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 .
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 11 and 19-21 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the second buffer electrode layer.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites “The solid-state lithium battery, wherein…”. The claim is indefinite as the dependency has been omitted. It appears that the claim should depend from claim 10.
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 2, 3, 4, 6, and 15-21 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. 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 2 recites that the first buffer electrolyte layer “further comprises an electrolyte material,” and claim 4 recites that the first buffer electrolyte layer “further comprises an ion-conductive material.” These limitations fail to further limit claim 1, which recites “a first buffer electrolyte layer.” It is submitted that an electrolyte layer (or “buffer electrolyte layer”) inherently contains an electrolyte material (ion conductive material); thus, the limitations of claims 2 and 4 do not further limit the parent claim. Claims 15 and 19 recite similar limitations applied to first and second buffer electrolyte layers, and suffer from the same problem.
Claim 6 recites that the second electrode layer structure is an “electrode layer.” This does not further limit the “second electrode layer structure” recited in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-4, 6, 8-13, 15-21, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 20210167420).
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 10, the reference teaches a solid state lithium battery comprising a solid electrolyte layer (“SSE”) having two surfaces, an anode layer, a cathode layer, an anode current collector, a cathode current collector, an anode interface layer (“IL”), and a cathode interface layer (Fig. 1). Either the cathode or the anode corresponds to the claimed “first” electrode layer, the other being the “second” layer. The interface layers correspond to the claimed first and second “buffer electrolyte layers” ([0012], [0015], [0165]). Regarding claims 2-4, 15, 18 and 19, the first and second buffer electrolyte layers may contain a polymer gel electrolyte which is an ion conductive material ([0015]). Regarding claims 16, 17, 20 and 21, the compositions of the first and second buffer layers may be the same or different ([0165]). Regarding claims 11 and 13, the second electrode layer (anode or cathode) comprises an active metal (lithium) ([0013], [0014]). Regarding claims 25 and 26, as the cathode of Zhang can be either the first or second electrode, the electrode comprises a lithium transition metal (cobalt) oxide ([0014]).
Zhang does not expressly teach that the first electrode layer is microporous, as recited in claim 1. Zhang also does not expressly teach that the second electrode layer is microporous as recited in claim 12.
However, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because the porosity of an electrode of a lithium secondary battery can readily be set, or adjusted, to affect factors such as electrolyte retention and rate of ion diffusion. It would have involved no more than routine skill in the art to make the electrode layers of Zhang “microporous” as recited in claims 1 and 12. It has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claims 8, 9, 23, and 24, these claims recite that the first and second buffer layers are a “hot-melt type ion-conductive polymer gel electrolyte” or a “solvent-type ion-conductive polymer gel electrolyte.” These limitations have been given their broadest reasonable interpretation herein, as the phrases “hot-melt type” and “solvent-type” appear to refer to the methods used in the production of the recited polymer gel electrolytes. The limitations impart no discernible structure to the recited polymer gel electrolytes, and thus the claims are treated as product-by-process claims. If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Furthermore, once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also MPEP §2113. Further regarding “solvent type,” the reference also teaches that the disclosed interface layers can contain a liquid. Note: the instant specification has been reviewed but does not appear to provide any additional guidance as to the recited terms. It is noted that in the lists of materials used for both “hot-melt type” and “solvent type”, there is substantial overlap in the materials ([0045] and [0046] of pre-grant publication). Thus, it appears that the same polymer gel electrolyte product could be a “hot-melt type” or a “solvent type.”
Claims 5 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 8-13, 15-21, and 23-25 above, and further in view of Li et al (US 20220393255).
Zhang does not expressly teach that the first and second buffer electrolyte layers comprise a flame retardant substance, as recited in claims 5 and 22.
Li et al. is directed to a lithium ion battery electrolyte comprising a flame retardant lithium salt (abstract).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because the artisan would be motivated to use the flame retardant lithium salt of Li et al. in the liquid-containing electrolyte composition layers (interface/buffer layers) of Zhang. In [0005], Li et al disclose that the salt has good flame retardant properties without decreasing ionic conductivity of the electrolyte. Accordingly, the artisan would be motivated to use the salt of Li et al in the electrolyte (buffer) layers of Zhang.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 8-13, 15-21, and 23-25 above, and further in view of Kang et al (US 20200185768).
Zhang does not expressly teach that the thickness of the first electrode layer is more than five times the thickness of the second electrode layer, as recited in claims 7 and 14.
Kang et al. is directed to an all-solid secondary battery. The reference teaches in [0051] that a first anode active material layer may have a thickness that is about 50% or less (40%, 30%, 20%, 10%, 5% or less) of the thickness of the cathode active material layer.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007). In [0051], Kang et al. provides reasons why its anode layer should not be too thick or thin. Accordingly, the artisan would have applied these teachings to the battery of Zhang, and the claimed relationship would be rendered obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan Crepeau whose telephone number is (571) 272-1299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher, can be reached at (571) 270-3879. The phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272-1700. Documents may be faxed to the central fax server at (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Jonathan Crepeau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
May 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights