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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 are currently pending
Claims 1, 5, and 8 are amended
Claims 5-7 have been previously withdrawn
New claims 10-11 have been added
Status of Amendments
The amendment filed 30 October 2025 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
This action has been made final.
Status of Objections and Rejections of the Office Action from 5 August 2025
The 103 rejections over Yawata and over Yawata in view of Osada are maintained in view of Applicant’s amendment. The rejections have been modified to address the newly added claims.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yawata et al. (WO 2021066060 A1), hereinafter Yawata.
Yawata teaches an all-solid-state battery 10 (Fig. 1), as required by claim 8, comprising:
a positive electrode layer 4;
a negative electrode layer 2; and
a solid electrolyte layer 3 located between the positive electrode layer 4 and the negative electrode layer 2, as seen in Fig. 1, wherein
the negative electrode layer 2, as required by claims 1 and 8, includes lithium titanate, in this case Li4Ti5O12 (pg. 36, ¶1), as is also required by claim 3, a sulfide solid electrolyte (pg. 36, ¶ 3), and a binder comprising a rubber, in this case polymer binder (Bb) comprising a hydrocarbon polymer (pg. 13, ¶ 9) like styrene-butadiene rubber (pg. 20, ¶ 7), as is also required by claims 2 and 9, and
a ratio of an amount A of the rubber binder adsorbed on the lithium titanate to a total content B of the rubber binder in the negative electrode layer 2 is 1.35% or less and more than 0%, as required by claim 10, and more than 0.5%, as required by claim 11. In this case the adsorption rate of polymer binder Bb to the active material is taught to be preferably 0-10% (pg. 11, ¶ 7). This overlaps with the claimed ranges. 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).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yawata in view of Osada et al. (US 20190356017 A1), hereinafter Osada.
Yawata teaches the negative electrode according to claim 1. Yawata is silent as to the % by volume proportion of the binder, lithium titanate, and sulfide solid electrolyte. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to alter the amount of binder present in order to optimize the interlayer adhesion (pg. 12, ¶ 8). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Further, Osada teaches an all-solid-state battery anode layer comprising a sulfide solid electrolyte [0088], Li4Ti5O12 [0115], and SBR [0105], wherein the content of sulfide solid electrolyte present in the anode layer may be from 0 vol % to 80 vol % [0122] and the content of Li4Ti5O12 present in the anode layer may be from 20 vol % to 100 vol % [0120].
Yawata and Osada are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sulfide solid electrolyte negative electrode layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the amount of electrolyte and active material present in Yawata to match the vol % taught by Osada. Doing so would have increased the thermal stability [0022] and decreased the amount of heat generation of the electrode layer [0023].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the ratio of an amount A of the binder adsorbed on the lithium titanate to a total content B of the binder in the negative electrode layer must include both polymer binders taught by Yawata, BA and BB, in the calculation and assumes that either BA was not considered to be a rubber, in order to exclude it from the calculation, or the adsorption rate was considered to be 0%. Examiner respectfully points out that the rejection is solely based on the presence of polymer binder BB, regardless of the properties of polymer binder BA. The present claim is open-ended in nature comprising lithium titanate, sulfide solid electrolyte, and a binder comprising a rubber, wherein the ratio of an amount A of the binder adsorbed on the lithium titanate to a total content B of the binder in the negative electrode layer is 1.35% or less. In this case, binder BB comprises a rubber and a ratio of an amount A of the binder BB adsorbed on the lithium titanate to a total content B of the binder BB in the negative electrode layer is 1.35% or less, in this case preferably 0-10%. Therefore, the ratio limitations of claims 1 and 10-11 are met, regardless of whether there is also a second binder present with differing characteristics and/or material compositions.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN KENWOOD VAN KIRK whose telephone number is (703)756-4717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, 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.
/DUSTIN VAN KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722