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 as filed on 3/02/2026 have been entered. They overcome the 102 rejection as previously set forth in non-final office action mailed 12/02/2025, but do not overcome a 103 rejection as set forth 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.
Claims 19-26, 28, 31, 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (WO-2019188487-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Yawata’ in view of (JP-2015220105-A) hereinafter referred to as ‘Sato’ as evidenced by ‘Lithium-ion batteries’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Bhatt’
Regarding Claim 19,
Yawata teaches an electrochemical cell (Yawata, “Provided is an all-solid state secondary battery”, see Abstract) comprising: a first electrode having a first surface area A1 (Yawata, negative electrode layer, 14, Fig. 3) ;a second electrode having a second surface area A2 (Yawata, positive electrode layer, 12, Fig. 3); an electrolyte arranged between the first electrode and the second electrode (Yawata, solid electrolyte layer, 13, Fig. 3) wherein the electrochemical cell is configured to: provide a first electrochemical half-cell reaction at the first electrode, and provide a second electrochemical half-cell reaction at the second electrode, and wherein a surface area ratio A1/A2 is larger than a stoichiometric ratio of the first half- cell reaction (Yawata, “The area of the positive electrode layer]/[the area of the negative electrode layer] is preferably 1/1.01 to 1/1.8, more preferably 1/1.01 to 1/1.6, and still more preferably 1/1.05 to 1/1.4. In addition, [the area of the positive electrode layer]/[the area of the negative electrode layer] is also preferably 1/1.05 to 1/1.6, 1/1.1 to 1/1.6, or 1/1.15 to 1/1.6.”, pg. 4)(The examiner notes that the ratio is mapped in the inverse so the adjusted ratio would be 1.05/1 1.6/1 etc...) (Yawata, “Specific examples of the transition metal oxides having a layered rock salt structure (MA) include LiCoO2”, pg. 9) and the second half-cell reaction (Yawata, “The carbonaceous material which is used as the negative electrode active material is a material substantially containing carbon. Examples thereof include petroleum pitch, carbon black such as acetylene black (AB), graphite (natural graphite, artificial graphite such as vapor-grown graphite”, pg. 10) (The examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would know the reaction of LCO and graphite has a stoichiometry of 1, as evidenced by Bhatt, see figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
580
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yawata does not teach wherein the first electrode consists of a first sub-electrode and a second sub-electrode ,wherein the second electrode, the first sub-electrode and the second sub-electrode have a flat shape and are assembled in parallel with regard to an electrode plane, wherein the second electrode is arranged in a height different to the first sub-electrode, and wherein the second sub-electrode is arranged on the same height next to the second electrode.
Sato teaches wherein the first electrode consists of a first sub-electrode and a second sub-electrode ,wherein the second electrode, the first sub-electrode (Sato, first electrode layer, Fig. 1) and the second sub-electrode (Sato, fourth electrode layer, Fig. 1) have a flat shape and are assembled in parallel with regard to an electrode plane, wherein the second electrode is arranged in a height different to the first sub-electrode, and wherein the second sub-electrode is arranged on the same height next to the second electrode (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
392
828
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sato teaches that this arrangement allows for the voltage to be controlled arbitrarily and creates an arrangement where series connections and parallel connections are performed in different directions and in turn the battery can be thinned (Sato, “Further, parallel connection in the stacking direction of the stack and serial connection in the in-plane direction are performed, and since series connection and parallel connection are performed in different directions, the all-solid secondary battery 101 can be thinned”, see [0026]).
Yawata and Sato are analogous as they are both of the same field of solid-state batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the arrangement as taught in Yawata to be that as taught in Sato to make the arrangement thinner while controlling the voltage.
Regarding Claim 20,
Modified Yawata teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 19, wherein the electrochemical cell is configured to provide the first electrochemical half-cell reaction with slower reaction kinetics than the second electrochemical half-cell reaction (Yawata, “Li ions produced from the positive electrode layer during charging can be spread to the entire negative electrode layer having an area more than that of the positive electrode layer. Therefore, even during high-speed charging, concentrated localization of Li ions on the negative electrode layer is not likely to occur. This is one reason for the above-described effect.”, pg. 4).
Regarding Claim 21,
Modified Yawata teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 20, wherein the larger, over- stoichiometric first surface area A1 is configured to compensate for the slower reaction kinetics (Yawata, “Li ions produced from the positive electrode layer during charging can be spread to the entire negative electrode layer having an area more than that of the positive electrode layer. Therefore, even during high-speed charging, concentrated localization of Li ions on the negative electrode layer is not likely to occur. This is one reason for the above-described effect.” pg. 4).
Regarding Claim 22,
Modified Yawata teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 19, wherein the electrochemical cell is configured to provide a first theoretical maximum specific current density j1 (negative electrode) of the first half-cell reaction that is smaller than a second theoretical maximum specific current density j2 of the second half-cell reaction (positive electrode)(Yawata, “The area of the positive electrode layer]/[the area of the negative electrode layer] is preferably 1/1.01 to 1/1.8, more preferably 1/1.01 to 1/1.6, and still more preferably 1/1.05 to 1/1.4. In addition, [the area of the positive electrode layer]/[the area of the negative electrode layer] is also preferably 1/1.05 to 1/1.6, 1/1.1 to 1/1.6, or 1/1.15 to 1/1.6.”, pg. 4)(The examiner notes that the same current is pulled through the cell; specific capacity is a measurement of Amps/Area. Therefore, because the negative electrode has a larger area, it will, in turn, have a smaller j1).
Regarding Claim 23,
Modified Yawata teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 22, wherein the surface area ratio A1/A2 equals a theoretical maximum specific current density ratio j2/j1 (Yawata, “The area of the positive electrode layer]/[the area of the negative electrode layer] is preferably 1/1.01 to 1/1.8, more preferably 1/1.01 to 1/1.6, and still more preferably 1/1.05 to 1/1.4. In addition, [the area of the positive electrode layer]/[the area of the negative electrode layer] is also preferably 1/1.05 to 1/1.6, 1/1.1 to 1/1.6, or 1/1.15 to 1/1.6.”, pg. 4)(The examiner notes a current of 3A, with positive electrode sheet of 0.6 cm^2 and a negative electrode sheet of 0.8 cm^2 would have a ratio of 0.8/0.6 of 1.33. Specific capacity is current/area, therefore j1 would be 3/0.8=3.75 and j2 would be 3/0.6=5; j2/j1= 5/3.75=1.33)
Regarding Claim 24,
Modified Yawata teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 19, wherein the electrochemical cell is configured to provide a theoretical maximum specific rated capacity C1 of the first half-cell reaction that is smaller than a theoretical maximum specific rated capacity C2 of the second half-cell reaction (The examiner C1 and C2 are calculated, as applicant states, are the number of electrons per surface area [0036], considering that each reaction produces one electron it would be 1/A1=C1 and 1/A2=C2 considering A1 is larger, C1 would be smaller at the ratio as taught in Yawata and C2 would be larger) (Yawata, “The area of the positive electrode layer]/[the area of the negative electrode layer] is preferably 1/1.01 to 1/1.8, more preferably 1/1.01 to 1/1.6, and still more preferably 1/1.05 to 1/1.4. In addition, [the area of the positive electrode layer]/[the area of the negative electrode layer] is also preferably 1/1.05 to 1/1.6, 1/1.1 to 1/1.6, or 1/1.15 to 1/1.6.”, pg. 4).
Regarding Claim 25,
Modified Yawata teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 24, wherein the surface area ratio A1/A2 equals a theoretical maximum specific rated capacity ratio C2/C1 (The examiner notes considering that each reaction produces one electron it would be 1/A1=C1 and 1/A2=C2 considering A1 is larger, C1 would be smaller at the ratio as taught in Yawata and C2 would be larger, C2/C1= [1/A2]/[1/A1] which would equal A1/A2 ) (Yawata, “The area of the positive electrode layer]/[the area of the negative electrode layer] is preferably 1/1.01 to 1/1.8, more preferably 1/1.01 to 1/1.6, and still more preferably 1/1.05 to 1/1.4. In addition, [the area of the positive electrode layer]/[the area of the negative electrode layer] is also preferably 1/1.05 to 1/1.6, 1/1.1 to 1/1.6, or 1/1.15 to 1/1.6.”pg. 4).
Regarding Claim 26,
Modified Yawata teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 19, wherein the first electrode comprises a first red/ox active compound configured to participate in the first electrochemical half-cell reaction (Yawata, “Specific examples of the transition metal oxides having a layered rock salt structure (MA) include LiCoO2” pg. 9), wherein the second electrode comprises a second red/ox active compound configured to participate in the second electrochemical half-cell reaction (Yawata, “The carbonaceous material which is used as the negative electrode active material is a material substantially containing carbon. Examples thereof include petroleum pitch, carbon black such as acetylene black (AB), graphite (natural graphite, artificial graphite such as vapor-grown graphite”,pg. 10), wherein a normalized concentration of the first red/ox active compound in the first electrode equals the normalized concentration of the second red/ox active compound in the second electrode, and wherein the normalized concentration of a red/ox active compound in an electrode is a molar concentration of the red/ox active compound in an associated electrode normalized to a number of electrons exchanged in an associated half-cell reaction. (The examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would know the reaction of LCO and graphite has a stoichiometry of 1, as evidenced by Bhatt, see figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
580
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 28,
Modified Yawata teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 19, wherein the first electrode has the same thickness as the second electrode (Yawata, “The positive electrode composition AS-1 prepared as described above was applied to an aluminum foil (current collector) having a thickness of 20 μm”, pg. 2) (Yawata, “The negative electrode composition BS-1 prepared as described above was applied to a stainless steel (SUS) foil having a thickness of 20 μm”, pg. 2).
Regarding Claim 31,
Modified Yawata teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 19, wherein the electrochemical cell is an all-solid-state electrochemical cell (Yawata, “Provided is an all-solid state secondary battery”, see Abstract).
Regarding Claim 34,
Modified Yawata teaches a plurality of electrochemical cells wherein the electrochemical cells are stacked (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
392
828
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 35,
Modified Yawata teaches wherein the electrochemical cells are stacked with the same orientation, and wherein the electrolyte is arranged between two neighboring electrochemical cells of the same orientation (See annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image4.png
392
830
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 27,30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (WO-2019188487-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Yawata’, in view of (JP-2015220105-A) hereinafter referred to as ‘Sato’, in view of ‘Carbon-coated rhombohedral Li3V2(PO4)3 as both cathode and anode materials for lithium-ion batteries: electrochemical performance and lithium storage mechanism’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Jian’ as evidenced by ‘Configuration of Li-Ion Vanadium Batteries: Li3V2(PO4)3(cathode)‖Li3V2(PO4)3(anode)’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Mao’
Regarding Claim 27,
Modified Yawata does not teach the electrochemical cell according to claim 19, wherein the first electrode has the same surface morphology as the second electrode.
Jian teaches a symmetric cell where both the anode and the cathode are the same material of Li3V2(PO4)3 (Jian, “We report the electrochemical performance and storage mechanism of a symmetrical lithium-ion battery made of carbon-coated rhombohedral Li3V2(PO4)3 (r-LVP/C) as both the cathode and anode materials.”, see Abstract) and the cell exhibits a good capacity (Jian, “Symmetrical batteries presented a high capacity of 120 mA h g−1 with an operating voltage of ∼2.0 V.”, Abstract).
One of ordinary skill in the art would know that an identical anode and cathode would inherently have the same morphology as they are the same.
Yawata and Jian are analogous as they are both of the same field battery materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cathode and anode to be a symmetric Li3V2(PO4)3 in order to deliver high capacity.
Regarding Claim 30,
Yawata does not teach wherein the first red/ox active compound and the second red/ox active compound are identical.
Jian teaches a symmetric cell where both the anode and the cathode are the same material of Li3V2(PO4)3 (Jian, “We report the electrochemical performance and storage mechanism of a symmetrical lithium-ion battery made of carbon-coated rhombohedral Li3V2(PO4)3 (r-LVP/C) as both the cathode and anode materials.”, see Abstract) and the cell exhibits a good capacity (Jian, “Symmetrical batteries presented a high capacity of 120 mA h g−1 with an operating voltage of ∼2.0 V.”, Abstract)
One of ordinary skill in the art would know that an identical anode and cathode would inherently have the same morphology as they are the same.
Yawata and Jian are analogous as they are both of the same field battery materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cathode and anode to be a symmetric Li3V2(PO4)3 in order to deliver high capacity.
Regarding Claim 32,
Modified Yawata does not teach wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are lithium vanadium phosphate electrodes on a charge collector material, wherein the electrolyte is a Li-conducting solid electrolyte, wherein the first electrode is an anode comprising Li4V2(PO4)3, oxidizable in the first half-cell reaction, and wherein the second electrode is an cathode comprising Li2V2(PO4)3, reduceable in the second half-cell reaction.
Jian teaches teach the electrochemical cell according to claim 19, wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are lithium vanadium phosphate electrodes on a charge collector material, wherein the electrolyte is a Li-conducting solid electrolyte, wherein the first electrode is an anode comprising Li4V2(PO4)3, oxidizable in the first half-cell reaction, and wherein the second electrode is an cathode comprising Li2V2(PO4)3 (Jian, “We report the electrochemical performance and storage mechanism of a symmetrical lithium-ion battery made of carbon-coated rhombohedral Li3V2(PO4)3 (r-LVP/C) as both the cathode and anode materials.”, see Abstract), reduceable in the second half-cell reaction (The examiner notes that the molecule becomes Li4 and Li2 during the reaction. This interpretation is in line with the specification see [0096]) . (Further evidenced by the reaction below from Mao)
PNG
media_image5.png
192
636
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (WO-2019188487-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Yawata’ in view of (JP-2015220105-A) hereinafter referred to as ‘Sato’, in view of (US-20100171466-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Spitler’
Regarding Claim 33,
Modified Yawata does not teach the electrochemical cell according to claim 32, wherein the first surface area A1 is twice the second surface area A2.
Spitler teaches a first surface A1 2 times bigger than the surface A2 (Spitler, “Thus, when the anode area is doubled as in the inverted bicell, better rate capability is obtained.”, see [0055]).
Spitler teaches that this modification allows for better rate capability (Spitler, “Thus, when the anode area is doubled as in the inverted bicell, better rate capability is obtained.”, see [0055]).
Yawata and Spitler are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery materials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the range as taught in Yawata of 1.8 to 2.0 as claimed in order to further improve the rate capability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 2 the applicant argues:
“Sato is mainly concerned with a fabrication method of a lithium-ion battery. Sato's electrode arrangements is rather a 'footnote' on the way to fabricate the lithium-ion battery. Sato uses two laminates (first laminate 21 and second laminate 22) which are connected in the middle to form an electrode.”
However, this is not convincing. The examiner finds that the structure of Sato matches the claim language. Even if, for the sake of argument, the examiner assumed that the teaching of ‘Sato’ was only a footnote on the way to fabricate the lithium-ion battery, Sato teaches the features as claimed and teaches the benefits of the given arrangement of electrodes(see MPEP 2144.06).
On pg. 3, the applicant argues:
“with the second sub electrode. Accordingly, the electrodes, which the Examiner associates with the first and the second sub-electrode, do not belong to the same half-cell reaction. In Sato the first electrode layer 1 is electrically connected with a third electrode layer 4 (see Sato, paragraph [0024]) and there is no teaching that they are connected to anything else. These electrodes, which are formed from the first and the third electrode layers 1 and 3 in Sato, seem to be floating electrodes. In contrast the second electrode layer 2 and the fourth electrode layer 5 are of opposite polarity and thus associated with the analog of the first and second half-cell reaction”
However, this not convincing. Sato makes it clear that the electrode are connected and can mutually be of different polarities (Sato, “The compound shown can be used as a positive electrode active material, and a compound showing a lower potential can be used as a negative electrode active material. In addition, if it is a compound having both ion releasing ability and ion absorbing ability at the same time, the same compound may be added to the first active material layer 11, the second active material layer 13, the third active material layer 15, and the fourth active material layer 17”, see [0031]). Sato also makes it clear that the electrolyte between the sub half cells is used to communicate between electrodes of opposite polarity (Sato, “In order to solve the above problems, an all solid secondary battery according to the present invention comprises a first laminate having a first ion conductive solid electrolyte layer between a first electrode layer and a second electrode layer”, see [0009]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the electrolyte was used to communicate ions of different polarities between sub electrode half cells with opposite polarities, and considering the above outlined benefits of the system, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the system to the electrode system as taught in Yawata.
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 SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am to 5pm.
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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/S.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights