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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments received 03/09/2026 have been entered overcome the 103 rejection as filed in final office action mailed 12/08/2025. New grounds of rejection are presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3,5, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20230327185-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Ryu’, in view of (US-20220302439-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Thai’
Regarding Claim 1,
Ryu teaches an all-solid-state battery (Ryu, solid battery, 1a, Fig. 10) comprising: a negative electrode current collector (Ryu, current collector, 21, Fig. 10) ; an intermediate layer disposed on the negative electrode current collector (Ryu, active material layer, 22, Fig. 10) ; a solid electrolyte layer disposed on the intermediate layer (Ryu, solid electrolyte layer, 30, Fig. 10) ; a positive electrode active material layer disposed on the solid electrolyte layer and comprising a positive electrode active material lithiating and delithiating lithium ions (Ryu, active material layer, 12, Fig. 10) ; and a positive electrode current collector disposed on the positive electrode active material layer (Ryu, active material layer, 12, Fig. 10) , wherein the intermediate layer comprises a carbon component (Ryu, “The negative electrode active material included in the negative electrode active material layer 22 may include, for example, at least one selected from a carbon-based negative electrode active material”, see [0113]) and a lithium alloy (Ryu, “The metal layer 23 may consist of one of these alloys or lithium, or may consist of several types of alloy.”, see [0124]). wherein the intermediate layer comprises the lithium alloy in a discharged state of the all-solid-state battery (Ryu, “The metal layer 23 may consist of one of these alloys or lithium, or may consist of several types of alloy.”, see [0124]) (The examiner notes that although Ryu mentions alloys formed during charging, the metal layer is an additional alloy present before charging).
Ryu teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1, wherein the intermediate layer comprises a plurality of layers which a layer comprises the carbon component and the lithium alloy (Ryu, metal layer and active material layer, 23 and 22, Fig. 10) (Ryu, “The negative electrode active material included in the first negative electrode active material layer 22 may include, for example, a mixture of a first particle consisting of amorphous carbon and a second particle consisting of a metal or metalloid.”, see [0117]) (Ryu, “Any material alloyable with Li in the art may be used. The metal layer 23 may consist of one of these alloys or lithium, or may consist of several types of alloy.”, see [0124]).
Ryu does not teach that the metal layer is formed of both carbon and the alloy.
Thai teaches a metal layer with carbon added to it (Thai, “The metal layer 305 may comprise a metallic layer that is deposited on the active material layer 303 prior to pyrolysis of the anode 300. The metal may comprise copper or nickel, for example, or any metal that will not adversely react with components of the active material layer 303. Other metals that are stable on the anode may be used such as stainless steel, tungsten, gold, silver, or platinum. During pyrolysis, the deposited metal may alloy with the active material, with possible reactions between carbon and copper as well as between carbon and silicon”, see [0044]) (Thai, “process alloys a portion of the metal layer with a portion of the active material layer to form a metal carbide.”, see Clm 20).
Thai teaches that the combination between carbon and an alloying material allows for higher conductivity layers (Thai, “One possible reaction is between carbon and copper forming a carbide material that may have beneficial characteristics, such as better conductivity and a protective capability”, see [0047]).
Ryu and Thai are analogous as they are both of the same field of metal layers for solid state systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the metal layer as taught in Ryu to have carbon particles as taught in Thai in order to improve the conductivity of the layer and improve cycling of the battery.
Regarding Claim 2,
Modified Ryu teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1, wherein the lithium alloy comprises lithium and one or more metal selected from the group consisting of Au, Pt, Pd, Si, Ag, Al, Bi, Sn, and Zn (Ryu, “Thus, the metal layer 23 may act as, for example, a Li reservoir. The Li alloy may include, for example, a Li—Al alloy, a Li—Sn alloy, a Li—In alloy, a Li—Ag alloy, a Li—Au alloy, a Li—Zn alloy, a Li—Ge alloy, a Li—Si alloy,.”, see [0124]).
Regarding Claim 3,
Modified Ryu teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1, wherein the lithium alloy has a particle size (D50) of about 50 nm or less (Ryu, “For example, the average particle diameter of the negative electrode active material having a particle shape may be, for example, in a range of 10 nm to 4 μm,”, see [0112]).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 10nm to 4 μm, broadly overlaps the claimed range of 50 nm or less. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 5,
Modified Ryu teaches the all-solid-state battery if claim 1, wherein the intermediate layer comprises an amount of about 30% to 85% by weight of the carbon component and an amount of about 15% to 70% by weight of the lithium alloy based on the total weight of the intermediate layer (Ryu, “for example, a mixture of a first particle consisting of amorphous carbon and a second particle consisting of a metal or metalloid…The amount of the second particle may be in a range of 8 wt % to 60 wt %, 10 wt % to 50 wt %, 15 wt % to 40 wt %, or 20 wt % to 30 wt %, based on the total weight of the mixture”, see [0117]) (The examiner notes that since the mixture in the prior art is binary the first particle concentration would be the inverse eg. 40% metalloid is 60% carbon).
Regarding Claim 8,
Modified Ryu teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 1, wherein the intermediate layer has a thickness in a range of about 3 μm to 30 μm (Ryu, “The thickness of the metal layer 23 is not particularly limited, but may be, for example, in a range of ..or 1 μm to 50 μm..”, see [0125]) (Ryu, “thickness of the negative electrode active material layer 22 may be, for example, in a range of ...3 μm to about 7 μm”, see [0121]) (The examiner notes that the sum of these ranges would overlap the claimed range)(The examiner notes that the sum of these ranges would overlap the claimed ranges).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 4 μm to about 57 μm broadly overlaps the claimed range of 3 μm to 30 μm. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 9,
Modified Ryu teaches the all-solid-state battery claim 1, wherein the battery has an operating temperature of about 40 C or less (Ryu, “the electrochemical cell may have a capacity retention rate of 88% or more, for example, 88% to 99.5%, at 100th cycle after charging and discharging at 4V or more in a thermostatic bath at 25° C.”, see [0076])
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20230327185-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Ryu’, in view of (US-20220302439-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Thai’ in view of (US-20220263111-A1) hereinafter referred to as ’Li’.
Regarding Claim 7,
Ryu does not teach the all-solid-state battery of claim 6, wherein an interlayer barrier is disposed on the each of the plurality layer of the intermediate layer for allowing lithium ions to pass through but not allowing the lithium alloy to pass through.
Li teaches wherein an interlayer barrier is disposed on the each of the plurality layer of the intermediate layer for allowing lithium ions to pass through but not allowing the lithium alloy to pass through (Li, “lithium dendrite formation from the anode 120, and/or may prevent protrusion of lithium dendrite throughout the battery 100.”, see [0083]) (Li, barrier layer, 142, see [0083]).
Li teaches that the interlayer barrier can enhance the mechanical strength and prevent dendrite formation which can short the cell (Li, “In some aspects, the mechanical strength enhancer 144 may provide structural support for the battery 100, may prevent lithium dendrite formation from the anode 120, and/or may prevent protrusion of lithium dendrite throughout the battery”, see [0083]).
Ryu and Li are analogous as they are both of the same field of solid-state batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the layers as taught in Ryu with the barrier as taught in LI in order to improve the mechanical strength of the battery and prevent dendrite formation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 7, the applicant argues:
“However, from the foregoing, it can be appreciated that the metal layer 23 does not contain a carbon component but rather includes Li or a Li alloy. Therefore, each of the metal layer 23 and the negative active material layer 22, does not contain a carbon component. Accordingly, Ryu fails to teach or suggest "the intermediate layer comprises a plurality of layers, each of which layers comprises the carbon component and the lithium alloy", as recited in amended claim 1.”
The examiner finds this persuasive and has added to the record Thai , which teaches that carbon in the metal layer can be added to form a carbide which can be beneficial for the conductivity of the cell (Thai, “One possible reaction is between carbon and copper forming a carbide material that may have beneficial characteristics, such as better conductivity and a protective capability”, see [0047]). 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 modified the metal layer of Ryu with the carbon layer of Thai. The examiner finds all dependent claims similarly rejected in view of ‘Thai’
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am to 5pm.
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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/S.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights