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 with traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 02/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the Species A designated by the examiner, embodiment in Fig. 1 of the instant, is generic and therefore cannot be a species. This is not found persuasive because Species A is not generic. Species A, shown in Fig. 1, has the modified electrolyte layer (120) directly contacting the negative electrode active material (104). However, in Species D, the modified electrolyte layer (120) is not in direct contact with the negative electrode active material (204). Furthermore, in the specification, the applicant designates Fig. 1 as “an ASSB cell” [0008], and all other figures as “another ASSB cell with another embodiment” [0009-0012], which adds additional evidence to the examiner’s conclusion. This means that Species A is not generic. As a result, the examiner maintains that Species A is a species, and the examiner will not be examining claims 7-10, 15, or 19-20, which the applicant has designated as being drawn to Species B-E, because only one species may be elected.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 19, and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 02/23/2026.
Claims 1-6, 11-14, 16-18 are under examination.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in Paragraph 14, "that" should read "than".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 16, as well as their dependents 2-6 and 17-18, respectively, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “each solid electrolyte particle” on line 11 creates indefiniteness because it is unclear if this is a different solid electrolyte particle from that of line 8 or the same. A revision as follows would remove the indefiniteness: “each of the solid electrolyte particles”. The examiner also recommends the phrase “each solid electrolyte particle” be modified similarly to “each of the solid electrolyte particles” to further avoid indefiniteness.
Claims 2-6 are rejected because they depend on claim 1 which has been rejected as explained above.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase “lithium metal” in the second to last line of claim 16 lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected based on their dependence on claim 16, which is rejected as explained above.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “in the pores of the solid electrolyte particles” is being interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation that any coating on the electrolyte particles is necessarily “in” the pores because the surface of the pores are necessarily a part of the surface of the electrolyte particle.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “impregnated in the pores of the solid electrolyte particles in the first layer” is being interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation that any coating on the electrolyte particles is necessarily “impregnated in” the pores because the surface of the pores are necessarily a part of the surface of the electrolyte particle.
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.
Claims 1-4, 11, 12, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP-3407413-A1, Lee, in view of CN-115548431-A, Bai
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches an all-solid-state battery cell (Fig. 2A [0155] “a solid electrolyte”) comprising:
a cathode current collector ([0183]);
cathode active material adjacent the cathode current collector ([00183]);
an anode current collector ([0191] “substantially same manner as…”;
lithium metal adjacent the anode current collector ([0195]); and
a modified electrolyte layer (Fig. 2A, 23) between the lithium metal and the cathode active material (Fig. 2A, 23), the modified electrolyte layer comprising:
solid electrolyte particles ([0131]);
a solid cross-linked polymer (Lee, [0266], step [1]) formed from a gel prepolymer ([0266], step [2]) that is polymerized ([0266], step [14]), forming a coating on an exterior of each solid electrolyte particle ([266, step [13], including a solid electrolyte necessarily means that it will be coated in the polymer); and
an anode barrier layer [0157] comprising the solid cross-linked polymer adjacent the lithium metal [0157].
Additionally, Lee teaches the solid electrolyte particles may comprise LATP ([0131], line 2, (Na,Li)1+xTi2-xAlx(PO4)3.).
Lee does not teach each solid electrolyte particle has pores with the solid cross-linked polymer in the pores of the solid electrolyte.
However, Bai teaches a solid electrolyte core shell structure [n0011] comprising a porous outer shell formed from an oxide electrolyte material [n0010]. The outer shell protects the sulfide core from contacting air and degrading during manufacturing while maintaining high ionic conductivity [n0011]. Furthermore, Bai teaches the oxide electrolyte material may comprise a mixture of LLZTO and LATP [n0019].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to replace the LATP solid electrolyte particles of Lee with the core shell solid electrolyte of Bai to improve ease of manufacture while maintaining high ionic conductivity. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable chance of success in doing so because both Lee and Bai teach the solid electrolyte may comprise LATP, meaning it is a compatible material in the design of Lee.
Doing so would mean that the particles of Modified Lee have pores.
Furthermore, the polymer of Modified Lee would still form a coating on the exterior of the solid electrolyte particles, which reads on the limitation “solid cross-linked polymer in the pores of the solid electrolyte” of the instant claim 1 because the pores are still a part of the exterior.
Regarding claim 2, Modified Lee teaches the gel prepolymer comprises a methacrylate monomer (Lee, [0266], step [9], vi)
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Modified Lee teaches the methacrylate monomer is polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane-methacrylate (POSS-MA) (Lee, [0266], step [9], vi, “polyhedral oligomeric silsequioxane with an acrylate group), which contains silicon.
Regarding claim 11, Modified Lee teaches a modified electrolyte layer (Lee, 2A, 23) for an all-solid-state battery cell (Lee,[0155] “a solid electrolyte”), the modified electrolyte layer comprising:
a first layer (Lee, Fig.2A, 23) comprising solid electrolyte particles (Lee, [0131]) and a solid cross-linked polymer (Lee, [0266], step [1]) formed from a gel prepolymer (Lee, [0266], step [2]) that is polymerized (Lee, [0266], step [14]); and
a second layer (Lee, [0157]) comprising the solid cross-linked polymer as an anode barrier layer (Lee, [0157]) on a surface of the first layer configured to face a lithium anode (Lee, [0157]).
Additionally, Lee teaches the solid electrolyte particles may comprise LATP ([0131], line 2, (Na,Li)1+xTi2-xAlx(PO4)3.).
Lee does not teach each solid electrolyte particle has pores with the solid cross-linked polymer in the pores of the solid electrolyte.
However, Bai teaches a solid electrolyte core shell structure [n0011] comprising a porous outer shell formed from an oxide electrolyte material [n0010]. The outer shell protects the sulfide core from contacting air and degrading during manufacturing while maintaining high ionic conductivity [n0011]. Furthermore, Bai teaches the oxide electrolyte material may comprise a mixture of LLZTO and LATP [n0019].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to replace the LATP solid electrolyte particles of Lee with the core shell solid electrolyte of Bai to improve ease of manufacture while maintaining high ionic conductivity. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable chance of success in doing so because both Lee and Bai teach the solid electrolyte may comprise LATP, meaning it is a compatible material in the design of Lee.
Doing so would mean that the particles of Modified Lee have pores.
Furthermore, the polymer of Modified Lee would still form a coating on the exterior of the solid electrolyte particles, which reads on the limitation “solid cross-linked polymer is impregnated in pores of the solid electrolyte particles in the first layer” of the instant claim 11 because the pores are still a part of the exterior.
Regarding claim 12, Modified Lee teaches the methacrylate monomer is polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane-methacrylate (POSS-MA) (Lee, [0266], step [9], vi, “polyhedral oligomeric silsequioxane with an acrylate group).
Regarding claim 16, Modified Lee teaches an all-solid-state battery cell (Lee, Fig. 2A [0155] “a solid electrolyte”), comprising:
a cathode (Lee, Fig. 2A, 21);
a lithium metal anode (Lee, Fig. 2A, 22); and
a modified electrolyte layer between the lithium metal anode and the cathode (Lee, Fig. 2A, 23), the modified electrolyte layer comprising:
solid electrolyte particles (Lee, [0131]); and
a solid cross-linked polymer (Lee, [0266], step [1]) formed from a gel prepolymer ([0266], step [2]) that is polymerized ([0266], step [14]),
Additionally, Lee teaches the solid electrolyte particles may comprise LATP ([0131], line 2, (Na,Li)1+xTi2-xAlx(PO4)3.).
Lee does not teach each solid electrolyte particle has pores with the solid cross-linked polymer in the pores of the solid electrolyte.
However, Bai teaches a solid electrolyte core shell structure [n0011] comprising a porous outer shell formed from an oxide electrolyte material [n0010]. The outer shell protects the sulfide core from contacting air and degrading during manufacturing while maintaining high ionic conductivity [n0011]. Furthermore, Bai teaches the oxide electrolyte material may comprise a mixture of LLZTO and LATP [n0019].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to replace the LATP solid electrolyte particles of Lee with the core shell solid electrolyte of Bai to improve ease of manufacture while maintaining high ionic conductivity. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable chance of success in doing so because both Lee and Bai teach the solid electrolyte may comprise LATP, meaning it is a compatible material in the design of Lee.
Doing so would mean that the particles of Modified Lee have pores.
Furthermore, the polymer of Modified Lee would still form a coating on the exterior of the solid electrolyte particles, which reads on the limitation “solid cross-linked polymer impregnated in pores of the solid electrolyte particles” of the instant claim 16 because the pores are still a part of the exterior.
Modified Lee teaches the solid cross-linked polymer is a physical barrier between lithium metal and the solid electrolyte particles, because it coats the particles and necessarily comes in between them and the lithium metal.
Modified Lee does not teach the solid cross-linked polymer has a lower lithium ion conductivity than the solid electrolyte particles.
However, Modified Lee teaches the same cross-linked polymer and solid electrolyte particles as that of the instant (instant claims POSS-MA, teaches solid electrolyte particles may be LLZO [0021]).
Therefore, the solid cross-linked polymer of Modified Lee must have lower lithium ion conductivity than the solid electrolyte particles, because the relative relationship of the lithium ion conductivity of two sets of identical materials is the same.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Modified Lee teaches the methacrylate monomer is polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane-methacrylate (POSS-MA) (Lee, [0266], step [9], vi, “polyhedral oligomeric silsequioxane with an acrylate group), which contains silicon.
Claims 5, 6, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP-3407413-A1, Lee, in view of CN-115548431-A, Bai, and in further view of EP-3136475-A1, Ryu.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Modified Lee does not teach the gel prepolymer further comprises a stable radical for electronic conductivity, nor that the stable radical is a nitroxide radical.
However, Ryu teaches a lithium metal battery (Abstract) with an additive comprising TEMPO [0032]. The additive is included because it decreases interfacial resistance between the surface of the lithium metal anode and the protective layer and improves lithium ion mobility [0034]. Ryu also teaches an anode protective layer comprising a polymer which may be POSS with an acryl group ([0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to add the TEMPO additive of Ryu to the gel prepolymer of Modified Lee to achieve the benefit of decreasing interfacial resistance between the lithium metal anode and the polymerized gel prepolymer. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention
would have had a reasonable expectation that the TEMPO would perform the same in Modified Lee because POSS-MA was an option for the polymer of Ryu.
TEMPO comprises a stable nitroxide radical as well as a stable radical, therefore 2nd Modified Lee teaches all of the requirements of claims 5 and 6.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, 2nd Modified Lee teaches a stable radical which comprises a nitroxide radical as explained in the rejection of claims 5 and 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI whose telephone number is (571)272-6917. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M..
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721