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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 30, 2026, has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (CN 106654362 B; citations refer to the English translation attached to the rejection mailed May 16, 2025) in view of Iwasaki (US 2017/0250403 A1), Kim et al. (US 2022/0173480 A1), and Duan et al. ("Dendrite-Free Li-Metal Battery Enabled by a Thin Asymmetric Solid Electrolyte with Engineered Layers," Journal of the American Chemical Society 140(1), pp. 82-85, December 2017).
Regarding claim 1, Zhao teaches a solid-state battery comprising a cathode layer, solid electrolyte layer, and anode layer in that order (Zhao [0081]), in which the solid electrolyte layer comprises a first layer comprising a solid electrolyte adjacent to the electrodes (second composite adhesive layer comprising Li2S-SiS2),a second layer comprising the solid electrolyte and a porous support adjacent to the first layer (first composite adhesive layer on glass mesh comprising Li2S-SiS2) (Zhao [0079]-[0080]), and a third layer opposite the first layer comprising the same solid electrolyte such that one is adjacent to the anode and the other is adjacent to the cathode (layers B in Zhao Fig. 1), with the solid electrolyte on the surface and in the pores of the porous support (Zhao [0034]).
Zhao does not teach any particular porosity for the support material, indicating only that it is a high porosity material (Zhao [0072]). Kim teaches that, in order to balance ion conductivity and mechanical strength, the porous support for a composite solid electrolyte should have a porosity of 50-90% (Kim [0040]), which overlaps the range of the instant claim. 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any value within the range taught by Kim, including values within the range of the instant claim, in order to balance ion conductivity and mechanical strength.
Zhao does not teach the use of 15LiBr • 10LiI • 75 (0.75Li2S • 0.25P2S5) glass ceramic as the solid electrolyte material. Zhao teaches the use of Li2S-SiS2 (Zhao [0079]-[0080]). Iwasaki teaches that 15LiBr • 10LiI • 75 (0.75Li2S • 0.25P2S5) glass ceramic (Iwasaki [0075]) and Li2S-SiS2 are suitable solid sulfide electrolytes for use in lithium batteries (Iwasaki [0041]-[0044]). The two are therefore art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose, and substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any of the solid electrolytes listed by Iwasaki, including 15LiBr • 10LiI • 75 (0.75Li2S • 0.25P2S5) glass ceramic.
Zhao does not teach any particular thickness for the second solid electrolyte layer. Duan teaches that commercially available scaffold 25 µm thick is appropriate for such a solid electrolyte structure (Duan p. 83, first column, first complete paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a 25 µm scaffold, and therefore a 25 µm second solid electrolyte layer, which falls within the range of the instant claim, since Zhao give no guidance and Duan teaches that it is appropriate.
Regarding claim 3, modified Zhao teaches a porosity of 50-90% (Kim [0040]), which overlaps the range of the instant claim. 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any value within the range taught by Kim, including values within the range of the instant claim, in order to balance ion conductivity and mechanical strength.
Regarding claim 4, Zhao gives an example in which the porous support is a non-woven fabric (Zhao [0064]).
Regarding claim 6, the thickness the second solid electrolyte layer of modified Zhao is 25 µm (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, modified Zhao does not teach any particular layer thickness for the first and third solid electrolyte layers. Duan teaches that layers of 5-6.5 µm, which overlaps the ranges of the instant claims, are sufficient to prevent dendrite formation (Duan p. 83, first column, first complete paragraph; and p. 84, last paragraph), and that layers with a thickness less than 5.4 µm, which overlaps the ranges of the instant claims, are sufficient to form a good interfacial contact with the electrodes (Duan p. 83, top of second column). 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any value in the ranges disclosed by Duan, including values within the range of the instant claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A CORNO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/J.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights