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 December 1st, 2025, has been entered. Claims 1-13 remain pending in the application. Claims 14-19 were added by the Applicant. Applicant' s amendments to Claims 1, 7, 9, & 10 have overcome the Examiner' s objections previously set forth. Applicant’s amendments to Claims 2-6, 8-13 have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth.
The 112(b) rejection of Claim 6 regarding the lack of antecedent basis for “a porosity” is maintained.
The 112(b) rejection of Claim 12 regarding the lack of antecedent basis for “element” is maintained.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn in view of the amendments and arguments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Jiang et al. US 2021/0280860 A1. New rejections follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 6, 12-13, & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “a porosity”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 is dependent from Claim 1, which already introduces “a porosity”. It is unclear if Applicant is referring to the porosity of Claim 1 or introducing a new and different porosity in Claim 6. Thus, the claim is indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites “at least two all-solid electrochemical cells” and then recites “each element being electrically connected with one or a plurality of other elements”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It is unclear what exactly Applicant is referring to by “element” as there is no mention or description of “element” in Claim 12 or previous claims. Appropriate correction is required. For the purposes of examination, “element” was interpreted to be referring to the “all-solid electrochemical cells”.
Claim 13, as it depends from Claim 12, is indefinite for the same reasons.
Independent Claim 19 recites “wherein said sulfide electrolyte is selected from”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. There is no previous mention in Claim 19 of a sulfide electrolyte, thus it is unclear what Applicant is referring to with “said sulfide electrolyte”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6-8, & 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 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 6, as mentioned with regards to Claim 1, Song discloses that the negative electrode comprises a porosity of 25-35% [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.
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.
Claims 18-19 are 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 18, similarly to Claim 1 above, 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 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 18.
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 electrolyte with this composition (ex: 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]. 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.
Regarding Claim 19, similarly to Claim 18, 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 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 18.
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's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant argues that Song does not disclose or suggest that the negative electrode comprises both lithium metal or a lithium-rich phase in addition to lithiated graphite. Examiner respectfully points out that as stated in the rejection above, Jiang was used to teach this limitation of a negative electrode comprising both a lithium metal outer shell coated on a lithiated graphite and was used to modify the electrode of Song for the benefit of improved cycle performance, specific capacity, and volume energy density of the battery. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
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 date of this final action.
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 29 January 2026