Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-15) in the reply filed on October 22, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
Regarding claim 13, “an anode, an anode current collector, or an anode and an anode current collector” is recited in line 3. It is unclear what is different between the limitations “an anode, an anode current collector” and “an anode and an anode current collector.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-11, 13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al (US 20160260963 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches a sulfide solid electrolyte formed by raw materials containing Li2S, P2S5, LiI, and LiBr ([0037]) which includes a method for amorphizing the raw materials with a mechanical milling method ([0039]), heating the amorphous sulfide solid electrolyte material ([0044]-[0046]) and also compression of the sulfide solid electrolyte material ([0047]). Suzuki’s sulfide solid electrolyte is produced by substantially identical raw materials and processes to that claimed by Applicant (instant spec: p10 lines 30-39, bridging to p11). Specifically, both Suzuki and Applicant teach the use of Li2S, P2S5, LiI, and LiBr as raw materials (Suzuki: [0037]; instant spec: p10 line 38 and p15 lines 10-16) and Suzuki discloses ranges of molar ratios for each component that substantially overlap with Applicant’s described embodiment (Suzuki: [0037] lines 3-12; instant spec: lines 4-8). Additionally, Suzuki discloses example features and parameters for their mechanical milling step ([0058]), that is, using a planetary ball mill for 20 hours at revolutions of 500 rpm, which is within Applicant’s recited ranges of 500-700 rpm and in a period of time range from 30 minutes to 75 hours (instant spec: p11 lines 9-14). Both Suzuki and Applicant disclose subsequent heating and compression of the material after the milling step, and Suzuki teaches use of temperature ranges and pressures that overlap with the corresponding ranges disclosed by Applicant (Suzuki: [0044]-[0046], [0047]; instant spec: p11 lines 15-22). Suzuki’s heating and compression of the solid electrolyte is conducted in contact with an oxide active material ([0040],[0047]) to accomplish an improved crystallinity of the sulfide solid electrolyte material that consequently improves its ion conductivity and reduces battery resistance ([0021], [0047]), which achieves Applicant’s same result as of lowering resistance (instant spec: p4 lines 27-29). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); see MPEP 2112.01. Accordingly, because Suzuki teaches a substantially identical process for making the solid electrolyte, it thus must necessarily exhibit the claimed properties.
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki teaches the solid electrolyte of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the compressed composite formed under a pressure in the range of 200 MPa to 800 MPa, which overlaps with the claimed range of a pressure ≥ 450 MPa ([0047]).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki teaches the solid electrolyte of claim 1. Where the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established, and it must have the same properties; thus, the composite must necessarily include lithium-based electrolyte crystals comprising of at least one of the claimed species.
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki teaches the solid electrolyte of claim 1. Where the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established, and it must have the same properties; thus, the composite must necessarily include lithium-based electrolyte crystals comprising of Z.
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki teaches the solid electrolyte of claim 1. As previously pointed out in addressing the limitations of claim 1, Suzuki teaches identical raw materials including LiBr and LiI, wherein Z is I or Br, corresponding to claimed species.
Regarding claims 6-8, Suzuki teaches the solid electrolyte of claim 1. Where the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established, and it must have the same properties; thus, the composite must necessarily exhibit the claimed limitation regarding the molar ratio q.
Regarding claims 9-11, Suzuki teaches the solid electrolyte of claim 6. Where the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established, and it must have the same properties; thus, the composite must necessarily exhibit the claimed material properties.
Regarding claim 13, Suzuki teaches the solid electrolyte of claim 1, and Suzuki further teaches a battery comprising a cathode, an anode, and an anode current collector ([0053]-[0054]). The taught cathode, anode, and anode collector, and the solid electrolyte are all solid, and there is no liquid electrolyte, therefore the battery is a solid-state battery.
Regarding claim 15, Suzuki teaches the solid-state battery of claim 13. Where the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established, and it must have the same properties; thus, the composite must necessarily exhibit the claimed material properties.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ujiie et al, “Conductivity of 70Li2S 30P2S5 glasses and glass-ceramics added with lithium halides” Solid State Ionics 263 (2014) 57-61 in view of Han et al, “Suppressing Li Dendrite Formation in Li2S-P2S5 Solid Electrolyte by LiI Incorporation” Adv. Energy Mater. 8, 1703644, 2018.
Regarding claim 1, Ujiie teaches solid electrolyte composites (100 − y)(0.7Li2S·0.3P2S5)·yLiX (mol%) (0 ≤ y ≤ 20, X = F, Cl, Br, and I) formed by mechanical milling and subsequent heat treatment of Li2S, P2S5, and lithium halide starting materials such as LiF, LiCl, LiBr, and LiI (p2 left col para 4). Ujiie discloses the materials change from glasses, which are amorphous solids, after milling (Figs. 1-2), to glass-ceramics after heat treatment (Figs. 5-6), and states that all glass-ceramics had Li7P3S11 crystals (p3 left col para 3), indicating that the Li7P3S11 crystals are lithium-based electrolyte crystals embedded in the amorphous matrix of the glass-ceramic material as they precipitate from the samples during heat treatment (p3 left col para 3). Ujiie also discloses that the halide X would not be in the Li7P3S11 structure (p3 left col para 3), therefore lithium halide is necessarily present in the amorphous matrix (p4 right col para 1 lines 29-31; p5 right col para 2 lines 7-9) with some amount precipitated as lithium halide crystals (Figs. 5-6 show diffraction peaks corresponding to lithium halide crystals; p4 left col para 1 lines 4-10). Accordingly, the composite of the prior art would have an amorphous matrix comprising of LiX, wherein X corresponds to the claimed Z and is I, Br, Cl, or F, and and y=1. The chemical composition of the lithium-based electrolyte crystals Li7P3S11 is different from the amorphous matrix, which contains LiX. Ujiie also teaches the compression of the pelletized samples for ionic conductivity measurements (p2 left col para 5), therefore the solid electrolyte corresponds to a compressed composite as claimed.
Ujiie does not teach wherein a surface portion of the compressed composite has a concentration of Z that is from 1% greater to 60% greater than an average concentration of Z (i.e. I) within a bulk portion of the compressed composite.
In the same field of endeavor, Han discloses that use of sulfide-based electrolytes with lithium anodes provides the benefits of a promising anode with extremely high capacity, low density, and the lowest electrode potential, and also the excellent mechanical properties and high ionic conductivity of the sulfide-based solid electrolytes (p1 left col para 1), provided that one can suppress dendrite formation at a large current in batteries with lithium anode using sulfide solid electrolytes (p1 right col para 1). Han further teaches that introduction of lithium halide LiI into Li2S-P2S5-type electrolytes can effectively improve the dendrite suppression capability (p5 left col para 2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have thus been motivated to utilize the solid electrolyte of Ujiie which was taught as incorporating LiI, with a lithium anode, given that Han teaches the benefit of an anode material with an extremely high capacity and the benefit of a sulfide-based solid electrolyte with excellent mechanical properties and ionic conductivity.
Given that Han also teaches Li2S-P2S5-type electrolytes incorporating LiI will decompose into Li2S, Li3P, and LiI when contacting lithium metal, resulting in LiI in the solid electrolyte interface layer that can promote Li deposition at the interface and suppress dendrite growth (p5 para 1 lines 1-16), use of modified Ujiie’s solid electrolyte in a battery with Li metal as the anode will inherently result in a surface portion of the compressed composite having a surface portion that has a higher concentration of LiI, and by association, Z as I, compared to the entirety of the composite, i.e. a bulk portion. Thus, there must exist a surface portion including the solid electrolyte interface layer formed from decomposition of the solid electrolyte and including non-reacted solid electrolyte such that the average concentration of Z is from 1% to greater to 60% greater than an average concentration of Z within the entirety, i.e. a bulk portion, of the composite.
Regarding claim 3, the combination above teaches the solid electrolyte of claim 1 and Ujiie teaches the lithium-based electrolyte crystals comprise Li7P3S11.
Regarding claim 5, the combination above teaches the solid electrolyte of claim 1, and Ujiie teaches Z is I.
Regarding claim 13, the combination above teaches the solid electrolyte of claim 1 and as pointed out previously in addressing the limitations of claim 1, Han of the combination teaches lithium metal as the anode. Han of the combination also teaches lithium as a cathode and a stainless steel rod as an anode current collector (p5 right col para 1); all components are solid, therefore the battery is a solid-state battery, and Han teaches the combination of a sulfide-based solid electrolyte, a cathode, an anode, and an anode current collector is a known configuration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce a solid-state battery as taught by Han using the modified separator of modified Ujiie. They would have recognized that providing the combination of elements in combination would merely provide the predictable result of similar function as performed separately with expectation of success; see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding claim 14, the combination above teaches the solid-state battery of claim 13. As previously pointed out in addressing the limitations of claim 1, Han of the combination teaches that introduction of lithium halide LiI into Li2S-P2S5-type electrolytes can effectively improve the dendrite suppression capability (p5 left col para 2) via a mechanism of forming at the Li/electrolyte interface and suppressing dendrite growth (p5 left col para 1, lines 2-9, lines 12-16). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to orient the surface portion of the compressed composite toward the anode or anode current collector (the anode current collector is attached to the outer side of the anode, and therefore the surface portion of the solid electrolyte would inherently be oriented toward the anode current collector).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ujiie et al, “Conductivity of 70Li2S 30P2S5 glasses and glass-ceramics added with lithium halides” Solid State Ionics 263 (2014) 57-61 in view of Han et al, “Suppressing Li Dendrite Formation in Li2S-P2S5 Solid Electrolyte by LiI Incorporation” Adv. Energy Mater. 8, 1703644, 2018, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Ose et al (US 20180301747 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination above teaches the solid electrolyte of claim 1 but does not teach wherein the compressed composite is formed under a pressure ≥ 450 MPa.
In the same field of endeavor, Ose teaches a method for forming similar solid electrolytes, including Li2S-P2S5 type, with a press pressure of about 400 to about 1000 MPa, to form the solid electrolyte material part for use in a battery ([0062],[0075]) and also discloses that an all-solid-state lithium ion secondary battery formed has excellent cycle characteristics (Abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a press pressure of about 400 to about 1000 MPa for forming the compressed composite of modified Ujiie, given that Ose teaches it is a known configuration associated with batteries with excellent cycle characteristics.
Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al, “Slurry-processed Glass-Ceramic Li2S-P2S5-LiI Electrolyte for All-Solid-State Li-Ion Batteries,” ECS Trans. 77 65, 2017, in view of Ujiie et al, “Conductivity of 70Li2S 30P2S5 glasses and glass-ceramics added with lithium halides” Solid State Ionics 263 (2014) 57-61.
Supporting evidence is provided by Boulineau et al, “Mechanochemical synthesis of Li-argyrodite Li6PS5X (X=Cl, Br, I) as sulfur-based solid electrolytes for all solid state batteries application,” Solid State Ionics 221 p1-5, 2012, and Han et al, “Suppressing Li Dendrite Formation in Li2S-P2S5 Solid Electrolyte by LiI Incorporation” Adv. Energy Mater. 8, 1703644, 2018.
Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches solid electrolyte composite materials (LPSI) having compositions of Li2S-P2S5-LiI glass-ceramic and crystalline Li7P2S8I (p3 para 2) after ball milling the raw materials and heat annealing under temperatures between 160-300°C (p3 para 2, Fig. 2(a)) and describes pressing the solid electrolyte powder to form a pellet for electrochemical testing in a battery cell (p3 para 4), thereby teaching a compressed composite. The crystalline Li7P2S8I are embedded in the glass-ceramic material and correspond to the claimed lithium-based electrolyte crystals. Choi shows in Fig. 2 the peak of Li7P2S8I phase is observed throughout the heat-treatment temperatures with increasing intensity at higher temperature, indicating a transition from an amorphous material to a material with increasing crystallinity with increasing temperature (p4 para 5, Fig. 2(a)), suggesting the lithium-based electrolyte crystals Li7P2S8I are at least partially embedded in the amorphous matrix of the glass-ceramic material as they precipitate from the samples during heat treatment. The LiI not incorporated into the crystalline Li7P2S8I would be in the Li2S-P2S5-LiI glass-ceramic material.
Choi does not explicitly describe LiI as being amorphous within the glass-ceramic material. Choi also does not teach wherein a surface portion of the compressed composite has a concentration of Z (i.e. I) that is from 1% greater to 60% greater than an average concentration of Z (i.e. I) within a bulk portion of the compressed composite.
Ujiie in the same field of endeavor teaches that a lack of residues of lithium halide crystals in sulfide glasses (amorphous solids) increases conductivity (p4 right col para 1 lines 5-7) and discloses an example of precipitation of a lithium bromide salt decreasing the conductivity of glass-ceramics because of its low conductivity (p4 right col para 1 lines 29-31). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to prepare the solid electrolyte composite of Choi to minimize precipitation of the lithium halide salt as crystals and to retain some LiI in the amorphous matrix of the Li2S-P2S5-LiI, as taught by Ujiie, to optimize the conductivity of the amorphous material. Accordingly, the composite of the prior art has an amorphous matrix comprising of LiI, wherein Z=I and y=1 which would have a different chemical composition from the lithium-based electrolyte crystals Li7P2S8I. Furthermore, heat treatment of the solid electrolyte material is expected to yield some impurities such as Li2S (evidentiary reference Boulineau: p3 right col para 3), which would result in the amorphous matrix having a different chemical composition from the lithium-based electrolyte crystals crystalline Li7P2S8I.
Choi teaches that LPSI has excellent long-term stability enough to use Li metal as the anode (p7 para 2) but does not disclose the mechanism.
Evidentiary reference Han discloses that Li2S-P2S5-type electrolytes incorporating LiI will decompose into Li2S, Li3P, and LiI when contacting lithium metal and also indicates that the introduction of LiI in the solid electrolyte interface layer can promote Li deposition at the interface and suppress dendrite growth (p5 para 1 lines 1-16), thus making it a promising electrolyte to use with Li metal anode (p5 para 1). Therefore, use of Choi’s solid electrolyte in a battery with Li metal as the anode, as disclosed by Choi (p4 para 5; p7 para 2) will inherently result in a surface portion of the compressed composite having a surface portion that has a higher concentration of LiI, and by association, Z as I, compared to the entirety of the composite, i.e. a bulk portion. Thus, there must exist a surface portion including the solid electrolyte interface layer formed from decomposition of the solid electrolyte and including non-reacted solid electrolyte such that the average concentration of Z is from 1% to greater to 60% greater than an average concentration of Z within the entirety, i.e. a bulk portion, of the composite.
Regarding claim 4, the combination above teaches the solid electrolyte of claim 1, and Choi teaches the lithium-based electrolyte crystals (i.e., Li7P2S8I) further comprise Z (wherein Z=I).
Regarding claim 5, the combination above teaches the solid electrolyte of claim 1, and Choi teaches Z is I, which is a claimed species.
Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al (CN110176627A) in view of Hwang et al (US 20240304855 A1, prior US filing date of 2022 June 21) and Liang et al (CN113161607A).
Regarding claim 1, Guo teaches a lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide solid electrolyte composite material comprising a core of a lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide solid electrolyte (LLZO) and a coating layer coated on a surface of the core (machine translation [0038]), wherein the coating material can be a non-oxidized lithium-containing compound such as Li3N, LiF, LiCl, LiBr, LiI, and Li4.4Si (Z=N, F, Cl, Br, I, Si) and y adopts the necessary value to provide the ionic compound with a neutral net charge ([0038], [0043], [0033], Fig. 9). Guo further teaches, prior to cycling, the preparation of the solid electrolyte composite material by mechanical ball milling the coating material precursor and the LLZO powder to grind the mixture, and subsequently the ground mixture is calcined at high temperature and then crushed and sieved to obtain a LLZO solid electrolyte material with a stable coating ([0014]-[0016], [0049]-[0051]). The use of a milling and calcination process to produce a mixed powder of the LLZO and coating material precursor suggests that the LLZO solid electrolyte material is at least partially embedded in the coating material. Additionally, the LLZO solid electrolyte material has a different chemical composition than the non-oxidized lithium-containing coating material. Guo also teaches that the coating layer comprises 0.5-20 wt % of the composite material and that insufficient coating content may result in the coating layer not completely covering LLZO affecting coating uniformity whereas excessive coating content may reduce the ionic conductivity of the LLZO ([0040]). The teaching suggests that the surface portion of the composite, which is enriched in the coating of a non-oxidized lithium-containing compound such as Li3N, LiF, LiCl, LiBr, LiI, and Li4.4Si, would accordingly have a higher concentration of Z relative to the entirety, i.e. a bulk portion, of the composite material. Inherently, there exists a surface portion including the coating-concentrated region and LLZO-enriched region such that the average concentration of Z is from 1% to greater to 60% greater than an average concentration of Z within the entirety, i.e. a bulk portion, of the composite.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have also considered the relative amount of the coating material, and by association, the concentration of Z within the coating material, to be a result-effective variable, and they would have been motivated to adjust the relative amount of the coating material relative to the composite material to optimize coating uniformity and ionic conductivity of the LLZO, and arrived at the claimed range of Z at a surface portion. Guo also discloses that the solid electrolyte ceramic sheets can be processed from the composite material by hot pressing sintered technology ([0052]), which would correspond to the limitation of a compressed composite.
Guo does not explicitly teach that the coating layer is an amorphous matrix, or that the LLZO material, a lithium-based material that is at least partially embedded in the coating layer, is crystalline.
In the same field of endeavor, Hwang teaches a solid electrolyte such as lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide, i.e. LLZO, ([0078]) with a protective layer comprising an amorphous thin film disposed on the solid electrolyte surface ([0010], [0094]), wherein the protective layer can be the same as the solid electrolyte interphase material ([0095]), and wherein the solid electrolyte interphase material can be an amorphous halide salt including 100% amorphous ([0049], [0059]). Hwang further teaches the halide salt can comprise a chloride salt, a fluoride salt, a bromide salt, an iodide salt of the anode metal material, or a combination thereof, including amorphous lithium fluoride ([0052]). They also disclose that the amorphous form of the halide salt provides a preferred ductile behavior associated with substantially wetting the electrochemically active surface of the anode metal behavior, in contrast to the crystalline phase ([0060]), and that the amorphous form is also more flexible to doping with other materials while preserving favorable transport, electronic, mechanical, and interfacial properties ([0063], [0107]), thereby contributing to the prevention of dendrite formation on the electrochemically active surface of the anode metal material under any operating conditions and also suppressing decomposition of the solid electrolyte under operating conditions ([0097]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Guo’s solid electrolyte to use an amorphous form of the halide salt as the coating material, as taught by Hwang, for the benefit of having an interface layer that mitigates dendrite formation and promote stability of the solid electrolyte, which Guo also highlights as a concern: “the wettability of LLZO with lithium metal also needs to be improved. In summary, obtaining LLZO that can suppress lithium dendrites and constructing an ideal Li/LLZO interface are key to further improving the performance of lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide solid metal batteries” ([0005] lines 16-19). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have also been motivated to dope the amorphous halide salt of modified Guo with heteroatoms or polyanions to improve the thermodynamic favorability of the amorphous phase of the halide salt while maintaining favorable transport, electronic, mechanical and interfacial properties ([0063]), and Guo states that the distribution of heteroatom and/or polyanion can exist as a dispersion of localized clusters acting as amorphous phase stabilizers ([0063]); thus, the coating material acts as an amorphous matrix as claimed.
Also, in the same field of endeavor, Liang teaches a LLZO of formula Li7La3Zr2O12 with a cubic phase structure that has good crystallinity and provides high ionic conductivity (machine translation [n0036]-[n0037]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to use the crystalline LLZO material taught by Liang within the separator of modified Guo, for the benefit of high ionic conductivity. Accordingly, the combination of prior art teaches lithium-based electrolyte crystals of LLZO.
Regarding claim 3, the combination above teaches the solid electrolyte of claim 1, and Liang of the combination further teaches the lithium-based electrolyte crystals comprise Li7La3Zr2O12 ([n0036]).
Regarding claims 6-8, the combination above teaches the solid electrolyte of claim 1. As noted previously in addressing the limitations of claim 1, Guo teaches that the coating layer comprises 0.5-20 wt % of the composite material and that insufficient coating content may result in the coating layer not completely covering LLZO affecting coating uniformity whereas excessive coating content may reduce the ionic conductivity of the LLZO ([0040]). As also noted previously in addressing claim 1, Hwang of the combination teaches the coating material can be an amorphous halide salt that is 100% amorphous ([0059]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have also considered the moles of the coating material relative to the moles of the composite material, which is the sum of the coating material and the crystalline LLZO core, to be a result-effective variable, and by association, the moles of the coating material relative to the moles of the LLZO is also a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art thus would have been motivated to adjust the moles of the coating material relative to the moles of the lithium-based electrolyte crystals LLZO to optimize coating uniformity and ionic conductivity of the LLZO, and arrived at the claimed molar ratio q.
Regarding claim 12, the combination above teaches the solid electrolyte of claim 6. As noted previously in addressing the limitations of claim 1, Guo teaches that the coating layer comprises 0.5-20 wt % of the composite material and that insufficient coating content may result in the coating layer not completely covering LLZO affecting coating uniformity whereas excessive coating content may reduce the ionic conductivity of the LLZO ([0040]). As also noted previously in addressing claim 1, Hwang of the combination teaches the coating material can be an amorphous halide salt that is 100% amorphous ([0059]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have also considered the moles of the coating material relative to the moles of the composite material, which is the sum of the coating material and the crystalline LLZO core, to be a result-effective variable based on the teaching of Guo that the weight percentage of the coating layer in the composite material affects coating uniformity and ionic conductivity of LLZO ([0040]), and by association, the moles of the coating material relative to the moles of LLZO is also a result-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art thus would have been motivated to adjust the moles of the coating material relative to the moles of the lithium-based electrolyte crystals LLZO optimize coating uniformity and ionic conductivity of the LLZO, and arrived at the claimed molar ratio q.
Liang of the combination further teaches the lithium-based electrolyte crystals comprise Li7La3Zr2O12 ([n0036]).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al (CN110176627A) in view of Hwang et al (US 20240304855 A1, prior US filing date of 2022 June 21) and Liang et al (CN113161607A), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Ose et al (US 20180301747 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination above teaches the solid electrolyte of claim 1. Guo further teaches a battery with a cathode, an anode and a solid electrolyte ([0085]) in a test cell, wherein all components are solid materials. Thus, it is an entirely solid-state battery. Guo does not disclose an anode current collector.
In the same field of endeavor, Ose teaches an anode current collector attached to the outer side of the anode mixture ([0078]) for a solid-state battery (Abstract), therefore it is a known configuration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the modified separator of Guo to use an anode current collector to collect current, and Ose teaches it is a known configuration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that providing the combination of elements in combination would merely provide the predictable result of similar function as performed separately with expectation of success; see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding claim 14, the combination above teaches the solid-state battery of claim 13. Guo further teaches that the coating layer, which is part of the surface portion of the compressed composite, is at the interface between LLZO and lithium metal, preventing electrons from being transferred to the LLZO surface, inhibiting the precipitation of lithium metal on the LLZO surface and suppressing the growth of dendrites into the LLZO bulk phase ([0021]), and they further teach use of lithium metal as an anode material ([0026]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to orient the surface portion of the compressed composite toward the anode or anode current collector (the anode current collector is attached to the outer side of the anode active material, and therefore the surface portion of the solid electrolyte would inherently be oriented toward the anode current collector).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIGI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2017. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 6.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/G.L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 12/10/2025
Prosecution Insights