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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/26/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-13 remain pending in this application.
Applicant’s amendment to the drawings and claims has overcome the objections to the drawings and the objections, 112(a) enablement rejection, and 112(b) rejection to the claims previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 8/26/2025.
The amendment filed 11/26/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 112(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the claims of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is cited below.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding
3
c
m
3
m
A
<
(
b
1
+
b
2
)
a
∙
10
4
<
11
c
m
3
m
A
, support for the amended requirement claim limitation is not able to be verified. While the new rendition of the relationship is now clear and is enabled, the specification doesn’t appear to clearly support this version. The examiner requests the applicant clarify exactly where the support is coming from or amend the limitation.
Regarding line 3 of claims 6 and 7, the amendment of “2 µm” does not appear to have support in the instant specification or drawings. While 4 µm appears to have support on line 3 and 6 of page 5 of the instant specification, 2 µm does not. The examiner requests the applicant clarify exactly where the support for the amendment is or to amend the limitation.
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, 3, 6, and 7 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.
In line 10 and 11 of claim 1, lines 2 and 3 of claim 3, and line 2 of claims 6 and 7, it is unclear how the solid electrolyte layer relates to the active material layer and the rest of the claim and therefore how the limitation further limits the claim based upon the current phrasing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hasegawa et al. (US 2021/0226194 A1). Hasegawa et al. was cited in the Non-Final Rejection filed 8/26/2026.
Regarding claim 1, Hasegawa et al. teaches, an all-solid-state battery (see e.g. all solid state battery in Para 16) comprising:
a cathode active material layer (see e.g. cathode layer with cathode active material in Para. 12 and 51);
an anode active material layer (see e.g. anode layer with anode active material in Para. 12 and 42); and
a solid electrolyte layer interposed between the cathode active material layer and the anode active material layer (see e.g. a solid electrolyte layer formed between the cathode layer and the anode layer in Para. 12);
Hasegawa et al. does not explicitly teach the limitation:
wherein the all-solid-state battery satisfies Requirement 1 below,
[Requirement 1]
3
c
m
3
m
A
<
(
b
1
+
b
2
)
a
∙
10
4
<
11
c
m
3
m
A
wherein a is current density [mA/cm2] of the all-solid-state battery, b1 is surface roughness [pm] of one side of the cathode active material layer to the solid electrolyte layer, and b2 is surface roughness [pm] of one side of the anode active material layer to the solid electrolyte layer.
However, because Hasegawa et al. teaches each and every limitation of the solid-state battery disclosed by the claims thus far, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider it to inherently have the claimed properties that would satisfy Requirement 1 as currently disclosed because thus far there lacks any exclusion to the scope of the claims as compared to Okuda et al., and therefore any cathode, anode, and solid electrolyte would inherently have the claimed properties. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claim 2, Hasegawa et al. teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1.
Hasegawa et al. does not explicitly teach the limitation: wherein the current density of the all-solid-state battery ranges from about 1 mA/cm2 to 5 mA/cm2.
However, because Hasegawa et al. teaches each and every limitation of the solid-state battery disclosed by the claims thus far, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider it to inherently have the claimed properties that would satisfy Requirement 1 as currently disclosed because thus far there lacks any exclusion to the scope of the claims as compared to Okuda et al., and therefore any cathode, anode, and solid electrolyte would inherently have the claimed properties. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claim 3, Hasegawa et al. teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1.
Hasegawa et al. does not explicitly teach the limitation:
wherein a ratio of the surface roughness of one side of the cathode active material layer to the solid electrolyte layer to the surface roughness of one side of the anode active material layer to the solid electrolyte layer ranges from about 1/3 to 1.
However, because Hasegawa et al. teaches each and every limitation of the solid-state battery disclosed by the claims thus far, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider it to inherently have the claimed properties that would satisfy Requirement 1 as currently disclosed because thus far there lacks any exclusion to the scope of the claims as compared to Okuda et al., and therefore any cathode, anode, and solid electrolyte would inherently have the claimed properties. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claim 4, Hasegawa et al. teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1.
Hasegawa et al. does not explicitly teach the limitation:
wherein the all-solid-state battery satisfies Requirement 2 below,
[Requirement 2]
0.25 < b1/(b1+b2) < 0.50.
However, because Hasegawa et al. teaches each and every limitation of the solid-state battery disclosed by the claims thus far, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider it to inherently have the claimed properties that would satisfy Requirement 1 as currently disclosed because thus far there lacks any exclusion to the scope of the claims as compared to Okuda et al., and therefore any cathode, anode, and solid electrolyte would inherently have the claimed properties. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claim 5, Hasegawa et al. teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1.
Hasegawa et al. does not explicitly teach the limitation:
wherein the all-solid-state battery satisfies Requirement 3 below,
[Requirement 3]
0.50 < b2/(b1+b2) < 0.75.
However, because Hasegawa et al. teaches each and every limitation of the solid-state battery disclosed by the claims thus far, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider it to inherently have the claimed properties that would satisfy Requirement 1 as currently disclosed because thus far there lacks any exclusion to the scope of the claims as compared to Okuda et al., and therefore any cathode, anode, and solid electrolyte would inherently have the claimed properties. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claim 6, Hasegawa et al. teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1.
Hasegawa et al. does not explicitly teach the limitation:
Wherein the surface roughness of one side of the cathode active material layer to the solid electrolyte layer ranges from about 2 µm to 50 µm.
However, because Hasegawa et al. teaches each and every limitation of the solid-state battery disclosed by the claims thus far, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider it to inherently have the claimed properties that would satisfy Requirement 1 as currently disclosed because thus far there lacks any exclusion to the scope of the claims as compared to Okuda et al., and therefore any cathode, anode, and solid electrolyte would inherently have the claimed properties. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claim 7, Hasegawa et al. teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1.
Hasegawa et al. does not explicitly teach the limitation:
Wherein the surface roughness of one side of the anode active material layer to the solid electrolyte layer ranges from about 2 µm to 50 µm.
However, because Hasegawa et al. teaches each and every limitation of the solid-state battery disclosed by the claims thus far, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider it to inherently have the claimed properties that would satisfy Requirement 1 as currently disclosed because thus far there lacks any exclusion to the scope of the claims as compared to Okuda et al., and therefore any cathode, anode, and solid electrolyte would inherently have the claimed properties. See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claim 8, Hasegawa et al. teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1, wherein the cathode active material comprises an amount of about 80 % to 90 % by weight of a cathode active material (see e.g. the proportion of the cathode active material in the cathode layer for example may be 80 weight % in Para. 51).
Regarding claim 9, Hasegawa et al. teaches the anode active material layer comprises an amount of about 70 % to 90 % by weight of an anode active material (see e.g. the proportion of the anode active material in the cathode layer for example may be 80 or 90 weight % in Para. 27).
Regarding claim 10, Hasegawa et al. teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1, wherein the solid electrolyte layer comprises a sulfide-based solid electrolyte (see e.g. the sulfide solid electrolyte in Para. 32-37) having lithium ion conductivity (see e.g. the ion conductivity may be lithium-based in Para. 33 and 38) of about 0.3 mS/cm or more (see e.g. ion conductivity may be 1×10−3 S/cm or more in Para. 39 which equates to 1 mS/cm or more which fully resides within the claimed range of about 0.3 mS/cm or more).
Claims 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okuda et al. (US 2022/0006126 A1). Okuda et al. was cited in the Non-Final Rejection filed 8/26/2026.
Regarding claim 1, Okuda et al. teaches an all-solid-state battery (see e.g. solid-state battery in the Abstract and Para. 13) comprising:
a cathode active material layer (see e.g. the positive electrode active material layer in Para. 92);
an anode active material layer (see e.g. the negative electrode active material layer in Para. 51); and
a solid electrolyte layer interposed between the cathode active material layer and the anode active material layer (see e.g. solid electrolyte layers interposed between positive electrode layers and negative electrode layer in Para. 116); and
Okuda et al. does not explicitly teach the limitation:
wherein the all-solid-state battery satisfies Requirement 1 below,
[Requirement 1]
3
c
m
3
m
A
<
(
b
1
+
b
2
)
a
∙
10
4
<
11
c
m
3
m
A
wherein a is current density [mA/cm2] of the all-solid-state battery, b1 is surface roughness [µm] of one side of the cathode active material layer to the solid electrolyte layer, and b2 is surface roughness [µm] of one side of the anode active material layer to the solid electrolyte layer.
However, because Okuda et al. teaches each and every limitation of the solid-state battery disclosed by the claims thus far, particularly compositionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider it to inherently have the claimed properties that would satisfy Requirement 1 as currently disclosed because thus far there lacks any exclusion to the scope of the claims as compared to Okuda et al., and therefore any cathode, anode, and solid electrolyte would inherently have the claimed properties. See MPEP 2112.01 II.
Additionally, Okuda et al. teaches the positive electrode active material may be a lithium sulfide in Para 101-102 of which the instant specification notes is an option on page 18 line 11 to page 19 line 2. The instant specification also notes the positive active material may include an electrolyte, binder, and conductive material on page 19 lines 3-7 of which Okuda et al. also notes in Para. 92 and 104-105. The electrolyte of Okuda et al. is a sulfide-based electrolyte that may include lithium in Par. 98 and a binder in Para. 117 and 119 which matches with the instant specification on page 21 lines 7-18. Okuda et al. teaches the negative electrode active material may be tin, silicon, or an alloy of the two in Para. 111 and may contain a binder and conductive material and electrolyte in Para. 109 of which the instant specification also notes on page 19 line 12 to page 20 line 15. Okuda et al. teaches the positive electrode current collector may be aluminum or stainless steel in Para. 89 of which the instant specification teaches on page 22 lines 2-5. Okuda et al. teaches the negative electrode current collector may be copper or nickel in Para. 107 which the instant specification teaches on page 22 lines 8-11. Therefore, because there lacks any clear compositional difference between the solid-state battery of Okuda et al. and the solid-state battery in the claims and instant specification, it would further be reasonably considered by a person having ordinary skill in the art that the solid-state battery would inherently have the claimed properties. See MPEP 2112.01 II.
Regarding claim 2, Okuda et al. teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1.
Okuda et al. does not explicitly teach the limitation: wherein the current density of the all-solid-state battery ranges from about 1 mA/cm2 to 5 mA/cm2.
However, because Okuda et al. teaches each and every limitation of the solid-state battery disclosed by the claims thus far, particularly compositionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider it to inherently have the claimed property of a current density from about 1 mA/cm2 to 5 mA/cm2 as currently disclosed because thus far there lacks any exclusion to the scope of the claims as compared to Okuda et al., and therefore any cathode, anode, and solid electrolyte would inherently have the claimed properties. See MPEP 2112.01 II.
Additionally, Okuda et al. teaches the positive electrode active material may be a lithium sulfide in Para. 101-102 of which the instant specification notes is an option on page 18 line 11 to page 19 line 2. The instant specification also notes the positive active material may include an electrolyte, binder, and conductive material on page 19 lines 3-7 of which Okuda et al. also notes in Para. 93 and 104-105. The electrolyte of Okuda et al. is a sulfide-based electrolyte that may include lithium in Para. 98 and a binder in Para. 117 and 119 which matches with the instant specification on page 21 lines 7-18. Okuda et al. teaches the negative electrode active material may be tin, silicon, or an alloy of the two in Para. 111 and may contain a binder and conductive material and electrolyte in Para. 109 of which the instant specification also notes on page 19 line 12 to page 20 line 15. Okuda et al. teaches the positive electrode current collector may be aluminum or stainless steel in Para. 89 of which the instant specification teaches on page 22 lines 2-5. Okuda et al. teaches the negative electrode current collector may be copper or nickel in Para. 107 which the instant specification teaches on page 22 lines 8-11. Therefore, because there lacks any clear compositional difference between the solid-state battery of Okuda et al. and the solid-state battery in the claims and instant specification, it would further be reasonably considered by a person having ordinary skill in the art that the solid-state battery would inherently have the claimed properties. See MPEP 2112.01 II.
Regarding claim 3, Okuda et al. teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1.
Okuda et al. does not explicitly teach the limitation: wherein a ratio of the surface roughness of one side of the cathode active material layer to the solid electrolyte layer to the surface roughness of one side of the anode active material layer to the solid electrolyte layer ranges from about 1/3 to 1.
However, because Okuda et al. teaches each and every limitation of the solid-state battery disclosed by the claims thus far, particularly compositionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider it to inherently have the claimed property of a current density from about a 1/3 to 1 ratio of surface roughness of cathode to anode active material layers as currently disclosed because thus far there lacks any exclusion to the scope of the claims as compared to Okuda et al., and therefore any cathode, anode, and solid electrolyte would inherently have the claimed properties. See MPEP 2112.01 II.
Additionally, Okuda et al. teaches the positive electrode active material may be a lithium sulfide in Para. 101-102 of which the instant specification notes is an option on page 18 line 11 to page 19 line 2. The instant specification also notes the positive active material may include an electrolyte, binder, and conductive material on page 19 lines 3-7 of which Okuda et al. also notes in Para. 93 and 104-105. The electrolyte of Okuda et al. is a sulfide-based electrolyte that may include lithium in Para. 98 and a binder in Para. 117 and 119 which matches with the instant specification on page 21 lines 7-18. Okuda et al. teaches the negative electrode active material may be tin, silicon, or an alloy of the two in Para. 111 and may contain a binder and conductive material and electrolyte in Para. 109 of which the instant specification also notes on page 19 line 12 to page 20 line 15. Okuda et al. teaches the positive electrode current collector may be aluminum or stainless steel in Para. 89 of which the instant specification teaches on page 22 lines 2-5. Okuda et al. teaches the negative electrode current collector may be copper or nickel in Para. 107 which the instant specification teaches on page 22 lines 8-11. Therefore, because there lacks any clear compositional difference between the solid-state battery of Okuda et al. and the solid-state battery in the claims and instant specification, it would further be reasonably considered by a person having ordinary skill in the art that the solid-state battery would inherently have the claimed properties. See MPEP 2112.01 II.
Regarding claim 4, Okuda et al. teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1.
Okuda et al. does not explicitly teach the limitation:
wherein the all-solid-state battery satisfies Requirement 2 below,
[Requirement 2]
0.25 < b1/(b1+b2) < 0.50.
However, because Okuda et al. teaches each and every limitation of the solid-state battery disclosed by the claims thus far, particularly compositionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider it to inherently have the claimed properties that would satisfy Requirement 2 as currently disclosed because thus far there lacks any exclusion to the scope of the claims as compared to Okuda et al., and therefore any cathode, anode, and solid electrolyte would inherently have the claimed properties. See MPEP 2112.01 II.
Additionally, Okuda et al. teaches the positive electrode active material may be a lithium sulfide in Para. 101-102 of which the instant specification notes is an option on page 18 line 11 to page 19 line 2. The instant specification also notes the positive active material may include an electrolyte, binder, and conductive material on page 19 lines 3-7 of which Okuda et al. also notes in Para. 93 and 104-105. The electrolyte of Okuda et al. is a sulfide-based electrolyte that may include lithium in Para. 98 and a binder in Para. 117 and 119 which matches with the instant specification on page 21 lines 7-18. Okuda et al. teaches the negative electrode active material may be tin, silicon, or an alloy of the two in Para. 111 and may contain a binder and conductive material and electrolyte in Para. 109 of which the instant specification also notes on page 19 line 12 to page 20 line 15. Okuda et al. teaches the positive electrode current collector may be aluminum or stainless steel in Para. 89 of which the instant specification teaches on page 22 lines 2-5. Okuda et al. teaches the negative electrode current collector may be copper or nickel in Para. 107 which the instant specification teaches on page 22 lines 8-11. Therefore, because there lacks any clear compositional difference between the solid-state battery of Okuda et al. and the solid-state battery in the claims and instant specification, it would further be reasonably considered by a person having ordinary skill in the art that the solid-state battery would inherently have the claimed properties. See MPEP 2112.01 II.
Regarding claim 5, Okuda et al. teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1.
Okuda et al. does not explicitly teach the limitation:
wherein the all-solid-state battery satisfies Requirement 3 below,
[Requirement 3]
0.50 < b2/(b1+b2) < 0.75.
However, because Okuda et al. teaches each and every limitation of the solid-state battery disclosed by the claims thus far, particularly compositionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider it to inherently have the claimed properties that would satisfy Requirement 3 as currently disclosed because thus far there lacks any exclusion to the scope of the claims as compared to Okuda et al., and therefore any cathode, anode, and solid electrolyte would inherently have the claimed properties. See MPEP 2112.01 II.
Additionally, Okuda et al. teaches the positive electrode active material may be a lithium sulfide in Para. 101-102 of which the instant specification notes is an option on page 18 line 11 to page 19 line 2. The instant specification also notes the positive active material may include an electrolyte, binder, and conductive material on page 19 lines 3-7 of which Okuda et al. also notes in Para. 93 and 104-105. The electrolyte of Okuda et al. is a sulfide-based electrolyte that may include lithium in Para. 98 and a binder in in Para. 117 and 119 which matches with the instant specification on page 21 lines 7-18. Okuda et al. teaches the negative electrode active material may be tin, silicon, or an alloy of the two in Para. 111 and may contain a binder and conductive material and electrolyte in Para. 109 of which the instant specification also notes on page 19 line 12 to page 20 line 15. Okuda et al. teaches the positive electrode current collector may be aluminum or stainless steel in Para. 89 of which the instant specification teaches on page 22 lines 2-5. Okuda et al. teaches the negative electrode current collector may be copper or nickel in Para. 107 which the instant specification teaches on page 22 lines 8-11. Therefore, because there lacks any clear compositional difference between the solid-state battery of Okuda et al. and the solid-state battery in the claims and instant specification, it would further be reasonably considered by a person having ordinary skill in the art that the solid-state battery would inherently have the claimed properties. See MPEP 2112.01 II.
Regarding claim 6, Okuda et al. teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1.
Okuda et al. does not explicitly teach the limitation:
wherein the surface roughness of one side of the cathode active material layer to the solid electrolyte layer ranges from about 2 µm to 50 µm.
However, because Okuda et al. teaches each and every limitation of the solid-state battery disclosed by the claims thus far, particularly compositionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider it to inherently have the claimed property of a cathode active material layer surface roughness from about 4 µm to 50 µm as currently disclosed because, thus far, there lacks any exclusion to the scope of the claims as compared to Okuda et al., and therefore any cathode, anode, and solid electrolyte would inherently have the claimed properties. See MPEP 2112.01 II.
Additionally, Okuda et al. teaches the positive electrode active material may be a lithium sulfide in Para. 101-102 of which the instant specification notes is an option on page 18 line 11 to page 19 line 2. The instant specification also notes the positive active material may include an electrolyte, binder, and conductive material on page 19 lines 3-7 of which Okuda et al. also notes in Para. 93 and 104-105. The electrolyte of Okuda et al. is a sulfide-based electrolyte that may include lithium in Para. 98 and a binder in Para. 117 and 119 which matches with the instant specification on page 21 lines 7-18. Okuda et al. teaches the negative electrode active material may be tin, silicon, or an alloy of the two in Para. 111 and may contain a binder and conductive material and electrolyte in Para. 109 of which the instant specification also notes on page 19 line 12 to page 20 line 15. Okuda et al. teaches the positive electrode current collector may be aluminum or stainless steel in Para. 89 of which the instant specification teaches on page 22 lines 2-5. Okuda et al. teaches the negative electrode current collector may be copper or nickel in Para. 107 which the instant specification teaches on page 22 lines 8-11. Therefore, because there lacks any clear compositional difference between the solid-state battery of Okuda et al. and the solid-state battery in the claims and instant specification, it would further be reasonably considered by a person having ordinary skill in the art that the solid-state battery would inherently have the claimed properties. See MPEP 2112.01 II.
Regarding claim 7, Okuda et al. teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1.
Okuda et al. does not explicitly teach the limitation:
wherein the surface roughness of one side of the anode active material layer to the solid electrolyte layer ranges from about 2 µm to 50 µm.
However, because Okuda et al. teaches each and every limitation of the solid-state battery disclosed by the claims thus far, particularly compositionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider it to inherently have the claimed property of an anode active material layer surface roughness from about 2 µm to 50 µm as currently disclosed because thus far there lacks any exclusion to the scope of the claims as compared to Okuda et al., and therefore any cathode, anode, and solid electrolyte would inherently have the claimed properties. See MPEP 2112.01 II.
Additionally, Okuda et al. teaches the positive electrode active material may be a lithium sulfide in Para. 101-102 of which the instant specification notes is an option on page 18 line 11 to page 19 line 2. The instant specification also notes the positive active material may include an electrolyte, binder, and conductive material on page 19 lines 3-7 of which Okuda et al. also notes in Para. 93 and 104-105. The electrolyte of Okuda et al. is a sulfide-based electrolyte that may include lithium in Para. 98 and a binder in Para. 117 and 119 which matches with the instant specification on page 21 lines 7-18. Okuda et al. teaches the negative electrode active material may be tin, silicon, or an alloy of the two in Para. 111 and may contain a binder and conductive material and electrolyte in Para. 109 of which the instant specification also notes on page 19 line 12 to page 20 line 15. Okuda et al. teaches the positive electrode current collector may be aluminum or stainless steel in Para. 89 of which the instant specification teaches on page 22 lines 2-5. Okuda et al. teaches the negative electrode current collector may be copper or nickel in Para. 107 which the instant specification teaches on page 22 lines 8-11. Therefore, because there lacks any clear compositional difference between the solid-state battery of Okuda et al. and the solid-state battery in the claims and instant specification, it would further be reasonably considered by a person having ordinary skill in the art that the solid-state battery would inherently have the claimed properties. See MPEP 2112.01 II.
Regarding claim 10, Okuda et al. teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1.
Okuda et al. teaches wherein the solid electrolyte layer comprises a sulfide-based solid electrolyte (see e.g. the solid electrolyte may include a sulfide solid electrolyte that may include a lithium-based compound in Para. 97-102).
Okuda et al. does not explicitly teach the limitation:
having lithium-ion conductivity of about 0.3 mS/cm or more.
However, because Okuda et al. teaches each and every limitation of the solid-state battery disclosed by the claims thus far, particularly compositionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider it to inherently have the claimed properties of lithium ion conductivity of about 0.3 mS/cm or more as currently disclosed because thus far there lacks any exclusion to the scope of the claims as compared to Okuda et al., and therefore any cathode, anode, and solid electrolyte would inherently have the claimed properties. See MPEP 2112.01 II.
Additionally, Okuda et al. teaches the positive electrode active material may be a lithium sulfide in Para. 101-102 of which the instant specification notes is an option on page 18 line 11 to page 19 line 2. The instant specification also notes the positive active material may include an electrolyte, binder, and conductive material on page 19 lines 3-7 of which Okuda et al. also notes in Para. 93 and 104-105. The electrolyte of Okuda et al. is a sulfide-based electrolyte that may include lithium in Para. 98 and a binder in Para. 117 and 119 which matches with the instant specification on page 21 lines 7-18. Okuda et al. teaches the negative electrode active material may be tin, silicon, or an alloy of the two in Para. 111 and may contain a binder and conductive material and electrolyte in Para. 109 of which the instant specification also notes on page 19 line 12 to page 20 line 15. Okuda et al. teaches the positive electrode current collector may be aluminum or stainless steel in Para. 89 of which the instant specification teaches on page 22 lines 2-5. Okuda et al. teaches the negative electrode current collector may be copper or nickel in Para. 107 which the instant specification teaches on page 22 lines 8-11. Therefore, because there lacks any clear compositional difference between the solid-state battery of Okuda et al. and the solid-state battery in the claims and instant specification, it would further be reasonably considered by a person having ordinary skill in the art that the solid-state battery would inherently have the claimed properties. See MPEP 2112.01 II.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 11-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. (US 2021/0226194 A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, Hasegawa et al. teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1, wherein the solid electrolyte layer thickness ranges from about 30 µm to 70 µm (see e.g. solid electrolyte thickness 0.1 µm to 1000 µm in Para. 54 and 56. This overlaps the claimed range in “30 µm to 70 µm” in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05)).
Regarding claim 12, Hasegawa et al. teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1, further comprising a cathode current collector disposed on the cathode active material layer (see e.g. the cathode current collector 4 and cathode layer 1 in Para. 46 od which includes a cathode active material in Para. 51 and Fig. 1).
Hasegawa et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein a thickness of the cathode current collector ranges from about 6 µm to 12 µm.
However, Hasegawa et al. teaches the thickness of the cathode current collector is selected appropriately based on the use application of the battery in Para. 58. Given that the electrolyte thickness in Para. 56 overlaps the claimed range and the cathode and anode layers are listed in µm in Para. 43 and 54, it would be expected result that one would arrive within the claimed range of 6 µm to 12 µm depending on the use application of the battery and based on the similar units of other thicknesses in the battery structure. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A.
Regarding claim 13, Hasegawa et al. teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1, further comprising an anode current collector disposed on the anode active material layer (see e.g. anode current collector 5 and anode layer 2 in Para. 46 comprising anode active material in Para. 49 and Fig. 1).
Hasegawa et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein a thickness of the anode current collector ranges from about 5 µm to 10 µm.
However, Hasegawa et al. teaches the thickness of the anode current collector is selected appropriately based on the use application of the battery in Para. 58. Given that the electrolyte thickness in Para. 56 overlaps the claimed range and the cathode and anode layers are listed in µm in Para. 43 and 54, it would be expected result that one would arrive within the claimed range of 5 µm to 10 µm depending on the use application of the battery and based on the similar units of other thicknesses in the battery structure. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A.
Claims 8, 9, and 11-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda et al. (US 2022/0006126 A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Okuda et al. teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1.
Okuda et al. teaches the positive electrode active material layer comprises positive electrode active material and may further include a solid electrolyte, conductive material, and a binder in Para. 93. The solid electrolyte may be, for example, 1 part by mass to 200 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the positive electrode active material in Para. 97. The conductive material may be, for example, 0.1 parts by mass to 10 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the positive electrode active material in Para 104. The binder may be, for example, 0.1 parts by mass to 10 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the positive electrode active material in Para. 105.
L
a
y
e
r
=
A
c
t
i
v
e
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
+
E
l
e
c
t
r
o
l
y
t
e
+
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
e
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
+
B
i
n
d
e
r
1
100
A
M
m
a
s
s
≤
E
m
a
s
s
≤
2
A
M
m
a
s
s
1
1000
A
M
m
a
s
s
≤
C
M
m
a
s
s
≤
1
10
A
M
m
a
s
s
1
1000
A
M
m
a
s
s
≤
B
m
a
s
s
≤
1
10
A
M
m
a
s
s
If all the masses are at the largest within their possible ranges:
2
A
M
m
a
s
s
=
E
m
a
s
s
1
10
A
M
m
a
s
s
=
C
M
m
a
s
s
1
10
A
M
m
a
s
s
=
B
m
a
s
s
L
m
a
s
s
=
A
M
m
a
s
s
+
2
A
M
m
a
s
s
+
1
10
A
M
m
a
s
s
+
1
10
A
M
m
a
s
s
L
m
a
s
s
=
32
10
A
M
m
a
s
s
10
32
=
A
M
m
a
s
s
L
m
a
s
s
0.3125
=
A
M
m
a
s
s
L
m
a
s
s
31.25
%
o
r
31.25
p
a
r
t
s
b
y
m
a
s
s
o
f
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
d
e
p
e
r
100
p
a
r
t
s
b
y
m
a
s
s
o
f
e
n
t
i
r
e
l
a
y
e
r
If all the masses are at the smallest within their possible ranges:
1
10
A
M
m
a
s
s
=
E
m
a
s
s
1
1000
A
M
m
a
s
s
=
C
M
m
a
s
s
1
1000
A
M
m
a
s
s
=
B
m
a
s
s
L
m
a
s
s
=
A
M
m
a
s
s
+
1
10
A
M
m
a
s
s
+
1
1000
A
M
m
a
s
s
+
1
1000
A
M
m
a
s
s
L
m
a
s
s
=
1102
1000
A
M
m
a
s
s
1000
1102
=
A
M
m
a
s
s
L
m
a
s
s
0.9074
=
A
M
m
a
s
s
L
m
a
s
s
90.74
%
o
r
90.74
p
a
r
t
s
b
y
m
a
s
s
o
f
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
d
e
p
e
r
100
p
a
r
t
s
b
y
m
a
s
s
o
f
e
n
t
i
r
e
l
a
y
e
r
Therefore, the range of positive active material parts by mass per 100 parts of the positive active material layer by mass is 31.25 to 90.74. This overlaps the claimed range of “wherein the cathode active material layer comprises an amount of about 80 % to 90 % by weight of a cathode active material” in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 9, Okuda et al. teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1.
Okuda et al. teaches the negative electrode active material layer comprises negative electrode active material and may further include a solid electrolyte, conductive material, and a binder in Para. 109. The solid electrolyte may be, for example, 1 part by mass to 200 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the positive electrode active material in Para. 112. The conductive material may be, for example, 0.1 parts by mass to 10 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the positive electrode active material in Para. 113. The binder may be, for example, 0.1 parts by mass to 10 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the positive electrode active material in Para. 114.
L
a
y
e
r
=
A
c
t
i
v
e
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
+
E
l
e
c
t
r
o
l
y
t
e
+
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
e
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
+
B
i
n
d
e
r
1
100
A
M
m
a
s
s
≤
E
m
a
s
s
≤
2
A
M
m
a
s
s
1
1000
A
M
m
a
s
s
≤
C
M
m
a
s
s
≤
1
10
A
M
m
a
s
s
1
1000
A
M
m
a
s
s
≤
B
m
a
s
s
≤
1
10
A
M
m
a
s
s
If all the masses are at the largest within their possible ranges:
2
A
M
m
a
s
s
=
E
m
a
s
s
1
10
A
M
m
a
s
s
=
C
M
m
a
s
s
1
10
A
M
m
a
s
s
=
B
m
a
s
s
L
m
a
s
s
=
A
M
m
a
s
s
+
2
A
M
m
a
s
s
+
1
10
A
M
m
a
s
s
+
1
10
A
M
m
a
s
s
L
m
a
s
s
=
32
10
A
M
m
a
s
s
10
32
=
A
M
m
a
s
s
L
m
a
s
s
0.3125
=
A
M
m
a
s
s
L
m
a
s
s
31.25
%
o
r
31.25
p
a
r
t
s
b
y
m
a
s
s
o
f
n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
d
e
p
e
r
100
p
a
r
t
s
b
y
m
a
s
s
o
f
e
n
t
i
r
e
l
a
y
e
r
If all the masses are at the smallest within their possible ranges:
1
10
A
M
m
a
s
s
=
E
m
a
s
s
1
1000
A
M
m
a
s
s
=
C
M
m
a
s
s
1
1000
A
M
m
a
s
s
=
B
m
a
s
s
L
m
a
s
s
=
A
M
m
a
s
s
+
1
10
A
M
m
a
s
s
+
1
1000
A
M
m
a
s
s
+
1
1000
A
M
m
a
s
s
L
m
a
s
s
=
1102
1000
A
M
m
a
s
s
1000
1102
=
A
M
m
a
s
s
L
m
a
s
s
0.9074
=
A
M
m
a
s
s
L
m
a
s
s
90.74
%
o
r
90.74
p
a
r
t
s
b
y
m
a
s
s
o
f
n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
d
e
p
e
r
100
p
a
r
t
s
b
y
m
a
s
s
o
f
e
n
t
i
r
e
l
a
y
e
r
Therefore, the range of negative active material parts by mass per 100 parts of the negative active material layer by mass is 31.25 to 90.74. This overlaps the claimed range of “wherein the negative active material layer comprises an amount of about 70 % to 90 % by weight of a cathode active material” in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 11, Okuda et al. teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the solid electrolyte layer ranges from about 30 µm to 70 µm (see e.g. the solid electrolyte layer may be 30 µm in Para. 140 and 156).
Regarding claim 12, Okuda et al. teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1, further comprising a cathode current collector disposed on the cathode active material layer (see e.g. positive electrode current collector 19 is provided on positive electrode layer 13 in Para. 61 of which includes a positive electrode active material layer in Para. 92),
wherein a thickness of the cathode current collector ranges from about 6 µm to 12 µm (see e.g. the positive electrode collector plate may have a thickness between 10 µm to 20 µm in Para. 89. This overlaps the claimed range of “a thickness of the cathode current collector ranges from about 6 µm to 12 µm” in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05)).
Regarding claim 13, Okuda et al. teaches the all-solid-state batter of claim 1, further comprising an anode current collector disposed on the anode active material layer (see e.g. The negative active material layer formed on an upper surface of negative electrode collector plate in Para. 51),
wherein a thickness of the anode current collector ranges from about 5 µm to 10 µm (see e.g. the negative electrode collector plate may have a thickness of 5 µm to 15 µm in Para. 107. This overlaps the claimed range of “a thickness of the anode current collector ranges from about 5 µm to 10 µm” in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05)).
Response to Arguments
Regarding paragraph 7 of page 7 of Applicant’s Remarks to paragraph 1 of page 8 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant argues that Hasegawa and Okuda fail to teach each and every element of independent claim 1, specifically Requirement 1. Applicant argues if the feature were inherent, it must necessarily and inevitably result from the teachings of the references and not be a mere possibility or accidental occurrence. Applicant argues these variables, as described in the specification, can be independently controlled within a wide range depending on the battery design and manufacturing process (e.. active material particle size, roll press pressure, charging/discharging Requirements, etc.). Applicant argues the prior art teaching might accidently fall within the numerical range, it is also highly probable that it will fall outside this range.
The examiner respectively disagrees and points out that inherency may not be established by possibilities or probabilities and must be established by a basis in fact or technical reasoning to support a determination that a claimed property is inherent.
MPEP 2112 V clarifies the Office’s initial burden, stating that “In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art” [emphasis added] (MPEP 2112 IV). Thus, the Office may not be able to conclusively prove that the property in question is present [such as by scientific testing in a laboratory], but must demonstrate with evidence and technical reasoning, why the property is believed to be and appears to be present. In this case, the examiner has presented rationale based upon technical reasoning to support the finding of inherency as described in the art rejections in detail.
Therefore, the burden has shifted to applicant [who may have facilities to make and test the invention and/or that of the prior art] to prove that the prior art inventions do not possesses the allegedly inherent structure (MPEP 2112, V). Applicant’s argument that the allegedly inherent properties are actually not present has not been found persuasive at least because applicant has not presented persuasive evidence to support such a conclusion. The only evidence applicant has submitted with the argument is addressed in the next section of these Response to Arguments.
Applicant arguments that additional factors such as active material particle size, roll press pressure, charging/discharging requirements etc. can affect the variables argued has been considered and not found persuasive because applicant has not provided clear evidence of this and these factors are not within the current claim limitations. Additionally, applicant themselves uses the phrasing of “probable,” however one cannot establish whether something is or is not inherent based upon probabilities, it must be based on facts. Currently, as the claims are currently written, because all of the claim limitations have been met, one would reasonably expect the properties defined in the claims to also be met. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Based on the instant claim limitations as currently written, as long as the rest of the claim limitations are met, Requirement 1 is inherently met. Thus, the examiner recommends applicant further describe the battery such that the claimed invention’s amended features are not read on by the prior art and therefore so that Requirement 1 is not inherent to the prior art. Additionally, considering applicants arguments, the examiner remind applicant they are allowed to show with evidence if a property is not inherent.
Regarding paragraph 2-3 of page 8 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant argues that the present invention is characterized by identifying the interface characteristics of an all-solid-state battery are affected by the current density in addition to the surface roughness of the cathode and anode active material layers, and subsequently establishing the relationship between surface roughness and current density. Hasegawa describes a technology that uses an anode active material with a specific expansion coefficient to mitigate volume expansion during charging/discharging. Okuda describes a technology that prevents short circuits caused by burrs from touching the current collector under pressure during packaging, by using a thick insulating layer on the outermost part of the laminate. That is Hasegawa and Okuda fail to recognize the problem that the present invention seeks to solve, and consequently, they provide no motivation whatsoever to arrive at the present invention. Examples 1-3 demonstrate superior initial efficiency and capacity retention that is unpredictable from Hasegawa and Okuda, thus achieve remarkable effects.
The examiner respectively disagrees and points out that the motivation as defined by the prior art need not be the same motivation as the motivation of the applicant.
Because of the reasoning noted above, the examiner has not been persuaded that requirement 1 would not be satisfied by Hasegawa et al. in view of Okuda et al. considering the argument’s lack of evidence and the reasoning of unpredictability. Considering this, when the applicant argues that Examples 1-3 show superior results because requirement 1 is satisfied, if requirement 1 is considered inherent based upon the instant claim limitations and arguments, the results would be considered inherent properties. Discovery of properties of a known material does not make it novel, the identification and characterization of a prior art material also does not make it novel. A new realization alone does not render that necessary [sic] prior art patentable See MPEP 2112.I-II and 2141.02 V.
Additionally, the burden is on the applicant to establish results are unexpected and significant such as whether a property is different in degree versus being entirely unexpected. A difference of degree is not as persuasive as a difference in kind – i.e., if the range produces ‘"a new property dissimilar to the known property,’" rather than producing a predictable result but to an unexpected extent." See MPEP 716.02. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2009/0269677 A1 teaches solid electrolyte battery with roughness measurements and ion conductivity of 1 mS/cm.
US 2018/0309161 A1 teaches a solid electrolyte battery with ion conductivity and thickness measurements.
US 2019/0181420 A1 teaches a sulfide solid electrolyte.
US 2015/0311493 A1 teaches surface roughness and current density of a battery.
US 2022/0166031 A1 teaches sulfide solid electrolyte with rock-type active materials.
US 2023/0275261 A1 teaches sulfide solid electrolyte and rock-salt active material and parts by weight.
US 2009/0111031 A1 teaches surface roughness and ion conductivity.
US 2021/0143413 A1 teaches sulfide solid electrolyte with rock-salt active materials.
US 2009/0246628 A1 teaches surface roughness and ion conductivity.
US 2014/0162138 A1 teaches sulfide solid electrolyte and thickness and weight %.
US 2021/0242490 A1 teaches sulfide solid electrolyte and spinel and rock-salt active materials and thickness and weight by parts.
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 KATHERINE J METZGER whose telephone number is (571)272-0170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (1st week) or Monday - Friday (2nd week) 7:30am-5:00am - 9-day biweekly schedule.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/KATHERINE J METZGER/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/TONG GUO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723