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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/26/2026 has been entered. Claim 1 is amended, Claims 5-8 are canceled, and Claims 1-2, 4 and 9-19 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/09/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection of Claims 1-2, and 4-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 05/26/2026.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 20200067133 A1), hereinafter "Sato" in view of Noguchi et al. (Fabrication and performances of all solid-state symmetric sodium battery based on NASICON-related compounds, Electrochimica Acta 101 (2013) 59– 65), hereinafter “Noguchi” and Nikodimos et al. (A new high-Li+-conductivity Mg-doped Li1.5Al0.5Ge1.5(PO4)3 solid electrolyte with enhanced electrochemical performance for solid-state lithium metal batteries, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2020,8, 26055-26065), hereinafter "Nikodimos". Sato, Noguchi and Nikodimos et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely ASSB’s and solid electrolytes.
In regard to Claims 1 and 4, Sato et al. discloses an all-solid-state battery comprising: an electrode assembly including a solid electrolyte layer (Sato, Abstract), and first and second internal electrodes stacked with the solid electrolyte layer interposed therebetween (Sato, Paragraph [0033]). Sato et al. also discloses a first external electrode connected to the first internal electrode; and a second external electrode connected to the second internal electrode (Sato, Figure 1 (5, 6), Paragraph [0034]), wherein the first internal electrode and the second internal electrode include the same active material (Sato, Examples 1-18). Further, Sato et al. discloses a preferred list of active materials which may be selected by the skilled artisan to include a nasicon-based compound wherein the active material includes lithium vanadium phosphate (Sato, Paragraph [0044]). However, Sato et al. is silent as to other nasicon type compounds used for the active material of the symmetrical electrodes.
Noguchi et al. discloses an all-solid-state battery comprising: an electrode assembly including a solid electrolyte layer wherein the first internal electrode and the second internal electrode include the same active material (Noguchi, Abstract). Noguchi et al. also discloses known studies of batteries were carried out because of the development of fast Na+-conductors in the compounds of Na1+xZr2SixP3−xO12 (0 < x < 3), wherein the best ionic conductivity has been obtained for materials with x in the range of 1.8 < x < 2.2 and where the structure of Na1+xZr2SixP3−xO12 retains monoclinic symmetry (Noguchi, pg 59), which would reasonably be selected by the skilled artisan as obvious to try for a symmetrical battery active material. Noguchi et al. also discloses a nasicon-based compound chosen for the active material to include Na3V2(PO4)3 (Noguchi, pg 59). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a Na1+xZr2SixP3−xO12 active material for both electrodes in a solid state symmetrical battery as taught in Noguchi as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Noguchi and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Lastly, while the skilled artisan of Sato already discloses a Nasicon type LAGP solid electrolyte (Sato, Paragraph [0049]) for use in an all solid battery and Mg doping in the active material layer (Sato, Paragraph [0044]), it is silent as to a solid electrolyte layer including magnesium (Mg). However, the skilled artisan would be well aware of doping LAGP solid electrolyte as evidenced by Nikodimos et al. which discloses a Nasicon type LAGP solid electrolyte which is doped with Mg and results in advantages such as increasing the Li+ concentration and expanding the material dimensions due to the larger ionic radius of Mg, leading to enhanced ionic conductivity (Nikodimos, Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide an Mg doped LAGP solid electrolyte as taught in Nikodimos as the LAGP solid electrolyte in the all solid battery of Sato as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Nikodimos and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claim 2, Sato et al. in view of Noguchi and Nikodimos et al. discloses the all-solid-state battery of claim 1. Sato et al. also discloses that the active material includes a compound represented by Formula 1 by disclosing a preferred list of active materials which may be selected by the skilled artisan to include an olivine-type LiMbPO.sub.4 (where Mb is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Co, Ni, Mn, Fe, Mg, Nb, Ti, Al, and Zr), which anticipates the claimed compound of Formula 1 (Sato, Paragraph [0044]).
In regard to Claim 9, Sato et al. in view of Noguchi and Nikodimos et al. discloses the all-solid-state battery of claim 1. Sato et al. also discloses wherein the first internal electrode further includes a first current collector, and the second internal electrode further includes a second current collector (Sato, Paragraphs [0037-0040]).
In regard to Claims 10-11, Sato et al. in view of Noguchi and Nikodimos et al. discloses the all-solid-state battery of claim 1. Sato et al. also discloses the electrode assembly includes two or more first internal electrodes and two or more second internal electrodes wherein the two or more first internal electrodes and the two or more second internal electrodes are alternately stacked with respective solid electrolyte layers interposed therebetween (Sato, Figure 1, (1, 2), (5, 6)).
In regard to Claim 12, Sato et al. in view of Noguchi and Nikodimos et al. discloses the all-solid-state battery of claim 1. Sato et al. also discloses wherein an average thickness of an active material layer including the active material is 4µm (Sato, Paragraph [0117]), which anticipates the claimed range.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 20200067133 A1), hereinafter "Sato" in view of Noguchi et al. (Fabrication and performances of all solid-state symmetric sodium battery based on NASICON-related compounds, Electrochimica Acta 101 (2013) 59– 65), hereinafter “Noguchi” and Nikodimos et al. (A new high-Li+-conductivity Mg-doped Li1.5Al0.5Ge1.5(PO4)3 solid electrolyte with enhanced electrochemical performance for solid-state lithium metal batteries, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2020,8, 26055-26065), hereinafter "Nikodimos" as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Mousavi et al. (Fabrication of Li1+xAlxGe2-x(PO4)3 thin films by sputtering for solid electrolytes, Solid State Ionics, Volume 354, 15 October 2020, 115397), hereinafter “Mousavi”. Sato, Noguchi, Nikodimos and Mousavi et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, ASSB’s and solid electrolytes.
In regard to Claim 13, Sato et al. in view of Noguchi and Nokodimos et al. discloses the all-solid-state battery of claim 1. Sato et al. also discloses a solid electrolyte layer comprising a nasicon-based solid electrolyte comprising LAGP (Sato, Paragraph [0049]) and that the ability to reduce the thickness of the solid electrolyte is a beneficial reason to provide one (Sato, Paragraph [0004]). However, Sato et al. fails to explicitly disclose an average thickness of the solid electrolyte layer is 12 µm or less. Mousavi et al. discloses a nasicon-based solid electrolyte comprising LAGP that achieves ionic conductivities in excess of 10−4 Scm−1 and activation energies as low as 0.31 eV in films only 1 μm thick which falls within the claimed range, suggesting that LAGP could offer attractive properties as a thin film battery electrolyte material (Mousavi, Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a nasicon-based solid electrolyte comprising LAGP as disclosed in Sato et al. in a thickness taught in Mousavi et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Mousavi and as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of known beneficial material to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 20200067133 A1), hereinafter "Sato" in view of Noguchi et al. (Fabrication and performances of all solid-state symmetric sodium battery based on NASICON-related compounds, Electrochimica Acta 101 (2013) 59– 65), hereinafter “Noguchi” and Nikodimos et al. (A new high-Li+-conductivity Mg-doped Li1.5Al0.5Ge1.5(PO4)3 solid electrolyte with enhanced electrochemical performance for solid-state lithium metal batteries, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2020,8, 26055-26065), hereinafter "Nikodimos" as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ito et al. (US 20160141716 A1), hereinafter "Ito". Sato, Noguchi, Nikodimos and Ito et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, ASSB’s and solid electrolytes.
In regard to Claims 14-15, Sato et al. in view of Noguchi and Nikodimos et al. discloses the all-solid-state battery of claim 1. Sato et al. also discloses a thickness of the active material layer is 4µm (Sato, Paragraph [0117]), but is silent as to the thickness of the current collector. Ito et al. discloses an average thickness of the first and second current collectors and an active material layer including the active material is 10 µm (Ito, Paragraph [0065]), which falls within the claimed range and is easily controlled by the skilled artisan. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide an active material layer in the thickness disclosed in Sato with a current collector with a thickness as taught in Ito et al. as doing so would be obvious for the skilled artisan to try and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of a current collector for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 20200067133 A1), hereinafter "Sato" in view of Noguchi et al. (Fabrication and performances of all solid-state symmetric sodium battery based on NASICON-related compounds, Electrochimica Acta 101 (2013) 59– 65), hereinafter “Noguchi” and Nikodimos et al. (A new high-Li+-conductivity Mg-doped Li1.5Al0.5Ge1.5(PO4)3 solid electrolyte with enhanced electrochemical performance for solid-state lithium metal batteries, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2020,8, 26055-26065), hereinafter "Nikodimos" as applied to claim 1 above. Sato, Noguchi and Ito 2 et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, ASSB’s and solid electrolytes.
In regard to Claim 16, Sato et al. discloses an all-solid-state battery comprising: an electrode assembly including a solid electrolyte layer (Sato, Abstract), and first and second internal electrodes stacked with the solid electrolyte layer interposed therebetween (Sato, Paragraph [0033]). Sato et al. also discloses a first external electrode connected to the first internal electrode; and a second external electrode connected to the second internal electrode (Sato, Figure 1 (5, 6), Paragraph [0034]), wherein the first internal electrode and the second internal electrode include the same active material (Sato, Examples 1-18). Further, Sato et al. discloses a preferred list of active materials which may be selected by the skilled artisan to include an olivine-type LiMbPO.sub.4 (where Mb is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Co, Ni, Mn, Fe, Mg, Nb, Ti, Al, and Zr) i.e. the active material includes a compound having an olivine-type crystal structure (Sato, Paragraph [0044]).
Sato et al. also discloses wherein the solid electrolyte layer includes a nasicon-based solid electrolyte comprising Li.sub.13Al.sub.0.3Ti.sub.1.7(PO.sub.4).sub.3 or Li.sub.15Al.sub.0.5Ge.sub.15(PO.sub.4).sub.3, i.e. an LATP and/or LAGP respectively (Sato, Paragraph [0049]). Lastly, while the skilled artisan of Sato already discloses a Nasicon type LAGP solid electrolyte (Sato, Paragraph [0049]) for use in an all solid battery and Mg doping in the active material layer (Sato, Paragraph [0044]), it is silent as to a solid electrolyte layer including magnesium (Mg).
However, the skilled artisan would be well aware of doping LAGP solid electrolyte as evidenced by Nikodimos et al. which discloses a Nasicon type LAGP solid electrolyte which is doped with Mg and results in advantages such as increasing the Li+ concentration and expanding the material dimensions due to the larger ionic radius of Mg, leading to enhanced ionic conductivity (Nikodimos, Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide an Mg doped LAGP solid electrolyte as taught in Nikodimos as the LAGP solid electrolyte in the all solid battery of Sato as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Nikodimos and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claim 17, Sato et al. in view of Noguchi and Nikodimos et al. discloses the all-solid-state battery of claim 16. Sato et al. also discloses that the active material includes a compound represented by Formula 1 by disclosing a preferred list of active materials which may be selected by the skilled artisan to include an olivine-type LiMbPO.sub.4 (where Mb is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Co, Ni, Mn, Fe, Mg, Nb, Ti, Al, and Zr), which anticipates the claimed compound of Formula 1 (Sato, Paragraph [0044]).
In regard to Claims 18-19, Sato et al. in view of Noguchi and Nikodimos et al. discloses the all-solid-state battery of claim 16. Sato et al. also discloses a preferred list of active materials which may be selected by the skilled artisan to include a nasicon-based compound wherein the active material includes lithium vanadium phosphate (Sato, Paragraph [0044]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Ito which was specifically challenged in the arguments. Further, as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection above, Sato in view of Noguchi and Nikodios discloses all of the limitations in amended claim 1.
In regard to applicants’ arguments against Nikodimos in the arguments dated 12/30/2025, Sato et al. already discloses use of an LAGP in an all solid battery and Nikodios discloses an LAGP solid electrolyte doped with Mg and benefits of that solid electrolyte to include Mg’s ability to expand the LAGP lattice/transport channels which increase mobile Li concentration and improve transport within the ceramic which would be advantageous in Sato’s all solid battery therefore, it would have been obvious to try without undue experimentation with the reasonable expectation of success. Further, this amounts to an argument against the references individually, and one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JONATHAN CREPEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights