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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the last line of claim 6, replace “penetene” with “pentene”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senoue (US 2019/0334178).
Regarding independent claim 1, Senoue discloses an all-solid-state battery that includes a bicontinuous separating layer for an electrochemical cell (abstract; paragraphs [0006] and [0030]-[0075]; and Figures 1-5), in which the bicontinuous separating layer (30) of the all-solid-state battery (1) includes the following features:
a separating matrix (porous base material (32)) having pores (see paragraphs [0063]-[0067]; and Figures 2-4); and
a solid-state electrolyte (solid electrolyte particles (34)) disposed in at least a portion of the pores of the separating matrix (32), as shown in Figures 2-4 (see paragraphs [0063]-[0067]).
Although Senoue does not explicitly disclose that the bicontinuous separating layer has an ionic conductivity greater than or equal to about 2.5 x 10-5 S/cm at 25 °C, Senoue discloses “Advantages of a separator having such a porous base material are that a contribution is made to the improvement of ionic conductivity by thickness reduction of the separator layer” (see paragraph [0006]). In view of the teachings of Senoue, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that obtaining a bicontinuous separating layer with an ionic conductivity greater than or equal to about 2.5 x 10-5 S/cm at 25 °C would have been obvious, including one formed of a porous base material (32) made preferably of a thermoplastic resin material or a nonwoven fabric made of glass fiber (see paragraphs [0006] and [0063]-[0067]), for the purpose of improving mechanical strength while maintaining the (improvement of) lithium ion conductivity of the separator layer (30) – see paragraphs [0006] and [0064].
Regarding claim 2, although Senoue discloses that the separating matrix (32) has a porosity of 80% or more (see paragraph [0064]), which is at an endpoint of the claimed range of about 30 vol.% to about 80 vol.%, Senoue does not explicitly disclose that the solid-state electrolyte (34) occupies greater than or equal to about 60% of a total porosity of the separating matrix (32), one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the claimed range of electrolyte within the total porosity would have been applied/discovered to be optimized within the broadly claimed range, for the purpose of improving mechanical strength while maintaining the (improvement of) lithium ion conductivity of the separator layer (30) – see paragraphs [0006] and [0064], and with a reasonable expectation of success over the range of electrolyte within the total porosity. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claim 3, although Senoue does not explicitly disclose that the bicontinuous separating layer has a Gurley number greater or equal to about 300 s/100cc, and an areal resistance within the range of about 2 Ω·cm2 to about 100 Ω·cm2, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such ranges/values of Gurley number and areal resistance would have been applied/discovered inherently and/or optimized to be within the broadly claimed ranges, for the purpose of improving mechanical strength while maintaining the (improvement of) lithium ion conductivity of the separator layer (30) – see paragraphs [0006] and [0064], and with a reasonable expectation of success over the ranges/values of Gurley number and areal resistance. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claim 4, although Senoue does not explicitly disclose an average pore diameter for the pores of the separating matrix (32) to be within the range of about 0.03 micrometers to about 1 micrometer, and an average particle size for the solid-state electrolyte (34) to be within the range of about 0.03 micrometers to about 1 micrometer, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such ranges/values of average pore diameter and average particle size would have been applied/discovered to be optimized within the broadly claimed ranges, for the purpose of improving mechanical strength while maintaining the (improvement of) lithium ion conductivity of the separator layer (30) – see paragraphs [0006] and [0064], and with a reasonable expectation of success over the ranges of average pore diameter and average particle size. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claim 5, Senoue discloses that a thickness of the bicontinuous separating layer (30) is defined by the separating matrix (32), as shown in Figures 2-4 (see paragraphs [0063]-[0067]), and also discloses that an average thickness of the separating matrix (32) is within the range of about 10 micrometers to about 200 micrometers (see paragraph [0065]). Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the claimed range of average thickness would have been applied/discovered to be optimized within the broadly claimed range, for the purpose of improving mechanical strength while maintaining the (improvement of) lithium ion conductivity of the separator layer (30) – see paragraphs [0006] and [0064], and with a reasonable expectation of success over the ranges of average thickness of the separating matrix (32). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claim 6, Senoue discloses that the separating matrix (32) comprises one or more of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene and/or inorganic (glass) fibers (see paragraph [0066]).
Regarding claim 7, Senoue discloses that the solid-state electrolyte (34) comprises a solid-state electrolyte material that includes one or more of Li6PS5M and/or Li4PS4M, wherein M includes Cl, Br, I, or combinations thereof (see paragraphs [0037]-[0040]). With regard to the types of materials that are suitable for use, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 8, although Senoue discloses that the separating matrix (32) comprises the ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene mixed with an inorganic (glass) filler of silica (see paragraph [0066]), Senoue does not explicitly disclose that the ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene is mixed with the inorganic filler (silica glass) of up to about 80 wt.%. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the claimed mixing range would have been applied/discovered to be optimized within the broadly claimed range, for the purpose of improving mechanical strength while maintaining the (improvement of) lithium ion conductivity of the separator layer (30) – see paragraphs [0006] and [0064], and with a reasonable expectation of success over the claimed ranges/values. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Senoue discloses that the separating matrix (32) comprises a polymer having a melting temperature of greater than 215 °C, in the form of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene in combination with inorganic (glass) fibers (see paragraph [0066]). Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily conducted routine experimentation under the obvious to try rationale with a finite number of predictable solutions due to overlapping chemical properties of polymers having a melting temperature of greater than 215 °C. With regard to the types of materials that are suitable for use, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 11, Senoue discloses that the solid-state electrolyte (34) has a melting temperature of less than or equal to about than 300 °C, inclusive of a solid-state electrolyte material that includes one or more of Li6PS5M and/or Li4PS4M, wherein M includes Cl, Br, I, or combinations thereof (see paragraphs [0037]-[0040]).
Regarding claim 12, although Senoue discloses that the solid-state electrolyte (34) has a melting temperature of less than or equal to about than 300 °C (of claim 11), inclusive of a solid-state electrolyte material that includes one or more of Li6PS5M and/or Li4PS4M, wherein M includes Cl, Br, I, or combinations thereof (see paragraphs [0037]-[0040]), Senoue does not explicitly disclose that the solid-state electrolyte (34) comprises Li1.9OHCl0.9. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily conducted routine experimentation under the obvious to try rationale with a finite number of predictable solutions due to overlapping chemical properties of lithium-ion compounds that have a melting temperature of less than or equal to about than 300 °C. With regard to the types of materials that are suitable for use, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges the applicants’ amendment and replacement drawing sheet received by the USPTO on October 15, 2025. The replacement drawing sheet overcomes the prior objections to the drawings. Although the amendments overcome prior objections to the abstract and specification, a new objection to claim 6 is raised (see above section 1). In addition, the applicants’ arguments addressing the prior 35 USC 102/103 rejection based on CN 106471666 A are persuasive, and thus the prior art rejection has been withdrawn. Since the applicants did not amend independent claim 1 and a new ground of rejection is made, this Office Action is made non-final. Claims 13-20 remain withdrawn from consideration as drawn to a non-elected invention. Claims 1-12 remain under consideration in the application.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection includes a new reference to Senoue (US 2019/0334178), and thus does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
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.
/KEVIN P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 January 20, 2026