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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 6 is cancelled.
Claim 1, 7, 9, 10 are amended.
Claim 12 is missing.
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed on 7/1/2026 have been entered.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Claim 12 is missing in claim set filed on 7/1/2026. No mention of cancellation of claim 12 has been made in Applicant’s remarks. However, Examiner assumes the cancellation of Claim 12, and has not included the rejection related to Claim 12 in 103 rejection section below.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaben et al (US 2016/0013513 A1) in view of Kato et al (US 20150147659 A1), and further in view of Wang et al (CN113991058; machine translation).
Regarding Claim 1,
Gaben teaches an all-solid state battery that comprises anode layer, cathode layer and electrolyte layer/s. Gaben teaches that the electrolyte layer is deposited on at least one of the two layers – anode layer and cathode layer (Paragraph 0011-0012). Gaben teaches the use of metalized polymer films used as substrate to coat the electrolyte layers (Paragraph 0101; transfer film layers). Gaben also teaches the method to obtain these layers by several deposition techniques (Paragraph 0082 – examiner notes that the reference teaches that the layers of anode, cathode AND electrolyte materials may be obtained by at least one of the deposition techniques described). This is akin to the electrolyte layer being disposed on the transfer film layer. Gaben teaches electrophoretic deposition technique (Paragraph 0089), which can be directly implemented on metal conducting substrates to produce electrolyte layers (Paragraph 0095).
Gaben also teaches that the electrolyte layer is deposited on the anode 21 and the cathode 24 respectively (annotated Figure 4; Paragraph 0148). Gaben does not specifically teach that the electrolyte layer on a cathode or anode part is formed by transferring the electrolyte part on the transfer film layer onto the cathode or anode part.
However, Kato teaches an all-solid state battery wherein the first solid electrolyte layer and the second solid electrolyte layer are made on a surface of a base material; followed by transferring the first solid electrolyte layer made on the surface of the base material to either one of the cathode layer and the anode layer (at this time, the base material is peeled off from the transferred first solid electrolyte layer); thereafter transferring the second solid electrolyte layer made on the surface of the base material to either one of the cathode layer and the anode layer, to which the first solid electrolyte layer is not transferred (Paragraph 0058). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to transfer the electrolyte layers made in Gaben onto the anode or cathode part per the process step in Kato’s configuration in order to manufacture an all-solid state battery which can inhibit a short circuit together with reducing resistance (Paragraph 0062).
The Ms bonding layer in Gaben is made of sulfide based materials such as Li2S, 70Li2S-30P2S5 (Paragraph 0029) which are also solid electrolyte materials as shown in Paragraph 0078. Hence, the Ms Layer can be considered to be an extension of the electrolyte layer. The layer obtained after the addition of Ms layer is then stacked face-to-face with solid electrolyte layer stacked on the other electrode (paragraph 0013).
PNG
media_image1.png
332
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gaben teaches that when the nanoparticle electrolyte deposit is produced on a metal substrate, uniaxial pressure (with or without heating) is advantageously applied on the deposit so as to prevent lateral shrinkage during the consolidation step (Paragraph 0088). Gaben and Kato do not teach a specific stacking method for the transfer of the electrolyte layer to the cathode layer. Further, Gaben and Kato do not teach that the first layer (electrolyte layer) is transferred onto a cathode by stacking, and then applying pressure of 130 MPa to 140 MPa at a temperature of 120 ˚C to 130 ˚C.
However, Wang teaches a preparation method including an encapsulation and pressing method that is performed using a warm isostatic pressing step. The method stacks a composite electrolyte layer with a positive electrode, and then pressing is performed at temperature of 50 to 120 ˚C, and isostatic pressure of 5 to 650 MPa (Paragraph 0057-0059). Hence, the ranges in Wang overlap with the claimed ranges (for temperature, value of 120 C is common for Wang and Claim). Per MPEP 2144.05, where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the overlapping value in Wang for the pressing process of Gaben in view of Kato in order to form a laminate structure of the electrolyte and positive electrode layers.
Regarding Claim 2 and Claim 4,
Gaben teaches that the substrate materials are metalized polymer films made of polyethylene naphthalate (PEN), and polyimide such as Kapton. These substrate materials are used for both electrolyte layers to be applied to the cathode and anode respectively.
Regarding Claim 10,
Gaben teaches that when the nanoparticle electrolyte deposit is produced on a metal substrate, uniaxial pressure (with or without heating) is advantageously applied on the deposit so as to prevent lateral shrinkage during the consolidation step (Paragraph 0088). Gaben and Kato do not teach a specific stacking method for the transfer of the electrolyte layer to the anode layer. Further, Gaben does not teach that the second layer (electrolyte layer) is transferred onto an anode by stacking, and then applying pressure of 140 MPa to 150 MPa at a temperature of 100C to 110 C.
However, Wang teaches a preparation method including an encapsulation and pressing method that is performed using a warm isostatic pressing step. The method stacks a composite electrolyte layer with a positive electrode, and then pressing is performed at temperature of 50 to 120 ˚C, and isostatic pressure of 5 to 650 MPa (Paragraph 0057-0059). Per MPEP 2144.05, where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the overlapping value in Wang for the pressing process of Gaben in order to form a laminate structure of the electrolyte and negative electrode layers.
Claim(s) 3, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaben et al in view of Kato et al and Wang et al, as evidenced by Ku et al (US 20210242490 A1).
Gaben teaches that the electrolyte layer can be obtained by one of several deposition techniques (Paragraph 0082). One of the methods stated involves producing a suspension of electrolyte material, and using techniques such as inking, dip-coating, spin coating (Paragraph 0088). This is akin to forming a slurry that is applied on the transfer film layer. The suspension in Gaben consists of electrolyte particles which are sulfide solid electrolytes such as Li2S, 70Li2S-30P2S5 (Paragraph 0078), and solvent. The use of binder is well known in the art, and is evidenced by Ku wherein the first/second solid electrolyte and a binder form the first and second compositions (Paragraph 0016 and 0017). Examples of commonly used binders are provided in Paragraph 0129.
Claim(s) 7-9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaben, in view of Kato et al, Wang et al and further in view of Ku et al (US 20210242490 A1).
Regarding Claim 7,
Gaben does not teach that the thickness of the first electrolyte layer ranges from 15 to 25 µm.
However, Ku teaches an all-solid state battery comprising a second electrolyte layer/composition that bonds with a cathode layer (Paragraph 0017 and 0019). Ku also teaches that a range of thickness of the electrolyte layer is between 10 to 60 µm (Paragraph 0091). This range includes the claimed range. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a thickness of 15 to 25 µm for the first electrolyte layer in order to facilitate movement of lithium ions, and has better mechanical and electrochemical stability (Paragraph 0063 and 0064).
Regarding Claim 8,
Gaben does not teach the volumetric ratio of equation 1 (see image below from instant specification) that compares the ratio of volume of first layer and volume of first solid electrolyte layer to range between 15 and 20 %.
PNG
media_image2.png
200
782
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Instant specification states that when the thickness of the first solid electrolyte layer exceeds 25 um, there is a possibility that the transfer product warps. Bending of the transfer product is effectively prevented by satisfying Equation 1. Since Equation 1 compares the volume of first layer with the volume of first electrolyte layer, it is alluding to the volume shrinkage after pressing. A change in volume can be likened to be around the same as change in thickness since the stacked layers have similar cross-sectional area. Gaben does not provide a numerical value of change in thickness of the electrolyte layer.
However, Ku teaches that the thickness of the electrolyte layer after pressing may be reduced to about 60% to about 80% of the thickness of the electrolyte before pressing. This means that the thickness reduces by about 20% to 40%. The value of reduction in Ku of about 20% overlaps with the claimed range of 15 to 20 %. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to experience a volume ratio as claimed. This is further corroborated by Ku teaching the thickness within the claimed ranges, and a pressure of about 200 MPa or less (Paragraph 0090) similar to the conditions of claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 9,
Gaben does not teach that the thickness of the second electrolyte layer ranges from 30 to 40 µm.
However, Ku teaches an all-solid state battery comprising an electrolyte layer/composition that bonds with a anode layer (Paragraph 0017 and 0019). Ku also teaches that a range of thickness of the electrolyte layer is between 1 to 35 µm (Paragraph 0091). This range overlaps with the claimed range. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a thickness within the 30 to 40 µm range for the first electrolyte layer in order to facilitate movement of lithium ions, and has better mechanical and electrochemical stability (Paragraph 0063 and 0064).
Regarding Claim 11,
Gaben does not teach the volumetric ratio of equation 2 that compares the ratio of volume of second layer and volume of second solid electrolyte layer to range between 20 and 25 %.
PNG
media_image3.png
164
781
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Instant specification states that warpage of the transfer product is effectively prevented by satisfying Equation 2. Since Equation 2 compares the volume of second layer with the volume of second electrolyte layer, it is alluding to the volume shrinkage after pressing. A change in volume can be likened to be around the same as change in thickness since the stacked layers have similar cross-sectional area. Gaben does not provide a numerical value of change in thickness of the electrolyte layer.
However, Ku teaches that the thickness of the electrolyte layer after pressing may be reduced to about 60% to about 80% of the thickness of the electrolyte before pressing. This means that the thickness reduces by about 20% to 40%. The value of reduction in Ku of about 20-40% overlaps with the claimed range of 20 to 25 %. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to experience a volume ratio as claimed. This is further corroborated by Ku teaching the thickness within the claimed ranges, and a pressure of about 200 MPa or less (Paragraph 0090) similar to the conditions of claimed invention.
References of Interest
Examiner notes the following references of interest pertinent to the subject of the claimed invention.
Debe et al - US 6319293 B1
Kashima et al - US 20210238392 A1
Lee et al - US 20210175565 A1
Ito et al – US 20240421351 A1
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that Ouchi does not teach an overlapping temperature range compared to claimed range of 120-130 C as cited in amended claim 1. Examiner points to rejection above wherein the prior art of Wang et al has been used to show the overlapping pressure and temperature used in laminating electrode and electrolyte layers of a battery. Based on that a prima facie case of obviousness exists to reject claim 1 based on Gaben, in view of Kato, and Wang.
Claims 2-11 are dependent on rejected Claim 1 per this office action.
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 SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached on 571-272-8519. 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.
/SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights