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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-3, 5, 7-9) and Species (a) (claim 7) in the reply filed on 01/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/20/2026.
Claims 8,9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/20/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the dispersant-containing layer includes an an aminoamide or a polyesterpolyamine copolymer…”, which Examiner suggests amending to “wherein the dispersant-containing layer includes an aminoamide or a polyesterpolyamine copolymer…”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US20190348707A1), in view of Block (WO1997044841A1, copy attached) and evidenced by Mcculloch (WO2021028519A1, copy attached).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, Ito discloses an all-solid-state battery (title; solid secondary battery 1 in Fig 1) comprising a cathode layer (positive electrode layer 10 in Fig 1), an anode layer (negative electrode layer 20), and a solid electrolyte layer (solid electrolyte layer 30 in Fig 1) disposed between the cathode layer and the anode layer [0077].
Ito does not disclose a specific example wherein “at least one of the cathode layer, the anode layer, and the solid electrolyte layer is a dispersant-containing layer including at least a solid electrolyte and a dispersant” as claimed.
However, Ito further discloses wherein the positive active material layer may include a positive active material and a solid electrolyte [0080], and may further include an additive such as a dispersing agent [0086]. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have added a solid electrolyte and a dispersing agent, with a reasonable expectation to improve dispersion and ionic conductivity of the positive active material layer [0071].
However, Ito does not disclose “wherein the dispersant-containing layer includes an aminoamide or a polyesterpolyamine copolymer as the dispersant” as claimed.
In this regard, Block teaches an electrolyte-electrode composite (see Example 3 in pg 10 lines 25-32) comprising active material (i.e., LMO), solid polymer electrolyte, and polyester/polyamine dispersants (“Hypermer KD1”). Block explicitly teaches that Hypermer KD1 polyester/polyamine, when used as a dispersant in forming polymer electrode compositions, both anode and cathode, produces a significant viscosity reduction without deteriorating the electrochemical performance, while also enabling to obtain higher loadings of electrically active powder in the electrode (see Table I in pg 11; lines 3-5; pg 7-8).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the cathode layer of Ito such that it includes a solid polymer electrolyte and a polyester/polyamine dispersant, with a reasonable expectation to provide a cathode electrode having good dispersion and high loadings of cathode active material in the electrode (pg 11, lines 3-5; see also MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Examiner notes that Claim 5 further limits a limitation in the alternative (“wherein the aminoamide includes at least one of an unsaturated polyaminoamide and alkylolaminoamide”), but neither Claim 1 nor claim 5 currently positively require the aminoamide to have been selected (“the dispersant-containing layer includes an aminoamide or a polyesterpolyamine copolymer as the dispersant”).
Block does not teach an amine value or a weight-average molecular weight of the dispersant Hypermer KD1. In this regard, McCulloch evidences an amine value and a weight-average molecular weight of the Hypermer KD1 dispersant, wherein:
the amine value is 30.3 mgKOH/g (see Table 1 in pg 17 - McCulloch) which falls within the claimed range of “20 mgKOH/g or more and 200 mgKOH/g or less” (claim 1) and “0 mgKOH/g or more and 50 mgKOH/g or less” (claim 3)
the weight-average molecular weight is 10000 g/mol (see Table 1 in pg 17 - McCulloch) which is within both “less than 1,500,000 g/mol” (claim 1) and “300 g/mol or more and 150,000 g/mol or less” (claim 2)
Ito further does not disclose an amount of dispersion agent. In this regard, Block recognizes that the amount of Hypermer KDI (0-4.0 wt%) affects viscosity reduction rate (see Table VI and Table VII) and further teaches wherein:
a proportion of the dispersant in the dispersant-containing layer is 0-4.0 parts (see Table VI and Table VII), which overlaps with the claimed range of “0.1 weight% or more and 20 weight% or less”.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have added the overlapping amount of dispersant with a reasonable expectation to reduce the viscosity thereby permitting high loading of active material in the electrode layer (Pg 7, lines 28-32; pg 8 lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ito discloses the all solid state battery according to claim 1, wherein the cathode layer is the dispersant-containing layer (modified above). Ito further discloses wherein the use of solid electrolyte improves safety and ion conductivity [0008], but does not disclose a wt% range of the solid electrolyte in the cathode layer.
In this regard, Block further teaches wherein the cathode slurry comprises 21-29 wt% of solid electrolyte (See Table VII), which is within the claimed range of “10 weight% or more and 30 weight% or less”. A person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably select the encompassed wt% of solid electrolyte with a reasonable expectation to provide a cathode slurry having improved ionic conductivity and viscosity for easy mixing and extrusion ([Ito 0008]; pg 5 lines 10-12).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAEYOUNG SON whose telephone number is (703)756-1427. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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.
/T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/23/2026