DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 2026-02-20, the following has occurred: Claims 1 and 15 have been amended; Claims 4-5 have been canceled; Claims 17-18 have been added.
Claims 1-3 and 6-18 are pending and are examined herein. This is a Final Rejection.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 1 refer to a “negative electrode layer” with a thickness of 5 microns to 15 microns, and new claim 18 refers to a “negative electrode layer” with a thickness of 5 to 15 microns, but claim 17 refers only to “the negative electrode” which includes a current collector of definite but unspecified thickness. It is unclear whether this is a typo, intended to refer to the active material layer only, as suggested by claim 1 and claim 18, or whether it is not a typo. If not a typo, it is unclear where support for this amendment comes from. The claim has been interpreted as though it referred to “the negative electrode layer.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claims 1-3, 13-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chao (US 2021/0167417 to Chao et al.).
Regarding Claims 1-3, and 17, Chao teaches:
an all solid-state battery (abstract) comprising a negative electrode comprising an anode active material with an anode current collector layer (¶ 0099)
a positive electrode (¶ 0094)
a solid electrolyte layer located between the positive electrode and negative electrode (¶ 0094, 0101)
wherein the negative electrode has a thickness in some embodiments of 15 microns (¶ 0090)
wherein the solid electrolyte has a thickness in some embodiments of 75, 76, 77, … 90 microns (¶ 0090)
Insofar as Chao does not teach an explicit example with the claimed thicknesses, it would have been obvious to select such thicknesses, such Chao explicitly contemplates that the inventive concept includes, e.g., a negative current collector, a negative active material of 15 microns, and a solid electrolyte with a thickness of 75-90 microns. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]).
Regarding Claim 13, Chao teaches:
embodiments with a buffer layer including a sulfide electrolyte (¶ 0034, 0075 that can be read as the solid electrolyte of electrolyte of claim 1, being situated between the cathode and the anode, the buffer layer being, in some embodiments 15 microns thick (¶ 0090)
Regarding Claim 14, Chao teaches:
wherein the buffer layer can be selected from e.g. LATS or LPS (¶ 0381)
Claims 1, 6-14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ueno (US 2021/0036362 to Ueno et al.).
Regarding Claims 1 and 17-18, Ueno teaches:
an all-solid state battery comprising an anode with active material 54 and a current collector layer 53, a solid electrolyte layer 55, and a cathode with active material 52 and a current collector layer 51 (¶ 0098, Fig. 1)
wherein the negative electrode can vary from 0.1-100 microns, or 0.5-10 microns (¶ 0078) and the solid electrolyte can vary from 0.1-100 microns, or 0.3-20 microns (¶ 0071
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select any portion of the disclosed ranges of Ueno, including thicknesses of, e.g., 15 microns for the anode and solid electrolyte layer, in the middle of the most preferable range.
Regarding Claim 6, Ueno teaches:
a negative active material and binder (¶ 0132)
Regarding Claim 7, Ueno teaches:
negative active material can be selected from carbon and/or metal particles (¶ 0076)
Regarding Claim 8, Ueno teaches:
binder in an amount of ~15 parts per 100 (¶ 0132-0134)
Regarding Claim 9, Ueno teaches:
cellulose (¶ 0132)
Regarding Claim 10, Ueno does not explicitly teach:
amorphous carbon
Amorphous carbon, however, was a common active material in the art. See e.g. previously cited Suzuki (US 2109/0157723) for evidence of ordinary skill in the art in this regard. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 11, Ueno teaches:
metals like Si, Sn, Al, etc. (¶ 0076)
Regarding Claim 12, Ueno teaches:
particle diameters of 50 nm to 5 microns (¶ 0077)
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]).
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, Ueno teaches:
conventional solid electrolytes, including sulfide-based ones, and lithium metal oxide ceramics (¶ 0068)
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ueno (US 2021/0036362 to Ueno et al.) in view of Suzuki (2019/0157723 to Suzuki et al.).
Regarding Claims 15-16, Ueno does not explicitly teach:
a lithium deposition layer of 10-50 microns between the current collector and the negative electrode layer
This feature appears to be determined by the lithium ion balance between the cathode and the anode material at a given voltage. Suzuki, from the same field of invention, regarding an all-solid state battery, teaches a negative electrode active material wherein lithium may additionally be deposited on a rear surface of the anode active material layer between the anode active material layer and the anode current collector to form a lithium metal layer on the current collector (¶ 0041), and wherein the thickness of the platin layer is not particularly limited (¶ 0085) and can vary between 1 and 200 microns (¶ 0125). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select any portion of the disclosed ranges of Suzuki, including the instantly disclosed range, absent evidence of unexpected results.
Response to Arguments
The arguments submitted 2026-02-20 have been considered but do not place the application in condition for allowance. In response to the claim amendments, the rejections have been modified to rely on Chao and Ueno.
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 Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723