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 Status
Claims 1, 8 are amended.
Claim 7 is cancelled.
Claims 1-6, 8-11 have been considered on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/28/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The amendment to Fig. 4 overcomes the objection of record. The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 20210242446 A1) hereinafter "Jin" in view of Shimizu et al. (US 20200328452 A1) hereinafter "Shimizu". References cited in previous Office Action dated 8/25/25.
Regarding claim 1, Jin teaches an all-solid-state battery comprising: an anode layer; a solid electrolyte layer disposed on the anode layer and comprising a solid electrolyte; a cathode layer disposed on the solid electrolyte layer ([0031]; [0006]); and an edge part disposed on a side surface of the solid electrolyte layer (Fig. 3b annotated below; [0041]), wherein an area of one surface of the cathode layer is larger than an area of one surface of the solid electrolyte layer (Fig. 3b annotated below; [0041]; the width of the smallest surface of the solid electrolyte, Wo, is smaller than the width of the cathode, Wc), and a border part of the cathode layer is in contact with the edge part (Fig. 3b annotated below - indirect contact via the solid electrolyte; [0041]; [0031]; for purposes of examination a border part is considered any portion of a cathode layer that is located towards an edge of the cathode layer), and wherein the area of the one surface of the cathode layer is smaller than a total area defined by the area of the one surface of the solid electrolyte layer and an area of one surface of the edge part that is in contact with the border part ([0041]; Fig. 3b; the width of the cathode, Wc, is smaller than the width of the edge portion and the solid electrolyte, Wp). Jin teaches wherein an edge portion is a film type layer comprising polymer resin such as a polyolefin ([0016]; [0046]).
PNG
media_image1.png
546
851
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jin is silent as to the lithium-ion conductivity of the edge part disposed on a side surface of the solid electrolyte layer.
However, Shimizu teaches an all-solid-state battery comprising: an anode layer; a solid electrolyte layer disposed on the anode layer and comprising a solid electrolyte; a cathode layer disposed on the solid electrolyte layer ([0020]; [0087]; Fig. 5); and an edge part disposed on a side surface of the solid electrolyte layer and having a lower lithium ionic conductivity than that of the solid electrolyte layer (abstract; [0010]; [0018]; [0060]; [0066]-[0067] “no lithium ion conductivity or low lithium ion conductivity”). Shimizu teaches that having an outer circumferential part, with no lithium-ion conductivity or low lithium-ion conductivity, formed over the entire circumference of the central part of the solid electrolyte prevents electrolytic deposition of lithium ([0087]-[0089]; [0071]-[0072]). Shimizu teaches wherein the outer circumferential portion may be formed of a thermoplastic resin such as polyethylene ([0070]; [0024]-[0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to ensure that the edge portion taught by Jin had a lower lithium-ion conductivity than the solid electrolyte as taught by Shimizu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to ensure that the edge portion taught by Jin had a lower lithium-ion conductivity than the solid electrolyte, as taught by Shimizu to prevent electrolytic deposition of lithium ([0087]-[0089]; [0071]-[0072]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Jin teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1. Jin further teaches wherein an area of one surface of the solid electrolyte layer is smaller than an area of one surface of the anode layer, and the edge part is positioned in a space defined by the side surface of the solid electrolyte layer and the one surface of the anode layer ([0042]; Fig. 3b annotated above).
Regarding claim 5, modified Jin teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1. Modified Jin teaches an all-solid-state battery comprising: a solid electrolyte ([0047]; [0006]) and an edge part disposed on a side surface of the solid electrolyte layer and having a lower lithium ionic conductivity than that of the solid electrolyte layer (Jin Fig. 3b annotated below, [0041]-[0042]; Shimizu [0010], [0018], [0060], [0066]-[0067] “no lithium-ion conductivity or low lithium-ion conductivity”). Modified Jin teaches wherein the solid electrolyte is made of a material with lithium-ion conductivity (Jin [0047]).
Modified Jin does not explicitly teach wherein the lithium ionic conductivity of the edge part is 0.5% to 30% of that of the solid electrolyte layer.
However, Shimizu teaches where the outer circumferential part (edge part) may include a solid electrolyte in addition to the porous substrate and the material having electrical insulating properties and non-ionic conductivity (Shimizu [0066] in the case where the edge portion includes solid electrolyte, the edge part may have low lithium-ion conductivity; [0018]; [0060]). Shimizu teaches that an area of lower lithium-ion conductivity, located over an entire circumference of a solid electrolyte layer, suppresses electrolytic deposition of lithium over the entire circumference of the laminate unit (electrode and electrolyte stack) ([0071]; [0072]). Shimizu teaches that since the solid electrolyte layer is formed of the solid electrolyte portion having the outer circumferential part with lower lithium-ion conductivity, outer circumferential end portions of the positive electrode layer positioned right above or just below the outer circumferential part do not function as an electrode, thereby suppressing electrolytic deposition of lithium ([0078]). Shimizu teaches that when a relative positional deviation between the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer occurs, since ion conduction is not performed in the outer circumferential part (edge part), the electrolytic deposition of lithium can be reliably suppressed (Shimizu [0078]; [0084]; [0089]).
It is known in the prior at that an area of lower lithium-ion conductivity located over an entire circumference of a solid electrolyte layer suppresses electrolytic deposition of lithium over the entire circumference of a laminate unit (electrode and electrolyte stack) (Shimizu [0071]; [0072]) because outer circumferential end portions of the positive electrode layer positioned right above or just below the outer circumferential part have reduced function as an electrode (Shimizu [0078]).
Therefore, in view of Jin and Shimizu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modulated the lithium-ion conductivity (for example to any value in accordance with the claimed range) of a circumferential portion (edge part) surrounding the solid electrolyte layer taught by modified Jin.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modulate the lithium-ion conductivity (for example to any value in accordance with the claimed range) of a circumferential portion (edge part) surrounding the solid electrolyte layer taught by modified Jin to achieve a desired ionic conductivity drop off along the circumferential portion given that Shimizu teaches that a conductivity drop off along the circumferential portion suppresses electrolytic deposition of lithium over the entire circumference of a laminate unit, which is a desired effect ([0071]; [0072]; [0078; [0084]-[0085]; [0089]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Jin teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1. Modified Jin further teaches wherein the edge part comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene, polytetrafluoroethylene, and any combination thereof (Jin [0015], [0046]; Shimizu [0024]-[0025], [0070]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Jin teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1. Jin further teaches wherein the solid electrolyte layer has a thickness of 10-100µm ([0047]; 10-100µm overlaps with the claimed range). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Claim(s) 2-3, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin (US 20210242446 A1) in view of Shimizu (US 20200328452 A1), as applied above, in further view of Lee et al. (US 20220069338 A1) hereinafter "Lee".
Regarding claim 2, modified Jin teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1. Jin further teaches wherein the negative electrode layer comprises: a negative electrode current collector layer; and a negative electrode active material layer on the negative electrode current collector layer ([0035]-[0036]). Shimizu teaches wherein the active material layer may be lithium or other active materials such as, for example, lithium metal oxide, carbon, lithium alloy, silicon alloy, tin based alloy, metal oxides, conductive polymers, or metal composite oxides and can include a conductive material and a binder if needed ([0036]).
Modified Jin does not explicitly teach wherein the active material is a composite layer comprising a carbon material and a metal capable of forming an alloy with lithium.
However, Lee teaches an all-solid-state battery (abstract) wherein an anode may include an anode current collector and an anode active material layer on the anode current collector ([0089]). Lee teaches wherein the anode active material is composed of a carbonaceous material and a metal or metalloid capable of forming an alloy with lithium, for example a mixture of amorphous carbon and gold ([0092]-[0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the negative electrode active material taught by modified Jin with the negative electrode active material taught by Lee.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the negative electrode active material taught by modified Jin with the negative electrode active material taught by Lee because the composite material taught by Lee is a known negative electrode active material. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP §2144.07).
Regarding claim 3, modified Jin in view of Lee teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 2. Lee further teaches wherein the metal comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of gold, platinum, palladium, silicon, silver, aluminum, bismuth, tin, zinc ([0092]-[0096]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Jin teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1.
Modified Jin is silent with the respect to the total area of the border part of the cathode.
However, Lee teaches all-solid-state battery comprising: an anode layer; a solid electrolyte layer disposed on the anode layer and comprising a solid electrolyte; a cathode layer disposed on the solid electrolyte layer (abstract); and an edge part disposed on a side surface of the solid electrolyte layer and having a lower lithium ionic conductivity than that of the solid electrolyte layer ([0036]-[0037]; Fig. 2B) wherein an area of one surface of the second solid electrolyte layer is larger than an area of one surface of the composite solid electrolyte layer ([0038]; [0040]-[0043]). Lee teaches wherein a portion of insulating member disposed around the outer surface of the composite solid electrolyte has an area of about 1-10% based on the total area of the second solid electrolyte layer ([0040]-[0043]; Fig. 3; [0035]-[0037]). Lee teaches that using an area within the above range can help prevent a short-circuit caused by physical contact of a cathode layer and an anode layer during pressing and blanking processes or prevent/reduce overcharging of lithium ([0043]; [0125]).
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein an area of the border part of the cathode layer is 10% or less of a total area of the one surface of the cathode layer (emphasis added).
However, Fig. 1, 2B and 4 of Lee clearly indicate where the area of the second solid electrolyte corresponds to the area of the cathode layer (elements 23 and 10). Therefore, a portion of insulating member disposed around the outer surface of the composite solid electrolyte would also have an area of about 1-10% based on the total area of the cathode layer. Further, a border portion of a cathode is as an area of one surface of a cathode that is in contact with an edge part (see instant claim 7). The cathode layer of Lee is in indirect contact with the composite solid electrolyte. Therefore, an area of a border portion of the cathode layer taught by Lee would correspond to the area of the insulating portion disposed around the outer surface of the composite solid electrolyte taught by Lee.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the all-solid-state battery taught by modified Jin by setting an area of a portion of insulating member disposed around the outer surface of the composite solid electrolyte to about 1-10% based on the total area of the second solid electrolyte layer as taught by Lee.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the all-solid-state battery taught by modified Jin by setting an area of a portion of insulating member disposed around the outer surface of the composite solid electrolyte to about 1-10% based on the total area of the second solid electrolyte layer as taught by Lee to prevent a short-circuit caused by physical contact of a cathode layer and an anode layer during pressing and blanking processes or prevent/reduce overcharging of lithium ([0043]; [0125]).
The all-solid-state battery taught by modified Jin in view of Lee meets the limitations of claim8.
Regarding claim 9, modified Jin in view of Lee teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 2.
Lee further teaches wherein the composite anode active material layer has a thickness of 1-20 µm ([0101]; Fig. 1). Lee teaches that when a thickness of the first anode active material layer is within this range cycle characteristics of the all-solid secondary battery may be excellent or suitable, and a charge capacity of the first anode active material layer may be excellent or suitable ([0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the anode layer taught by modified Jin in view of Lee by setting this thickness to a value within the range taught by Lee.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to further modify the anode layer taught my modified Jin in view of Lee by setting the thickness to a value within the range taught by Lee to achieve excellent or suitable charge capacity of the all-solid-state battery ([0101]). The range taught by Lee is totally encompassed by the claimed ranges.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin (US 20210242446 A1) in view of Shimizu (US 20200328452 A1), as applied above, in further view of Hermann et al. (US 20190393491 A1) hereinafter "Hermann" and Sakamoto et al. (US 20200280093 A1) hereinafter “Sakamoto”.
Regarding claim 11, modified Jin teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1.
Modified Jin is silent as to the current density of the all-solid-state battery.
However, Hermann teaches that conventional battery cells commonly used in automotive batteries have an areal capacity from about 2.5-4 mAh/cm2 which can be increased up to 7 mAh/cm2 by increasing the thickness of electrode layers ([0003]). Hermann teaches that it is desirable to increase areal capacity ([0003]).
Sakamoto teaches that it is desirable for all-solid-state batteries to have areal capacities comparable to those of conventional liquid electrolyte lithium-ion batteries which have areal capacities of 1-5 mAh/cm2 ([0011]). Sakamoto teaches that cathode layers must be up to 100 microns thick in order to reach such areal capacities ([0011]).
In light of Hermann and Sakamoto, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the thickness of the cathode layer in the all-solid-state battery taught by modified Jin such that an areal capacity on par with that of conventional batteries is obtained (for example 2.5-4 mAh/cm2).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the thickness of the cathode layer in the all-solid-state battery taught by modified Jin such that an areal capacity on par with that of conventional batteries is obtained (for example 2.5-4 mAh/cm2) in order to provide an all-solid-state battery able to compete with conventional lithium-ion liquid electrolyte batteries (Sakamoto [0011]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Angerbauer et al. (US 20210313612 A1) teaches an all-solid-state battery comprising: an anode layer; a solid electrolyte layer disposed on the anode layer and comprising a solid electrolyte; a cathode layer disposed on the solid electrolyte layer; and an edge part disposed on a side surface of the solid electrolyte layer and having a lower lithium ionic conductivity than that of the solid electrolyte layer ([0042]-[0043]; [0020]; [0048]-[0049]; [0054]).
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 FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
/F.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728