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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed on 9/11/2026 have been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: ‘arithmetic mean height (Sa) of the first layer’ should be changed to ‘arithmetic mean height of the surface (Sa) of the first layer’. This is supported in instant specification Paragraph 0009, 0010. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiki et al (US 11799171 B2) in view of Kelley et al (US 2015/0318539 A1), further in view of Kato et al (US 20150147659 A1).
Regarding Claim 5,
Fujiki teaches a solid state battery comprising a cathode (i.e. first layer), an anode, and solid electrolyte layer (i.e. second layer). Fujiki also teaches that the cathode active material layer 12 is pressed together with the solid electrolyte layer 30 (Column 14, Lines 57-60). In the instant specification, the method of making the electrode laminate can utilize a rolling press machine (Paragraph 0051). Similarly, Fujiki also teaches the use of a roll press as a pressing method (Column 14, Lines 63-67). The pressed assembly of cathode active layer and the solid electrolyte layer is akin to the electrode laminate. Hence, Fujiki teaches an electrode laminate comprising a first layer and a second layer, and that the second layer is laminated on the first layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
537
331
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fujiki also teaches that the cathode material is made of porous material by defining a relative density of the cathode active material (Column 9, Lines 46-51). Fujiki states that the theoretical density is the density of the material with zero porosity, whereas relative density is the measured density/theoretical density. Fujiki states that the relative density is about 60% or more (Column 9, Lines 32-40) in which case the measured density is 60% (or more) of the theoretical density. This is possible when the cathode material is a porous type material. Fujiki teaches the cathode material as porous, but does not teach that the maximum pore diameter of the first layer is 0.215 to 0.240 µm.
However, Kelley teaches a cathode that is porous and is defined by pores having cross-sectional diameters of between 0.1 to 10 µm (Paragraph 0055). This range includes the claimed range of having a maximum pore diameter of the first layer as 0.25 to 0.24 µm. Kelley teaches an electrochemical cell comprising a cathode 212 and an anode 216, and electrolyte 214 with a separator (Paragraph 0059). Kelley also teaches an electrode that has a root mean square surface roughness of less than 0.5 micrometer (Paragraph 0042). Hence, 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 maximum pore diameter as shown by Kelley in the porous cathode material of Fujiki in order to facilitate the fabrication of an electrode while maintaining smoothness and producing sufficient amount of electronic current (Paragraph 0021).
Fujiki does not specifically teach about the bubble density of the second layer being less than 6 bubbles/cm2.
However, there exist analogies between Fujiki and the instant invention that support the presence of the bubble density on the second layer. Fujiki teaches that the interface between the cathode and the solid electrolyte layer has a roughness of 0.2 or 0.1 µm or less (Column 12, Lines 20-37). This is akin to the roughness of the surface of the first layer in the instant specification.
The instant specification states that the bubble density is measured by counting the number of bubbles formed on the principal face of the second layer following pressing, and then dividing by area. The instant specification states that the formation of bubbles and the resultant bubble density on the second layer is dependent on the roughness of the first layer (Paragraph 11; instant spec), and maximum pore diameter (Paragraph 0016). Since, Fujiki teaches the roughness of the electrode layer, and the combined teachings of Fujiki and Kelley teach the maximum pore diameter of the claimed invention, hence in the electrode laminate described above, bubbles would be formed in a similar fashion as the claimed invention, and the bubble density would be observed on the second layer in the same fashion. Per MPEP 2112.01; “when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent”. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to observe a bubble density of less than 6 bubbles/cm2 by combining the electrode characteristics of Fujiki and Kelley. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the maximum pore diameter as shown by Kelley in the porous cathode material of Fujiki in order to facilitate the fabrication of an electrode while maintaining smoothness and producing sufficient amount of electronic current (Paragraph 0021).
Fujiki teaches that a particle diameter of the positive active material is not particularly limited but may be in a range applicable to a cathode active material of an available all-solid secondary battery (Column 9, Lines 1-3). Fujiki does not specifically teach that the particle diameter at which a cumulative frequency reach 50% in a volume-based particle diameter distribution when counted from the smallest particle diameter of an active material included in the first layer is 1 µm to 30 µm.
However, Kato teaches an all-solid state battery wherein the active material includes Li4Ti5O12 (Paragraph 0047), and has an average particle diameter D50 between 1 nm or more and 100 µm or less. This range encompasses the claimed range of 1 µm to 30 µm. The instant specification also states the use of Li4Ti5O12, D50 = 1.1 µm in manufacturing example 1. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the particle size D50 as taught in Kato’s all-solid state battery into the electrode of Fujiki in order to form an all-solid state battery with reduced resistance (Paragraph 0012).
Regarding the claimed limitation of an arithmetic mean height (Sa) of the first layer is greater than 0.1 µm and less than 0.2 µm, the instant specification states that the arithmetic mean height (Sa) represents three-dimensional surface roughness. Sa represents an arithmetic mean height of the surface of the first layer. When Sa becomes large, the slurry can penetrate deeply into voids of a base layer (first layer).
Fujiki teaches that at the interface B between the cathode active material layer and the solid electrolyte layer, the arithmetic mean roughness (Ra) of the interface is about 0.01 µm to about 1 µm. The arithmetic mean roughness Ra of the interface is akin to the arithmetic mean height Sa of the first layer. The interface B is shown in Figure 2 and it is present at the surface of the first layer. The mean roughness of Fujiki includes the claimed range of 0.1 to 0.2 µm. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Hence, 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 an arithmetic mean height (Sa) of the first layer greater than 0.1 µm and less than 0.2 µm, in order to ensure that the current flows evenly during charging of the secondary battery (column 2, lines 20-26).
PNG
media_image2.png
583
544
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6,
Fujiki teaches a cathode active material layer 12 (i.e. first layer), and a solid electrolyte layer 30 (i.e. second layer).
PNG
media_image1.png
537
331
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7,
Fujiki teaches an all-solid state secondary battery that comprises cathode active material layer 12, solid electrolyte layer 30, and anode active material layer 22. Fujiki also teaches that the cathode active material layer 12 is pressed together with the solid electrolyte layer 30 (Column 14, Lines 57-60) to form the claimed electrode laminate.
References of Interest
Varanasi et al (US 2023/0290961 A1)
Lim et al (US 2024/0113394 A1)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same cited parts of the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that Fujiki fails to disclose that the arithmetic mean height of the first layer is within the claimed range. Examiner disagrees with this argument, and upon further search and consideration Fujiki provides range for arithmetic mean roughness which is akin to the arithmetic mean height Sa per the definition in instant specification, and teaching in Fujiki. Refer to rejection of Claim 5 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached on 571-272-8519. 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.
/SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
