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 without traverse of Invention II, drawn to an all-solid-state battery, and Species A1 in the reply filed on 06/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-3, 10, and 12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention I, Species A2, and Species A3, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/24/2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [00026] of the instant specification, “the negative electrode (100)” should read, “the negative electrode (300)” for consistency with [00022] and Claim 4.
In [00061] of the instant specification, “the positive electrode 300” should read “the positive electrode (100)” for consistency with [00022] and Claim 4.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oguma (JP 2015032535 A) in view of Iwasaki (US 20170250407 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Oguma discloses an all-solid-state battery (i.e. all solid lithium secondary battery, [0001]) comprising: a positive electrode (i.e. positive electrode sheet, [0016]) comprising a positive electrode active material ([0017]) and a negative electrode (i.e. negative electrode sheet, [0016]).
Oguma further discloses an electrode with a first and second electrolyte layer in which the first electrolyte layer has a higher density than the second electrolyte layer, and the first electrolyte layer is laminated on the negative electrode sheet, followed by the second electrolyte disposed on the first electrolyte layer, and the positive electrode sheet is stacked on the second electrolyte layer ([0010-0011]). Thus, Oguma satisfies the claim limitation, “a hybrid solid electrolyte located between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, wherein the hybrid solid electrolyte comprises at least two solid electrolyte layers having different densities.”
While Oguma discloses the positive electrode active material is not particularly limited, as long as it can be used for a Li-ion battery ([0017]), Oguma does not disclose the positive electrode active material being coated with an oxide-based solid electrolyte and a sulfide-based solid electrolyte.
Iwasaki teaches a composite active material for a solid-state battery ([0002]) where the composite active material comprises an oxide active material coated (Fig. 1, 11) with an oxide solid electrolyte layer (Fig. 1, 12) on the surface of the oxide active material, and a sulfide solid electrolyte layer (Fig. 1, 13) that coats the oxide solid electrolyte layer ([0028]).
Iwasaki further teaches the oxide solid electrolyte layer has a function to inhibit the reaction of the oxide active material with the sulfide solid electrolyte layer ([0053]) while the sulfide solid electrolyte layer improves an ion conducting path in the electrode and secures the electron conducting path, in turn improving battery output ([0032-0033]).
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 improved the positive electrode active material of Oguma, with an oxide solid electrolyte layer and a sulfide solid electrolyte layer for the benefits of the improving ion conducting path and securing the electron conducting path in the electrode while inhibiting reaction of the active material with the sulfide solid electrolyte layer, as taught by Iwasaki.
Regarding claim 5, modified Oguma discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Oguma discloses wherein the second solid electrolyte layer (i.e. first electrolyte layer, Oguma, [0010-0011]) has a greater electrolyte density than the first solid electrolyte layer (i.e. second electrolyte layer, Oguma, [0010-0011]), where “electrolyte density” refers to the mass of electrolyte per unit volume in the electrolyte layer (Oguma, [0014]).
Modified Oguma further discloses an aspect of the present invention where after high pressure processing, the electrolyte density of the second solid electrolyte (i.e. first electrolyte layer) is higher than that of the first solid electrolyte layer (i.e. second electrolyte layer), where the electrolyte density of the first solid electrolyte layer (i.e. second electrolyte layer) is 50 to 95% of that of the second solid electrolyte layer (i.e. first electrolyte layer) (Oguma, [0019]).
In having a first solid electrolyte layer with an electrolyte density that may be 50-95% of the electrolyte density of the second solid electrolyte layer, a skilled artisan would recognize, absent of a special definition of “high-density” and “low-density” in the instant specifications, modified Oguma’s first solid electrolyte layer (i.e. second electrolyte layer) comprises a low-density solid electrolyte and the second solid electrolyte layer (i.e. first electrolyte layer) comprises a high-density solid electrolyte. Thus, modified Oguma satisfies claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, modified Oguma discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Oguma further discloses wherein the first solid electrolyte layer having a higher electrolyte density is laminated on the negative electrode sheet (Oguma, [0010]) while the second solid electrolyte layer is stacked on one side of the positive electrode sheet, and the electrolyte layers facing each other (Oguma, [0011]).
Therefore, modified Ogawa satisfies the claim limitation, “wherein the first solid electrolyte layer is located as to face the positive electrode and the second solid electrolyte layer is located as to face the negative electrode”.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oguma (JP 2015032535 A) and Iwasaki (US 20170250407 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and in further view of Xu et al. (CN112151857A).
Regarding claim 6, modified Oguma discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Oguma discloses the electrolyte can be any oxides, nitrides, halides, crystals, amorphous and glass ceramic in addition to sulfides (Oguma, [0017]), and that materials composed of both inorganic and organic compounds or mixtures thereof, and materials known in the field of lithium-ion batteries can be used in the first and second electrolyte layers and that the materials of the layers may be the same or different (Oguma, [0018]).
Modified Oguma does not disclose wherein the second solid electrolyte layer further comprises a lithium salt.
Xu teaches a similar battery with a solid electrolyte ([11]) wherein the solid electrolyte layer (i.e. polymeric solid electrolyte material) comprises a polymer matrix and lithium salt where the lithium salt can be selected from one of LiCloO4, LiAsF4, LiPF6, LiBF4 or a mixture thereof. Xu further teaches the addition of lithium salt allows for higher electrical conductivity ([18]) and overall, lithium salt can homogenize lithium-ion concentration and has excellent electrochemical stability ([12]).
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 utilized a lithium salt in at least the second solid electrolyte layer for the benefit of higher electrical conductivity, homogenization of lithium-ion concentration, and good electrochemical stability, as taught by Xu.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oguma (JP 2015032535 A) and Iwasaki (US 20170250407 A1), as applied to claim 5 above, and in further view of Jung et al. (US 20230275260 A1) .
Regarding claim 8, modified Oguma discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Oguma discloses the electrolyte can be any oxides, nitrides, halides, crystals, amorphous and glass ceramic in addition to sulfides (Oguma, [0017]), and that materials composed of both inorganic and organic compounds or mixtures thereof, and materials known in the field of lithium-ion batteries can be used in the first and second electrolyte layers and that the materials of the layers may be the same or different (Oguma, [0018]).
Modified Oguma does not disclose wherein the first solid electrolyte layer comprises a fine particle type solid electrolyte, and the second solid electrolyte layer comprises a bulk particle type solid electrolyte having a larger size than the fine particle type solid electrolyte included in the first solid electrolyte layer.
Jung teaches a similar solid-state battery with a two layered solid electrolyte ([0011]) where the solid electrolyte membrane includes a first solid electrolyte which faces the positive electrode and a second solid electrolyte layer faces the negative electrode ([0081]).
Jung further teaches the second sulfide-based solid electrolyte in the second solid electrolyte layer has an average particle diameter (D50) larger than an average particle diameter of the first sulfide-based solid electrolyte in the first solid electrolyte layer ([0053-0055]), particularly 3-7 times larger ([0058]). Jung further discloses the first sulfide-based solid electrolyte may have a D50 of 1 to 4 µm, specifically 2 to 3 µm ([0059]), and the second sulfide-based solid electrolyte may have a D50 of 200 to 1000 nm, specifically 300 to 700 nm ([0060]). A skilled artisan would recognize Jung’s first sulfide-based solid electrolyte as a “bulk particle type” and Jung’s second sulfide-based solid electrolyte as a “fine particle type”.
Furthermore, Jung teaches that since the second sulfide-based solid electrolyte has a larger D50 compared to the first sulfide-based, dendrite is grown in the horizontal direction rather than the vertical direction and thus does not reach the positive electrode, preventing an internal short-circuit and ensuring safety ([0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized the first solid electrolyte comprising a fine particle type solid electrolyte, and the second solid electrolyte comprising a bulk particle type solid electrolyte having a larger size than the fine particle type for the benefit of preventing manipulating dendrite grown in order to prevent internal short-circuit and ensure safety, as taught by Jung.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oguma (JP 2015032535 A), Iwasaki (US 20170250407 A1), and Jung et al. (US 20230275260 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and in further view of Yoon et al. (US 20190198916 A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Oguma discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Oguma discloses an all-solid-state battery wherein the second solid electrolyte layer comprises bulk particle type solid electrolyte and the first solid electrolyte comprises fine type solid electrolyte (Jung, [0053-0055];[0058]), as rendered obvious above, but does not disclose wherein the second solid electrolyte layer comprises the fine particle type solid electrolyte of the first electrolyte layer. Yoon teaches a similar all-solid battery ([0008]) wherein the solid electrolyte layer includes a first solid electrolyte and a second solid electrolyte, wherein the size of the first solid electrolyte is larger than that of the second solid electrolyte ([0014];[0016-0017]). Yoon further teaches that the first and second solid electrolyte may be mixed to minimize the pores by filling the space between the particles of the first solid electrolyte with the second solid electrolyte, thus improving energy density and suppressing dendrite growth ([0028]).
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 at least the second solid electrolyte layer of modified Oguma to further comprise the fine particle type solid electrolyte of the first solid electrolyte layer for the benefit of minimizing pores within the electrolyte layer, thus improving energy density and suppressing dendrite growth, as taught by Yoon.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oguma (JP 2015032535 A) and Iwasaki (US 20170250407 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and in further view of Oh (US 20180269475 A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Oguma discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Oguma discloses a negative electrode can be used without particular limitation as long as it is an active material that can be used for a Li-ion battery (Oguma, [0017]), but does not disclose the negative electrode being configured such that carbon is provided at a part or the entirety of a surface of silicon oxide, and the carbon is included so as to account for 0.5 mass% to less than 5 mass%.
Oh teaches a silicon oxide composite for a secondary battery negative electrode material (Abstract) wherein the surface of the silicon oxide composite is clad with a graphene-shaped carbon layer ([0043];[0018]).
Oh further teaches that silicon oxide composite for a negative electrode material improves charge/discharge capacity, initial charge/discharge efficiency, and capacity maintaining rate ([0017]).
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 the negative electrode of modified Oguma configured such that carbon is provided at part of a surface of silicon oxide, for the benefit of a negative electrode material capable of improving charge/discharge capacity, initial charge/discharge efficiency, and capacity maintaining rate, as taught by Oh.
Oh further teaches an embodiment in which the carbon per part by the total 100 weight may be contained in a ratio of 1 to 20 in part by weight ([0023]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5 mass% to less than 5 mass%.
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected within the overlapping portion of the ranges for the carbon mass% with a reasonable expectation of arriving at a negative electrode active material capable of use in a battery.
Conclusion
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 7/14/2026
Prosecution Insights