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 on 12/30/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4, and 14-15 are amended, Claim 3 is canceled, Claims 16-19 are newly added and Claims 1-2, and 4-19 are pending.
Claim Objections
The objection to Claims 1-15 is withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 13/30/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection of Claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 12/30/2025. However, the rejection below is now entered.
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 1-2, and 4-15 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 1 recites “wherein the first internal electrode and the second internal electrode include a same active material including Na1+xA2Si2P3-xO12 (0≤x≤3), in which A is one of zirconium (Zr), aluminum (Al), titanium (Ti), germanium (Ge), or vanadium (V)” (Lines 11-12), alternatively, the specification describes a Nasicon active material wherein the nasicon-based compound is a compound based on a composition of Na1+xZr2Si2P3-xO12 ([30]). Examiner notes the accepted generic formula for Nasicon is Na₁₊ₓZr₂SiₓP₃−ₓO₁₂, where 0 < x < 3 however, the claimed formula uses Si where x=2 but leaves x open for Na and P, which is an unclear limitation given the accepted Nasicon general formula. To be consistent with the definition of Nasicon and the known general formula the claimed active material either should fall within Na1+xA2SixP3-xO12, 0≤x≤3, or Na3A2Si2PO12 (effectively x=2 because Si=2). For examination purposes Na1+xA2SixP3-xO12, 0≤x≤3 will be used. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2 and 4-15 are rejected as being dependent from a claim rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b) as they fail to further clarify the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of independent claim 1.
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, 4-6, 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”. Sato and Noguchi 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.
In regard to Claim 2, Sato et al. in view of Noguchi 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 Claims 5-6, Sato et al. in view of Noguchi et al. discloses the all-solid-state battery of claim 1. 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]).
In regard to Claim 9, Sato et al. in view of Noguchi 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 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 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.
Claims 7-8 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” as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ito 2 et al. (US 20180115016 A1), hereinafter "Ito 2". 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 Claims 7-8, Sato et al. in view of Noguchi et al. discloses the all-solid-state battery of claim 1. Sato et al. also discloses a Nasicon type LAGP solid electrolyte (Sato, Paragraph [0049]) and Mg doping in the active material layer (Sato, Paragraph [0044]), but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the solid electrolyte layer includes at least magnesium (Mg).
Ito 2 et al. discloses an Nasicon type solid electrolyte which is doped with Mg because it has a small atomic radius and its valence is expected to be stable (Ito 2, Abstract, [0028]). 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 LAGP solid electrolyte as disclosed in Sato et al. that is doped with Mg as taught in Ito 2 et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Ito 2 and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known material, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results.
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” 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 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 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” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ito et al. (US 20160141716 A1), hereinafter "Ito". Sato, Noguchi 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 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” as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ito 2 et al. (US 20180115016 A1), hereinafter "Ito 2". 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]). Sato et al. also discloses a Nasicon type LAGP solid electrolyte (Sato, Paragraph [0049]) and Mg doping in the active material layer (Sato, Paragraph [0044]), but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the solid electrolyte layer includes at least magnesium (Mg).
Ito 2 et al. discloses an Nasicon type solid electrolyte which is doped with Mg because it has a small atomic radius and its valence is expected to be stable (Ito 2, Abstract, [0028]). 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 LAGP solid electrolyte as disclosed in Sato et al. that is doped with Mg as taught in Ito 2 et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Ito 2 and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known material, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claim 17, Sato et al. in view of Ito 2 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 Ito 2 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 was changed from a 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) rejection to a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection and relies on a reference not previously applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument (Noguchi et al.). Further, as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection above, Sato in view of Noguchi discloses all of the limitations in amended claim 1.
In regard to applicants’ arguments against Claims 7-8 and 16-19, they have been considered but are moot because the reference previously presented (Nikodimos) is no longer relied upon after amendment to the claims and Ito 2 et al. teaches the limitations of an Mg doped Nasicon solid electrolyte as discussed above in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection above.
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 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
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725