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 .
METHODS FOR MANUFACTURING COMPOSITE SOLID-STATE ELECTROLYTE MEMBRANES AND SOLID-STATE BATTERIES COMPRISING THE SAME
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 17/966,327 Art Unit: 1727 December 13, 2025
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed on September 03, 2025 has been received. Claims 18-37 are currently pending. Claims 1-17 have been canceled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) on claims 13-17 are withdrawn because Applicant has canceled the claims.
Claims 27 and 35-37 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.
The term “hot-calendered” in claims 27 and 37 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “hot-calendered” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of compact prosecution, any calendaring method used will read on the claims.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the catholyte" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "the anolyte" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cao on claims 1, 4-8, 11-14 and 16 are withdrawn because Applicant has canceled the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cao and Zoltos on claims 2-3, 9 and 15 are withdrawn because Applicant has canceled the claims.
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cao and Zarra on claims 10 and 17 are withdrawn because Applicant has canceled the claims.
Claim(s) 18-25, 28-33, 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zarra (US 2020/0343504 A1) in view of Ueno et al. (US 2012/0115028 A1).
As to Claims 18-20, 29-30 and 32, Zarra teaches wherein the electrolyte, anode, and cathode can be produced by a fiber-spinning extrusion method using a spinneret (reads on a roll-to-roll melt-blown extrusion process) (paragraph [0054]). Zarra does not specifically disclose wherein an electrode comprises the claimed first and second composite membranes wherein the second membranes solid electrolyte mass percentage is greater than the first.
However, Ueno teaches of a solid-state battery, comprising a cathode 12 having a first composite membrane 12a current collector 11 and having a second composite membrane 12b formed on the first composite membrane (laminated), wherein the amount of sulfide-based solid electrolyte (catholyte) 2 in the second composite membrane is greater than the amount of solid electrolyte in the first composite membrane (Abstract, Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0027, 0036 and 0043]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cathode of Zarra to comprise the claimed composite membrane structure because Ueno teaches that a good ion conducting path is formed (paragraph [0044]).
As to Claim 24, Ueno does not specifically teach three composite electrode membranes. However, Ueno does teach of the solid electrolyte mass percentages increasing from the current collector to the electrolyte (paragraph [0043]). In addition, the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04, VI, B. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cathode of Zarra to comprise the claimed composite membrane structure because Ueno teaches that a good ion conducting path is formed (paragraph [0044]).
As to Claim 25, Ueno teaches wherein the total thickness of the positive active material layer (composite electrode membrane layers) is 1-300 microns, therefore the thickness of each composite membrane falls within the claimed range. The courts have held that 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. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cathode of Zarra to comprise the claimed composite membrane structure because Ueno teaches that sufficient capacity is obtained without excessively increasing resistance (paragraph [0042]).
As to Claim 28, Zarra teaches wherein the cathode is produced by meltblown extrusion (paragraph [0054]).
Ueno teaches wherein the composite membranes are laminated (Fig. 1). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cathode of Zarra to comprise the claimed composite membrane structure because Ueno teaches that a good ion conducting path is formed (paragraph [0044]).
As to Claims 21 and 31, Ueno teaches wherein the anode comprises multiple layers, each comprising an active material and a solid electrolyte (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0050]). Ueno does not specifically disclose wherein the anolyte mass percange increases from the negative current collector to the electrolyte, however, Ueno provides reasoning for doing so in the positive electrode and the courts have held that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, see KSR, MPEP 2143, I, D. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cathode of Zarra to comprise the claimed composite membrane structure because Ueno teaches that a good ion conducting path is formed (paragraph [0044]).
As to Claim 33, Ueno teaches wherein the thickness of the solid electrolyte membrane is 0.1-300 microns (paragraph [0054]). The courts have held that 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. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrolyte membrane of Zarra to comprise the claimed thickness because Ueno teaches that such a thickness is desirable and a good ion conducting path is formed (paragraphs [0044 and 0054]).
As to Claim 35, Ueno teaches wherein the cathode comprises a lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese oxide active material and a sulfide-based solid electrolyte (paragraphs [0033 and 0036]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cathode of Zarra to comprise the claimed materials because Ueno teaches that a good ion conducting path is formed (paragraph [0044]).
As to Claims 22-23 and 36, Ueno teaches wherein the anode comprises a graphite active material and a sulfide-based solid electrolyte (paragraphs [0036 and 0047-0048]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the anode of Zarra to comprise the claimed materials because Ueno teaches that a good ion conducting path is formed (paragraph [0044]).
Claim(s) 26-27, 34 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zarra (US 2020/0343504 A1) in view of Ueno et al. (US 2012/0115028 A1) as applied to claims 18-25, 28-33, 35-36 above and in further view of Xiao et al. (US 2022/0102725 A1).
As to Claims 26-27, 34 and 37, modified Zarra does not specifically disclose the claimed porosities of the claimed calendering method.
However, Xiao teaches of a method of producing electrodes for a solid-state battery wherein the electrodes are calendered to reduce a porosity thereof to a suitable porosity of 20-80% (paragraph [0118]). The courts have held that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique (calendering to reduce a porosity) to a known device (anode and cathode) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, see KSR, MPEP 2143, I, D. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of porosities of the electrodes of modified Zarra to comprise the claimed porosities and calendering method to obtain the claimed porosities because Xiao teaches that such porosities are suitable for a solid-state battery (paragraph [0118]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 ET.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ADAM A ARCIERO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727