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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 5-6 of pg. 9 of the instant specification, “the first solid electrolyte 321” should read, “the second solid electrolyte 321” as it is consistent with lines 6-12 of pg. 9 of the instant specification and Fig. 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 19, the phrase "an all-solid-state battery of claim 1" (line 1) appears to be distinct from the “an all-solid-state battery” previously established in claim 1. For the purpose of this office action, the claim has been interpreted as reading as “the all-solid-state battery of claim 1.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6-10, and 12-17 are 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 6 , the claim limitation “a first solvent” appears to be inconsistent with the definition provided for “all-solid-state battery” on pg. 1, line 14-15 of the instant specification where “all elements of the all-solid-state battery are solids”. It is unclear whether the first solvent is part of the structure of the all-solid-state battery which does not appear to make sense in light of the definition of “all-solid-state battery” discussed above or if claim 6 was intended to be written as a product-by-process claim where the first solvent was merely utilized as an intermediate in the formation of the “all-solid-state battery” but no longer structurally exists in the “all-solid-state battery”.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, the claim limitation “a solid content of about 40% to 70%” (line 2), appears to be inconsistent with the definition provided for “all-solid-state battery” on pg. 1, line 14-15 of the instant specification where “all elements of the all-solid-state battery are solids”. It is unclear how the “all-solid-state battery” of claim 2 in which claims 7 and 15 are directed towards is capable of “a solid content” other than 100%.
Regarding claim 8, the turbiscan stability index, according to the instant specification (pg. 11, lines 4-15, pg. 15, lines 13-26) appears to require the first electrolyte composition to be a solution, whereas claim 8 is directed to the “all-solid-state battery “ of claim 2, and it does not appear TSI would be completed on the “all-solid-state battery”.
Regarding claim 9, the instant specification states that Requirement 1 may be acquired using the turbiscan (pg. 12, line 16) and it appears the to require the first electrolyte composition to be a solution (pg. 11, 4-28, pg. 12, lines 11-16), whereas claim 9 is directed to the “all-solid-state battery” of claim 2, and it does not appear TSI would be completed on the “all-solid-state battery”.
Regarding claim 10, the preamble is directed to an “all-solid-state battery” which is clearly defined on pg. 1, lines 14-15 of the instant specification where “all elements of the all-solid-state battery are solids” and therefore does not appear consonant with the additional provision of a second. It is unclear whether the second solvent is part of the structure of the all-solid-state battery which does not appear to make sense in light of the definition of “all-solid-state battery” discussed above or if claim 10 was intended to be written as a product-by-process claim where the solvent was merely utilized as an intermediate in the formation of the “all-solid-state battery” but no longer structurally exists in the “all-solid-state battery”.
As such, claim 10 and dependent claims 12-17 are rejected as being indefinite.
Regarding claim 14, the claim limitation, “a second solvent” (line 3) renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the “a second solvent” of claim 14 is the same “a second solvent” of claim 10, in which claim 14 is dependent on. For the purpose of this office action, the “a second solvent” of claim 14 does not necessarily have to be the same “a second solvent” of claim 10.
Regarding claim 16, the turbiscan stability index (TSI), according to the instant specification (pg. 16, lines 10-20), appears to require the second electrolyte composition to be a solution, whereas claim 16 is directed to the “all-solid-state battery “ of claim 2, and it does not appear TSI would be completed on the “all-solid-state battery”.
Regarding claim 17, the instant specification appears to require the second electrolyte composition to be a solution (pg. 14, line 3-17, pg. 16, line 21 to pg. 17, line 6), whereas claim 17 is directed to the “all-solid-state battery” of claim 2, and it does not appear TSI would be completed on the “all-solid-state battery”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, the claim limitation, “a solid content of about 40% to 70%” (lines 1-2), does not appear to properly limit claims 2 and 10 in which they are dependent on, respectively. The “all-solid-state battery” of claim 1, in light of the definition provided by the instant specification where “all elements of the all-solid-state battery are solids,” does not allow for “a solid content” other than 100%.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 20210367263 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 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]).
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 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.
Claims 2-17 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 2-5, Lee discloses all limitations as set forth above
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 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.
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 first layer comprising a first electrolyte composition comprising the first solid electrolyte, a first binder, and a first dispersant, as claimed in claim 2 with reasonable expectation that such a composition would result in a successful first electrolyte composition.
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses all claim limitations as set forth above.
In view of the 112(b) rejection above, based on the definition of “all-solid-state battery’ provided by the instant specification (pg. 1, lines 14-15), 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.
Assuming, arguendo, that the applicant is persuasive in proving that the first solvent is present even though it is an “all-solid-state battery” and despite being inconsistent with the instant specification (pg. 1, lines 14-15), 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, in view of the 112(b) rejection above, Lee discloses all claim limitations as set forth above.
Lee discloses a first electrolyte composition, rendered obvious as set forth 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 claim 9, in view of the 112(b) rejection above, Lee discloses all claim limitations as set forth above.
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 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 claims 10-14, Lee discloses all claim limitations as set forth above.
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 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.
In view of the 112(b) rejection above, 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.
Assuming, arguendo, that the applicant is persuasive in proving that the second solvent is present even though it is an “all-solid-state battery” and despite being inconsistent with the instant specification (pg. 1, lines 14-15), 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 comprising a second electrolyte composition comprising a second solid electrolyte, binder, dispersant, and solvent, as claimed in claim 10, 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.
In view of the 112(b) rejection above, the prior art need not disclose a solvent content of 40% to 70% of the first and second electrolyte layers, 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.
Lee discloses a second electrolyte composition, rendered obvious as set forth 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.
Lee discloses a second electrolyte composition, rendered obvious as set forth 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.
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
The cited art made of record but not replied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Nogami et al. (US 20220158249 A1) discloses a double-layered solid electrolyte layer for an all-solid-state battery.
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-4:30PM.
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
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 3/16/2026