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
The Amendment filed July 6th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-22 remain pending in the application.
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, & 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,206,065 B2), in view of Kato et al. (US 2022/0328882 A1), and further in view of Cui et al. (“Synthesis and electrochemical characteristics of NASICON-structured LiSn2(PO4)3 anode material for lithium-ion batteries”; 2012).
Regarding claim 1, Ito teaches a solid-state battery (all-solid-state battery 100), comprising: a battery body including first and second surfaces opposing in a first direction of the battery body (Fig. 2), third and fourth surfaces opposing in a second direction of the battery body (Fig. 2; battery is a six-sided prism), and fifth and sixth surfaces opposing in a third direction of the battery body (Fig. 2; battery is a six-sided prism), and having a positive electrode layer (first electrode layer 11) including a positive electrode current collector (first current collector layer 12) and a positive electrode active material layer (Column 4, lines 35-39), a solid electrolyte layer (solid electrolyte layer 30), and a negative electrode layer (second electrode layer 21) including a negative electrode current collector (second current collector layer 22) and a negative electrode active material layer (Column 5, lines 1-2); a positive terminal (terminal 71) connected to the positive electrode layer and disposed on the first surface of the battery body (Abstract; “a first extraction part exposed on the first side face”); and a negative terminal (terminal 72) connected to the negative electrode layer and disposed on the second surface of the battery body (Abstract; “a second extraction part exposed on the second side face”), wherein the positive active material layer includes lithium cobalt phosphate (Column 4, lines 35-47), wherein the solid electrolyte layer includes a lithium aluminum germanium phosphate (LAGP) solid electrolyte (Column 5, lines 19-22 & 33-35; cites formula Li1+xAlxGe2-x(PO4)3 as claimed). Ito fails to teach the negative electrode active material layer including at least one or more of lithium germanium phosphate (LGP) and lithium tin phosphate (LSP).
However, Kato teaches a negative electrode active material with a NASICON-type crystal structure composed of a compound containing a lithium-containing phosphate and an oxide containing tin (Par. 0052), paired with a solid LAGP electrolyte (Par. 0059; electrolyte material may contain Al and Ge with a lithium-containing phosphate).
Additionally, Cui teaches lithium tin phosphate (LiSn2(PO4)2) as a negative electrode active material (Section 2.4, par. 3; “electrode material powder”) with a NASICON-type crystal structure (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solid-state battery taught by Ito by incorporating a negative electrode with LSP as the active material, as taught by Kato and Cui. This would be done in order to form a lithium-phosphate matrix and improve thermal stability, as stated in Cui (Conclusion).
Regarding claim 2, modified Ito teaches the solid-state battery as stated above, wherein lithium cobalt phosphate (LCP) includes LiCoPO4 (Column 4, lines 45-47).
Regarding claim 3, modified Ito teaches the solid-state battery as stated above, wherein an average thickness of the solid electrolyte layer is in a range of 3 um to 30 um (Column 5, lines 54-56; range 1-100 um contains the claimed range).
Regarding claim 6, modified Ito fails to teach an operating voltage of the solid-state battery of 3.5V or higher.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
As claim 6 is an apparatus claim for a solid-state battery, the intended use of operating the solid-state battery at an operating voltage of 3.5 V is not distinguishable from the solid-state battery apparatus, as all claimed limitations are taught in Ito, Kato, and Cui, as stated above. Thus, claim 7 is rejected as being obvious over It, Kato, and Cui.
Regarding claim 17, Ito teaches a solid state battery (all-solid-state battery 100), comprising: a battery body including a positive electrode layer (first electrode layer 11) including a positive electrode current collector (first current collector layer 12) and a positive electrode active material layer (Column 4, lines 35-39), a negative electrode layer (second electrode layer 21) including a negative electrode current collector (second current collector layer 22) and a negative electrode active material layer (Column 5, lines 1-2), and a solid electrolyte layer (solid electrolyte layer 30) disposed between the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer (Abstract); a positive terminal (terminal 71) disposed on the battery body and connected to the positive electrode layer (Column 1, line 60 - Column 2, line 14; first electrode is connected to a first extraction part 40c, which is connected to an external electrode 40c, which is in contact with the first terminal, as stated in Column 12, lines 7-15); and a negative terminal disposed on the battery body and connected to the negative electrode layer (Column 1, line 60 - Column 2, line 14; second electrode is connected to a first extraction part 40c, which is connected to an external electrode 40b, which is in contact with the second terminal, as stated in Column 12, lines 7-15), wherein the solid electrolyte layer includes a lithium aluminum germanium phosphate solid electrolyte (Column 5, lines 19-22 & 33-35; cites formula Li1+xAlxGe2-x(PO4)3 as claimed). Ito fails to teach the negative electrode active material layer including at least one or more of lithium germanium phosphate and lithium tin phosphate.
However, Kato teaches a negative electrode active material with a NASICON-type crystal structure composed of a compound containing a lithium-containing phosphate and an oxide containing tin (Par. 0052), paired with a solid LAGP electrolyte (Par. 0059; electrolyte material may contain Al and Ge with a lithium-containing phosphate).
Additionally, Cui teaches lithium tin phosphate (LiSn2(PO4)2) as a negative electrode active material (Section 2.4, par. 3; “electrode material powder”) with a NASICON-type crystal structure (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solid-state battery taught by Ito by incorporating a negative electrode with LSP as the active material, as taught by Kato and Cui. This would be done in order to form a lithium-phosphate matrix and improve thermal stability, as stated in Cui (Conclusion).
Regarding claim 18, modified Ito teaches the solid-state battery of claim 17, wherein the positive electrode active material layer includes LiCoPO4 (Column 4, lines 45-47).
Regarding claim 19, modified Ito teaches the solid-state battery of claim 17, wherein an average thickness of the positive active material layer is 5.0 um or less (Column 4, lines 27-30; 1-100 um includes claimed thickness of 5 um)
Regarding claim 20, modified Ito teaches the solid-state battery of claim 17, wherein an average thickness of the solid electrolyte layer is in a range of 3 um to 30 um (Column 5, lines 54-56; 1-100 um includes claimed range of 3-30 um).
Claims 4-5 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito, in view of Kato and Cui, and further in view of Lee et al. (KR 20210057271 A).
Regarding claim 4, modified Ito fails to teach an average thickness of the positive active material layer which is greater than that of the negative active material layer.
However, Lee teaches a positive active material layer (positive electrode active material layers 12, 12a, and 12b) and a negative active material layer (negative electrode active material layers 22, 22a, and 22b), wherein an average thickness of the positive active material layer is greater than an average thickness of the negative active material layer (Par. 0096, lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solid-state battery taught by Ito by incorporating a positive active material layer which is thicker than the negative active material layer, as taught by Lee. This would be done to increase the energy density of the battery and to allow room for improving cycle characteristics, as stated in Lee (Par. 0096).
Regarding claim 5, modified Ito fails to teach an average thickness of the positive active material layer which is at least 2.5 times greater than that of the negative active material layer.
However, Lee teaches a positive active material layer (positive electrode active material layers 12, 12a, and 12b) and a negative active material layer (negative electrode active material layers 22, 22a, and 22b), wherein an average thickness of the positive active material layer is at least 2.5 times greater than an average thickness of the negative active material layer (Par. 0096, lines 1-2; 40%-10% or less of the thickness of the positive electrode active material layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solid-state battery taught by Ito by incorporating a positive active material layer which is at least 2.5 times thicker than the negative active material layer, as taught by Lee. This would be done to suppress lithium overcharging in the negative active material later while preserving energy density in the battery, as stated in Lee (Par. 0024, 0096).
Regarding claim 21, modified Ito fails to teach an average thickness of the positive active material layer which is greater than that of the negative active material layer.
However, Lee teaches a positive active material layer (positive electrode active material layers 12, 12a, and 12b) and a negative active material layer (negative electrode active material layers 22, 22a, and 22b), wherein an average thickness of the positive active material layer is greater than an average thickness of the negative active material layer (Par. 0096, lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solid-state battery taught by Ito by incorporating a positive active material layer which is thicker than the negative active material layer, as taught by Lee. This would be done to increase the energy density of the battery and to allow room for improving cycle characteristics, as stated in Lee (Par. 0096).
Regarding claim 22, modified Ito fails to teach an average thickness of the positive active material layer which is at least 2.5 times greater than that of the negative active material layer.
However, Lee teaches a positive active material layer (positive electrode active material layers 12, 12a, and 12b) and a negative active material layer (negative electrode active material layers 22, 22a, and 22b), wherein an average thickness of the positive active material layer is at least 2.5 times greater than an average thickness of the negative active material layer (Par. 0096, lines 1-2; 40%-10% or less of the thickness of the positive electrode active material layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solid-state battery taught by Ito by incorporating a positive active material layer which is at least 2.5 times thicker than the negative active material layer, as taught by Lee. This would be done to suppress lithium overcharging in the negative active material later while preserving energy density in the battery, as stated in Lee (Par. 0024, 0096).
Claims 7-12 & 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito.
Regarding claim 7, Ito teaches a solid-state battery (all-solid-state battery 100), comprising: a battery body including first and second surfaces opposing in a first direction of the battery body (Fig. 2), third and fourth surfaces opposing in a second direction of the battery body (Fig. 2; battery is a six-sided prism), and fifth and sixth surfaces opposing in a third direction of the battery body (Fig. 2; battery is a six-sided prism), and having a positive electrode layer (first electrode layer 11) including a positive electrode current collector (first current collector layer 12) and a positive electrode active material layer (Column 4, lines 35-39), a solid electrolyte layer (solid electrolyte layer 30), and a negative electrode layer (second electrode layer 21) including a negative electrode current collector (second current collector layer 22) and a negative electrode active material layer (Column 5, lines 1-2); a positive terminal (terminal 71) connected to the positive electrode layer and disposed on the first surface of the battery body (Abstract; “a first extraction part exposed on the first side face”); and a negative terminal (terminal 72) connected to the negative electrode layer and disposed on the second surface of the battery body (Abstract; “a second extraction part exposed on the second side face”), wherein the positive active material layer includes lithium cobalt phosphate (Column 4, lines 35-47). Ito fails to teach an operating voltage of the solid-state battery of 3.5V or higher.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
As claim 7 is an apparatus claim for a solid-state battery, the intended use of operating the solid-state battery at an operating voltage of 3.5 V is not distinguishable from the solid-state battery apparatus, as all claimed limitations are taught in Ito, as stated above. Thus, claim 7 is rejected as being obvious over Ito.
Regarding claim 8, modified Ito teaches the solid-state battery of claim 7, wherein lithium cobalt phosphate (LCP) includes LiCoPO4 (Column 4, lines 45-47).
Regarding claim 9, modified Ito teaches the solid-state battery of claim 7, wherein an average thickness of the positive active material layer is 5.0 um or less (Column 4, lines 27-30; range of 1-100 um encompasses the claimed range).
Regarding claim 10, modified Ito teaches the solid-state battery of claim 7, wherein the solid electrolyte layer includes a NASICON-type solid electrolyte (Column 5, lines 19-22).
Regarding claim 11, modified Ito teaches the solid-state battery of claim 7, wherein an average thickness of the solid electrolyte layer is in a range of 3 um to 30 um (Column 5, lines 54-56; range of 1-100 um contains the claimed range).
Regarding claim 12, modified Ito teaches the solid-state battery of claim 7, wherein the average thickness of the negative electrode active material layer is 5.0 um or less (Column 5, lines 31-34; range of 1-100 um contains the claimed range).
Regarding claim 15, modified Ito teaches the solid-state battery of claim 7, wherein the battery body includes a plurality of the positive electrode layers and a plurality of the negative electrode layers (Fig. 3; Column 1, lines 44-52).
Regarding claim 16, modified Ito teaches the solid-state battery of claim 15, wherein the plurality of the positive electrode layers and the plurality of the negative electrode layers are alternately stacked (Fig. 3; Column 1, lines 44-52, “alternatively stacked”).
Claims 13 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito, further in view of Lee et al.
Regarding claim 13, modified Ito fails to teach an average thickness of the positive active material layer which is greater than that of the negative active material layer.
However, Lee teaches a positive active material layer (positive electrode active material layers 12, 12a, and 12b) and a negative active material layer (negative electrode active material layers 22, 22a, and 22b), wherein an average thickness of the positive active material layer is greater than an average thickness of the negative active material layer (Par. 0096, lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solid-state battery taught by Ito by incorporating a positive active material layer which is thicker than the negative active material layer, as taught by Lee. This would be done to increase the energy density of the battery and to allow room for improving cycle characteristics, as stated in Lee (Par. 0096).
Regarding claim 14, modified Ito fails to teach an average thickness of the positive active material layer which is at least 2.5 times greater than that of the negative active material layer.
However, Lee teaches a positive active material layer (positive electrode active material layers 12, 12a, and 12b) and a negative active material layer (negative electrode active material layers 22, 22a, and 22b), wherein an average thickness of the positive active material layer is at least 2.5 times greater than an average thickness of the negative active material layer (Par. 0096, lines 1-2; 40%-10% or less of the thickness of the positive electrode active material layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solid-state battery taught by Ito by incorporating a positive active material layer which is at least 2.5 times thicker than the negative active material layer, as taught by Lee. This would be done to suppress lithium overcharging in the negative active material later while preserving energy density in the battery, as stated in Lee (Par. 0024, 0096).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 6 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-3, 6, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Ito, in view of Kato and Cui, Applicant argues that none of the cited references teaches LGP as a negative electrode active material with a NASICON-type crystal structure. However, as stated in the previous rejection of record, Cui teaches a negative electrode active material of lithium tin phosphate (LSP) with a NASICON-type crystal structure, with a motivation to improve thermal stability and to form a lithium-phosphate matrix. Thus, it is the Examiner’s position that these limitations are met by the previous rejection of record. Additionally, Applicant argues that the Examiner involved impermissible hindsight in the previous rejection of record, as Ito does not express motivation to make the combination of Ito and Cui. However, the references must be considered as a whole, rather than individually. As stated in the previous rejection of record, Cui provides an improvement in thermal stability (Section 3.4) and formation of a lithium-phosphate matrix (Section 3.2, Par. 2; “the formation of Li3PO4”) as motivation to combine Ito and Cui. Thus, it is the Examiner’s position that the previous rejection of record meets all claimed limitations, and Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 7-12, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Ito, and claims 13 and 14 over Ito in view of Lee, Applicant argues that the limitation of the battery’s operating voltage is not solely a statement of intended use. Applicant additionally argues that their Amendment to claim 7 states that the operating voltage is a characteristic of the solid-state battery, not a statement of intended use. However, the limitation of an operating voltage represents the voltage which is present while the device is actively operating, thus, the battery is intended to be used at the claimed operating voltage of 3.5 V or higher. As the intended use of operating the solid-state battery at this operating voltage is not distinguishable from the solid-state battery apparatus, the limitation does not distinguish the solid-state battery from the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fujii et al. (US 2020/0381775 A1) teaches a solid-state battery including an LCP positive active material layer, an LAGP solid electrolyte layer (Par. 0044). Fujii fails to teach an LGP or LSP negative active material layer, rather teaching the compounds in Table 1.
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 CAMERON M BAIRD whose telephone number is (571)272-9742. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/CAMERON M BAIRD/ Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights