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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (US-6402795-B1) in view of Yushin et al. (US-20150318530-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Chu discloses an electrode precursor wherein a protective layer (18, Fig. 2) is deposited onto the surface of a current collector (14, Fig. 2) with a wetting layer (15, Fig. 2) between the protective layer and the current collector (Col. 2, lines 19- 57; Col. 3, lines 7-18; Col. 5, lines 1-10). The electrode precursor can then be converted to an alkali metal electrode by an initial charging operation, in which lithium plates from the positive electrode (Col. 2, lines 58-66). In such a charging method, the electrode precursor is assembled with other battery elements including an electrolyte and a positive electrode (Col. 2, lines 58-61). Chu further discloses that current collectors contact both the positive and negative electrodes in a conventional manner (Col. 11, lines 24-27), and that the protective layer can be used directly as a solid electrolyte (Col. 11, lines 14-16).
Therefore, although not disclosed in a single embodiment, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have provided an all-solid-state battery (corresponds to a battery assembled with an electrode precursor) wherein the protective layer is used as a solid electrolyte with a reasonable expectation that using the protective layer as a solid electrolyte would result in an all-solid-state battery.
The configuration of the all-solid-state battery rendered obvious by Chu can be visualized using the annotation of Chu Fig. 3, below. Notably, the configuration disclosed in Chu Fig. 3 comprises a lithium layer (314; Col. 11, lines 33-48), which is not present in the all-solid-state battery comprising the electrode precursor as rendered obvious by Chu (see above; Col. 2, line 58 – Col. 3, line 2; Col. 8, line 61 – Col. 9, line 4). Accordingly, the solid electrolyte layer is rendered obvious by Chu is understood to be disposed directly on the intermediate layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
874
1345
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Chu Fig. 3.
Therefore, as depicted in the annotation of Chu, Fig. 3 (above), the all-solid-state battery comprises (Col. 8, line 61 – Col. 9, line 4; Col. 11, lines 14-16, 33-43):
an anode current collector (negative current collector 312, Fig. 3);
an intermediate layer (wetting layer 313, Fig. 3) disposed on the anode current collector;
a solid electrolyte layer (protective layer 308) disposed directly on the intermediate layer;
a cathode active material layer (positive electrode 318, Fig. 3) disposed on the solid electrolyte layer; and
a cathode current collector (positive current collector 320, Fig. 3) disposed on the cathode active material layer.
Chu discloses that the intermediate layer (wetting layer) can intercalate ions of the alkali metal and, as an example, may include titanium sulfide or iron sulfide (Col. 3, lines 23-25; Claim 17). The alkali metal can be lithium (Col. 3, lines 26-27). Chu does not teach that the intermediate layer comprises a metal sulfide wherein M comprises at least one of In, Bi, Pb, Si, Ge, Sb, or Zn.
Yushin teaches a lithium-ion battery comprising active cathode particles and active anode particles [0159]. As an example of the active anode particles, metal sulfide particles that exhibit lithium intercalation can be used [0159]. Examples of suitable metal sulfide particles include, among a list of possible candidates, PbS, ZnS, FeS2, FeS, TiS, and TiS2 [0159]. The Examiner notes that this establishes lead sulfide (PbS) and zinc sulfide (ZnS) as a suitable metal sulfide alternatives to titanium sulfide (TiS, TiS2) or iron sulfide (FeS, FeS2), all of which are capable of intercalating lithium ions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used lead sulfide (PbS) and/or zinc sulfide (ZnS) instead of or in addition to the titanium sulfide or iron sulfide taught by Chu, with a reasonable expectation that the use of lead sulfide and/or zinc sulfide in the intermediate layer (wetting layer) would result in a successful lithium all-solid-state battery (MPEP 2144.06, I-II, MPEP 2144.07). Lead sulfide (PbS) and zinc sulfide (ZnS) are within the list of claimed metal sulfides of instant Claim 1 (i.e. MxSy wherein M = Pb, x = 1, and y = 1 or MxSy wherein M = Zn, x = 1, and y = 1).
Chu discloses that the intermediate layer (wetting layer) is formed directly on the current collector (Col. 5, lines 1-10; Col. 6, lines 33-44; see Fig. 2). Additionally, Chu discloses that the all-solid-state battery comprising the electrode precursor does not contain free alkali metal until after charging (Col. 2, line 58 – Col. 3, line 2; Col. 8, line 61 – Col. 9, line 4). Therefore, modified Chu renders obvious a configuration wherein “the all-solid-state battery does not comprise a lithium layer between the anode current collector and the intermediate layer prior to initial charging”.
The Examiner notes that the limitation “wherein during charging, the metal sulfide is converted into a metal and lithium sulfide (Li2S), wherein the all-solid-state battery further comprises the lithium layer formed between the anode current collector and the intermediate layer during charging, and the lithium layer comprises at least lithium metal, wherein the lithium layer further comprises at least one of lithium sulfide, an alloy of lithium and the metal derived from the metal sulfide, or any combination thereof” is an intended use limitation for the claimed all-solid-state battery.
The recitation of intended use of a claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the limitation of the claim. Here, the prior art teaches the claimed configuration of the all-solid-state battery which is necessary to perform the intended use limitation. Specifically, the prior art teaches the claimed configuration of an anode current collector, an intermediate layer disposed on the anode current collector, a solid electrolyte disposed directly on the intermediate layer, a cathode active material layer, and a cathode current collector (see above). The prior art also renders obvious that the intermediate layer includes a metal sulfide, and the prior art renders obvious the use of PbS or ZnS, which are within the claimed list of metal sulfide materials. Therefore, the prior art has the structure necessary to perform the intended use limitation. Thus the intended use limitation is met.
Additionally, since the structure rendered obvious by the prior art is substantially similar to the claimed structure (as laid out above), it is understood that the all-solid-state battery of modified Chu necessarily and inherently undergoes the claimed transformation during charging wherein “the metal sulfide is converted into the metal and lithium sulfide” as evidenced by the instant specification [instant specification: 0053-0055, 0057-0059, 0067] (MPEP 2112.01). Additionally, it is understood that the all-solid-state battery of modified Chu necessarily and inherently “further comprises the lithium layer formed between the anode current collector and the intermediate layer during charging, and the lithium layer comprises at least lithium metal” as claimed and as evidenced by the instant specification [instant specification: 0060-0066, 0068-0069] (MPEP 2112.01). Furthermore, it is understood the process of charging necessarily and inherently results in an all-solid-state battery wherein “the lithium layer further comprises at least one of lithium sulfide, an alloy of lithium and a metal derived from the metal sulfide, or any combination thereof” as claimed and as evidenced by the instant specification [instant specification: 0069] (MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Chu renders obvious the product of Claim 1. Chu further discloses that the anode current collector be selected from the group consisting of copper, nickel, stainless steel and zinc (Chu, Claim 12). Chu discloses an embodiment wherein copper is used as the anode current collector (Col. 18, lines 4-9), thus rendering obvious the use of copper as the material of the anode current collector, which is within the claimed list of anode current collector materials.
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, modified Chu renders obvious the product of Claim 1. Modified Chu teaches that the intermediate layer can have a thickness of about 50 to 1000 Å (Col. 6, lines 57-59). This corresponds to a thickness of about 5 to 100 nm.
The range disclosed in the prior art overlaps the range disclosed in the instant application. Although modified Chu does not specifically teach in a specific embodiment an intermediate layer with a thickness of about 100 nm to 1000 nm as required by Claim 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any portion of the range recited in the prior art, including a thickness of about 100 nm, with a reasonable expectation that such a thickness would result in a successful all-solid-state lithium battery (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Furthermore, since modified Chu teaches an all-solid-state battery that is substantially similar to that that recited in the instant application, the intermediate layer is understood to inherently have an initial capacity of about 1.0 mAh/cm2 or less than 1.0 mAh/cm2 as required by Claim 5 and as evidenced by the instant specification, which indicates that the initial capacity relates to the thickness of the intermediate layer (instant specification: [0072]). Since modified Chu teaches a thickness of the intermediate layer which is within the claimed range, it is understood to inherently have an initial capacity of about 1.0 mAh/cm2 or less than 1.0 mAh/cm2 (MPEP 2112.01, I).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (US-6402795-B1) in view of Yushin et al. (US-20150318530-A1) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in further view of Nagayama et al. (US-20040219428-A1).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Chu renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the metal sulfide can include lead sulfide (PbS) or zinc sulfide (ZnS) (see rejection of Claim 1, above). Although Chu discloses that the wetting layer preferably either intercalates lithium or alloys with lithium (Col. 2, lines 46-57; Col. 3, lines 7-18, 26-27), modified Chu does not teach that the metal sulfide comprises one or both of In2S3, or Bi2S3.
Nagayama teaches a lithium ion secondary battery including an anode which includes a metal sulfide which forms an alloy with lithium [0009-0012, 0025]. Nagayama teaches that the metal sulfide may include, from a list of possible candidates, lead sulfide (PbS) and indium sulfide (In2S3) [0025]. The Examiner notes that this establishes indium sulfide (In2S3) as a substitutable alternative to lead sulfide (PbS) for use in lithium ion secondary batteries (MPEP 2144.06, I-II). Furthermore, this establishes indium sulfide (In2S3) as a metal sulfide capable of forming an alloy with lithium (MPEP 2144.07).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used indium sulfide (In2S3) instead of or in addition to the lead sulfide (PbS) rendered obvious by modified Chu, with a reasonable expectation that the use of indium sulfide (In2S3) in the intermediate layer would result in a successful lithium all-solid-state battery (MPEP 2144.06, I-II, MPEP 2144.07). Indium sulfide (In2S3) is within the list of claimed materials.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rangasamy et al. (US-20200395618-A1) in view of Yushin et al. (US-20150318530-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Rangasamy teaches an all-solid-state battery comprising:
an anode current collector (160, Fig. 1);
an intermediate layer (protective film 180, Fig. 1) disposed on the anode current collector;
a solid electrolyte layer (solid electrolyte film 130, Fig. 1) disposed directly on the intermediate layer;
a cathode active material layer (cathode film 150, Fig. 1) disposed on the solid electrolyte layer; and
a cathode current collector (140, Fig. 1) disposed on the cathode active material layer.
Rangasamy teaches that the intermediate layer (protective film 180) can comprise a transition metal dichalcogenide [0074-0076]. These transition metal dichalcogenides undergo a lithiation process during the first cycle charge to form a lithium transition metal dichalcogenide [0043, 0073]. Therefore, prior to an initial charge, it is understood that the intermediate layer comprises the transition metal dichalcogenide, and does not comprise lithium. In a specific embodiment, Rangasamy discloses forming the intermediate layer as a film of TiS2 [0076]. Rangasamy does not teach that the metal sulfide comprises at least one of In, Bi, Pb, Si, Ge, Sb, Zn, or any combination thereof.
Yushin teaches a lithium-ion battery comprising active cathode particles and active anode particles [0159]. As an example of the active anode particles, metal sulfide particles that exhibit lithium intercalation can be used [0159]. Examples of suitable metal sulfide particles include, among a list of possible examples, PbS, ZnS, and TiS2 [0159]. The Examiner notes that this establishes lead sulfide (PbS) and zinc sulfide (ZnS) as a suitable metal sulfide alternatives to titanium sulfide (TiS2), all of which are capable of intercalating lithium ions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used lead sulfide (PbS) and/or zinc sulfide (ZnS) instead of or in addition to the titanium sulfide taught by Rangasamy, with a reasonable expectation that the use of lead sulfide and/or zinc sulfide in the intermediate layer would result in a successful all-solid-state battery (MPEP 2144.06, I-II, MPEP 2144.07). Lead sulfide (PbS) and zinc sulfide (ZnS) are within the list of claimed metal sulfides of instant Claim 1 (i.e. MxSy wherein M = Pb, x = 1, and y = 1 or MxSy wherein M = Zn, x = 1, and y = 1).
Modified Rangasamy teaches that an anode film (170, Fig. 1) exists between the intermediate layer (protective layer 180) and the current collector (160, Fig. 1). The anode film can be constructed from graphite, silicon-containing graphite, lithium metal, lithium metal foil, or a lithium alloy foil, or a mixture of a lithium metal and/or lithium alloy and materials such as carbon, nickel, copper, tin, indium, silicon, oxides thereof, or a combination thereof [0054].
Therefore, although modified Rangasamy does not teach in a specific embodiment using graphite or silicon-containing graphite as the material of the anode film (170), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the graphite or silicon-containing graphite as the material of the anode film with a reasonable expectation that such a selection would result in a successful anode for use in an all-solid-state battery.
By selecting the anode film (170) to be comprised of graphite or silicon-containing graphite, modified Rangasamy thereby renders obvious “wherein the all-solid state battery does not comprise a lithium layer between the anode current collector and the intermediate layer prior to initial charging”.
The Examiner notes that the limitation “wherein during charging, the metal sulfide is converted into a metal and lithium sulfide (Li2S), wherein the all-solid-state battery further comprises the lithium layer formed between the anode current collector and the intermediate layer during charging, and the lithium layer comprises at least lithium metal, wherein the lithium layer further comprises at least one of lithium sulfide, an alloy of lithium and the metal derived from the metal sulfide, or any combination thereof” is an intended use limitation for the claimed all-solid-state battery.
The recitation of intended use of a claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the limitation of the claim. Here, the prior art teaches the claimed configuration of the all-solid-state battery which is necessary to perform the intended use limitation. Specifically, the prior art teaches the claimed configuration of an anode current collector, an intermediate layer disposed on the anode current collector, a solid electrolyte disposed directly on the intermediate layer, a cathode active material layer, and a cathode current collector (see above). The prior art also renders obvious that the intermediate layer includes a metal sulfide, and the prior art renders obvious the use of PbS or ZnS, which are within the claimed list of metal sulfide materials. Therefore, the prior art has the structure necessary to perform the intended use limitation. Thus the intended use limitation is met.
Additionally, since the structure rendered obvious by the prior art is substantially similar to the claimed structure (as laid out above), it is understood that the all-solid-state battery of modified Rangasamy necessarily and inherently undergoes the claimed transformation during charging wherein “the metal sulfide is converted into the metal and lithium sulfide” as evidenced by the instant specification [instant specification: 0053-0055, 0057-0059, 0067] (MPEP 2112.01). Additionally, it is understood that the all-solid-state battery of modified Rangasamy necessarily and inherently “further comprises the lithium layer formed between the anode current collector and the intermediate layer during charging, and the lithium layer comprises at least lithium metal” as claimed and as evidenced by the instant specification [instant specification: 0060-0066, 0068-0069] (MPEP 2112.01). Furthermore, it is understood the process of charging necessarily and inherently results in an all-solid-state battery wherein “the lithium layer further comprises at least one of lithium sulfide, an alloy of lithium and a metal derived from the metal sulfide, or any combination thereof” as claimed and as evidenced by the instant specification [instant specification: 0069] (MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Rangasamy renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Rangasamy discloses that the anode current collector can be selected from a group which consists of Al, Cu, Zn, Ni, Co, Mn, Cr, stainless steel, alloys thereof, and combinations thereof [0051]. In a specific embodiment, the current collector is a copper current collector [0069], thus rendering obvious the use of an anode current collector comprising copper, which is within the claimed list of materials.
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, modified Rangasamy renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Rangasamy teaches that the intermediate layer has a thickness of 500 nm or less [0059].
The range disclosed in the prior art overlaps the range disclosed in the instant application. Although Rangasamy does not teach in a specific embodiment that the intermediate layer has a thickness of 100 nm to 1000 nm, as required by Claim 4 it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any portion of the range recited within the prior art, including a thickness of about 100 nm to about 500 nm, with a reasonable expectation that such a thickness would result in a successful intermediate layer for use in an all-solid-state battery (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Furthermore, since modified Rangasamy teaches an all-solid-state battery that is substantially similar to that that recited in the instant application, the intermediate layer is understood to inherently have an initial capacity of about 1.0 mAh/cm2 or less than 1.0 mAh/cm2 as required by Claim 5 and as evidenced by the instant specification (instant specification: [0072]). Specifically, the instant specification indicates that the initial capacity relates to the thickness of the intermediate layer (instant specification: [0072]). Since modified Rangasamy teaches a thickness of the intermediate layer which is within the claimed range, it is understood to inherently have an initial capacity of about 1.0 mAh/cm2 or less than 1.0 mAh/cm2 (MPEP 2112.01, I).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rangasamy et al. (US-20200395618-A1) in view of Yushin et al. (US-20150318530-A1) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in further view of Nagayama et al. (US-20040219428-A1).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Rangasamy renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the metal sulfide can include lead sulfide (PbS) or zinc sulfide (ZnS) (see rejection of Claim 1, above). Modified Rangasamy does not teach that the metal sulfide comprises one or both of In2S3, or Bi2S3.
Nagayama teaches a lithium ion secondary battery including an anode which includes a metal sulfide which forms an alloy with lithium [0009-0012, 0025]. Nagayama teaches that the metal sulfide may include, from a list of possible candidates, lead sulfide (PbS) and indium sulfide (In2S3) [0025]. The Examiner notes that this establishes indium sulfide (In2S3) as a substitutable alternative to lead sulfide (PbS) for use in lithium ion secondary batteries (MPEP 2144.06, I-II).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used indium sulfide (In2S3) instead of or in addition to the lead sulfide (PbS) rendered obvious by modified Rangasamy, with a reasonable expectation that the use of indium sulfide (In2S3) in the intermediate layer would result in a successful all-solid-state battery (MPEP 2144.06, I-II, MPEP 2144.07). Indium sulfide (In2S3) is within the list of claimed materials.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/20/2026 have been fully considered, but were not found persuasive.
Regarding the 103 rejections over Chu in view of Yushin, Applicant has argued that Chu explicitly discloses that after charging, the lithium layer forms on top of the wetting layer (reads on intermediate layer) between the wetting layer and the protective layer (reads on solid electrolyte layer), while in the instant clams, the lithium layer is required to form between the intermediate layer and the current collector (Remarks, Pg. 2). Applicant has argued that because Chu unambiguously discloses where the lithium layer forms, one of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to expect that substituting titanium sulfide or iron sulfide in Chu’s wetting layer with PbS or ZnS would relocate the lithium deposition to the opposite side of the intermediate layer (Remarks, Pg. 2). Applicant has argued that the burden of demonstrating such a rearrangement rests with the Office, not the Applicant (Remarks, Pg. 2). Additionally, Applicant has argued that if this difference in the site of the lithium layer results from use of the claimed metal sulfides (M = In, Bi, Pb, Si, Ge, Sb, and Zn), it constitutes an unexpected result that is unforeseeable to one of ordinary skill in the art, thereby further reinforcing the non-obviousness of the claims. (Remarks, Pg. 3).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. The Examiner notes that Claim 1 is drawn towards the structure of an all-solid-state battery before charging. Specifically, Claim 1 requires the presence of an intermediate layer comprising a metal sulfide. Although the instant application indicates that the metal sulfide undergoes a transformation during initial charging (instant specification: [0057-0063]), such a transformation amounts to the intended use of the claimed all-solid-state battery. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Here, modified Chu renders obvious that the structure of an all-solid-state battery includes an anode current collector, an intermediate layer comprising a metal sulfide on the current collector, and a solid electrolyte layer disposed directly on the intermediate layer (see rejection of Claim 1 over modified Chu above, and annotation of Chu Fig. 2 below). Accordingly, modified Chu renders obvious an all-solid-state battery which has the necessary structure such that it is capable of undergoing the claimed transformation, and depositing a lithium layer between the intermediate layer and the anode current collector.
PNG
media_image2.png
334
1114
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Chu Fig. 2.
Although Applicant has argued that Chu discloses the lithium layer as forming between the intermediate layer and the solid electrolyte, not between the intermediate layer and the anode current collector, the Examiner notes that the location of the lithium layer depends on the initial charging conditions, as evidenced by Ku et al. (US-20200136178-A1). Specifically, Ku evidences that the precipitation of lithium depends on the initial charging conditions of a solid state battery in relation to the charging capacity of the materials incorporated in the anode [Ku: 0055]. During initial charging, lithium is included in an anode active material layer [Ku: 0055]. However, if the charging capacity of the anode active material is exceeded (i.e. if the anode active material is overcharged), lithium is precipitated on the anode current collector [Ku: 0055].
Additionally, although Chu discloses that a lithium layer is formed between the intermediate layer comprising titanium sulfide or iron sulfide and the solid electrolyte during charging (Col. 3, lines 23-25; Claim 17; Fig. 2), such a configuration is not the only possible configuration as evidenced by Im et al. (US-20230275203-A1). Specifically, Im evidences that lithium can be deposited below a protective layer comprising metal sulfides such as titanium sulfide and iron sulfide such that the lithium metal layer is positioned between the protective layer and an anode current collector [Im: 0012, 0020].
Accordingly, the Examiner maintains that the anode rendered obvious by modified Chu has the structure necessary such that a lithium layer could be deposited between the intermediate layer and the anode current collector during an initial charge. Currently, there is nothing on record to suggest that changing the metal sulfide from titanium sulfide or iron sulfide (as disclosed by Chu; Col. 3, lines 23-25), to a metal sulfide wherein M comprises at least one of In, Bi, Pb, Si, Ge, Sb, or Zn (as required by Claim 1 and rendered obvious by Yushin; see rejection of Claim 1, above) would alter the reactivity of the metal sulfide material and result in a distinct configuration after initially charging the all-solid-state battery. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01, I-II.
Additionally, the Examiner notes that if Applicant is arguing unexpected results, the scope of the independent claim must be commensurate with the showing of evidence. Currently, the showing of evidence appears to require the following:
the use of In2S3, SnS, or Bi2S3 as the metal sulfide (Table 1);
a metal sulfide layer with a thickness of 500 nm (Table 1);
the use of stainless steel with a thickness of 10 µm as the anode current collector [0094, 00110];
LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 as the cathode active material [00106].
Additionally, in light of disclosure of Ku which evidences that the initial charging conditions of the solid state battery influence the formation of the lithium layer, it further appears that the showing of evidence requires the charging conditions disclosed at [00107] of the instant specification.
Absent evidence or persuasive argument to the contrary, each of the above factors appears to be critical to achieving the allegedly unexpected results. Currently, Claim 1 is open to additional metal sulfide materials, does not require a thickness of the metal sulfide material, does not require a material for the anode current collector or the cathode, and does not specify any charging conditions.
Regarding the 103 rejections over Rangasamy in view of Yushin, Applicant has argued that Rangasamy discloses a protective film (180) formed on an anode film (170), and that Rangasamy’s lithiation process occurs while the anode film is present (Remarks, Pg. 3). Applicant has argued that it cannot be concluded that the claimed reaction would occur, or that a lithium layer would form between the current collector and the intermediate layer, absent the anode film (Remarks, Pg. 3).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. The Examiner notes that the rejections of record to do rely on removing the anode film (170), and that Claim 1 is currently open to additional layers between the intermediate layer and the current collector (i.e. “disposed” is interpreted in light of the instant specification [0046] as including intervening elements). As discussed above with regards to the rejections over Chu, the Examiner notes that the formation of a lithium layer is an intended use of the claimed all-solid-state battery, and therefore must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Here, modified Rangasamy renders obvious an all-solid-state battery including an anode comprising an intermediate layer (180) comprising a metal sulfide disposed on an anode current collector (160) (see rejection of Claim 1 over modified Rangasamy, above). Accordingly, modified Rangasamy is understood to have the structure necessary to precipitate a lithium layer between the intermediate layer and the anode current collector. The Examiner notes that such an understanding is further evidenced by Ku (as discussed previously), which evidences that charging the solid state battery beyond the charging capacity of the anode material results in the precipitation of lithium on the anode current collector [Ku: 0055]. Therefore, absent persuasive evidence or argument to the contrary, the all-solid-state battery rendered obvious by Rangasamy is understood to have the required structure such that it is capable of forming a lithium layer between the intermediate layer and the anode current collector.
Additionally, Applicant has argued that although Rangasamy generally teaches single-layer protective films, the specific embodiments of Rangasamy consistently employ two protective films, and that Rangasamy does not disclose a specific embodiment of a single-layer protective film comprising a lithium transition metal dichalcogenide (Remarks, Pg. 3).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully notes that patents are relevant for all that they contain, including nonpreferred and alternative embodiments (MPEP 2123, I-II). Accordingly, the Examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of Rangasamy’s general teaching of a single-layer protective film [0049], would have found it obvious to have selected the protective film to be a single layer with a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicant has argued that Rangasamy discloses exposing a TiS2 film to a lithiation process to form a LiTiS2 intercalation compound, which is chemically and mechanistically distinct from the conversion reaction claimed in the present invention (Remarks, Pg. 3). Applicant has argued that the prior art produces a lithiated intercalation compound while the present invention produces a free metal and lithium sulfide (Remarks, Pg. 3). Since Rangasamy introduces a reaction explicitly different from that of the present invention, Applicant has argued that the Office bears the burden of demonstrating that the LiTiS2 film of Rangasamy would in fact convert into free metal (M) and Li2S under the claimed conditions (Remarks, Pg. 3). Applicant has also argued if a discrepancy in reaction mechanism results from introduction of the metal sulfide of Yushin, such would represent an unexpected effect unforeseeable to one of ordinary skill in the art (Remarks, Pgs. 3-4).
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. The Examiner notes that the limitations directed towards the reactivity of the metal sulfide amount to intended use limitations, as discussed in detail above. Modified Rangasamy renders obvious that the intermediate layer includes PbS or ZnS (see rejection of Claim 1 over modified Rangasamy). Accordingly, the metal sulfide rendered obvious by modified Rangasamy is understood to be inherently capable of reacting to form metal and lithium sulfide. “A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.” See MPEP 2112.01 II. Accordingly, the structure rendered obvious by the prior art is understood to be capable performing the intended use limitations. Furthermore, Ku evidences that whether lithium incorporates into the anode active material or precipitates on the anode current collector depends on the initial charging conditions [Ku: 0055].
In regards to the argument Rangasamy discloses TiS2 reacting to form LiTiS2 and not a free metal and lithium sulfide, the Examiner notes that TiS2 can also react to form free metal and lithium sulfide, as evidenced by Im et al. (US-20230275203-A1) (see [Im: 0012, 0020, 0051]). Accordingly, it appears that the reactivity of the anode active material (e.g. metal sulfide) can depend on the charging conditions of the battery [Ku: 0055]. Currently, there is nothing on record to suggest that changing the metal sulfide from titanium sulfide (as disclosed by Rangasamy; [0056]), to PbS or ZnS (as required by Claim 1 and rendered obvious by Yushin; see rejection of Claim 1 above) would alter the reactivity of the metal sulfide material. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01, I-II.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DREW C NEWMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9873. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/D.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 6/30/2026
Prosecution Insights