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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 10 September 2025 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-14 are 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.
Claim 1 is drawn to a method of producing a solid-state battery. However, its current steps only comprise preparing a negative electrode, and steps to form a solid electrolyte interface layer on at least one surface of the negative electrode. These two steps alone do not produce a solid-state battery. Thus, it is unclear if the scope of the claim is meant to actually encompass all structures required for a battery, or if the claim should instead be drawn to forming a structure with the two layers as currently claimed. If the Applicant intends to maintain a method of producing a solid-state battery, the Examiner suggests amending claim 1 to include positively reciting method steps of including all structures required of the solid-state battery. As claims 2-14 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 1, they are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 9 includes the limitation “applying a reduction current of 0.01 mA/cm2 or more and 2.0 mA/cm2 or less”. However, current is measured in amperes and the unit mA/cm2 is a measurement of current density, and so it is unclear if the claim is meant to refer to current or current density. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will be treating this claim as referring to current, so the numerical range of 0.01 to 2.0 mA will be treated.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasavajjula et al. (US 2021/0057714; hereinafter “Kasavajjula”), in view of ALBANO et al. (US 2016/0351973; hereinafter “Albano”) and Yu et al. (US 2016/0254572; hereinafter “Yu”).
Regarding claim 1, Kasavajjula teaches a method for producing a solid-state battery comprising a positive electrode, a solid electrolyte, and a negative electrode, the method comprising the steps of:
preparing a negative electrode (anode 101, see Fig. 1; [0013]-[0019]) and
forming, on at least one surface of the negative electrode, a solid electrolyte interface layer (see [0022]).
Kasavajjula is silent to wherein the negative electrode is free of negative-electrode active material, and forming, on at least one surface of the negative electrode, a solid electrolyte interface layer comprising a lithium-containing organic compound and a lithium-containing inorganic compound by immersing the negative electrode in a layer-forming solution comprising a lithium salt and a precursor and thereafter causing a reduction reaction on the surface of the negative electrode
Albano teaches an important benefit of a solid-state battery is the capability to construct a “lithium-free” battery in which there is no anode composite or bulk lithium metal foil to act as an anode to form a lithium battery. In a Li-free battery, a cell is constructed such that during the first charging cycle, metallic lithium is electroplated in between the solid electrolyte and the thin film current collector. While this design follows the concept of a Li-metal battery which is capable of high energy density. Such battery is safer as there is no excess Li with can lead to dangerous conditions if punctured. This design leads to significant improvement in realizable energy density resulting from high loading of active materials in the cathode, a virtual elimination of the current collector and separator, and a high packing efficiency due to the solid structure (see [0252]).
In view of Albano’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Kasavajjula to include wherein the negative electrode is free of negative-electrode active material, as taught by Albano, because it is safer as there is no excess Li with can lead to dangerous conditions if punctured. This design leads to significant improvement in realizable energy density resulting from high loading of active materials in the cathode, a virtual elimination of the current collector and separator, and a high packing efficiency due to the solid structure (see [0252]).
The combination of Kasavajjula and Albano is silent to forming, on at least one surface of the negative electrode, a solid electrolyte interface layer comprising a lithium-containing organic compound and a lithium-containing inorganic compound by immersing the negative electrode in a layer-forming solution comprising a lithium salt and a precursor and thereafter causing a reduction reaction on the surface of the negative electrode.
Yu teaches forming, on at least one surface of a negative electrode, a solid electrolyte interface layer comprising a lithium-containing organic compound and a lithium-containing inorganic compound by immersing the negative electrode in a layer-forming solution comprising a lithium salt and a precursor and thereafter causing a reduction reaction on the surface of the negative electrode (see [0033]-[0064] – Yu teaches forming a solid electrolyte interface layer on a negative electrode (see [0030] and [0050[-0064]) by impregnating the electrode in a composition for forming an SEI film (see [0050]-[0058]) comprising a lithium salt (see [0034]) and a precursor (see [0038]-[0045]) and thereafter causing an oxidation-reduction decomposition reaction on the negative electrode (see [0059]-[0062])). The lithium salt and precursor of Yu both include materials that are used by the Applicant’s invention (see [0034]-[0045] of Yu as compared to the salts listed in [0055] and the precursors listed in [0087] of the Applicant’s filed Specification) and Yu also teaches a reduction reaction (see [0059]-[0062]), and the Applicant’s invention, using the same lithium salt and precursor results in a solid electrolyte interface layer comprising a lithium-containing organic compound and a lithium-containing inorganic compound by the reduction reaction, it must follow that the method of Yu also results in a solid electrolyte interface layer comprising a lithium-containing organic compound and a lithium-containing inorganic compound by its reduction reaction. Yu teaches that this process provides for producing an SEI film on an electrode prior to assembling the electrode in a battery (see [0026] and [0062]-[0065]) and allows for improved output characteristics and lifetime characteristics of the battery (see [0011], [0016], and [0017]).
In view of Yu’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of the combination of Kasavajjula and Albano to include forming, on at least one surface of the negative electrode, a solid electrolyte interface layer comprising a lithium-containing organic compound and a lithium-containing inorganic compound by immersing the negative electrode in a layer-forming solution comprising a lithium salt and a precursor and thereafter causing a reduction reaction on the surface of the negative electrode, as taught by Yu, because it allows for improved output characteristics and lifetime characteristics of the battery.
Regarding the preamble (i.e., for producing a solid-state battery comprising a positive electrode, a solid electrolyte, and a negative electrode), if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See MPEP §2111.02(II).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kasavajjula, Albano, and Yu teaches wherein the solid-state battery is a lithium secondary battery in which charging and discharging are performed by depositing lithium metal on the surface of the negative electrode with the solid electrolyte interface layer and dissolving the deposited lithium (Kasavajjula: see [0019]-[0022]; Albano: see [0252])
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kasavajjula, Albano, and Yu teacheswherein the negative electrode is a lithium-free electrode (Albano: see [0252])
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kasavajjula, Albano, and Yu teaches wherein lithium foil is not formed between the solid electrolyte and the negative electrode on which the solid electrolyte interface layer is formed in the solid-state battery prior to the initial charge (Albano: see [0252]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kasavajjula, Albano, and Yu teaches wherein the precursor is at least one selected from the group consisting of aromatic compounds, ether compounds, ester compounds, carbonic acid ester compounds, fluorine compounds, sulfone compounds, and metal complexes containing one or more of Sn, Bi, Zn, Se, Sb, Mg, Ca, Al, Na, As, and Co (Yu: see [0038]-[0039]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kasavajjula, Albano, and Yu teaches wherein the precursor is at least one selected from the group consisting of trimethoxybenzene, difluoroanisole, monofluorobenzene, difluorobenzene, trifluorobenzene, cumene, biphenyl, cyclohexylbenzene, diphenylpropane, terphenyl, t-amylbenzene, t-butylbenzene, triphenylene, fluorinated ethylene carbonate, difluoroethylene carbonate, chlorinated ethylene carbonate, phenyl carbonate, diphenyl carbonate, vinyl ethylene carbonate, trifluoropropylene carbonate, phosphazene, and derivatives thereof (Yu: see [0038]-[0039]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kasavajjula, Albano, and Yu teaches a two- electrode system with a negative electrode as a working electrode (Yu: see [0136]) and with an electrode as a counter electrode (Yu: lithium metal foil, see [0136]). The combination of Kasavajjula, Albano, and Yu teaches for the electrochemical reaction, a constant current of 0.05 C was applied to the negative electrode and the counter electrode within a voltage range of 2.5 V to 0.005 V, and, when the voltage was 0.005 V, an SEI film was formed on the negative electrode by applying a current under a constant voltage condition until a current value became 1/20 C (Yu: see [0136]). Though the combination is silent to the standard electrode potential in a self-dissolution reaction is -1.0 V or less as a counter electrode is used in the layer forming step to cause a reduction reaction by applying a reduction current of 0.01 mA or more and 2.0 mA or less through the working electrode, Applicant is reminded that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (such as in [0136] of Yu), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kasavajjula, Albano, and Yu teaches wherein the layer-forming solution also comprises an organic solvent other than the precursor (Yu: see [0047]-[0048]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kasavajjula, Albano, and Yu teaches wherein the SEI film-forming agent may be included in an amount of 0.1 wt% to 10 wt% based on a total weight of the composition for forming an SEI film (Yu: see [0046]), but is silent to wherein the amount of precursor in the layer-forming solution is 1% by mass or more and 100% by mass or less with respect to the total mass of components of the layer-forming solution minus the lithium salt. However, removing the lithium salt from the mass of components would merely increase the range of the combination of Kasavajjula, Albano, and Yu, thereby moving it further into the already overlapping range. The precise amount would depend on the exact lithium salt and amount used. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kasavajjula, Albano, and Yu teaches wherein the concentration of the lithium salt in the layer forming solution is 0.01 M or more and 20 M or less with respect to the layer forming solution (Yu: see [0035]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Kasavajjula, Albano, and Yu teaches wherein the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode active material (Kasavajjula: see [0014]-[0015]; Albano: see [0053]-[0056]).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kasavajjula, Albano, Yu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kumar et al. (US 2012/0028105; hereinafter “Kumar”).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kasavajjula, Albano, Yu teaches:
forming a laminate by laminating the negative electrode (Kasavajjula: anode 101, see Fig. 1; [0013]-[0019]) on which the solid electrolyte interface layer is formed (Kasavajjula: see [0022] and Fig. 1), the solid electrolyte (Kasavajjula: see [0016] and Fig. 1), and the positive electrode (Kasavajjula: cathode 105, see Fig. 1; [0015]) in this order so that the solid electrolyte interface layer faces the solid electrolyte (Kasavajjula: see Fig. 1).
The combination of Kasavajjula, Albano, Yu is silent to forming a pouch by encapsulating the laminate and the electrolyte in a sealed container.
Kumar teaches forming a pouch by encapsulating a laminate electrode stack and the electrolyte (see [0074]) in a sealed container (see [0040], [0054]-[0059] and Figs. 4-6). Kumar teaches that their pouch batteries are designed in a high capacity configuration to provide a compact design of an improved battery pack with high energy output.
In view of Kumar’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of the combination of Kasavajjula, Albano, Yu to include forming a pouch by encapsulating the laminate and the electrolyte in a sealed container, as taught by Kumar, because it is a known configuration for secondary batteries to provide a compact design of a battery pack with high energy output.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kasavajjula, Albano, Yu, and Kumar teaches wherein the electrolyte comprises a lithium salt (Albano: see [0040] and [0233]-[0234]) and is free of the precursor (Yu: as Yu teaches forming the SEI on the anode prior to assembling a battery, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that the precursor would not be needed as part of the electrolyte).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kasavajjula, Albano, Yu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sheem et al. (US 2013/0288130; hereinafter “Sheem”).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Kasavajjula, Albano, Yu is silent to wherein the average thickness of the solid electrolyte interface layer is 1 nm or more and 500 nm or less.
Sheem teaches an SEI film having an average thickness ranging from about 10 nm to about 50 nm helps to suppress gas generation, active material layer detachment, and the like, thereby providing a rechargeable lithium battery operated without degradation during repetitive high-rate charge and discharge (see [0035]).
In view of Sheem’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of the combination of Kasavajjula, Albano, Yu to include an SEI film having an average thickness ranging from about 10 nm to about 50 nm, as taught by Sheem, because it helps to suppress gas generation, active material layer detachment, and the like, thereby providing a rechargeable lithium battery operated without degradation during repetitive high-rate charge and discharge. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HA whose telephone number is (571)270-5934. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458 . 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.S.H/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 9 January 2026
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735