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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 4th 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed May 4th 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-5, 7-17, & 19 remain pending in the application. Claims 6 & 18 were cancelled by the Applicant. Therefore the 112(b) rejection of Claim 6 is withdrawn. Applicant’s amendment to Claim 12 has overcome the 112(b) rejection previously set forth.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been maintained.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, & 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. US 2020/0411843 A1 further in view of Jiang et al. US 2021/0280860 A1. Further evidence provided by Yang et al. “Construction of porous cellulose tubes and the evaluations of mechanical properties and cytocompatibility”.
Regarding Claim 1, Song discloses a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material, a solid electrolyte, and a conductive material, wherein the negative electrode has a porosity of 10-60% [Abstract], thus Song discloses a porous mixed negative electrode. Song further discloses that the negative electrode comprises graphite (carbonaceous material such as graphite) [0012] and solid electrolyte particles [0049]. Song discloses that the mixed porous negative electrode has a porosity of 10-60% and more preferably 20-40% [0066], which overlaps with the claimed range. In regards to the porosity, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Song because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Song discloses that the negative electrode active material has a core-shell structure wherein lithiated graphite is covered with a metal oxide shell [0017]. Song is however silent as to the negative electrode comprising a lithium metal or lithium-rich phase.
Jiang discloses a negative electrode with an active material having a core shell structure [Abstract], similar to that of Song. Jiang discloses that the core comprises graphite [0005], similar to Song, and further discloses that the shell comprises an inner shell of silicon and an outer shell of lithium metal [0005, 0017]. Thus, Jiang discloses a negative electrode that comprises a lithium metal.
Jiang discloses that a shell comprising the inner and outer layers comprising silicon layer and a lithium metal layer improves specific capacity while improving cycling performance, thereby improving the overall volume energy density of the battery [0010].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the shell layer of Song to comprise the shell layers of Jiang, thus creating a core-shell negative electrode active material comprising a lithium metal (outer layer of Jiang) in addition to a lithiated graphite (core of Song), to achieve a negative electrode active material with improved specific capacity and cycling performance to provide a battery with improved volume energy density.
Examiner notes that the recitation of the intended used of the electrode (“during charging process…”) is not given undue weight.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Song discloses that the electrode further comprises silicon in one of the shell layers [Jiang 0005, 0017], as modified by Jiang, and silicon is known to alloy with lithium.
Regarding Claim 3, as mentioned with regards to Claim 1 above, modified Song discloses that the negative electrode active material comprise a core-shell structure [Jiang 0005], wherein the core is graphite [Song 0057] and the inner shell comprises silicon [Jiang 0017], thus modified Song discloses that the negative electrode active material comprises graphite coated with an element that forms an alloy with lithium (silicon).
Regarding Claim 4, Song discloses that the electrolyte is a sulfide-based solid electrolyte [0069].
Regarding Claim 7, Song discloses that the electrode comprises pore sizes of 100-300nm [Abstract, 0049].
Regarding Claim 8, Song discloses a method of making the negative electrode, wherein a mixture of PEO, LiTFSI, and acetonitrile is mixed to form a solution, then the negative electrode material, comprising precoated graphite and solid electrolyte particles [0089-0092] is dipped in the solution and dried to form an electrode with a desired porosity [0094]. As evidenced by Yang et al., PEO is known in the art to be a commonly used pore forming agent [Page 2 Left Column Lines 27-31]. Thus, Song discloses a method comprising mixing precoated graphite, solid electrolyte particles, and a pore forming agent (PEO), then a step of removing the pore forming agent (drying) to form a negative electrode.
Regarding Claim 14, as mentioned with regards to Claim 2, modified Song discloses that the material forming an alloy with lithium is silicon [Jiang 0005, 0017].
Regarding Claim 15, as mentioned with regards to Claim 3, modified Song discloses that the graphite core is coated with silicon [Jiang 0017].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song and Jiang as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Sasaki US 2018/0366777 A1.
Regarding Claim 5, as mentioned with regards to Claim 4, Song discloses that the electrolyte is a sulfide-based solid electrolyte [0069], however fails to specifically disclose one of the materials listed in Claim 5.
Sasaki discloses a sulfide solid electrolyte material for a negative electrode in a lithium ion battery [0020-0021]. Sasaki discloses that the solid electrolyte is specifically Li3PS4 [0020].
Sasaki discloses that a solid electrolyte with this composition (Li3PS4) provides a battery with higher power due to the composition’s high ionic conductivity [0020]. Sasaki specifically discloses that this solid electrolyte is beneficial for use with a graphite negative electrode material, as in Song, due to its stability against reduction, which in turn provides a battery with higher energy density [0020].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to use the suggested sulfide electrolyte material Li3PS4 of Sasaki in the negative electrode of Song to provide a battery with high power and high energy density.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song and Jiang, and further in view of Sasaki US 2018/0366777 A1.
Regarding Claim 19, similarly to Claim 1, Song discloses a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material, a solid electrolyte, and a conductive material, wherein the negative electrode has a porosity of 10-60% [Abstract], thus Song discloses a porous mixed negative electrode. Song further discloses that the negative electrode comprises graphite (carbonaceous material such as graphite) [0012] and solid electrolyte particles [0049]. Song discloses that the mixed porous negative electrode has a porosity of 10-60% and more preferably 20-40% [0066], which overlaps with the claimed range. In regards to the porosity, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Song because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Song discloses that the negative electrode active material has a core-shell structure wherein lithiated graphite is covered with a metal oxide shell [0017]. Song is however silent as to the negative electrode comprising a lithium metal or lithium-rich phase.
Jiang discloses a negative electrode with an active material having a core shell structure [Abstract], similar to that of Song. Jiang discloses that the core comprises graphite [0005], similar to Song, and further discloses that the shell comprises an inner shell of silicon and an outer shell of lithium metal [0005, 0017]. Thus, Jiang discloses a negative electrode that comprises a lithium metal.
Jiang discloses that a shell comprising the inner and outer layers comprising silicon layer and a lithium metal layer improves specific capacity while improving cycling performance, thereby improving the overall volume energy density of the battery [0010].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the shell layer of Song to comprise the shell layers of Jiang, thus creating a core-shell negative electrode active material comprising a lithium metal (outer layer of Jiang) in addition to a lithiated graphite (core of Song), to achieve a negative electrode active material with improved specific capacity and cycling performance to provide a battery with improved volume energy density.
Examiner notes that the recitation of the intended used of the electrode (“during charging process…”) is not given undue weight.
Further, Song discloses that the electrolyte is a sulfide-based solid electrolyte [0069].
Modified Song fails to disclose that the sulfide electrolyte is one of the materials listed in Claim 19.
Sasaki discloses a sulfide solid electrolyte material for a negative electrode in a lithium ion battery [0020-0021]. Sasaki discloses that the solid electrolyte is one of Li3PS4 or Li10GeP2S12 [0028].
Sasaki discloses that a solid sulfide electrolyte provides a battery with higher power due to the composition’s high ionic conductivity [0020]. Sasaki specifically discloses that this solid electrolyte is beneficial for use with a graphite negative electrode material, as in Song, due to its stability against reduction, which in turn provides a battery with higher energy density [0020]. Further, Sasaki discloses that a battery with a solid sulfide electrolyte has improved output characteristics due to high ionic conductivity [0022].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to use the suggested sulfide electrolyte material Li3PS4 of Sasaki in the negative electrode of Song to provide a battery with high power and high energy density, and overall improved output characteristics.
Claims 9-10, 12-13, & 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song and Jiang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto US 2017/0271671 A1. Further evidence provided by NEI Corporation “Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide (NMC) Tapes”.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Song discloses an all-solid electrochemical cell comprising the electrode of Claim 1 (solid state battery included negative electrode) and a positive electrode [0018, 0021]. Modified Song is silent as to the particular ratio k as defined in Claim 9.
Yamamoto discloses a battery with a positive electrode, negative electrode, and an electrolyte [Abstract]. Yamamoto discloses that the negative electrode comprises graphite (conductive agent included in electrodes can be graphite) [0085-0092], similar to that of Song. Yamamoto discloses that the ratio of the capacity of the positive electrode to the capacity of the negative electrode is preferably in the range of 1.4-1.7 [0048], which would result in a ratio of the capacity of the negative electrode to the capacity of the positive electrode of 0.56-0.71 which falls within the claimed range.
Yamamoto discloses that the capacity ratio is preferably in this range to suppress the positive electrode potential and to prevent the decomposition of the electrolyte layer, and to overall balance the diffusion of ions between the positive electrode and negative electrode [0048]. Yamamoto discloses that a capacity ratio in this range provides a battery with improved energy density as a result of suppressing the excessively large positive electrode potential [0048].
Yamamoto discloses that a capacity ratio below 1.4 (which is equivalent to a ratio as defined in the claim of higher than 0.71) is not sufficient in preventing a high potential of the positive electrode during charging [0044]. Yamamoto additionally discloses that a capacity ratio above 1.8 (which is equivalent to a ratio as defined in the claim of lower than 0.56) indicates that the positive electrode is not contributing to charge/discharge, and thus the energy density of the battery is low [0044].
Therefore, as suggested by Yamamoto, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the capacity ratio as a result effective variable and would seek to optimize this parameter, and would therefore arrive at the claimed range to achieve a battery with a favorable positive electrode potential and a favorable energy density. See MPEP 2144.05 II. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a ratio “k” as defined by Claim 9, within the claimed range, to achieve a favorable positive electrode potential and a favorable energy density as suggested by Yamamoto.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Song discloses that the porosity falls within the range as mentioned with regards to Claim 1 above when using the formula recited in the claim. Song discloses that the porosity of the electrode is 10-60% [0066]. Song discloses that the positive electrode material is a LiNiCoMnO compound, specifically LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2 (Example 1) [0096]. As evidenced by NEI, this material has a typical areal capacity of 2 mAh/cm2 [Page 3].
Song is silent as to the specific thickness of the negative electrode.
Yamamoto discloses that the negative electrode has a thickness of 29-38 µm (Table 1) [0324]. Yamamoto discloses that negative electrodes with this range of thicknesses exhibit excellent life and cycle characteristics [0327].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to use the thickness of Yamamoto’s negative electrode in the battery of Song to achieve excellent life and cycle characteristics.
Thus, using the ratio k as mentioned with regards to Claim 9 of modified Song with the modification of Yamamoto (in this case 0.70), and selecting a number R within the claimed range (in this case 2.5), the porosity can be calculated as follows:
Porosity (%) = 100*R(1-k)Cpositive*4.85/e
100*[2.5](1-[0.7])[2mAh/cm2]*4.85/[35] = 20.8%, which falls within the range set forth in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12, as best understood by the examiner, Song discloses an electrochemical module (a battery module) comprising a stack of at least two all-solid electrochemical cells (a plurality of battery cells) [0087], thus Song discloses that the elements (battery cells) are connected to each other.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Song discloses that the battery cell can be used alone or in plurality for a medium to large sized battery module containing a plurality of battery cells [0087], thus Song discloses a battery comprising one or a plurality of modules.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Song discloses that the ratio “k”, as mentioned with regards to Claim 9 above, is 0.56-0.71, which falls within the claimed range of Claim 16.
Regarding Claim 17, as mentioned with regards to Claim 10 above, modified Song discloses that the porosity as calculated by the formula set forth in Claim 10 meets the porosity range limitation in Claim 1 when “R” is selected within the range 0.6 and 3 (per Claim 10). Further, when “R” is selected to be within the narrower range 1.1-1.7 (per Claim 17), the porosity is calculated using the ratio k as mentioned with regards to Claim 9 of modified Song with the modification of Yamamoto (in this case 0.70), and selecting a number R within the claimed range (in this case 1.5):
Porosity (%) = 100*R(1-k)Cpositive*4.85/e
100*[1.5](1-[0.7])[2mAh/cm2]*4.85/[35] = 12.5%, which falls within the range set forth in Claim 1.
Thus modified Song meets the limitations of Claim 17.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song and Jiang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liang et al. US 10,763,513 B2.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Song discloses an all-solid electrochemical cell comprising the electrode of Claim 1 (solid state battery included negative electrode) [0018, 0021]. Song discloses a solid electrolyte layer between the negative electrode and a positive electrode [0021]. However, Song is silent as to an intermediate layer disposed between the negative electrode and the solid electrolyte layer, wherein the intermediate layer comprises fine amorphous carbon powder and a compound forming alloys with lithium.
Liang discloses an electrode for a battery [Column 2 Lines 26-28], wherein the electrode comprises a protective layer between the electrode active material layer and the electrolyte [Column 5 Lines 37-39]. Liang discloses that the protective layer is made of at least one of metal and carbon [Column 5 Lines 45-46]. Liang discloses that the metal can be nickel, chromium, nickel based alloy, or copper based alloy [Column 5 Lines 46-49], all of which are known to alloy with lithium. Liang discloses that the carbon can be carbon black [Column 5 Lines 51-53], which is a fine amorphous powder.
Liang discloses that a battery incorporating this protective layer has improved mechanical strength of the active material layer (conductive layer), improved safety, and prevent the active material layer from being damages, oxidized, or corroded, which improves the life of the electrode [Column 5 Lines 39-44].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the protective layer of Liang in the battery of Song to provide a battery with an intermediate layer made of fine amorphous carbon powder (carbon black) and metals that alloy with lithium between the electrolyte layer and the negative electrode, to achieve improved mechanical strength, improved safety, prevented damage, and improved life of the battery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Song does not teach or suggest the presence of lithium metal in the porosity in addition to lithiated graphite, and points to paragraphs [0042, 0046] of Song to say that Song aims to avoid structural changes that could negatively impact performance and safety. Examiner respectfully points out that it appears the understanding of Song is incorrect, and notes that in par. [0042] & [0046] Song indicates that the negative electrode active material of their invention is aiming to avoid changes due to volumetric swelling of the active material, which can lead to negatively impacting performance and safety, as opposed to structural changes such as introducing lithium-metal as asserted by the Applicant. Additionally, throughout the disclosure, Song indicates that their invention and particular material are not particularly limited, for example in the case of their shell material [0061]. Examiner further points out that as stated in the rejection above, it is noted that Song is lacking the lithium metal or lithium rich phase, and therefore relies on Jiang to provide this limitation for the added benefits of improved specific capacity, improved cycling performance, and improved overall volume energy density of the battery, and therefore provides the motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shell of Song. Jiang, similarly to Song, also discloses the desire to suppress the problem of volume expansion [0003-0004], and therefore Jiang and Song are further compatible to combine as both are trying to achieve similar goals of avoiding volume expansion of the negative electrode active material. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention yields unexpected technical advantages, and more specifically points to the examples of the instant specification and their beneficial results such as increased specific capacity, reduced swelling, improved mechanical stability, and enhanced conductivity. This is not found to be persuasive. Examiner respectfully points out that the claimed invention is not commensurate in scope with the examples of the instant specification and therefore the examples cannot be relied upon to show that the claimed invention presents the unexpected and superior results of the examples. At a minimum, the claimed invention is not commensurate in scope because the evidence of unexpected and superior results does not adequately correspond to the scope of the claimed invention. Additionally, the range is not shown to be critical based on the examples, and there are several variables that differ between examples that could be contributing to the unexpected and superior results. Regarding the evidence failing to be commensurate in scope with the claimed invention, Examiner points out that Claim 1, as well as Claim 19, is general as to the specific material of the solid electrolyte, whereas the experimental examples and the comparative examples use only four different specific solid electrolytes. Claim 1 and Claim 19 are also both silent as to the mixed porous negative electrode comprising a material forming lithium alloys and its content, and carbon black and its content, whereas the experimental examples and comparative examples (with the exception of Comparative Example 1) all comprise a material forming lithium alloys and carbon black, which could be contributing to the unexpected and superior results. Regarding the criticality of the range, “To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).” MPEP 716.02(d). In the instant specification, while Applicant does show a comparative example with a porosity about the claimed range and a comparative examples with a porosity below the claimed range, Applicant shows Experimental Examples 1-11 which have porosity values that are below and in the middle of the claimed range and do not represent the span of the claimed range (the highest porosity value represented is 44 as opposed to the claimed range which is broader). Examiner also points out that the Experimental Examples compared to the Comparative Examples have varying mass percentages of electrolyte, particle diameter of electrolyte (Table 1), and percentages of graphite (Table 2), and therefore other varying features other than the porosity could be contributing to the unexpected and superior results of the Experimental Examples. Therefore, it is not immediately clear based on the evidence provided by the Applicant that the unexpected and superior results are directly produced by only the specific range of porosity as well as the presence of a lithium metal or lithium rich phase in addition to lithiated graphite since the claimed invention is not commensurate in scope with the examples. Accordingly, the argument that the claimed invention of Claim 1, or Claim 19, would lead to unexpected and superior results is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA E GOULD whose telephone number is (571)270-1088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached on (571) 272-1307. 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.
/A.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 13 May 2026
Prosecution Insights