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 .
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 12/10/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 8 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/10/2025.
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/15/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-7 and 9 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.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “the solid electrolyte layer side” in claim 1, line 13 lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim. For examination purposes the aforementioned recitation will be interpreted as “a solid electrolyte layer side”.
Further regarding claim 1, the recitation “the anode current collector side” in claim 1, line 14 lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim. For examination purposes the aforementioned recitation will be interpreted as “an anode current collector side”.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation “the mixture layer side” in claim 2, line 5 lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim. For examination purposes the aforementioned recitation will be interpreted as “an anode current collector side”.
Regarding claim(s) 3-7 and 9 the claim(s) is/are rejected as they depend from, and therefore incorporate the claimed subject matter from claims rejected under this statute.
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.
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.
4. Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakahara (Pub. No. US 20200227774 A1) in view of Li et al. (Pub. No. US 20200343583 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nakahara teaches an all solid state battery (200, Fig. 2, see [0020]) comprising an anode (202/104/105, Fig. 2, see [0020]) including at least an anode current collector (105, Fig. 2, see [0017], the examiner would like to note according to [0020] 200 in Fig. 2 is a modified version of 100 in Fig. 1 so from here on some descriptions of components carry over from Fig. 1 to 2), a cathode (201/102/101, Fig. 2, see [0020]), and a solid electrolyte layer (103, Fig. 2, see [0017]) arranged between the anode (202/104/105, Fig. 2, see [0020]) and the cathode (201/102/101, Fig. 2, see [0020], see Fig. 2 where 103 is arranged between 201/102/101 and 202/104/105); wherein a protective layer (202/104, Fig. 2) is arranged between the anode current collector (105, Fig. 2, see [0017]) and the solid electrolyte layer (103, Fig. 2, see [0017], see Fig. 2 where 202/104 is arranged between 103 and 105); the protective layer (202/104, Fig. 2) includes a mixture layer (layer comprising 202, Fig. 2, see [0020]) including an anode material (anode material, see [0020]) and a solid electrolyte (solid electrolyte material, see [0020]); but fails to teach wherein the protective layer contains Mg and wherein the anode material is a Mg-containing particle containing the Mg, and in the protective layer, Mg concentration increases stepwisely or continuously from a first surface which is the solid electrolyte layer side towards a second surface which is the anode current collector side.
However, Nakahara teaches in the embodiment of Fig. 4 wherein in the protective layer (402/301, Fig. 4) the anode material (active material particles, see [0027], see [0024] where the active material in 301 and in the other layers are made of anode material) concentration increases stepwisely (stepped gradational active material, see [0026], see [0027] where in each step the active material percentage increases until 301 which is only active material) or continuously from a first surface (surface of 305 closest to 420-1, Fig. 4) which is the solid electrolyte layer side (surface of 305 closest to 420-1, Fig. 4, Fig. 4, see [0024] wherein 305 is a solid-state electrolyte) towards a second surface (surface of 301 furthest from 420-5, see Fig. 4) which is the anode current collector side (surface of 301 furthest from 420-5, see Fig. 4). See 112 rejection above for interpretation.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the embodiment of Fig. 2 such that the layer 202 is formed of a plurality of layers of 420-1-5 having a stepped gradient where the anode material increases in concentration in a stepped manner from the surface of 103 in contact with 202 to the surface of 104 in contact with 105 as taught by the embodiment of Fig. 4 of Nakahara. Further, it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art. Further Nakahara teaches that modifications can be made (see [0046] of Nakahara).
Further, Li teaches wherein the protective layer (13, Fig. 1, see [0040]) contains Mg (magnesium metal, see [0033]) and wherein the anode material (anode active material, see [0033]) is a Mg-containing particle (single β-phase alloy of a lithium metal and a magnesium metal, see [0033]) containing the Mg (magnesium metal, see [0033]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nakahara such that 202 and 104 are formed using single β-phase alloy of a lithium metal and a magnesium metal as an anode material as taught by Li as an art effective equivalent anode active material to achieve a high charge-discharge efficiency (see [0010] of Li). Further Nakahara teaches that modifications can be made (see [0046] of Nakahara).
Therefore, Nakahara in view of Li teaches wherein in the protective layer (202/104, Fig. 2), Mg concentration increases stepwisely (stepped gradational active material, see [0026], see [0027] where in each step the active material percentage increases, see modifications above where the anode material is Li-Mg alloy therefore as anode material concentration increases the Mg concentration increases) or continuously from a first surface (surface of 103 in contact with 202, Fig. 2, see modification above) which is the solid electrolyte layer side (surface of 103 in contact with 202, Fig. 2, see modification above) towards a second surface which is the anode current collector side (surface of 104 in contact with 105, Fig. 2, see modification above).
Regarding claim 2, Nakahara in view of Li teaches, wherein the protective layer (202/104, Fig. 2) includes a Mg layer (104, Fig. 2, see [0020]) containing the Mg (magnesium metal, see [0033] of Li, see modifications above wherein anode material is a Li-Mg alloy) but not containing a solid electrolyte (see [0020] where anode material is used to made 104), in a position (see position of 104 in Fig. 2) closer to the anode current collector side (surface of 104 in contact with 105, Fig. 2, see modification above) than the mixture layer side (side of 202 in direct contact with 103, see 104 is in direct contact with 105, but not directly in contact with the side of 202 in direct contact with 103 therefore it is closer). See 112 rejection above for interpretation.
Regarding claim 5, Nakahara in view of Li teaches wherein the Mg layer (104, Fig. 2, see [0020]) is a layer including the Mg-containing particle (single β-phase alloy of a lithium metal and a magnesium metal, see [0033] of Li, see modification above) containing the Mg (magnesium metal, see [0033] of Li, see modification above).
Regarding claim 6, Nakahara in view of Li teaches wherein the protective layer (202/104, Fig. 2) includes a plurality of the mixture layer (420-1-5, Fig. 4, see [0027] wherein each layer of 420 is a mixture of solid electrolyte and active material, therefore each is a mixture layer).
Regarding claim 7, Nakahara in view of Li fails to teach wherein the anode includes an anode active material layer containing a deposited Li between the anode current collector and the solid electrolyte layer.
However, Li teaches wherein the anode (17, Fig. 1, see [0040]) includes an anode active material layer (13, Fig. 1, see [0040], the anode active material layer is the same as the protective layer) containing a deposited Li (lithium ions, see [0156] wherein the lithium ions were transferred through the solid electrolyte layer to form the alloy of Li and Mg) between the anode current collector (15, Fig. 1, see [0040]) and the solid electrolyte layer (11, Fig. 1, see [0040]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nakahara in view of Li such that the anode material is formed by deposition of Li ions across a solid state electrolyte to alloy with Mg as taught by Li to achieve higher charge-discharge efficiency (see [0010] of Li). Further Nakahara in view of Li teaches that modifications can be made (see [0046] of Nakahara).
5. Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakahara (Pub. No. US 20200227774 A1) in view of Li et al. (Pub. No. US 20200343583 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jung et al. (Pub. No. US 20230387391 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Nakahara in view of Li fails to teach wherein the protective layer includes a Mg layer containing the Mg but not containing a solid electrolyte, in a position closer to the anode current collector side than the mixture layer side. See 112 rejection above for interpretation.
However, Jung teaches wherein the protective layer (24/22/40, Fig. 4, see [0088]) includes a Mg layer (24, Fig. 4, see [0088]) containing the Mg (magnesium (Mg), see [0033] where the thin film is made of magnesium metal) but not containing a solid electrolyte (see [0033] the metal thin film does not include a solid electrolyte), in a position closer to the anode current collector side (side of 21 in contact with 24, Fig. 4) than the mixture layer side (side of 40 in contact with 30, Fig. 4 see 24 is in direct contact with 21 therefore closer), wherein the Mg layer (24, Fig. 4, see [0088]) is a metal thin film (thin film, see [0088], see [0033] the thin film is made of Mg metal) containing the Mg (magnesium (Mg), see [0033] where the thin film is made of magnesium metal), wherein a thickness of the metal thin film (thin film, see [0088], see [0033] the thin film is made of Mg metal) is 1 nm or more and 5000 nm or less (1 nm to 800 nm, see [0090]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nakahara in view of Li to add a metal thin film made of Mg with a thickness of 1 nm to 800 nm between 104 and 105 as taught by Jung to improve output and lifespan characteristics (see [0008] of Jung). Further Nakahara in view of Li teaches that modifications can be made (see [0046] of Nakahara).
Regarding claim 3, Nakahara in view of Li and further in view of Jung teaches wherein the Mg layer (24, Fig. 4, see [0088] of Jung, see modification above) is a metal thin film (thin film, see [0088], see [0033] the thin film is made of Mg metal in Jung, see modification above) containing the Mg (magnesium (Mg), see [0033] where the thin film is made of magnesium metal in Jung, see modification above).
Regarding claim 4, Nakahara in view of Li and further in view of Jung teaches wherein a thickness of the metal thin film (thin film, see [0088], see [0033] the thin film is made of Mg metal in Jung, see modification above) is 1 nm or more and 5000 nm or less (1 nm to 800 nm, see [0090] of Jung, see modifications above).
6. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakahara (Pub. No. US 20200227774 A1) in view of Li et al. (Pub. No. US 20200343583 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shindo et al. (Pub. No. US 20170155127 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Nakahara in view of Li teaches an all solid state battery (200, Fig. 2, see [0020]) according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above); but fails to teach an all solid state battery system comprising: an all solid state battery and a control device that controls charge and discharge of the all solid state battery; wherein the control device controls the all solid state battery to be charged or discharged at a rate of 0.5 C or more.
However, Shindo teaches an all solid state battery system (6/100, Fig. 1, see [0057]) comprising: an all solid state battery (6, Fig. 1, see [0057]) and a control device (100, Fig. 1, see [0057]) that controls charge and discharge (charge-discharge rate, see [0025] where the control device is used to control charge-discharge rate) of the all solid state battery (6, Fig. 1, see [0057]); wherein the control device (100, Fig. 1, see [0057]) controls the all solid state battery (6, Fig. 1, see [0057]) to be charged or discharged (charge-discharge rate, see [0025] where the control device is used to control charge-discharge rate) at a rate of 0.5 C or more (1.0 C or less, see [0025]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nakahara in view of Li such that the all solid state battery of claim 1 as taught by Nakahara in view of Li is used in the all solid state battery system as taught by Shindo to decrease internal resistance and increase battery capacity (see [0020] of Shindo). Further Nakahara in view of Li teaches that modifications can be made and components may be part of a larger system (see [0046] of Nakahara).
Further it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nakahara in view of Li and further in view of Shindo such that the rate stays within the claimed range of 0.5 C to 1.0 C as Shindo teaches charge-discharge rate is a result effective variable of number of cycles required to remove the resistive layer (see [0120] of Shindo). Further Nakahara in view of Li in view of Shindo teaches that modifications can be made (see [0046] of Nakahara).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS CALEB MARROQUIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00 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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/DOUGLAS C MARROQUIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723