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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2022-0166611, filed on 12/02/2022.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (Claims 1-12 drawn to an all-solid-state battery) in the reply filed on 05/15/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 13-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II (drawn to method of manufacturing an all-solid state battery), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/15/2026.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/132,811 to Kang et al. (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 7 and 9 under examination are anticipated, respectively, by claims 1, 13 and 5 of the reference patent. Every limitation in the application under examination claims is recited in the conflicting reference patent claims, and the differences between the claims are highlighted below by bolding all limitations that differ, italicizing additional limitations, and underlining limitations that will be addressed below.
Application claim 1 is anticipated by copending claim 1 of Kang et al.
Instant Application 18/355,158
Copending Application 18/132,811
An all-solid-state battery comprising:
an anode current collector;
a buffer layer disposed on the anode current collector;
a solid electrolyte layer disposed on the buffer layer and comprising a solid electrolyte;
a cathode active material layer disposed on the solid electrolyte layer; and
a cathode current collector disposed on the cathode active material layer, wherein the buffer layer comprises:
a first layer disposed on the anode current collector and comprising an electrically conductive material; and
a second layer disposed on the first layer and comprising a metal capable of alloying with lithium.
An all-solid-state battery, comprising:
an anode current collector;
a buffer layer disposed on the anode current collector, wherein the buffer layer is porous and has elasticity and the buffer layer comprises an electrically conductive material;
an intermediate layer disposed on the buffer layer and comprising a carbon material and a metal capable of alloying with lithium;
a solid electrolyte layer disposed on the intermediate layer;
a cathode active material layer disposed on the solid electrolyte layer;
and a cathode current collector disposed on the cathode active material layer.
The all-solid-state battery of claim 1, wherein the metal comprises at least one of magnesium (Mg), silver (Ag), zinc (Zn), gold (Au) or any combination thereof.
The all-solid-state battery of claim 1, wherein the metal capable of alloying with lithium comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of gold (Au), platinum (Pt), palladium (Pd), silicon (Si), silver (Ag), aluminum (Al), bismuth (Bi), tin (Sn), zinc (Zn), and magnesium (Mg).
The all-solid-state battery of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the buffer layer is 1 μm to 50 μm.
The all-solid-state battery of claim 1, wherein, when a capacity of the all-solid- state battery is about or greater than about 1 mAh/cm2 but less than about 3 mAh/cm2, a thickness of the buffer layer is about 12 pm to 30 pm.
Claim 1
As shown in the mapping above, claim 1 of the reference application includes all the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application, while also reciting further limitations. However, claim 1 of the instant application differs from claim 1 of the reference application in that it recites a “first layer” and “second layer” as components of the “buffer layer” rather than only a “buffer layer” and an “intermediate layer”. However, the instant disclosure shows that the “first layer” and “second layer” fall within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “buffer layer” and “intermediate layer,” respectively. Thus, the “buffer layer” and “intermediate layer” of the reference application claim 1 anticipates the “first layer” and “second layer” of claim 1 of the instant application.
Claim 7
As shown in the mapping above, claim 13 of the reference application includes all the limitations of claim 7 of the instant application, while also reciting further limitations. However, claim 7 of the instant application differs from claim 13 of the reference application in that it recites a “the metal” instead of “the metal capable of allowing with lithium”. However, claim 1 in the instant disclosure shows that the “the metal” refers to a ”metal capable of alloying with lithium” and it falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “the metal capable of alloying with lithium” in the reference. Thus, the “the metal capable of allowing with lithium” of the reference application claim 13 anticipates the “metal” of claim 7 of the instant application. Further, “or any combination thereof” in claim 1 of the instant application is an optional limitation, and not considered in claim 13 of the reference application.
Claim 9
As shown in the mapping above, claim 9 of the reference application includes all the limitations of claim 5 of the instant application, while also reciting further limitations.
Therefore, copending application claims 1, 13 and 5 of Kang et al. are in essence a “species” of the generic invention of instant claims 1, 7 and 9 respectively. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Drawings
The drawings received on 07/19/2023 were reviewed and are acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 07/19/2023 was reviewed and is acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the metal” in line 1, and should be replaced with “the metal capable of alloying with lithium.”
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2020/0144599 A1, hereinafter "Lee"), in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0280853 A1; hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses an all-solid-state battery [0010] comprising: an anode current collector [0008]; a buffer layer disposed on the anode current collector (anodeless coating layer on the anode current collector; [0008]; and a thin film 24 may be formed on the anode current collector; [0088]); a solid electrolyte layer disposed on the buffer layer and comprising a solid electrolyte (a solid electrolyte disposed between the cathode active material layer and the anodeless coating layer; [0008]); a cathode active material layer disposed on the solid electrolyte layer [0008]; and a cathode current collector disposed on the cathode active material layer [0008], wherein the buffer layer comprises: a first layer (anodeless coating layer) disposed on the anode current collector [0008] and comprising an electrically conductive material (anodeless coating layer 16 may include, for example, metal or semiconductor 14 such as silicon, and carbon 15, each of which are surrounded by or embedded in a conductive binder 13; [0086]); and a second layer (thin film; [0088]) and comprising a metal capable of alloying with lithium (the thin film 24 may include an element alloyable with lithium; [0088]).
Lee does not explicitly disclose a buffer layer that contains two layers, but rather two layers in contact with each other (the thin film may be disposed between the anode current collector and the anodeless coating layer; [0048]), however it is assumed that the buffer layer is comprised of two layers and the disclosed layers read on the claimed limitation.
Lee fails to disclose that the second layer is disposed on the first layer.
However, Kim teaches a contact layer disposed between the second anode active material layer (claimed first layer) and the solid electrolyte layer [0018].
Lee and Kim are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely solid-state batteries.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to place the second layer of the buffer layer (thin film in prior art) on the first layer with the reasonable expectation that doing so would improve an interface adhesive strength between the anode layer and the solid electrolyte layer [0130], as suggested by Kim.
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above.
Lee further discloses that the first layer further comprises a binder (the anodeless coating layer 22 may further include, in addition to the block copolymer, a second binder; [0098]) wherein the binder comprises at least one of styrene butadiene rubber, carboxymethyl cellulose, polyvinylidene fluoride or any combination thereof (such as styrene butadiene rubber (SBR), polytetrafluoroethylene, polyvinylidene fluoride, polyethylene, and the like; [0098]).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above.
Lee further discloses that the metal comprises at least one of magnesium (Mg), silver (Ag), zinc (Zn), gold (Au) or any combination thereof (the thin film 24 may include an element alloyable with lithium. Examples of an element alloyable with lithium include gold (Au), silver (Ag), zinc (Zn), tin (Sn), indium (In), silicon (Si), aluminum (Al), or bismuth (Bi); [0088]).
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above.
Lee further discloses that a thickness of the thin film (claimed second layer) may be in a range of about 1 nanometer (nm) to about 500 nm, or in a range of about 50 nanometer to about 300 nm [0048], and therefore does not explicitly disclose an amount from 100 nm to 1,000 nm.
However, before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges (50 nm to about 300 nm significantly overlaps 100 nm to 1,000 nm) because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above.
Lee further discloses that a thickness of the anodeless coating layer (claimed first layer) may be in a range of about 1 μm to about 20 μm [0087]. Adding the thickness range disclosed for the thin film of 0.05 μm (50 nm) to 0.3 μm (300 nm) to the thickness of the anodeless coating layer, the sum of the thickness of both layer is a thickness range of 1.05 μm to 20.3 μm. The claimed thickness of the buffer layer is 1 μm to 50 μm, therefore the disclosed thickness range reads on the claimed range limitation.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above.
With respect to the limitations wherein an indentation depth of the buffer layer is 100 nm to 300 nm based on an indentation load of 0.07 mN and wherein a restoration ratio of the buffer layer calculated by an equation
Restoration Ratio (%) = Restoration Depth/Indentation Depth×100,
is 50% to 99%; it is submitted that such limitations are simply measurements of, and thus descriptions of, inherent properties of the recited buffer layer.
Applicant discloses a correlation between the ductility of the buffer layer and the indentation depth, and between the elasticity of the buffer layer and the restoration ratio (see Instant Specification [0079] and [0080] respectively).
Accordingly, it is reasonably interpreted that elasticity and ductility are critical to the recited restoration ratio and indentation depth, such that it would fulfill the recited measurements and necessarily possess the inherent properties.
Modified Lee discloses the combination of the coating layer and thin film having the same properties as the claimed buffer layer.
It is submitted that the combination of the coating layer and thin film is substantially similar to the instant buffer layer such that the combination would reasonably possess the same properties and exhibit the same results.
Therefore, based upon such substantial similarities, it appears reasonable that the buffer would inherently possess physical properties, e.g. indentation depth on an indentation load of 0.07mN or restoration ratio, such that the disclosed combination of coating layer and thin film would necessarily fulfill the recited limitations, i.e. indentation depth on an indentation load of 0.07mN or restoration ratio.
Assuming, arguendo, that such properties are not inherent, it is submitted that at the time of the effective filing date, one having ordinary skill in the art would find such properties obvious over the indentation depth and restoration ratio of the buffer layer. The skilled artisan would reasonably find that the disclosed combination of layers is so similar to the instant buffer layer, that the prior art layer combination would also exhibit the same indentation depth and restoration ratio.
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 (see MPEP 2112.01 (I)).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2020/0144599 A1, hereinafter "Lee"), in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0280853 A1; hereinafter “Kim”), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kugler et al. (WO 2021069904 A2, hereinafter “Kugler”).
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above.
Lee fails to disclose the all-solid-state battery of claim 1, wherein electrical conductivity of the first layer is 0.1 S/m to 10 S/m.
Kugler teaches an anode protection layer that has an electrical conductivity of less than 1 S/cm (100 S/m) [Page 2, line 18], and therefore does not explicitly disclose a range of 0.1 S/m to 10 S/m.
Lee and Kugler are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely secondary lithium batteries.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the first layer of the battery disclosed by Lee must necessarily be electrically conductive and it should be less than 100 S/m, as explicitly shown by Kugler, and would thus reasonably understand that such an electrical conductivity must necessarily be at a range less than 100 S/m, in order to be in electrical contact with the anode current collector, and would thus find it obvious to routinely select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges (less than 100 S/m overlaps 0.1 S/m to 10 S/m) because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Claim(s) 3-5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2020/0144599 A1, hereinafter "Lee"), in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0280853 A1; hereinafter “Kim”), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Shi et al. (“Conducting and Lithiophilic MXene/Graphene Framework for High-Capacity, Dendrite-Free Lithium−Metal Anodes”, hereinafter “Shi”)
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above.
Lee fails to disclose the all-solid-state battery of claim 1, wherein the electrically conductive material comprises a MXene and a carbon material; wherein the carbon material comprises at least one of graphene, graphene oxide, reduced graphene oxide or any combination thereof.
Shi teaches a highly conductive, lithiophilic, and lightweight MXene/graphene (MG) framework [page 14310, par. 2] and layer-stacked MGO (Mxene-Graphene oxide) films [page 14310, par. 3] and the use of the invention in an anode for high-density batteries [Abstract].
Lee and Shi are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely lithium batteries.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to comprise a Mxene and graphene or graphene oxide (carbon material), as the electrically conductive material of the first layer with the reasonable expectation that doing so would ensure an efficient encapsulation of Li-induced volume change, and improve the current density of the anode electrode [page 14315, par. 3], as suggested by Shi.
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above.
Lee fails to disclose the all-solid-state battery of claim 3, wherein the first layer comprises the MXene and the carbon material in a mass ratio of 10:90 to 90:10.
Shi teaches a ratio of GO (graphene oxide) to MXene of 3:1 (75:25) was selected as the optimized condition [Page 14313, par. 1], and therefore the amount disclosed is within the claimed range.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a mass ratio of 10:90 to 90:10 of MXene and carbon material in the first layer with the reasonable expectation that doing so would attain higher and more stable Coulombic efficiencies as well as longer lifespans during the cycling performance [Page 14313, par. 1], as suggested by Shi.
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above.
Lee fails to disclose the all-solid-state battery of claim 1, wherein, when the all-solid-state battery is charged at a current density of 1 mA·cm-2 under conditions of a temperature of 15 °C to 25 °C and a pressure of 1 MPa to 10 MPa, overvoltage does not occur or overvoltage equal to or less than 50 mV occurs.
Shi teaches a MG-Li electrode that displays an outstanding cycling stability (500 h with a voltage plateau of 18 mV) in a highly active Li-ion battery-based carbonyl electrolyte at a current density of 1 mA·cm-2 (1 mAh cm−2, see Figure S21), [ Page 14313, par. 2]; therefore, the disclosed results read on the claimed parameters. The examiner acknowledges that the temperature and pressure conditions are not specifically disclosed; however, it is assumed that they were done at room temperature, and atmospheric pressure (0.1 MPa), and that the pressure difference with the claimed pressure is negligible.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to charge the disclosed battery at a current density of 1 mA·cm-2 under the claimed conditions; wherein overvoltage does not occur or overvoltage equal to or less than 50 mV occurs. Doing so would result in the battery displaying an outstanding cycling stability [Page 14313, par. 2], as suggested by Shi.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ogata et al. (US 11069897 B2) discloses an anode-free solid-state battery with a decrease in the amount of swelling within the battery cell.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA N LIZARAZU whose telephone number is (571)272-9697. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-5:30pm.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 5712703879. 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.
/J.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights