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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 13, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 10-17, filed February 13, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 and 8-31 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Cangaz, Yamamoto, and Salah.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-12, 14-18, 20, 23-27, and 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cangaz et al. ("Enabling High-Energy Solid-State Batteries with Stable Anode Interphase by the Use of Columnar Silicon Anodes," Advanced Energy Materials 10(34), 2001320, July 2020).
Regarding claim 1, Cangaz discloses a solid-state battery comprising a negative electrode, positive electrode, and solid electrolyte layer in between; where the negative electrode comprises a current collector (copper foil) and a negative electrode active material layer (columnar silicon film); the solid electrolyte layer comprises a solid electrolyte (Li6PS5Cl) (Cangaz Material Preparation); the silicon particles have a size of 6-8 µm (Cangaz 2.1 Columnar Silicon Anode Characterization), which falls within the range of the instant claim; and the negative electrode layer forms a Li-Si alloy with a columnar structure and voids after charging and discharging (Cangaz Fig. S2).
Regarding claim 2, the negative electrode active material layer comprises lithium after charging (Cangaz Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 3-6, the negative electrode active material layer comprises approximately 100% Si (Cangaz Material Preparation), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claims 8-10, the negative electrode active material layer comprises approximately 100% Si (Cangaz Material Preparation).
Regarding claim 11, the negative electrode layer comprises an interconnected and densified Li-Si alloy after charging and discharging (Cangaz Fig. S2).
Regarding claim 12, the voids are 100% of the distance between the current collector and the solid electrolyte layer (Cangaz Fig. S2), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 14, the negative electrode layer has a density of approximately 57% in a discharged state (Cangaz Table S1), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 15, the negative electrode layer has a porosity of approximately 43% in a discharged state (Cangaz Table S1), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 16, Li6PS5Cl is an inorganic solid electrolyte (Cangaz Material Preparation).
Regarding claim 17, Li6PS5Cl is a sulfide-based solid electrolyte.
Regarding claim 18, Li6PS5Cl is Li6PS5X for X=Cl.
Regarding claim 20, the Li-Si alloy maintains contact with the solid electrolyte (Cangaz 3. Conclusions), and the voids are between the current collector and the solid electrolyte (Cangaz Fig. S2).
Regarding claim 23, Cangaz discloses a solid-state battery comprising a negative electrode, positive electrode, and solid electrolyte layer in between; where the negative electrode comprises a current collector (copper foil) and a negative electrode active material layer (columnar silicon film); the solid electrolyte layer comprises a solid electrolyte (Li6PS5Cl) (Cangaz Material Preparation); the negative electrode material layer comprises approximately 100% silicon particles have a size of 6-8 µm (Cangaz 2.1 Columnar Silicon Anode Characterization), each of which falls within the ranges of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 24, the negative electrode active material layer comprises lithium after charging (Cangaz Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 25, the negative electrode active material layer comprises approximately 100% Si (Cangaz Material Preparation), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 26, the negative electrode layer forms a Li-Si alloy with a columnar structure and voids after charging and discharging (Cangaz Fig. S2).
Regarding claim 27, the voids are 100% of the distance between the current collector and the solid electrolyte layer (Cangaz Fig. S2), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 29, Li6PS5Cl is a sulfide-based solid electrolyte.
Regarding claim 30, Li6PS5Cl is Li6PS5X for X=Cl.
Regarding claim 31, the Li-Si alloy maintains contact with the solid electrolyte (Cangaz 3. Conclusions), and the voids are between the current collector and the solid electrolyte (Cangaz Fig. S2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 2, 11, 12, 16-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. ("Slurry mixing for fabricating silicon-composite electrodes in all-solid-state batteries with high areal capacity and cycling stability," Journal of Power Sources 402, pp. 506-512, October 2018).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto discloses a solid-state battery comprising a negative electrode, positive electrode, and solid electrolyte layer in between; where the negative electrode comprises a current collector (carbon-coated copper foil) and a negative electrode active material layer (Si-composite sheet); the solid electrolyte layer comprises a solid electrolyte (LPS); and the silicon particles have a size of 1-5 µm (Yamamoto 2.2. Fabrication of electrode sheet and cell), 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 size within the range disclosed by Yamamoto, including values within the range of the instant claim.
The negative electrode layer forms a Li-Si alloy with a columnar structure and voids after charging and discharging (Yamamoto Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 2, the negative electrode layer includes conductive material (acetylene black), a binder (PPC), and a solid electrolyte (LPS) (Yamamoto 2.2. Fabrication of electrode sheet and cell).
Regarding claim 11, the negative electrode layer comprises an interconnected and densified Li-Si alloy after charging and discharging (Yamamoto Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 12, the voids are 100% of the distance between the current collector and the solid electrolyte layer (Yamamoto Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 16, LPS is an inorganic solid electrolyte (Yamamoto 2.1. Preparation of solid electrolyte).
Regarding claim 17, LPS is a sulfide-based solid electrolyte (Yamamoto 2.1. Preparation of solid electrolyte).
Regarding claim 18, LPS is 75Li2S·25P2S5 (Yamamoto 2.1. Preparation of solid electrolyte).
Regarding claim 20, the Li-Si alloy contacts the solid electrolyte, with voids between the current collector and electrolyte layer (Yamamoto Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 13 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cangaz as applied to claims 1 and 26 above, and further in view of Salah et al. ("Doped and reactive silicon thin film anodes for lithium ion batteries: A review," Journal of Power Sources 506, 230194, September 2021).
Regarding claim 13, Cangaz does not teach any particular conductivity for the negative electrode active material layer. Salah teaches that it is desirable to increase the conductivity of pure silicon (the material used by Cangaz, which has a conductivity ~10-5 S/cm) by as much as a factor of 106 with doping to improve its performance (Salah 3. Doped Si thin films). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to increase the conductivity of the pure silicon of Cangaz. The improved conductivity would range from 10-5 to 10 S/cm, 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 an appropriate conductivity in the range of Salah, including values within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 28, the negative electrode layer has a density of approximately 57% and a porosity of approximately 43% in a discharged state (Cangaz Table S1), each of which falls within the ranges of the instant claim.
Cangaz does not teach any particular conductivity for the negative electrode active material layer. Salah teaches that it is desirable to increase the conductivity of pure silicon (the material used by Cangaz, which has a conductivity ~10-5 S/cm) by as much as a factor of 106 with doping to improve its performance (Salah 3. Doped Si thin films). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to increase the conductivity of the pure silicon of Cangaz. The improved conductivity would range from 10-5 to 10 S/cm, 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 an appropriate conductivity in the range of Salah, including values within the range of the instant claim.
Claim(s) 19, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cangaz as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 19, Cangaz does not teach any particular value for B/A. Cangaz teaches that growth in the thickness direction is compensated for by applying external pressure, limiting expansion and contraction to the horizontal directions (Cangaz Introduction, final 2 paragraphs). Growth after cycling is therefore assumed to be negligible (i.e. B/A is approximately 1, which falls within the range of the instant claim). Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to apply sufficient pressure to maintain the original thickness.
Regarding claim 21, Cangaz discloses a solid-state battery comprising a negative electrode, positive electrode, and solid electrolyte layer in between; where the negative electrode comprises a current collector (copper foil) and a negative electrode active material layer (columnar silicon film); the solid electrolyte layer comprises a solid electrolyte (Li6PS5Cl) (Cangaz Material Preparation); the silicon particles have a size of 6-8 µm (Cangaz 2.1 Columnar Silicon Anode Characterization), which falls within the range of the instant claim; and the negative electrode layer forms a Li-Si alloy with a columnar structure and voids after charging and discharging (Cangaz Fig. S2).
Cangaz does not teach any particular value for the change in thickness after 200 cycles. Cangaz teaches that growth in the thickness direction is compensated for by applying external pressure, limiting expansion and contraction to the horizontal directions (Cangaz Introduction, final 2 paragraphs). Growth after cycling is therefore assumed to be negligible (i.e. change in thickness is approximately 0%, which falls within the range of the instant claim). Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to apply sufficient pressure to maintain the original thickness.
Regarding claim 22, Cangaz discloses a method for forming the battery in which the electrode comprises approximately 100% Si (Cangaz Material Preparation), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
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