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
Claims 23-25,29,38-39,51-52,58,71,80 and 92 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 13, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung et al. KR-102090285-B1 (machine translation relied upon previously provided), dated 3/17/2020.
Regarding Claim 1, Jung discloses a battery [Jung throughout], comprising:
an anode; a cathode; [Jung p. 13 and throughout, teaches a positive and negative electrode throughout] and
a solid-state electrolyte disposed between the anode and the cathode [Jung p. 14 and throughout], at least one of the anode and the cathode comprising lithium [Jung p. 5 and p. 10 teach the electrode materials can be lithium and lithium metal based oxides. The broadest reasonable interpretation of Jung is that both the cathode (lithium metal oxide) and anode (lithium) can comprise lithium.], and
the solid-state electrolyte comprising lithium palladium sulfide (LPS), lithium rhodium sulfide, lithium ruthenium sulfide, lithium silver sulfide, or lithium cobalt sulfide [Jung p. 10 and throughout, formula 1, Jung formula 1 discloses lithium palladium sulfide (LPS), lithium rhodium sulfide, lithium ruthenium sulfide, lithium silver sulfide, or lithium cobalt sulfide, and thus meets the limitation].
Regarding Claim 2, Jung discloses the battery according to claim 1, the anode and the cathode both comprising lithium [Jung p. 5 and p. 10 teach the electrode materials can be lithium and lithium metal based oxides. The broadest reasonable interpretation of Jung is that both the cathode (lithium metal oxide) and anode (lithium) can comprise lithium.] .
Regarding Claim 3, Jung discloses the battery according to claim 1,the cathode comprising lithium iron phosphate (LFP) [Jung. p 11].
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.
Claim(s) 6, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung, as provided for claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 6, Jung discloses the battery according to claim 1, the solid- state electrolyte having an ionic conductivity of greater than 0.10 milliSiemens per centimeter (mS/cm) [Jung p. 8, Jung teaches an ionic conductivity of about 0.10 milliSiemens per centimeter, which overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. ].
Regarding Claim 16, Jung discloses the battery according to claim 1, the solid- state electrolyte being disposed in the form of a film with a thickness of at least from 20 nanometers (nm) to 100 micrometers (µm) [Jung p. 15, Jung teaches the thickness of a solid electrolyte layer may be 20 µm to 200 µm. which overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. ] .
Regarding Claim 20, Jung discloses a battery according to claim 1 [Jung throughout] with little change in capacity after 50 cycles [Jung p. 19] and with near theoretical capacity [Jung p. 20], but Jung does not explicitly teach the battery having higher than 50% of theoretical capacity after at least 450 1C cycles, the battery having higher than 80% of theoretical capacity after at least 200 1C cycles, and the battery having higher than 80% of theoretical capacity after at least 300 1C cycles. Since Jung teaches the battery according to claim 1, the skilled artisan would expect that Jung’s battery would inherently have the same capacity performance characteristics of higher than 50% of theoretical capacity after at least 450 1C cycles, the battery having higher than 80% of theoretical capacity after at least 200 1C cycles, and the battery having higher than 80% of theoretical capacity after at least 300 1C cycles. See MPEP 2112.01 I. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Thus, the limitations of claim 20 are met by the prior art.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung, as provided for claim 1 above, and in further view of Ota et al. [US6365300B1], hereinafter Ota.
Regarding Claim 7, Jung discloses the battery according to claim 1. Jung is silent to the battery further comprising a separator disposed between the anode and the cathode, the solid-state electrolyte comprising a film disposed as an interlayer on the separator. Ota teaches a battery with a solid electrolyte [Ota column 3 and throughout] where the solid electrolyte is disposed as a film on the microporous separator [Ota column 10, Fig. 1 and throughout, solid electrolyte 4 on separator 3], which reads on the claimed structure of an interlayer since it is a layer between the positive electrode 2 and negative electrode 5 as shown in Fig. 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Ota’s teaching about a solid electrolyte used with a separator in the battery of Jung for the predictable result of a solid state battery [Jung throughout, Ota abstract and throughout]. Further, Ota teaches the solid state battery suppresses short circuits caused by dendrites from the negative electrode [Ota abstract and throughout].
Claim(s) 106 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. KR-102090285-B1 (machine translation relied upon previously provided), dated 3/17/2020, and in further view of Ota et al. [US6365300B1], hereinafter Ota.
Regarding Claim 16, Jung discloses a battery [Jung throughout], comprising:
an anode; a cathode; an anode; a cathode; [Jung p. 13 and throughout, teaches a positive and negative electrode throughout] and
a solid-state electrolyte disposed between the anode and the cathode [Jung p. 14 and throughout], the anode and the cathode both comprising lithium [Jung p. 5 and p. 10 teach the electrode materials can be lithium and lithium metal based oxides. The broadest reasonable interpretation of Jung is that both the cathode (lithium metal oxide) and anode (lithium) can comprise lithium.], and
the solid-state electrolyte comprising lithium palladium sulfide (LPS) [Jung p. 10 and throughout, formula 1, Jung formula 1 discloses lithium palladium sulfide (LPS).],
the solid-state electrolyte having an ionic conductivity of greater than 0.10 milliSiemens per centimeter (mS/cm) [Jung p. 8, Jung teaches an ionic conductivity of about 0.10 milliSiemens per centimeter, which overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. ],
the battery being a lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery [Jung p. 7 and throughout], the solid-state electrolyte being disposed in the form of a film with a thickness of at least 20 nanometers (nm) [Jung p. 15, Jung teaches the thickness of a solid electrolyte layer may be 20 µm to 200 µm. which overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. ].
Jung does not explicitly teach a separator disposed between the anode and the cathode and the solid-state electrolyte comprising a film disposed as an interlayer on the separator. Ota teaches a battery with a solid electrolyte [Ota column 3 and throughout] where the solid electrolyte is disposed as a film on the microporous separator [Ota column 10, Fig. 1 and throughout, solid electrolyte 4 on separator 3], which reads on the claimed structure of an interlayer since it is a layer between the positive electrode 2 and negative electrode 5 as shown in Fig. 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Ota’s teaching about a solid electrolyte used with a separator in the battery of Jung for the predictable result of a solid state battery [Jung throughout, Ota abstract and throughout]. Further, Ota teaches the solid state battery suppresses short circuits caused by dendrites from the negative electrode [Ota abstract and throughout].
Jung does not explicitly teach the battery having higher than 50% of theoretical capacity after at least 450 1C cycles, the battery having higher than 80% of theoretical capacity after at least 200 1 C cycles, and the battery having higher than 80% of theoretical capacity after at least 300 1C cycles. However, Jung teaches the claimed battery with the lithium palladium sulfide solid electrolyte; thus, the skilled artisan would expect that Jung’s battery would inherently have the same capacity performance characteristics of higher than 50% of theoretical capacity after at least 450 1C cycles, the battery having higher than 80% of theoretical capacity after at least 200 1C cycles, and the battery having higher than 80% of theoretical capacity after at least 300 1C cycles. See MPEP 2112.01 I. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Thus, the limitations of claim 106 are met by the prior art.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. T. LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1681. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, Thursday 9:00-5:00 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/M. T. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights