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
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 09/10/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Schroder et al. (US 10038193 B1, “Schroder”).
Regarding claim 1: Schroder discloses a method for manufacturing a multilayer structure for a lithium battery (see (86) & (87) describes method for forming an electrode including an interphase; see abstract “secondary battery”; see (5) “method of manufacturing an electrode” & see (3) “secondary batteries” including “lithium-ion cells”), the method comprising: forming a first layer comprising an active material and a first porosity (see (62) “forming an electrode” “that includes coating a second layer of composite onto a first layer of composite” & “active material particles comprised within the first layer increases for the portion active material particles disposed closest to the second layer” & “first layer is substantially homogeneous in terms of its porosity”); and forming a second layer on the first layer, the second layer comprising an active material and a second porosity (see (62) “forming an electrode” “that includes coating a second layer of composite onto a first layer of composite”; see (63) “second layer 706 having second particles 708”; see (104) “first layer having a first porosity and the second layer having a lower second porosity”) wherein the first porosity is different from the second porosity (see (104) “first layer having a first porosity and the second layer having a lower second porosity”).
Regarding claim 5, Schroder discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the first layer is formed on a current collector (see (40) “coating a uniform single layer” & “on a current collector”; see (98) “the first layer (closest to the current collector)”; see FIG. 7 & (63) “electrode 700 includes a first layer 702 having first particles 704 and a second layer 706 having second particles 708, between a current collector 710 at the bottom and a separator 712 at the top”).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Schroder discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the first layer is formed on a negative current collector and wherein the first layer is formed on a positive current collector (see FIG. 7 & (63) “Electrode 700 includes a first layer 702 having first particles 704 and a second layer 706 having second particles 708, between a current collector 710 at the bottom and a separator 712 at the top”; see (27) “current collectors” & “negative electrode” & “anode” & “positive electrode” & “cathode”).
Regarding claim 8, Schroder discloses a method for manufacturing a multilayer structure for a lithium battery (see (86) & (87) describe method for forming an electrode including an interphase; see abstract “secondary battery”; see (5) “method of manufacturing an electrode” & see (3) “secondary batteries” including “lithium-ion cells”), the method comprising: forming a first layer comprising an active material and a first amount of solid-state ionic conductive material (see (62) “forming an electrode”; see (21) “the electrode has at least one layer within which is a gradient of active materials chemistries”; see (28) “solid ion conductor”; see (47) “first active material composite layer 302” includes “a conductive additive”); and forming a second layer on the first layer (see (62) “forming an electrode” & “that includes coating a second layer of composite onto a first layer of composite”), the second layer comprising an active material and a second amount of solid-state ionic conductive material (see (63) “a second layer 706 having second particles 708”; see (47) “second active material composite layer” includes “a conductive additive” & see (28) “solid ion conductor”) wherein the first amount of solid-state ionic conductive material is different from the second amount of solid-state ionic conductive material (see (47) “the first and second conductive additives may be the same of different, either in type and/or in concentration”).
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 2-4, 9-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroder et al. (US 10038193 B1, “Schroder”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kalynushkin et al. (US 20070224513 A1, “Kalynushkin”) and Boaretto et al. (Nicola Boaretto, Iñigo Garbayo, Sona Valiyaveettil-SobhanRaj, Amaia Quintela, Chunmei Li, Montse Casas-Cabanas, Frederic Aguesse, Lithium solid-state batteries: State-of-the-art and challenges for materials, interfaces and processing, Journal of Power Sources, Volume 502,
2021).
Regarding claim 2, Schroder discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses deposition (see (95) “deposition”). Regarding claim 9, Schroder discloses the method of claim 8 and further discloses deposition (see (95) “deposition”).
Regarding claim 2 and claim 9, Schroder does not explicitly disclose wherein the first layer is formed by energy- assisted spray deposition.
Kalynushkin teaches “various methods for deposition of active materials onto the metal current collector” & “another method is known as chemical vapor deposition (CVD), including rapid thermal CVD” (see [0005]).
Schroder and Kalynushkin are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same filed of endeavor, namely methods for forming an active layer & secondary battery (see abstract).
Boaretto teaches “Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD) requires a chemical reaction between two or more components for the growth of the desired material” & “the Atomic Layer Deposition (ALD) is particularly relevant for SSB technology, especially for the growth of thin film protective layers [386]. In ALD, monolayers of the desired material are sequentially grown on top of a substrate, when exposed to a gas flow of reactants under controlled atmosphere
(Fig. 3b–iv). Careful selection of the chemical precursors permits a self-limiting and conformal growth, allowing the coating of 3D-shaped substrates” (see P13 par. 7 section 3.5.2).
Schroder and Boaretto are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely multilayer structures for batteries (see P5 par. 11 and P6 par. 1).
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 energy-assisted spray deposition, as suggested by Kalynushkin (see [0005]) and Boaretto (CVD and ALD in P13) into the method of Schroder because “(ALD) is particularly relevant for SSB technology, especially for the growth of thin film protective layers”, as suggested by Boaretto (see P13).
Regarding claim 3, Schroder discloses the method of claim 2. Regarding claim 10, Schroder discloses the method of claim 9. Regarding claim 3 and claim 10, Schroder does not explicitly disclose wherein the energy-assisted spray deposition comprises thermal spray deposition.
Kalynushkin teaches “various methods for deposition of active materials onto the metal current collector” & “another method is known as chemical vapor deposition (CVD), including rapid thermal CVD” (see [0005]).
Boaretto teaches “interfacial side reactions resulting in the diffusion of elements and possibly the formation of an interphase between a SE and a CAM are generally thermally-induced processes. The temperatures required in certain processing techniques” & “will thus have a strong impact on the chemical stability between the two materials” (see P15 par. 6).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate thermal spray deposition, as suggested by Kalynushkin (see [0005]) and Boaretto (see CVD and ALD in P13) because “formation of an interphase between a SE and a CAM are generally thermally-induced processes”, as suggested by Boaretto (see P15 par. 6) and a skilled artisan would recognize that increasing the temperature increases the reaction rate of formation.
Regarding claim 4, Schroder discloses the method of claim 2. Regarding claim 11, Schroder discloses the method of claim 9. Regarding claim 4 and claim 11, Schroder does not explicitly disclose wherein the energy assisted spray deposition comprises cold spray deposition.
Kalynushkin teaches “(cold spray) deposition” in (95).
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 cold spray deposition into the method of Schroder because doing so lowers the operating cost. A skilled artisan would recognize that lower operating temperatures reduce the operating cost of production.
Regarding claim 12, Schroder discloses the method of claim 9, and further discloses wherein the first layer is formed on a current collector (see (40) “coating a uniform single layer” & “on a current collector”; see (98) “the first layer (closest to the current collector)”; see FIG. 7 & (63) “electrode 700 includes a first layer 702 having first particles 704 and a second layer 706 having second particles 708, between a current collector 710 at the bottom and a separator 712 at the top”).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Schroder discloses the method of claim 9 and further discloses wherein the first layer is formed on a negative current collector and wherein the first layer is formed on a positive current collector (see FIG. 7 & (63) “Electrode 700 includes a first layer 702 having first particles 704 and a second layer 706 having second particles 708, between a current collector 710 at the bottom and a separator 712 at the top”; see (27) “current collectors” & “negative electrode” & “anode” & “positive electrode” & “cathode”).
Regarding claim 16, Schroder discloses the method of claim 9. Schroder does not explicitly disclose wherein the solid-state ionic conductive material is a catholyte material.
Boaretto teaches “the use of polymer electrolytes as catholytes seems to be less problematic than the use of inorganic electrolytes, in terms of interface resistance and mechanical stability” (see P22 par. 11).
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 catholyte material as suggested by Boaretto (see P22 par. 11) into the method of Schroder because doing so improves the interface resistance and mechanical stability as suggested by Boaretto (see P22 par. 11).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroder et al. (US 10038193 B1, “Schroder”), Kalynushkin et al. (US 20070224513 A1, “Kalynushkin”) and Boaretto et al. (Nicola Boaretto, Iñigo Garbayo, Sona Valiyaveettil-SobhanRaj, Amaia Quintela, Chunmei Li, Montse Casas-Cabanas, Frederic Aguesse, Lithium solid-state batteries: State-of-the-art and challenges for materials, interfaces and processing, Journal of Power Sources, Volume 502, 2021), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Albano et al. (US 20160351973 A1, “Albano”).
Regarding claim 15, Schroder discloses the method of claim 9 and further discloses “solid electrolyte” (see (23)) and “solid ion conductor augments or takes the place of (and performs the function of) the separator” (see (28)). Schroder does not explicitly disclose wherein the first layer is formed on a solid state electrolyte layer.
Albano teaches “a cathode, anode, or solid state electrolyte material is coated with a nano-engineered coating” (see [0028]) and describes the coating (which reads on first layer) is next to the electrolyte layer (see FIG. 2) and “it is understood that when a solid electrolyte is used, the coating may also be coated to the solid electrolyte” (see [0136]). Albano teaches “nano-engineered coating 20 conforms to the surface of the active material particle 10 or solid state electrolyte 160. Coating 20 preferable maintains continuous contact with” “solid-state electrolyte surface, filling interparticle and intraparticle pore structure gaps. In this configuration, nano-engineered coating 20 serves as a lithium diffusion barrier” (see [0158]).
Schroder and Albano are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely layered and coated active materials (see abstract and FIG. 2).
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 coating (which reads on first layer) is next to the electrolyte layer (see FIG. 2 of Albano), as suggested by Albano into the method of Schroder because doing so fills interparticle and intraparticle pore structure gaps and serves as a barrier, as suggested by Albano (see [0158]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroder et al. (US 10038193 B1, “Schroder”), Kalynushkin et al. (US 20070224513 A1, “Kalynushkin”) and Boaretto et al. (Nicola Boaretto, Iñigo Garbayo, Sona Valiyaveettil-SobhanRaj, Amaia Quintela, Chunmei Li, Montse Casas-Cabanas, Frederic Aguesse, Lithium solid-state batteries: State-of-the-art and challenges for materials, interfaces and processing, Journal of Power Sources, Volume 502, 2021), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Liang et al. (Jianneng Liang, Jing Luo, Qian Sun, Xiaofei Yang, Ruying Li, Xueliang Sun, Recent progress on solid-state hybrid electrolytes for solid-state lithium batteries,
Energy Storage Materials, Volume 21, 2019, Pages 308-334).
Regarding claim 17, Schroder discloses the method of claim 9. Schroder does not explicitly disclose wherein the solid-state ionic conductive material is an anolyte material.
Liang teaches “aqueous-based electrolyte is not suitable as anolyte due to the aggressive reaction between lithium metal and water, while organic electrolyte is a good anolyte candidate” (see P325 par. 13).
Schroder and Liang are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely lithium batteries (see Liang 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 to incorporate the teaching of Liang to include anolyte material (see P325 par. 13) into the method of Schroder because doing so prevents aggressive reaction between lithium metal and water as suggested by Liang (see P325 par. 13).
Claim 35 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroder et al. (US 10038193 B1, “Schroder”) in view of Albano et al. (US 20160351973 A1, “Albano”), in view of Mattox (Donald M. Mattox, Chapter 3 - Plasmas and Plasma Enhanced CVD, Editor(s): Donald M. Mattox, The Foundations of Vacuum Coating Technology (Second Edition), William Andrew Publishing, 2018, Pages 61-86), in view of Gaben (US 20200303718 A1, “Gaben”), in view of Kesler et al. (US 20080280189 A1, “Kesler”) in view of Wang et al. (Chen Wang, Chun-Hui Bao, Wan-Yu Wu, Chia-Hsun Hsu, Ming-Jie Zhao, Shui-Yang Lien, Wen-Zhang Zhu; Influence of plasma power on deposition mechanism and structural properties of MoOx thin films by plasma enhanced atomic layer deposition. J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 1 May 2021) in view of Chiang et al. (US 20030099884 A1, “Chiang”) in view of Asakawa et al. (US 6565763 B1, “Asakawa”) and evidenced by Du et al. (Hao Du, Huang Chen, Byung Kyu Moom, Jae Heyg Shin, Soo Wohn Lee. Effect of Plasma Spraying Condition on Deposition Efficiency, Microstructure And Microhardness of TiO2 Coating. The AZo Journal of Materials Online. 19 September 2005).
Regarding claim 35, Schroder discloses a method for manufacturing a multilayer structure for a lithium battery (see (86) & (87) describe method for forming an electrode including an interphase; see abstract “secondary battery”; see (5) “method of manufacturing an electrode” & see (3) “secondary batteries” including “lithium-ion cells”), the method comprising: forming a first layer comprising an active material and a first porosity (see (62) “forming an electrode” & “that includes coating a second layer of composite onto a first layer of composite” & “active material particles comprised within the first layer increases for the portion active material particles disposed closest to the second layer” & “first layer is substantially homogeneous in terms of its porosity”) by deposition (see (95) “deposition”). Schroder does not explicitly disclose by plasma spray deposition onto a current collector or the second layer being formed by plasma spray deposition.
Albano teaches plasma deposition (see [0028] “a cathode, anode, or solid state electrolyte material is coated with a nano-engineered coating” & “plasma deposition”) and [0029] describes “active material that is applied to the current collector to form an electrode”. Albano teaches “coating 20 preferable maintains continuous contact with the active material or solid-state electrolyte surface, filling interparticle and intraparticle pore structure gaps” & “nano-engineered coating 20 serves as a lithium diffusion barrier” in [0158].
Mattox teaches “chemical vapor precursor (plasma enhanced CVD-PECVD) allows the deposition to progress at a lower temperature than is normally used for CVD” (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 to incorporate plasma spray deposition as suggested by Albano and Mattox into the method of Schroder because doing so produces a lithium diffusion barrier as suggested by Albano (see [0158]) and plasma enhanced deposition operates at a lower temperature as suggested by Mattox (see abstract). A skilled artisan would recognize that lower temperature operation saves on operating cost which is favorable.
Regarding the limitation the first layer being formed from a dry cathode powder formulation, Schroder discloses (see (92) “the first layer is coated dry, as an active material with a binder and/or a conductive additive” which reads on dry powder formulation & “electrode”; see (31) “cathode”). Schroder discloses comprising active cathode particles (see (31) “cathode” & “active material particles”) having particle size distribution (see (21) “layers have different porosities, different materials chemistries, and/or different active material particle sizes” & “at least one layer within which is a gradient of active materials chemistries, a gradient of particle sizes, and or multimodal distribution of active material particle sizes”). Schroder does not explicitly disclose having a particle size distribution in the range of 50 µm to 0.5 µm.
Albano teaches “optimization of particle size distribution” (see [0022]) and “particle size of the active materials smaller than 5 µm” (see [0285]).
Albano teaches a range of smaller than 5 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 50 µm to 0.5 µm. 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 limitation and 10-0.1 wt% polymer relative to total solids, Schroder discloses polymer (see (37) “active material particles and electrically conductive particles embedded in a polymeric binder matrix”). Schroder does not explicitly disclose 10-0.1 wt%.
Albano teaches % of polymer (see [0257] “each electrode contains up to 12.5% polymer binder” & “high packing efficiency due to the solid structure further improve the realizable energy density of the all-solid-state”).
Albano teaches a range of up to 12.5%, which overlaps with the claimed range of 10-0.1 wt%. 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 limitation the polymer being configured to decompose after deposition to reduce porosity, Schroder does not explicitly disclose.
Albano teaches “the SEI layer can decompose into more stable compounds” & “at elevated temperature or in the presence of catalytic compounds”. Albano teaches “products of side reactions are porous and expose the negative active material surface to more electrolyte decomposition reactions, which promote the formation of a variety of layers on the electrode surface” (see [0011]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the incorporated wt% polymer of Albano would exhibit the same properties as the current invention including a polymer being configured to decompose after deposition to reduce porosity because Albano teaches porous products from decomposed SEI layer to form “a variety of layers on the electrode surface” (see [0011]).
Regarding the limitation wherein the first layer has a porosity of less than 10%, Schroder does not explicitly disclose.
Gaben teaches porosity of “less than 5% or even 2%” (see [0118]).
Gaben teaches a range of less than 5% or even 2%, which overlaps with the claimed range of less than 10%. 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 limitation using a plasma energy reduced by at least 20% relative to the first layer, Schroder does not explicitly disclose.
Wang teaches plasma power at 1500 W and plasma power at 2000 W (see P8 par. 1) which reads on 25% reduction in power and Wang teaches increased power enhances the reaction because of higher energy (see P8 par. 1).
Wang teaches a range of 25% reduction in power which overlaps with the claimed range of at least 20%. 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)'.
Du provides evidence that porosity is affected by spraying power (see P6 par. 1 “The porosity is lower when the spraying power is higher or spraying distance is shorter”).
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 at least 20% reduction in power as suggested by Wang (see P8 par. 1) into the method of Schroder because Wang teaches enhanced reaction with more power (see P8 par. 1). A skilled artisan would recognize a decrease in energy decreases the reaction rate of the layer formed and increases porosity (as evidenced by Du).
Regarding the limitation and forming a second layer on the first layer, the second layer comprising an active material and a second porosity greater than the first porosity, and the limitation the second layer being formed by plasma spray deposition, Schroder discloses a layered composite structure with different porosities (see (62) “forming an electrode” & “that includes coating a second layer of composite onto a first layer of composite”; see (63) “second layer 706 having second particles 708”; see (104) “first layer having a first porosity and the second layer having a lower second porosity”). Schroder does not explicitly disclose second porosity greater than the first porosity nor plasma spray deposition.
Kesler teaches plasma deposition provides a “microstructure having increased porosity as compared to the as-sprayed coating” (see [0064]). Kesler teaches “plasma spraying has the advantage of short processing time, material composition flexibility, and a wide range of controllable spraying parameters that can be used to adjust the properties of deposited coatings” (see [0039]).
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 plasma deposition, as suggested by Kesler into the method of Schroder and doing so produces a microstructure that has increased porosity because the second layer of Schroder would exhibit the same properties as the claimed invention after plasma spray deposition, as suggested by Kesler (see [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate plasma spraying into the method of Schroder because doing so includes short processing time as suggested by Kesler (see [0039]).
Mattox teaches “chemical vapor precursor (plasma enhanced CVD-PECVD) allows the deposition to progress at a lower temperature than is normally used for CVD” (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 to incorporate plasma deposition as suggested by Mattox into the method of Schroder because doing so operates at a lower temperature as suggested by Mattox (see abstract). A skilled artisan would recognize that lower temperature operation saves on operating cost which is favorable.
Regarding the limitation and a dry cathode powder formulation comprising active cathode particles having a particle size distribution, Schroder discloses drying the first layer (see (95)) and “gradient of porosity between active material particles within the first layer and/or active material particles within the interphase” (see (95)) & drying process (see (98)) & “second layer 706 having second particles 708” (see (63)). Schroder discloses particle size distribution (see (21) “a gradient of particle sizes, and/or a multimodal distribution of active material particle sizes”). Regarding the limitation having a particle size distribution in the range of 25 µm to 1.0 µm, Schroder does not explicitly disclose.
Albano teaches “optimization of particle size distribution” (see [0022]) and “particle size of the active materials smaller than 5 µm” (see [0285]).
Albano teaches a range of smaller than 5 µm which overlaps with the claimed range of 25 µm to 1.0 µm. 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 limitation 15-0.5 wt% polymer relative to total solids, Schroder discloses “active material particles and electrically conductive particles embedded in a polymer binder matrix” (see (37), but does not explicitly disclose 15-0.5 wt% polymer relative to total solids.
Albano teaches “up to 12.5% polymer binder which brings the highest achievable energy density even lower” & “high packing efficiency due to the solid structure further improve the realizable energy density of the all-solid-state” (see [0257]).
Albano teaches a value of up to 12.5% which overlaps with the claimed range of 15-0.5 wt%. 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)'.
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 % polymer is a variable that achieves the recognized result of effecting energy density. That makes the % polymer 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 % polymer and come up with up to 12.5%, as suggested by Albano for the purpose of improving energy density, as suggested by Albano (see [0257]).
Regarding the limitation wherein the multilayer structure is thermally treated to decompose the polymer, Schroder discloses drying the multilayer structure (see (104) “drying” & “calendaring”). Schroder does not explicitly disclose to decompose the polymer.
Asakawa teaches polymer is decomposed (see (6) “polyisoprene is decomposed by ozonation and removed to form a porous film”).
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 decomposition of the polymer, as suggested by Asakawa into the method of Schroder because doing so forms a porous film, as suggested by Asakawa (see (6)).
Regarding the limitation and provide a porosity gradient increasing in a direction away from the current collector, Schroder discloses “first layer having a first porosity and the second layer having a lower second porosity” (see (104)) and “the first layer (closest to the current collector)” (see (98)). Schroder does not explicitly disclose porosity gradient increasing in a direction away from the current collector.
Chiang teaches “porosity that increases in a direction from the first current collector toward the second electrode” (see [0046]) and “electronic conductivity is higher at their base (i.e., near the current collector) than at their tips” & “it is also accomplished by varying the porosity gradient of the electrode” (see [0134]). Chiang teaches “this design also has improved power on a volume or weight basis compared to batteries of conventional design” (see [0135]).
Kesler teaches plasma deposition provides a “microstructure having increased porosity as compared to the as-sprayed coating” (see [0064]). Kesler teaches “plasma spraying has the advantage of short processing time, material composition flexibility, and a wide range of controllable spraying parameters that can be used to adjust the properties of deposited coatings” (see [0039]).
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 plasma deposition, as suggested by Kesler into the method of Schroder and doing so produces a microstructure that has increased porosity because the second layer of Schroder would exhibit the same properties as the claimed invention after plasma spray deposition, as suggested by Kesler (see [0064]). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan that the method of Schroder modified by Kesler which includes plasma deposition would exhibit the same properties as the claimed invention including porosity gradient in a direction away from the current collector because Kesler teaches plasma deposition provides a “microstructure having increased porosity as compared to the as-sprayed coating” (see [0064]). Further, Chiang teaches “porosity that increases in a direction from the first current collector toward the second electrode” (see [0046]) provides “improved power” (see [0135]).
Regarding claim 36, Schroder discloses the method of claim 35 and further discloses further comprising forming a third layer on the second layer (see (48) “an interphase 310 interpenetrates and binds the two active material composite layers 302 and 304” & see (113) “interphase layer” & “an interphase layer adhering the first layer to the second layer”). Schroder discloses the third layer comprising a higher polymer mass percentage than the second layer (see (49) “interphase 310 may include a mixture of first and second active material particles with an increased concentration of first active material particles, or it may include increased concentration of second active material particles”; see (50) “interphase 310” “includes an increased concentration of binder molecules 312” & see (21) “the interphase includes a higher concentration of binder molecules”; see (30) “binder is typically a polymer”).
Regarding the limitation whereby decomposition of the polymer produces a porosity greater than that of the second layer, Schroder discloses porosity gradient (see (22) “electrode having more than one zone or layer may have regions of low and high porosity”). Schroder does not explicitly disclose decomposition of the polymer produces a porosity.
Asakawa teaches polymer is decomposed (see (6) “polyisoprene is decomposed by ozonation and removed to form a porous film”).
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 decomposition of the polymer, as suggested by Asakawa into the method of Schroder because doing so forms a porous film, as suggested by Asakawa (see (6)).
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 10/15/2025