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 .
Response to Amendment
This is a final Office Action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on 06/18/2026 . Claims 1, 4-8, 10, 14, and 19 are amended. Claims 2 and 9 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-19 are pending in the current Office Action.
The objection to the specification set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn.
The objection to claim 19 set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn.
The 35. U.S.C. 112(b) rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
The 35. U.S.C. 112(d) rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection set forth in the previous Office Action is maintained, with the rejection rewritten to address the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in the response filed on 06/18/2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 6-10 and 14-17 have been considered but are moot as the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments in the response filed on 06/18/2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection of claims 7 and 15 have been considered but are moot as the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments in the response filed on 06/18/2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection for claim 1 of record has been considered but are moot as the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues amended claim 1 distinguishes over Lee as Lee fails to teach or suggest at least the features recited by amended claim 1 (See Applicant’s remarks, pg. 11-12).
Specifically, Applicant asserts that Lee’s disclosed all-solid-state battery includes a suppression layer and focuses on structural features of arranging a suppression layer. Furthermore, Applicant argues that amended claim 1 specifies with a quantitative value that relatively large amount of solid electrolyte exists at the interface between the solid electrolyte between the solid electrolyte layer and first electrode, which is achieved from intentionally controlling the degree of dispersion within the solid electrolyte composition.
The Examiner notes Lee’s disclosed all-solid-state battery still possesses a layer of solid electrolyte existing at the interface between the solid electrolyte layer and the first electrode. The Examiner further notes the limitation incorporated from claim 9 to amended claim 1 is a product-by-process limitation and does not patentably distinguish the product, an-all-solid-state battery, as it does not impart distinct structure. While Lee’s all-solid-state battery further comprises a suppression layer, Lee’s all-solid-state battery still satisfies the limitations of claim 1.
While Applicant argues that the quantitative value specifies that a relatively large amount of solid electrolyte exists at the interface between the solid electrolyte between the solid electrolyte layer, such a characteristic is not included in the claims, and the characterization of the first electrolyte composition, which is an intermediate, through quantitative analysis via Requirement 1 does not appear to further impart structure on the first layer.
Furthermore, beyond the composition of the first electrolyte composition, Applicant provides no further details in the instant specification as to how the first electrolyte composition is distinct from Lee’s disclosed electrolyte composition (see previous office Action, pg. 11, first full para.) such that Lee’s disclosed electrolyte composition would not meet Requirement 1, or be structurally distinct from the claimed first electrolyte composition.
Therefore, while Lee does not disclose any technical idea or motivation to optimize interface characteristics by controlling the top and bottom dispersion characteristics of the slurry, Lee’s disclosed all-solid-state battery satisfies the structure claimed in amended claim 1.
Applicant further asserts that the |a/b| value is a variable determined not simply by the component composition, but by technical factors that control particle agglomeration and sedimentation rates, etc. (see Applicant’s remarks, pg. 12, para. 4). However, such technical features do not appear to be included in the claims nor the instant specification.
In light of the discussion above, Applicant’s arguments are found not persuasive, and the rejection in view of Lee and Ishii is maintained with the rejection rewritten below to address the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20210367263 A1), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 1 and 3-5, Lee discloses an all-solid-state battery (i.e. solid-state battery, Abstract) comprising:
a first electrode (i.e. positive electrode active material layer, [0005], Fig. 1); a second electrode (i.e. negative electrode, [0005], Fig.1 ); and a solid electrolyte layer ([0005], Fig. 1) interposed between the first and second electrode (Fig. 1), wherein the solid electrolyte layer (i.e. solid electrolyte membrane, [0036]) comprises: a first layer (i.e. first solid electrolyte layer, [0036], Fig. 2) disposed on the first electrode (Fig. 3) and comprising a first solid electrolyte ((i.e. ion conductive electrolyte, inorganic solid electrolyte [0038];[0041]); and a second layer (i.e. second solid electrolyte layer, [0036]) disposed on the second electrode (Fig. 3), and comprising a second solid electrolyte (i.e. ion conductive electrolyte, inorganic solid electrolyte [0038];[0041]).
The examiner notes the claim limitation, “wherein the first layer is formed from a first electrolyte composition comprising the first solid electrolyte, a first binder, a first dispersant, and a first solvent” is a product-by-process limitation (see MPEP 2113).
The structure is simply an all-solid-state battery comprising: a first electrode; a second electrode; and a solid electrolyte layer interposed between the first and second electrode, wherein the first layer comprises the first solid electrolyte, a first binder, and a first dispersant.
Lee discloses the ion conductive solid electrolyte of the first solid electrolyte layer ([0038]) may comprise at least one of a polymeric solid electrolyte and an inorganic solid electrolyte ([0041]). Lee further discloses an inorganic solid electrolyte may comprise a sulfide-based solid electrolyte, an oxide-based solid electrolyte, or both ([0049-0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a sulfide-based electrolyte, as claimed in claim 3, for the first solid electrolyte of Lee from the short list of candidates taught by Lee with a reasonable expectation of arriving at a successful first electrolyte composition.
Lee further discloses the first solid electrolyte layers may further comprise a binder resin, which includes, but is not particularly limited to, carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) and styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) ([0072]; [0075-0076]), thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected SBR as a first binder, as claimed in claim 4, and CMC as a first dispersant as claimed in claim 5, from the short list of candidates taught by Lee with reasonable expectation of arriving at a successful first electrolyte composition.
The examiner notes “wherein the first electrolyte composition satisfies Requirement 1…” further limits a product-by-process limitation, as the first electrolyte composition is an intermediate and the implied structure is as stated above.
Nevertheless, Lee further discloses the binder and dispersant (i.e. binder material) is added in an amount of 1-10 wt% of the electrode layer ([0091]) which overlaps with the instant specification desire for 1-10 wt% of the first binder, and 1-10 wt% of the first dispersant based on the total weight of the first electrolyte composition (pg. 11, lines 4-7). Applicant’s Manufacturing Example 1 contains LiPS5Cl as the first solid electrolyte, butadiene rubber as the first binder, polypropylene glycol (Mn = 1,500 g/mol) as the first dispersant, and butyl butyrate as the first solvent (pg. 15, 13-15) but does not express that such a composition is preferred or that any of the listed components of pg. 10-11 of the instant specification are preferable over the others.
Lee is silent in the first electrolyte composition satisfying Requirement 1,
1
≤
|
a
b
|
, wherein: a is a maximum value of variations of backscattering (ABS) in an area configured such that a scan height is in a range of about 0% to 49%, as results of measurement of intensities of transmitted light and the scattered light by radiating near infrared light having a wavelength of 880 nm to the first electrolyte composition left unattended for 48 hours; and b is a maximum value of variations of backscattering (ABS) in an area configured such that the scan height is in a range of about 51% to 100%, as the results of measurement of the intensities of the transmitted light and the scattered light by radiating the near infrared light having the wavelength of 880 nm to the first electrolyte composition left unattended for 48 hours.
Therefore, while Lee fails to explicitly disclose a first electrolyte composition that satisfies Requirement 1, Applicant’s written description appears to suggest as long as the first electrolyte composition comprises a first solid electrolyte, binder, dispersant, and solvent, inclusive of those listed on pg. 10-11 of the instant specification, and the electrolyte composition of the prior art were to be measured during an intermediate stage in which the first solvent was present, Lee’s first electrolyte composition would necessarily possess a and b values such that Requirement 1 is satisfied, absent evidence to contrary.
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses all claim limitations as set forth above.
As addressed above, the first solvent of claim 6 is not included in the final product, the all-solid-state battery, and therefore, the claim limitation is met without requiring the prior art to possess the first solvent since the solvent is an intermediate that does not possess any structure in the all-solid-state battery final product claimed.
Nevertheless, Lee further discloses the solvent used for each step is not limited and any suitable solvent may be selected, and that the solvent may comprise an organic solvent such as N-methyl pyrrolidone (NMP) ([0100]).
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 selected NMP for the first solvent of Lee from the short list of candidates as taught by Lee with a reasonable expectation of arriving at a successful first electrolyte composition.
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses all claim limitations as set forth above.
The examiner notes “wherein the first electrolyte composition has a turbiscan stability index (TSI) of about 1 or less when the first electrolyte composition is left unattended for 48 hours” further limits a product-by-process limitation, as the first electrolyte composition is an intermediate and the implied final structure is an all-solid-state battery, as addressed above.
Nevertheless, Lee discloses a first electrolyte composition, as rendered obvious above, composed of first solid electrolyte (i.e. sulfide-based electrolyte, [0050]), binder (i.e. SBR, [0072];[0075]), and dispersant (i.e. CMC, [0072];[0075]), all of which are components Applicant has claimed as part of their invention.
Lee further discloses the binder and dispersant (i.e. binder material) is added in an amount of 1-10 wt% of the electrode layer ([0091]) which overlaps with the instant specification desire for 1-10 wt% of the first binder, and 1-10 wt% of the first dispersant based on the total weight of the first electrolyte composition (pg. 11, lines 4-7). Applicant’s Manufacturing Example 1 contains LiPS5Cl as the first solid electrolyte, butadiene rubber as the first binder, polypropylene glycol (Mn = 1,500 g/mol) as the first dispersant, and butyl butyrate as the first solvent (pg. 15, 13-15) but does not express that such a selection is preferred or that any of the listed components of pg. 10-11 of the instant specification are preferable over the others.
Therefore, while Lee fails to disclose a turbiscan stability index (TSI) of about 1 or less when the first electrolyte compositions is left unattended for 48 hours, Applicant’s written description appears to suggest as long as the first electrolyte composition comprises a first solid electrolyte, binder, dispersant, and solvent, inclusive of those listed on pg. 10-11 of the instant specification, and the electrolyte composition of the prior art were to be measured during an intermediate stage in which the first solvent was present, Lee’s first electrolyte composition would necessarily possess a TSI of about 1 or less when left unattended for 48 hours, absent evidence to contrary.
Regarding claims 10-14, Lee discloses all claim limitations as set forth above.
The examiner notes the limitation “wherein the second layer is formed from a second electrolyte composition comprising the second solid electrolyte, a second binder, a second dispersant, and a second solvent” is a product-by-process limitation (see MPEP 2113).
The structure is simply an all-solid-state battery comprising: a first electrode; a second electrode; and a solid electrolyte layer interposed between the first and second electrode, wherein the second layer comprises the second solid electrolyte, a second binder, and a second dispersant.
Lee discloses the ion conductive solid electrolyte of the second solid electrolyte layer ([0038]) may comprise at least one of a polymeric solid electrolyte and an inorganic solid electrolyte ([0041]). Lee further discloses an inorganic solid electrolyte may comprise a sulfide based solid electrolyte, an oxide-based solid electrolyte, or both ([0049-0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a sulfide-based electrolyte, as claimed in claim 11, for the second solid electrolyte of Lee from the short list of candidates taught by Lee with reasonable expectation of arriving at a successful second solid electrolyte.
Lee further discloses the second solid electrolyte layers may further comprise a binder resin which includes, but is not particularly limited to, carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) and styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) ([0072]; [0075-0076]). 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 selected SBR as the second binder, as claimed in claim 12, and CMC as the second dispersant, as claimed in claim 13, with reasonable expectation of arriving at a successful second electrolyte composition.
As the second solvent is not present in the final product, an all-solid-state battery, the prior art need not disclose a second solvent in the second electrolyte composition as claimed in claims 10 and 14, since the second solvent is an intermediate that does not possess any structure in the all-solid-state battery final product claimed.
Nevertheless, Lee further discloses the solvent used for each step is not limited and any suitable solvent may be selected and that the solvent may comprise an organic solvent such as N-methyl pyrrolidone (NMP) ([0100]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected NMP for the second solvent of Lee from the short list of candidates taught by Lee with a reasonable expectation of arriving at a successful second electrolyte composition.
Therefore, it would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the second layer formed from a second electrolyte composition comprising a second solid electrolyte, binder, a dispersant, and a second solvent with reasonable expectation of success in arriving at a satisfactory second electrolyte composition and second layer.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Lee discloses all claim limitations as set forth above.
As claims 7 and 15 appear to further limit an intermediate, the second electrolyte composition, the prior art need not disclose a solid content of 40% to 70% of the first and second electrolyte compositions, as claimed in claims 7 and 15, respectively.
Assuming, arguendo, that the applicant is persuasive in proving that the first and second solvents are present in the first and second electrolyte composition, respectively, despite being inconsistent with the instant specification (pg. 1, lines 14-15), Lee further discloses the first and second solid electrolyte layers are prepared through making a slurry which includes an adequate amount of solvent as well as the aforementioned inorganic solid electrolyte, as well as an initiator and curing agent, wherein the solids are dispersed in the solvent ([0097];[0099];[0102]).
While Lee does not explicitly disclose the first and second electrolyte compositions having a solid content of about 40% to 70% as claimed in claims 7 and 15, respectively, a skilled artisan would recognize the need of a solvent in order to properly form a slurry, and a sufficient amount electrolyte or other solid materials to form a solid electrolyte layer. A skilled artisan would further recognize that too much solvent or too little solid materials may result in a runny slurry, while too little solvent or too much solid materials will result in too viscous a slurry, both of which may result in manufacturing or processing challenges.
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 arrived at the claimed 40% to 70% solid content for the first and second electrolyte layer in order to achieve the desired slurry characteristics for the respective solid electrolyte layers.
Regarding claims 16, Lee discloses all claim limitations as set forth above.
As claim 16 appears to further limit an intermediate, the second electrolyte composition, the prior art need not disclose wherein the second electrolyte composition has a turbiscan stability index (TSI) of about 1 or less when the second electrolyte composition is left unattended for 48 hours.
Nevertheless, Lee discloses a second electrolyte composition, as rendered obvious above, composed of a second solid electrolyte (i.e. sulfide-based electrolyte, [0050]), binder (i.e. SBR, [0072];[0075]), dispersant (i.e. CMC, [0072];[0075]), and solvent (i.e. NMP, [0100]) that Applicant has claimed as part of their invention.
Lee further discloses the binder and dispersant (i.e. binder material) is added in an amount of 1-10 wt% of the electrode layer ([0091]) which overlaps with the Applicant’s instant specification desire for 1-10 wt% of the second binder, and 1-10 wt% of the second dispersant based on the total weight of the second electrolyte composition (pg. 13, lines 21-27). Applicant’s Manufacturing Example 2 contains LiPS5Cl as the second solid electrolyte, butadiene rubber as the second binder, polypropylene glycol (Mn = 500 g/mol) as the second dispersant, and butyl butyrate as the second solvent (pg. 16, 10-16) but does not express that such a composition is preferred or that any of the listed components of pg. 12-13 of the instant specification are preferable over the others.
Therefore, while Lee fails to disclose a turbiscan stability index (TSI) of about 1 or less when the second electrolyte compositions is left unattended for 48 hours, Applicant’s written description appears to suggest as long as the second electrolyte composition comprises a second solid electrolyte, binder, dispersant, and solvent, inclusive of those listed on pg. 12-13 of the instant specification, and if the second electrolyte composition of the prior art were to be measured during an intermediate stage in which the second solvent was present, Lee’s second electrolyte composition would necessarily possess a TSI of about 1 or less when left unattended for 48 hours, absent evidence to contrary.
Regarding claim 17, Lee discloses all claim limitations as set forth above.
As claim 17 appears to further limit an intermediate, the second electrolyte composition, the prior art need not disclose wherein the second electrolyte composition has a turbiscan stability index of about 1 or less when the second electrolyte composition satisfies Requirement 2.
Nevertheless, Lee discloses a second electrolyte composition, as rendered obvious above, composed of a second solid electrolyte (i.e. sulfide-based electrolyte, [0050]), binder (i.e. SBR, [0072];[0075]), dispersant (i.e. CMC, [0072];[0075]), and solvent (i.e. NMP, [0100]) that Applicant has claimed as part of their invention.
Lee further discloses the binder and dispersant (i.e. binder material) is added in an amount of 1-10 wt% of the electrode layer ([0091]) which overlaps with the Applicant’s instant specification desire for 1-10 wt% of the second binder, and 1-10 wt% of the second dispersant based on the total weight of the second electrolyte composition (pg. 13, lines 21-27). Applicant’s Manufacturing Example 2 contains LiPS5Cl as the second solid electrolyte, butadiene rubber as the second binder, polypropylene glycol (Mn = 500 g/mol) as the second dispersant, and butyl butyrate as the second solvent, (pg. 16, 10-16) but does not express that such a selection is preferred or that any of the listed components of pg. 12-13 of the instant specification are preferable over the others.
Lee does not disclose a second electrolyte composition satisfying Requirement 2,
|
c
d
|
<
1
, wherein: c is a maximum value of variations of backscattering (ABS) in an area configured such that a scan height is in a range of 0% to 49%, as results of measurement of intensities of transmitted light and the scattered light by radiating near infrared light having a wavelength of 880 nm to the second electrolyte composition left unattended for 48 hours; and d is a maximum value of variations of backscattering (ABS) in an area configured such that the scan height is in a range of 51% to 100%, as the results of measurement of the intensities of the transmitted light and the scattered light by radiating the near infrared light having the wavelength of 880 nm to the second electrolyte composition left unattended for 48 hours.
Therefore, while Lee fails to explicitly disclose a second electrolyte composition that satisfies Requirement 2, Applicant’s written description appears to suggest as long as the second electrolyte composition comprises a second solid electrolyte, binder, dispersant, and solvent, inclusive of those listed on pg. 10-11 of the instant specification, and the electrolyte composition of the prior art were to be measured during an intermediate stage in which the second solvent was present, Lee’s second electrolyte composition would necessarily possess c and d values such that Requirement 2 is satisfied, absent evidence to contrary.
Regarding claim 19, Lee discloses all claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above.
Lee discloses a vehicle (i.e. electric vehicles, hybrid vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, or the like, [0035];[0094-0095]) comprising the all-solid-state battery of claim 1.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20210367263 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Ishii et al. (Influence of molecular weight and concentration of carboxymethyl cellulose on rheological properties of concentrated anode slurries for lithium ion batteries).
Regarding claim 18, Lee discloses all claim limitations as set forth above.
Lee does not disclose a desire to control molecular weight of the dispersant or binder in the first or second layer of the electrolyte membrane.
Ishii teaches CMC used as a thickener or dispersant in anode materials (pg. 2, para. 2), where a greater molecular weight of CMC provides stronger steric interactions and thus has a greater effect on viscosity and shear thickening (pg. 7, para.1). Ishii further teaches the impact of CMC on slurry properties such as a higher CMC molecular weight results reduced degree of shear thickening and contributes to the development of viscosity (pg. 7, para.2). Ishii further teaches shear thickening is undesirable as it can induce clogging of pipes or filters (pg. 1). A skilled artisan would recognize that the use of CMC as a thickener or dispersant in anodes is similar to its use in solid electrolyte layers, as applied in Lee.
Therefore, while Lee does not explicitly disclose the number average molecular weight of the first dispersant is greater than a number average molecular weight of the second dispersant, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have tried different number average molecular weight of the dispersant, CMC, for the first and second layers to achieve a desired balance between the viscosity and shear thickening properties of the electrolyte slurries as taught by Ishii.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ESTHER J TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3479. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/E.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights