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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges amended Specification, amended Claims 1, 3, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, and 20 and canceled Claims 2, 7, 14, and 19 in the response filed on 6/29/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Liu already assembles a functional battery. Liu does not “need” Hashimoto’s cell structure to function. There is no motivation to change the battery structure of Liu. Liu’s cells use an indium metal anode, operating a 2.2-3.6 V electrochemical window referenced to indium. Hashimoto’s cells use a lithium metal anode with a different electrochemical potential window. Substituting Hashimoto’s lithium metal anode into Liu’s indium-based system is not a straightforward exchange.
However, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. One of ordinary skill in the battery art recognizes that an all-solid-state battery cell comprises the conventional anode, separator, and cathode components, wherein the cathode comprises a cathode current collector and composite cathode layer. Liu does not explicitly disclose its battery comprising some of these conventional, inherent components, and thus Hashimoto was relied upon to teach said components. In that regard, Hashimoto teaches an-solid-state battery cell comprising a lithium metal anode (203), a cathode current collector, a composite cathode layer (201), and a separator (202) between the composite cathode layer and the lithium metal anode (Fig. 5, [0131], [0155], [0156], [0179], and [0189]). Examiner maintains that 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 Liu et al.’s all-solid-state battery comprise the conventional structures in order to necessarily operate/use the battery. While Liu teaches an indium metal anode, Liu does not preclude from having a lithium metal anode. As disclosed in Liu’s Claim 10, its anode may comprise of a lithium metal.
Applicant argues that Liu’s own disclosed halides as having high lithium ion conductivity and good electrochemical stability. If Liu’s pure yttrium halides already provided the stated benefits, there is no apparent reason for one skill in the art to substitute Hashimoto’s mixed -halide Li3Y1Br2Cl4.
However, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combing the teachings relating to one halide coating material in a cathode with another halide coating material in a cathode. In that regard, both Liu and Hashimoto active material particles are coated in a lithium halide material and are functional equivalent to each other in that they provide a protective, interfacial layer between the cathode active material particles and the solid electrolyte (Please see Page 2: Line 72 bridging over to Page 3: Line 1 in Liu and paragraphs [0003]-[0005], [0012], and [0013] in Hashimoto). Substitution of equivalents requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the equivalency. In re Fount 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Grover Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950). Furthermore, the Examiner maintains that 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 Liu et al.’s lithium halide material is Li3Y1Br2Cl4 in order to produce a coating that has excellent ion conductivity and oxidation resistance [0057].
Arguments that Liu’s method of coating its cathode active material particles is different from Hashimoto’s method of coating its cathode active material particles are moot. The instant claims are directed to a product, not to a method of manufacturing. Accordingly, differences in the respective methods of manufacture disclosed by Liu and Hashimoto do not, by themselves, preclude their combination for purposes of evaluating the claimed product. The relevant inquiry is whether the combined teachings of the references disclose or render obvious the claimed product and its recited structure and compositional features, rather than whether the references employ identical methods of manufacture.
In that regard, both Liu and Hashimoto teaches its halide coating is Li3YX6 (X=Cl or Br) (Page 2: Lines 10-11 in Liu and [0023]-[0025] in Hashimoto). Hashimoto further recognizes that an appropriate lithium halide material for its coating is Li3Y1Br2Cl4 [0167]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to alternatively use is Li3Y1Br2Cl4 of Hashimoto in place of Li3YX6 taught by Liu.
Arguments directed to Claims 4, 5, 16, and 17 are moot. Liu does not impose any generalized limit or teach away from having the claimed concentrations. Further, Hashimoto recognizes that the solid electrolyte is present in an amount of about 30 volume % in the composite cathode layer, with the remaining volume comprising the cathode active material particles. Paragraph [0170] further identifies the lithium halide material as a coating material for the cathode active material particles at 6.3 mass%, and paragraph [0171] confirms that the volume of the solid electrolyte includes both the lithium halide coating material and the lithium sulfide material. The Examiner maintains that 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 each of Liu et al.’s lithium halide material and lithium sulfide material be between 5.0 wt% and 10.0 wt% of the composite cathode layer in order to sufficiently secure the energy density of the battery and to produce a high-output operation [0135].
Applicant argues that Claims 6 and 18 are not rendered obvious by Liu in view of Hashimoto. These claims specify both Li3YClxBr6-x (1.2<x<4.8) as the halide and Li6PS5ClxBr1-x (0.2<x<0.8) as the sulfide. No reference teaches the specific combination of these two materials.
However, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In that regard, Liu et al. teaches the lithium sulfide material is Li6PS5ClxBr1-x, wherein x = 0-1 (Claim 1 and Page 3: Lines 30-31 and 41). Hashimoto et al. teaches its lithium halide material is Li3Y1Br2Cl4 [0167].
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 111785974 (“Liu et al.”) in view of WO 2022254871 (“Hashimoto et al.”). The Examiner notes that US Pub. No. 20240063374 is the English language equivalent of WO ‘871 and all citations will refer to the US publication. See provided Derwent Abstract translation illustrating the equivalency of these two references.
With regards to Claims 1, 6, 13, and 18, Liu et al. teaches an all-solid-state battery cell comprising a composite cathode layer, wherein the composite cathode layer consisting of active cathode material particles coated in a lithium halide material, a lithium sulfide material embedding coated active cathode material particles, and optionally carbon interposed throughout the lithium sulfide material (Abstract and Page 2: Line 70 bridging over to Page 3: Lines 24-28 and 41). Liu et al. teaches the lithium halide material is Li3YCl6 or Li3YBr6, and the lithium sulfide material is Li6PS5ClxBr1-x, wherein x = 0-1 (Claim 1 and Page 3: Lines 30-31 and 41).
Liu et al. does not teach its all-solid-state battery cell comprising the conventional lithium metal anode, cathode current collector, and a separator. Liu et al. does not explicitly teach the lithium halide material is Li3YClxBr6-x (1.2<x<4.8).
However, Hashimoto et al. teaches an all-solid-state battery cell comprising a lithium metal anode (203), a cathode current collector, a composite cathode layer (201), and a separator (202) between the composite cathode layer and the lithium metal anode (Fig. 5, [0131], [0155], [0156], [0179], and [0189]). 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 Liu et al.’s all-solid-state battery comprise the conventional structures in order to necessarily operate/use the battery.
Hashimoto et al. further teaches its lithium halide material is Li3Y1Br2Cl4 [0167]. 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 Liu et al.’s lithium halide material is Li3Y1Br2Cl4 to produce a coating that has excellent ion conductivity and oxidation resistance [0057].
With regards to Claims 3 and 15, Liu et al. teaches the lithium sulfide material is Li6PS5ClxBr1-x, wherein x = 0-1 (Page 3: Lines 30-31).
With regards to Claims 4, 5, 16, and 17, Liu et al. teaches the lithium halide material and lithium sulfide material as set forth above.
Liu et al. does not teach the concentration of the respective materials in the composite cathode layer.
However, Hashimoto et al. teaches a composite cathode layer comprising active cathode material particles (110) coated in a lithium halide material (111), and a lithium sulfide material (100) embedding coated active cathode material particles (Fig. 5, [0042], [0047], [0060], [0087], [0113], and [0115]). Hashimoto et al. further teaches that in its composite cathode layer, the ratio of the volume of the active cathode material particles to the volume of the solid electrolyte is between 30≤v1≤95 “v1:(100-v1)”, wherein the volume of the solid electrolyte is the total volume of the solid electrolyte and the coating material (i.e. the lithium halide material and lithium sulfide material) [0135].
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 each of Liu et al.’s lithium halide material and lithium sulfide material be between 5.0 wt% and 10.0 wt% of the composite cathode layer in order to sufficiently secure the energy density of the battery and to produce a high-output operation [0135].
With regards to Claims 8, 11, and 20, Liu et al. teaches the lithium sulfide material embedding coated active cathode material particles is Li6PS5ClxBr1-x, wherein x = 0-1 (Page 3: Lines 30-31).
The prior art of record does not teach the separator is Li6PS5ClxBr1-x, wherein x = 0.2<x<0.8.
However, Hashimoto et al. teaches its separator contains the same composition as that of the lithium sulfide material embedding coated active cathode material particles ([0115], [0137], [0138], [0141], and [0142]). Therefore, 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 a separator to also comprise of Li6PS5ClxBr1-x, wherein x = 0-1 in order to have excellent reduction stability [0143].
With regards to Claims 9 and 10, Liu et al. teaches the cathode active material particles are LiNixCoyMn1-x-yO2, wherein x is more than or equal to 0 and less than 1 and y is more than 0 and less than or equal to 1, and x+y is less than or equal to 1 (Page 3: Lines 34-35).
With regards to Claim 12, Liu et al. teaches a composite cathode layer for an all-solid-state battery cell, consisting of: cathode active material particles, a lithium halide material coated onto the active cathode material particles, a lithium sulfide material embedding the coated cathode active material particles, and optionally carbon interposed throughout the lithium sulfide material (Abstract and Page 2: Lines 65-68, and Page 3: Lines 7, 18-19, and 24-31).
Liu et al. does not explicitly teach the lithium halide material is Li3YClxBr6-x (1.2<x<4.8).
However, Hashimoto et al. teaches its lithium halide material is Li3Y1Br2Cl4 [0167]. 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 Liu et al.’s lithium halide material is Li3Y1Br2Cl4 to produce a coating that has excellent ion conductivity and oxidation resistance [0057].
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 LISA CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11 AM-730 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/LC/
Lisa Chau
Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights