Li1+xAlxTi2-x(PO4)3, where 0≤x≤2 (LATP) ([0048]) or Li7La3Zr2O12 ([0055]) under Examples of suitable solid electrolyte composition for the layer of solid electrolyte particles ([0047]). In the meantime, the lower surface of the solid-state interlayer (512/112, FIG. 5) of Li is in direct contact with the upper surface of the cathode 516/116 ([0064] and FIG. 5).
Further, the interlayer 510/110 of Li ([0063] and FIG. 5) is mapped corresponding to a separator, in the claim, but not mapped as a solid-state interlayer as Applicant argues.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Visco (US 20160156065 A1) teaches the cell may include one or more porous separator layers (e.g., a micro-porous polymer layer such as a porous polyolefin or the like) (1070, [0166] and FIG. 10B) positioned between solid electrolyte sheet 100 and electroactive layers 1010 and/or 1062 ([0162]).
13. 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 extension fee 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAN LUO whose telephone number is (571)270-5753. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00AM -5:00PM 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached on (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.
/K. L./Examiner, Art Unit 1751 12/8/2025
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 12/9/2025
Prosecution Insights