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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 9 June 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the multiple groups can be searched and examined together with no burden. This is not found persuasive because the formation methods and structural features of the all-solid-state battery are in fact different invention which will require separate searches and rejections as prior art applicable to one invention may not be applicable to another. The inventions have separate classifications in the art as applied in the restriction requirement. While appearing to be similar in scope at the current time, claim amendments may make the scope of the two groups very different during prosecution which will present a serious burden on examination.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 or 2) as being anticipated by Oh et al. (US Pub 2021/0202936 newly cited).
In regard to claim 1-5, Oh et al. teach an all-solid-state battery (100, 200, 300 – battery 300 in figure 3a reproduced below) comprising: a negative electrode current collector 150; a negative electrode layer (layers 310-350) disposed on the negative electrode current collector; a solid electrolyte layer 130 disposed on the negative electrode layer; a positive electrode layer 120 disposed on the solid electrolyte layer; and a positive electrode current collector 110 disposed on the positive electrode layer,
wherein the negative electrode layer comprises:
a first lithiophilic layer 350 disposed on the negative electrode current collector 150 and comprising a first metal (such as tin – in regard to claim 2) capable of alloying with lithium;
a first negative electrode active material layer 340 disposed on the first lithiophilic layer and comprising a first negative electrode active material such as a silicon-based materials (per claim 3);
a second lithiophilic layer 330 disposed on the first negative electrode active material layer and comprising a second metal (such as tin – in regard to claim 4) capable of alloying with lithium; and a second negative electrode active material layer disposed on the second lithiophilic layer and comprising a second negative electrode active material such as a silicon-based materials (per claim 5 – see paragraphs [0018-0026]).
PNG
media_image1.png
330
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 6-8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. as applied to claim 1 above.
In regard to claim 6, Oh et al. teach the all-solid-state battery of claim 1, and teaches in paragraph [0026]:
“Although indicated in FIGS. 1A-3B as lamellar structures, it is well known that other shapes and configurations of solid-state electrochemical cells are possible. Most generally, a lithium solid-state battery may be produced by providing a cathode, a solid electrolyte layer, and a silicon and/or tin layer sequentially layered and pressed between electrodes and provided within a housing. Although specific stackings of tin and/or silicon layers are shown in the associated figures, additional configurations may include alternate arrangements of the tin and silicon layers and/or include more layers of tin and/or silicon than shown and described.”
Further, tin particles up to 5 microns may be included (paragraph [0024]).
Therefore, while no overall thickness is explicitly disclosed by the prior art, changes to size and shape of the prior art electrode are an obvious modification absent evidence to the contrary (see MPEP 2144.04 Part IV) and the claimed range of the negative electrode layer has a thickness in a range of about 70 μm to 150 μm is taken to be an obvious modification depending on the desired properties and number of layers in the prior art electrode.
In regard to claim 7, Oh et al. teach the all-solid-state battery of claim 1, wherein the negative electrode layer comprises: a first main surface 350 being in contact with the negative electrode current collector 140; and a second main surface 310 being in contact with the solid electrolyte layer 130, and appears to show schematically that the second lithiophilic layer 330 is positioned in a space between a first plane spaced from the first main surface toward the solid electrolyte layer by a distance corresponding to about 40% of the thickness of the negative electrode layer along a direction of the thickness and a second plane spaced from the second main surface toward the negative electrode current collector by a distance corresponding to about 40% of the thickness of the negative electrode layer along a direction of the thickness (each layer is shown as about 20% of the thickness of the electrode, specification discloses comparable thicknesses for tin and silicon layers).
PNG
media_image2.png
338
898
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The schematic representation above taken in combination with the thicknesses described in the prior art overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
In regard to claim 8, Oh et al. teach sputtering the lithiophilic tin layers for different durations to form layers such as 2.5 micron or 1.25 micron (paragraph [0030]), which overlaps or is close enough to the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05). In any event, changes to size and shape of the prior art electrode are an obvious modification absent evidence to the contrary (see MPEP 2144.04 Part IV).
In regard to claim 20, while no specific application is disclosed by Oh et al, the prior art was made with support from the US Missile Defense Agency (paragraph [0002]) and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention filed that the battery of Oh et al. would be usable in a missile intercepting vehicle such as a drone or similar missile.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhao et al. (US Pub 2014/0045058 newly cited) teaches similar hybrid layered anodes including lithiophilic and active material layers (see figures).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO whose telephone number is (571)270-3635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm EST.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights