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 and Claim Status
The amendment filed 4 May 2026 has been entered. Claims 6–8 have been canceled. Claims 37–40 have been added. Claims 1–5 and 9–40 are pending in the application. Claims 18–36 are withdrawn from consideration.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0014]: gold and bismuth are listed twice.
[0020] line 17: missing comma between “molybdenum” and “lanthanum”.
[0020] line 20: missing comma between “molybdenum” and “lanthanum”.
[0080] line 2: “may each have different a crystal structure” should instead read “may each have a different crystal structure”.
[0094] line 6 refers to a “core-shell structure”, while [0095] line 1 refers to a “core/shell structure” (different punctuation for same term).
[0142] references a “covering layer as described above”, however no part of the instant specification above [0142] describes a “covering layer”. Possibly, “covering layer” in [0142] should be changed to instead read “coating layer” which is referenced in [0140].
[0217] line 2: “the first substrate 100 may” should instead read “the first substrate may”.
[0225] line 1: “discharge, of the all-solid secondary battery” should instead read “discharge of the all-solid secondary battery” (remove comma after “discharge”).
p. 49 line 1: “(0<x≤56)” appears to be a typo, and should instead read “(0<x≤5)” which is supported by e.g. [0098] and [0252].
[0243]: the “x” in “Sn-Clx” should be subscript.
[0245] line 5: space missing between “NMP” and “(N-Methyl-2-pyrrolidone)”.
[0246] line 5: extra space between “solid electrolyte” and “/pre-interlayer”.
p. 51 line 18: “(0<x≤56)” appears to be a typo, and should instead read “(0<x≤5)” which is supported by e.g. [0098] and [0255] line 3.
[0252] line 2: the “x” in “LixSn” should be subscript.
[0252] line 3: the “x” in “LixSn” should be subscript.
[0253] line 2: extra space between “solid electrolyte” and “/pre-interlayer”.
[0255] line 2: “(0<x≤56)” appears to be a typo, and should instead read “(0<x≤5)” which is supported by e.g. [0098] and [0255] line 3.
[0256] line 2: extra space between “solid electrolyte” and “/pre-interlayer”.
[0257] line 4: extra space between “solid electrolyte” and “/pre-interlayer”.
[0257] line 7: extra space between “solid electrolyte” and “/pre-interlayer”.
[0259] line 1: extra space between “LLZTO/” and “Sn-Clx”.
[0259] line 1: the “x” in “Sn-Clx” should be subscript.
[0260] line 2: extra space between “solid electrolyte” and “/pre-interlayer”.
[0260] line 5: extra space between “solid electrolyte” and “/pre-interlayer”.
[0265] line 6: extra space between “solid electrolyte” and “/pre-interlayer”.
p. 54 line 15: “LiSnx” appears to be a typo, and should instead read “LixSn” which is supported by e.g. [0098].
[0269] line 8: the “x” in “Sn-Clx” should be subscript.
[0269] line 9: extra space between “solid electrolyte” and “/pre-interlayer”.
[0270] line 5: space missing between “NMP” and “(N-Methyl-2-pyrrolidone)”.
[0270] line 15: extra space between “solid electrolyte” and “/pre-interlayer”.
[0271] line 4: extra space between “solid electrolyte” and “/pre-interlayer”.
[0271] line 6: extra space between “solid electrolyte” and “/negative”.
[0271] line 7: extra space between “solid electrolyte” and “/interlayer”.
[0272] line 2: “LiSnx” appears to be a typo, and should instead read “LixSn” which is supported by e.g. [0098].
[0288] line 1: space missing between “2.2” and “mA/cm2”.
[0288] line 4: “FIG. 3i” should instead read “FIG. 3I” (capitalize “i”).
[0288] line 5: space missing between “2.5” and “mA/cm2”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 12, 37, and 39 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12: “at least one metal of, silver,” should instead read “at least one metal of silver,” (delete the comma).
Claim 12: “the lithium alloy comprising lithium and silver,” should instead read “the lithium alloy comprises lithium and at least one of silver,”.
Claim 37: the “x” in “LixSn” should be subscript.
Claim 39: the “x” in “LixSn” should be subscript.
Claim 39: the “2” in “Li2O” should be subscript.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1–3, 5, 9–17, and 37–40 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.
Claims 1 and 11 are indefinite as they recite the limitation “wherein the content of the first metal material is greater than that of the lithium ion conductor” but do not specify how the “content” of each component is to be measured, i.e. whether “content” is by weight, by volume, by moles, etc. For the purposes of this office action, the limitation has been interpreted as “wherein the content by weight of the first metal material is greater than that of the lithium ion conductor” which appears to be supported by e.g. [0093] of the instant specification.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12–17, and 37–40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as they depend upon Claims 1 or 11 and do not resolve the indefinite language described above.
Claim 5 is further rejected because it recites the limitation "the first metal" in line 3, and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this office action, the limitation has been interpreted as “the first metal material comprises a first metal which is”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is further rejected as indefinite because it is unclear whether it is requiring both a third metal and a lithium alloy (which are recited as two possible options, which may or may not be utilized in combination, for the third metal material in Claim 11) to be comprised in the third metal material, or if, as in Claim 11, these two can still be present in the alternative. For the purposes of this office action, this second interpretation is used, i.e. Claim 12 is interpreted as:
“The negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly of claim 11, wherein:
the third metal material comprises the third metal, and the third metal comprises at least one metal of silver, tin, indium, silicon, gallium, aluminum, titanium, zirconium, niobium, germanium, antimony, bismuth, zinc, gold, platinum, palladium, nickel, iron, cobalt, chromium, magnesium, cesium, cerium, molybdenum, lanthanum, tungsten, tellurium, or a combination thereof; or
the third metal material comprises the lithium alloy, the lithium alloy comprises lithium and at least one of silver, tin, indium, silicon, gallium, aluminum, titanium, zirconium, niobium, germanium, antimony, bismuth, zinc, gold, platinum, palladium, nickel, iron, cobalt, chromium, magnesium, cesium, cerium, molybdenum, lanthanum, tungsten, tellurium, or a combination thereof.”
Claim 13 is further rejected as indefinite because it recites the limitation “wherein the third metal is lithium, a lithium alloy, or a combination thereof”, but Claim 11, upon which Claim 13 depends, recites “the third metal material comprises at least one metal of lithium, a third metal, a lithium alloy, or a combination thereof”. It is unclear how the third metal could be listed as an alternative to lithium or lithium alloy in Claim 11 but then be lithium or lithium alloy in a dependent claim. For the purposes of this office action, the limitation of Claim 13 above has been interpreted as “wherein the third metal material is lithium, a lithium alloy, or a combination thereof”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1–5, 9–17, and 37–40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2019/0157723 A1; art already of record) in view of Wang et al. (US 2019/0348672 A1; art already of record).
Regarding Claims 1, 4, and 11, Suzuki discloses a negative electrode (see anode 220, [0122], FIG. 4) -solid electrolyte (see solid electrolyte layer 230, [0122], FIG. 4) sub-assembly for an all-solid secondary battery (see all-solid-state secondary battery 200, [0122], FIG. 4), the sub-assembly comprising:
a negative electrode current collector (see anode current collector 221, [0123], FIG. 4);
a first negative active material layer on the current collector (see anode active material layer 222, [0123], FIG. 4); and
a solid electrolyte (see solid electrolyte layer 230, [0122], FIG. 4),
wherein the first negative active material layer comprises a carbonaceous negative active material (see amorphous carbon, [0086]), and optionally a first negative active material comprising a second metal (see gold (Au), platinum (Pt), palladium (Pd), silver (Ag), aluminum (Al), bismuth (Bi), tin (Sn), and zinc (Zn), [0086]), a metalloid (see silicon (Si), [0086]), or a combination thereof ([0086]).
Suzuki does not disclose:
an interlayer on the first negative active material layer;
wherein the interlayer comprises a composite comprising a first metal material and a lithium ion conductor, wherein the first metal material comprises a Li-Ag alloy, a Li-Au alloy, a Li-Al alloy, a Li-Sn alloy, a Li-In alloy, a Li-Zn alloy, a Li-Ge alloy, a Li-Si alloy, a Li-Sb alloy, a Li-Bi alloy, a Li-Ga alloy, a Li-Na alloy, a Li-K alloy, a Li-Te alloy, a Li-Mg alloy, a Li-Mo alloy, a Li-Sn-Bi alloy, a Li-Sn-Ag alloy, a Li-Sn-Na alloy, a Li-Sn-K alloy, a Li-Sn-Ca alloy, a Li-Te-Ag alloy, a Li-Sb-Ag alloy, a Li-Sn-Sb alloy, a Li-Sn-V alloy, a Li-Sn-Ni alloy, a Li- Sn-Cu alloy, a Li-Sn-Zn alloy, a Li-Sn-Ga alloy, a Li-Sn-Ge alloy, a Li-Sn-Sr alloy, a Li-Sn-Y alloy, a Li-Sn-Ba alloy, a Li-Sn-Au alloy, a Li-Sn-La alloy, a Li-Al-Ga alloy, a Li-Mg-Sn alloy, a Li-Mg-Al alloy, a Li-Mg-Si alloy, a Li-Mg-Zn alloy, a Li-Mg-Ga alloy, a Li-Mg-Ag alloy, or a combination thereof,
wherein the lithium ion conductor is LiCl, LiI, LiF, Li2O, Li2O2, Li3N, LiN3, LiNO3, LiClO4, Li3P, Li3P7, LiP, LiP7, Li3PO4, Li2S, LiS4, LiOH, Li2CO3, or a combination thereof,
wherein the content by weight of the first metal material is greater than that of the lithium ion conductor (Claims 1 and 11), and wherein the composite comprises the first metal material dispersed in a matrix comprising the lithium ion conductor.
Suzuki also does not disclose wherein the solid electrolyte is on the interlayer and opposite the first negative active material layer.
Wang teaches a negative electrode (see electrode 110, [0027], FIG. 1; note that Wang discloses in [0068] that the electrode can be an anode) and a solid electrolyte (see electrolyte, [0073]–[0074]; note that Wang discloses in [0074] that the electrolyte can be solid), wherein the negative electrode comprises a first negative active material layer (see electroactive portion, [0029]). Wang further teaches an interlayer (see protective structure 120, [0027], FIG. 1) on the first negative active material layer ([0027]–[0029]); wherein the interlayer comprises a composite ([0030] teaches that the interlayer can comprise more than one constituent materials, which are then described in more detail in [0034]–[0045] and include metal and metalloid alloys ([0035]–[0038]), oxides ([0039]–[0040]), and halide salts ([0041]); see also composite protective structure, [0039]) comprising a first metal material (see metal and metalloid alloys, [0035]–[0038]) and a lithium ion conductor (see oxides, [0039]–[0040], and halide salts, [0041]), wherein the first metal material comprises a Li-Ag alloy ([0035]; see specifically LiAg, [0035]), a Li-Al alloy ([0035]; see specifically LiAl3, [0035]), a Li-Sn alloy ([0035]; see specifically Li4Sn, [0035]), a Li-In alloy ([0035]; see specifically Li3In, [0035]), a Li-Zn alloy ([0035]; see specifically LiZn and LiZn13, [0035]), a Li-Ge alloy ([0035]; see specifically Li4Ge, [0035]), a Li-Si alloy ([0035]; see specifically Li4Si, [0035]), a Li-Sb alloy ([0035]; see specifically Li3Sb, [0035]), a Li-Bi alloy ([0035]; see specifically Li3Bi, [0035]), a Li-Ga alloy ([0035]; see specifically LiGa, [0035]), or a Li-Mg alloy ([0035]; see specifically LiMg, [0035]), wherein the lithium ion conductor is LiCl, LiBr, LiI, LiF (see halide salt [comprising] a metal included in the electrode… such as lithium, [0041]; note [0041] specifically teaches the halide can be chloride, bromide, iodide, or fluoride), or Li2O ([0039]). Wang teaches that the content of the first metal material is greater than or equal to 60 wt% and less than or equal to 95 wt% of the interlayer ([0036]), which will necessarily result in the content of the first metal material being greater than that of the lithium ion conductor, and that the composite comprises the first metal material dispersed in a matrix comprising the lithium ion conductor ([0031] teaches that one constituent material can form a matrix in which the second constituent material is disposed, and as set forth above, metal and metalloid alloys, oxides, and halide salts are considered by Wang to be constituent materials). Wang teaches that the solid electrolyte is on the interlayer and opposite the first negative active material by teaching ([0026]) that the interlayer transports ions which participate in electrochemical reactions from a side proximate to the solid electrolyte to an opposite side proximate the negative electrode; one of ordinary skill in the art will understand therefore that the solid electrolyte is necessarily situated on the interlayer, opposite the first negative active material layer in order for the interlayer to accomplish this ion transport. Finally, Wang teaches ([0026]) that the interlayer serves to prevent or substantially reduce the exposure of the negative electrode to the electrolyte, transport ions which participate in electrochemical reactions, and improve cell performance by: bonding sufficiently strong to the negative electrode to prevent its delamination during typical handling and cycling, and having good flexibility such that it is capable of accommodating typical changes in size of the negative electrode during cycling while still maintaining its protective functionality.
Suzuki and Wang are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of electrochemical cells capable of cycling lithium. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly of Suzuki such that it comprises the interlayer of Wang, for the purpose of preventing or substantially reducing the exposure of the negative electrode to the electrolyte, transporting ions which participate in electrochemical reactions, and improving cell performance by: bonding sufficiently strong to the electrode to prevent its delamination during typical handling and cycling, and having good flexibility such that it is capable of accommodating typical changes in size of the negative electrode during cycling while still maintaining its protective functionality.
Further regarding Claim 4, modified Suzuki does not explicitly disclose wherein a volume of the first negative active material layer after charging the all-solid secondary battery is about 100 percent to about 200 percent or less than a volume of the first negative active material layer after discharging.
However, it is first noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art (MPEP § 2114 and 2115). Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” In the instant case, the above limitation is directed to a process (charging and discharging) for operating the claimed apparatus (the claimed negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly), and therefore is not given patentable weight in light of the above.
Further, it is submitted that such limitations are simply measurements of, and thus descriptions of, inherent properties of the instant negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly when utilized in said process.
Applicant discloses that the volume change of the first negative active material layer during charge/discharge depends on:
side reactions between lithium metal and the solid electrolyte layer, which increase volume expansion ([0073]); such contact could be avoided by the inclusion of an interlayer present between the first active material layer and the solid electrolyte layer ([0073]–[0074]),
and inclusion of a carbonaceous active material in the first negative active material layer, which serves to alleviate volume expansion ([0113], [0125], [0127]).
Furthermore, Applicant discloses ([0293]) Examples 3 and 4 as having alleviated volume changes during charge and discharge. It can be reasonably interpreted, given the above, that alleviation, i.e. minimization, of the volume change of the first negative active material layer during charge/discharge for Examples 3 and 4 is a result of:
inclusion of an interlayer in Example 3 comprising a composite containing LixSn (0 ≤ x ≤ 5) and LiCl ([0259]), and inclusion of an interlayer in Example 4 comprising a composite of LiAg and LiCl ([0263]),
and inclusion of a carbonaceous active material in the first negative active material layer in both Example 3 and Example 4 ([0244], [0256], [0260]).
Another property of Examples 3 and 4 which was not explicitly disclosed in the instant specification as affecting the volume change of the first negative active material layer during charge/discharge, but which relates to the claimed negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly is:
Example 3 and Example 4 both have a second negative active material layer comprising a lithium-silver, i.e. Li–Ag, alloy metal layer between the current collector (Cu foil) and first negative active material layer (AgC) ([0259], [0262]).
Finally, an additional property of the interlayer which was not explicitly disclosed in the instant specification as affecting the volume change of the first negative active material layer during charge/discharge, but which relates to the claimed negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly is:
the interlayer is a composite having a structure in which the first metal material is dispersed in a matrix comprising the lithium ion conductor ([0094]).
In comparison, modified Suzuki discloses:
an interlayer comprising a composite comprising a first metal material comprising an alloy of a first metal and lithium, wherein the alloy can be Li4Sn or LiAg (Wang [0035]), and a lithium ion conductor, wherein the lithium ion conductor can be LiCl (Wang [0041]),
and a carbonaceous active material in the first negative active material layer (Suzuki [0086]),
and the interlayer is a composite having a structure in which the first metal material is dispersed in a matrix comprising the lithium ion conductor (Wang [0031]).
Suzuki further discloses wherein the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly further comprises a second negative active material layer (see metal layer 223, [0123], FIG. 4) between the negative electrode current collector and the first negative active material layer, comprising a third metal material, and the third metal material can comprise a lithium alloy such as a Li–Ag alloy ([0124]).
MPEP § 2112.01.I states that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.
It is submitted that the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly of modified Suzuki is substantially identical to the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly of Examples 3 and 4 of the instant application, as set forth above, such that it would inherently possess the same properties, exhibit the same results, and thus anticipate the claimed limitation, i.e. wherein a volume of the first negative active material layer after charging the all-solid secondary battery is about 100 percent to about 200 percent or less than a volume of the first negative active material layer after discharging.
Assuming, arguendo, that the property recited in the claimed limitation is not anticipated, as there is no evidence on the record that any differences between the instantly claimed negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly and that of modified Suzuki are critical, and as the conditions of the prior art significantly overlap the relevant conditions disclosed in the instant specification, it is submitted that prior to the effective filing date, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly of modified Suzuki and that of the instant application to be obvious variants of one another.
Further regarding Claim 11, Suzuki discloses wherein the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly further comprises a second negative active material layer (see metal layer 223, [0123], FIG. 4) between the negative electrode current collector and the first negative active material layer, and the second negative active material layer comprises a third metal material, and the third metal material comprises lithium or a lithium alloy ([0124]).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Suzuki discloses the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly as set forth above. Suzuki further discloses wherein the interlayer has a thickness in a range of 1 micrometer or less (Wang [0045]).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Suzuki discloses the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly as set forth above. Suzuki does not specifically disclose wherein the first negative active material layer has a thickness in a range of about 1 micrometer to about 10 micrometers, and instead discloses ([0104]) wherein the first negative active material layer has a thickness in a range of about 1 micrometer to about 20 micrometers. Suzuki discloses ([0104]) that when the thickness of the negative active material layer is within the range of 1 micrometer to 20 micrometers, the characteristics of the all-solid secondary battery will be sufficiently enhanced and the first negative active material layer will not have a high resistance value.
When the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for the thickness of the first negative active material layer with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in the characteristics of the all-solid secondary battery being sufficiently enhanced and the first negative active material layer not having a high resistance value.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Suzuki discloses the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly as set forth above. Suzuki further discloses wherein the first metal is tin (see Sn, Wang [0035]), indium (see In, Wang [0035]), silicon (see Si, Wang [0035]), gallium (see Ga, Wang [0035]), aluminum (see Al, Wang [0035]), germanium (see Ge, Wang [0035]), antimony (see Sb, Wang [0035]), bismuth (see Bi, Wang [0035]), zinc (see Zn, Wang [0035]), magnesium (see Mg, Wang [0035]), or silver (see Ag, Wang [0035]).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Suzuki discloses the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly as set forth above. Suzuki further discloses (Wang [0049]–[0050]) wherein the first metal material has an average particle diameter in a range of 20 nanometers to about 200 nanometers.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Suzuki discloses the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the matrix is a continuous phase. However, one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the matrix of Wang ([0031]) will necessarily need to be continuous in order for the first metal material to be disposed therein.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Suzuki discloses the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly as set forth above. Suzuki further discloses wherein the third metal material comprises the lithium alloy, and the lithium alloy comprises lithium and at least one of silver (see Li—Ag alloy, [0124]), tin (see Li—Sn alloy, [0124]), indium (see Li—In alloy, [0124]), silicon (see Li—Si alloy, [0124]), aluminum (see Li—Al alloy, [0124]), germanium (see Li—Ge alloy, [0124]), zinc (see Li—Zn alloy, [0124]), and gold (see Li—Au alloy, [0124]).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Suzuki discloses the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly as set forth above. Suzuki further discloses wherein the third metal material is lithium or a lithium alloy ([0124]).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Suzuki discloses the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly as set forth above. Suzuki further discloses wherein the carbonaceous negative active material comprises amorphous carbon ([0086]), and
the first negative active material comprises silicon, tin, aluminum, bismuth, gold, platinum, palladium, silver, zinc, or a combination thereof ([0086]).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Suzuki discloses the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly as set forth above. Suzuki further discloses wherein the first negative active material layer comprises:
a mixture of a first particle comprising amorphous carbon, and a second particle comprising a metal or metalloid ([0086]),
Suzuki does not disclose wherein a content of the second particle is in a range of about 1 weight percent to about 60 weight percent, based on a total weight of the mixture. Instead, Suzuki discloses ([0086]) that the content of the second particle is in a range of about 25 weight percent to about 75 weight percent (see a weight ratio of the amorphous carbon to the element that is alloyable with lithium may be about 3:1 to about 1:3, [0086]) based on a total weight of the mixture. Suzuki discloses ([0086]) that when the first negative active material layer includes these materials, the characteristics of the all-solid secondary battery can be enhanced.
When the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for the content of the second particle based on a total weight of the mixture with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in an all-solid secondary battery with enhanced characteristics.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Suzuki discloses the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly as set forth above. Modified Suzuki further discloses wherein a content of the first metal material in the composite is in a range of 60 parts by weight (see greater than or equal to 60 wt%, Wang [0036]) to 95 parts by weight (see less than or equal to 95 wt%, Wang [0036]), based on 100 parts by weight of the composite.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Suzuki discloses the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly as set forth above. Modified Suzuki discloses wherein the interlayer is in contact with the solid electrolyte, because as also set forth above, Wang teaches ([0026]) that the interlayer transports ions which participate in electrochemical reactions from a side proximate the solid electrolyte to an opposite side proximate the negative electrode; one of ordinary skill in the art will understand therefore that the interlayer is necessarily in contact with the solid electrolyte in order for the interlayer to accomplish this ion transport.
Regarding Claim 37, modified Suzuki discloses the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly as set forth above. Modified Suzuki further discloses wherein the first metal material comprises Li4Sn (Wang [0035]) and the lithium ion conductor comprises LiCl (see halide salt [comprising] a metal included in the electrode… such as lithium, Wang [0041]; note Wang [0041] specifically teaches the halide can be chloride).
Regarding Claim 38, modified Suzuki discloses the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly as set forth above. Modified Suzuki further discloses wherein the first metal material comprises Li-Ag alloy (Wang [0035]; see specifically LiAg, Wang [0035]) and the lithium ion conductor comprises LiCl (see halide salt [comprising] a metal included in the electrode… such as lithium, Wang [0041]; note Wang [0041] specifically teaches the halide can be chloride).
Regarding Claim 39, modified Suzuki discloses the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly as set forth above. Modified Suzuki further discloses wherein the first metal material comprises Li4Sn (Wang [0035]) and the lithium ion conductor comprises Li2O (Wang [0039]).
Regarding Claim 40, modified Suzuki discloses the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the sub-assembly is configured such that during a charge process, an amount of lithium metal or lithium alloy precipitated in the interlayer is less than an amount precipitated in the first negative active material layer.
However, it is first noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art (MPEP § 2114 and 2115). Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” In the instant case, the above limitation is directed to a process (charge process) for operating the claimed apparatus (the claimed negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly), and therefore is not given patentable weight in light of the above.
Further, it is submitted that such limitations are simply measurements of, and thus descriptions of, inherent properties of the instant negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly when utilized in said process.
Applicant discloses that the amount of lithium precipitation in the interlayer depends on:
the thickness of the interlayer; specifically, Applicant discloses that an interlayer thickness of greater than 1 micrometer may increase local deposition of lithium metal in the interlayer during a charge process ([0104]); and
the presence of metal, specifically the first metal material comprising the first metal, in the interlayer; specifically, Applicant discloses that when the interlayer contains metal, even when a surface of the solid electrolyte is irregular and lithium ions are locally concentrated and introduced, the lithium ions may be evenly distributed throughout the negative electrode by using rapid diffusion of the lithium ions through the interlayer ([0130], [0195]);
In comparison, modified Suzuki discloses:
wherein the interlayer has a thickness in a range of 1 micrometer or less (Wang [0045]); and
as already set forth above, the interlayer comprises a first metal material (see metal and metalloid alloys, Wang [0035]–[0038]), which comprises a first metal (see Sn, In, Si, Ga, Al, Ge, Sb, Bi, Zn, Mg, or Ag, Wang [0035]).
MPEP § 2112.01.I states that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.
It is submitted that the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly of modified Suzuki is substantially identical to the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly of the instant application, as set forth above, such that it would inherently possess the same properties, exhibit the same results, and thus satisfy the claimed limitation, i.e. be configured such that during a charge process, an amount of lithium metal or lithium alloy precipitated in the interlayer is less than an amount precipitated in the first negative active material layer.
Assuming, arguendo, that the property recited in the claimed limitation is not anticipated, as there is no evidence on the record that any differences between the instantly claimed negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly and that of modified Suzuki are critical, and as the conditions of the prior art significantly overlap the relevant conditions disclosed in the instant specification, it is submitted that prior to the effective filing date, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly of modified Suzuki and that of the Instant Application to be obvious variants of one another.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the remarks filed 31 March 2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections in the office action mailed 6 February 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant argues on p. 15–16 of remarks that the composite containing the metal (M1) active material and the lithium ion conductor of the claimed invention is distinguished in its crystal structure and physical properties compared to a simple mixture of the metal active material and the lithium ion conductor and a compound with a core and shell structure, specifically:
Wang merely mentions that the protective structure may form a first material matrix and have a structure in which a second constituent material is arranged; however, the examples of Wang show the material has a simple mixture state, and therefore the volume expansion suppression effect cannot be obtained when the protective structure of Wang is applied to the all-solid-state battery of Suzuki;
It would be difficult to prepare a composite having such a structure using the preparing method disclosed in the examples of Wang, and therefore it is not easy to derive the claimed composite by combining the cited prior arts;
Wang enumerates various ranges for the first metal material and the ion conductor, such as 30 wt% or more, 90 wt% or more, and 99 wt% or less, respectively;
Examples in Table 2 of Wang do not disclose combinations of the first metal material (Li alloy) and the ion conductor (Li ion conductor), nor do they disclose content ranges of the first metal material and ion conductor identical to those of the claimed invention; since the preparing method of the example in Table 2 of Wang differs from the preparing method of the claimed invention, it is not possible to represent the relative content of the interlayer containing the first metal material and ion conductor as in the claimed invention, and the interlayer form (conductor in matrix);
Li4Sn and SnO2 of Wang are formed by immersing Li metal in a SnF2 solution, which is different from the formation of the composite in Example 1 of the claimed invention.
This argument is not persuasive. Firstly, the disclosure of Wang is not limited only to the specific examples of Wang, specifically their composition and preparation methods, disclosed in Wang Table 2. Instead, a person of ordinary skill in the art must consider the entire disclosure of Wang, which as set forth in the above rejection, in combination with the other cited references, discloses the interlayer in terms of composition, arrangement, etc. as claimed. Secondly, Applicant’s statement of e.g. “it would be difficult to prepare a composite having such a structure using the preparing method disclosed in the examples of Wang” is a conclusory statement without any supporting evidence (MPEP § 716.01(c)). Thirdly, the fact that Wang enumerates multiple ranges for the first metal material and the ion conductor does not appear significant; regardless of whether Wang discloses multiple ranges, it can be understood that Wang does disclose the ranges cited in the office action. Finally, it is noted that Applicant’s arguments are mainly directed to apparently differing processes for making the products of Wang’s examples and the interlayer of the claimed invention; Applicant is reminded that patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966).
Applicant argues on p. 16–18 of remarks that the proposed combination of Wang-modified Suzuki does not teach or suggest the newly-added limitation of Claim 40, i.e. the sub-assembly is configured such that during a charge process, an amount of lithium metal or lithium alloy precipitated in the interlayer is less than an amount precipitated in the first negative active material layer. Applicant specifically argues:
Wang does not teach or suggest controlling lithium metal/alloy precipitation during charging such that precipitation is preferentially induced in an underlying electroactive layer while being suppressed in the protective structure/interlayer;
Wang’s disclosure is directed to a protective structure directly adjacent to an electrode, and in many embodiments the electrode comprises an alkali metal such as lithium, rather than a carbonaceous negative active material layer configured to host lithium precipitation in the claimed manner;
The present specification shows technical effects on the claimed interlayer, and the claimed configuration specifically minimizes lithium precipitation in the interlayer and thereby prevents short circuit and overvoltage;
Because lithium precipitation in the interlayer is minimized, the interlayer undergoes only a small volume change during cycling, e.g. a post-charge volume of less than or equal to 150% of its post-discharge volume, and its volume change is smaller than that of the first negative active material layer, which such technical effects directly tied to the claimed limitation and further supporting non-obviousness.
This argument is not persuasive. Firstly, while Wang and Suzuki do not explicitly teach the limitation of Claim 40, as set forth in detail in the rejection above, such a limitation is simply a measurement of, and thus a description of, inherent properties of the instant negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly when utilized in a charge process, and as the negative electrode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly of modified Suzuki is considered to be substantially identical to the claimed invention for the reasons enumerated in the above rejection, it would inherently possess the same properties, exhibit the same results, and satisfy the limitation, and would thus appear also to exhibit the same technical effects described in the arguments above. Secondly, it is noted that while the disclosure of Wang is not relied upon to disclose the contents of the first negative electrode active material layer, Wang does disclose ([0070]) embodiments wherein the first negative electrode active material layer is carbonaceous and intercalates lithium ions. Finally, in response to Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show for instance that the interlayer exhibits a post-charge volume of less than or equal to 150% of its post-discharge volume, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA MARIE FEHR, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/J.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights