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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received March 10, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claim 1 is amended and claims 8-20 are withdrawn, resulting in claims 1-7 pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 16, 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong, et al. (CN 109449443 A) in view of Lee, et al. (US 20200144599 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 3-4, Dong teaches a porous graphene/silver nanoparticle composite lithium metal secondary battery negative electrode current collector (¶ [0008], Ln. 1-2). Dong teaches that uncontrolled dendrite growth on the surface of lithium metal anodes can cause problems such as short battery cycle life and poor safety performance (¶ [0004], Ln. 4-6), and that the composite material can significantly suppress the formation of lithium dendrites and effectively improve the cycle life of lithium metal secondary batteries (¶ [0008], Ln. 8-9). Specifically, Dong teaches that graphene has a large specific surface area, which can reduce local current density and is beneficial for uniform lithium deposition and that silver nanoparticles effectively induce uniform lithium deposition, thereby effectively reducing the overpotential during the lithium deposition process (¶ [0021], Ln. 5-9). Dong teaches forming the composite by: dispersing graphene oxide in an aqueous solution; adding silver nanoparticles to a micro/nanosphere template solution and stirring thoroughly under ultraviolet light; sonicating the solutions together; subjecting the solution to vacuum filtration to obtain a composite of graphene oxide, micro/nano template microspheres, and silver nanoparticles; removing the micro/nano template microspheres; and sintering the final porous graphene/silver nanoparticle composite material (¶ [0010]-[0014]). Dong teaches preparing a half-cell using the graphene/silver nanoparticle composite material to test the coulombic efficiency of the half-cell, teaching that the graphene/silver nanoparticle composite material is disposed on a copper sheet (¶ [0024], Ln. 1-3). Dong does not expressly teach the use of the graphene/silver nanoparticle composite material in an anodeless all-solid-state battery including an anode current collector, the graphene/silver nanoparticle composite material, a solid electrolyte layer, and a cathode layer disposed on the solid electrolyte layer.
Lee teaches an all-solid battery including a cathode with a cathode current collector and cathode active material layer, an anodeless coating layer disposed on an anode current collector, and a solid electrode disposed between the cathode active material and the anodeless coating layer (¶ [0008], Ln. 1-7). Lee teaches that during charging, a lithium metal layer forms between the anode current collector and the anodeless coating layer (¶ [0031], Ln. 1-11). The anodeless coating layer includes an anode active material and a binder (¶ [0035], Ln. 1-3), further teaching that the anode active material may be a combination of at least two anode active materials, such as a mixture of amorphous carbon and gold (Au), platinum (Pt), palladium (Pd), silicon (Si), silver (Ag), aluminum (Al), bismuth (Bi), tin (Sn), zinc (Zn), or a combination thereof (¶ [0094], Ln. 1-12). Specifically, in Example 1, a mixture including carbon black, silver nanoparticles, a binder, and NMP is prepared and coated on a nickel foil current collector, and the resulting stacked structure is vacuum dried (¶ [0137], Ln. 1-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the graphene/silver nanoparticle composite material of Dong in an all-solid battery including a cathode with a cathode current collector and cathode active material layer, the graphene/silver nanoparticle composite material disposed on an anode current collector, and a solid electrode disposed between the cathode active material and the graphene/silver nanoparticle composite material, based on the teachings of Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the purpose of the graphene/silver nanoparticle composite material of Dong is to be used in a lithium battery, and would be motivated to use it in an all-solid battery based on the teachings of Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the similarities in composition between the graphene/silver nanoparticle composite material of Dong and the anodeless coating layer of Lee, and would find it obvious to use the graphene/silver nanoparticle composite material in the same application.
While it is acknowledged that a graphene/silver nanoparticle composite material comprising a first layer on the side of the anode current collector and a second layer on the side of solid electrolyte layer, each of which comprise carbon black and silver nanoparticles, and wherein the content of silver nanoparticles is greater in the first layer than the content of silver nanoparticles in the second layer, is not expressly recited by Dong, the property would be inherent to the graphene/silver nanoparticle composite material taught by the reference. The graphene/silver nanoparticle composite material is formed by substantially the same process and includes substantially the same composition. The instant specification has not provided adequate teachings that the claimed property is only obtainable with the claimed material.
As evidence that the claimed property is inherent to the graphene/silver nanoparticle composite material taught by Dong, the reference teaches the layer with substantially the same composition and formed by substantially the same process as the protective layer of the instant specification. Page 15 of the instant specification provides an example, teaching that a slurry is prepared by adding graphene oxide and silver nanoparticles to a solvent, applying the slurry onto a porous membrane, vacuum filtering, and vacuum drying to form a protective layer. Page 12 further discloses that the first and second layer of the protective layer are not separated by a physical interface, but rather are conceptually divided. Specifically, page 15 discloses that that the vacuum filtration step varies the distribution of the second material in the thickness direction, such that the second material moves toward the porous membrane during vacuum filtration due to its greater density.
With respect to the composition and process, Dong teaches that a solution including graphene oxide solution and a solution including silver nanoparticles and polystyrene microspheres are mixed and sonicated, and then subjected to vacuum filtration before removing the microspheres and sintering (¶ [0011]-[0014]). Thus, the silver nanoparticles, having a greater density than the graphene oxide, would move during the vacuum filtration to form a first and second layer, with one layer having a greater concentration of silver nanoparticles. Therefore, Dong teaches a graphene/silver nanoparticle composite material with substantially the same composition and formed by substantially the same process, and the all-solid battery of Dong in view of Lee would achieve the claimed limitation of a graphene/silver nanoparticle composite material comprising a first layer on the side of the anode current collector and a second layer on the side of solid electrolyte layer, each of which comprise graphene oxide and silver nanoparticles. Further, given the teaching of Dong that silver nanoparticles effectively induce uniform lithium deposition, the first layer would include the higher content of silver nanoparticles as it is closer to the current collector, such that the content of silver nanoparticles is greater in the first layer than the content of silver nanoparticles in the second layer.
Regarding claims 2 and 5, Dong in view of Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and, as Dong teaches that the first material is graphene oxide, Dong further teaches that the first material has a Young’s modulus and shear modulus greater than those of lithium and that the first material has an absolute value of a zeta potential of 10 mV or greater when measured under conditions of pH about 7 and a temperature of about 25 °C.
Regarding claim 6, Dong in view of Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and, as Dong teaches that the second material is silver, Dong further teaches that the second material has an absolute value of a zeta potential of 10 mV or greater when measured under conditions of pH about 7 and a temperature of about 25 °C.
Regarding claim 7, Dong in view of Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Dong does not expressly teach that the graphene/silver nanoparticle composite material comprises an amount of about 75-90% by weight of graphene and about 10-25% by weight silver nanoparticles, based on a total weight of composite.
Lee teaches that the anode active material may be a combination of two of at least two anode active materials, such as a mixture of amorphous carbon and gold (Au), platinum (Pt), palladium (Pd), silicon (Si), silver (Ag), aluminum (Al), bismuth (Bi), tin (Sn), zinc (Zn), or a combination thereof (¶ [0094], Ln. 1-12). Lee further teaches that when a mixture of amorphous carbon and gold or the like is used, the mixing weight ratio of amorphous carbon to the metal ranges from 10:1 to about 1:2, teaching that the mixture improves the characteristics of the all-solid secondary battery (¶ [0094], Ln. 12-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the content of graphene oxide and silver in the graphene/silver nanoparticle composite material within a ratio of 10:1 to about 1:2, overlapping the claimed range of about 75-90% by weight first material and about 10-25% by weight second material, based on the teachings of Lee. One would find it obvious to apply the teachings of Lee to the graphene/silver nanoparticle composite of Dong as the composite is being used in the same application as the anodeless coating layer of Lee. Thus, in applying the composite to an all-solid battery, one would find it obvious to look to the teachings of Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include this composition in order to improve the characteristics of the battery. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Objections
The previous objection to claim 1 for minor informalities is overcome by the Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 to indicate that each of the first layer and second layer comprise the first material and the second material in the response filed March 10, 2026.
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112
The previous rejections of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 are overcome by Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 in the response filed March 10, 2026.
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103
In light of the amendment to claim 1 to require that each of the first and second layer comprise the first material and the second material, the previous rejections of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Gokhale, et al. (US 20220037647 A1), of claims 1, 4, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Lee, et al. (US 20230223588 A1), and of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Lee are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH J JACOBSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/SARAH J JACOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights