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
An interview was conducted on June 24, 2026 to discuss proposed amendments. The amendment filed June 26th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-12,15-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 13-14 have been cancelled. Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 9, 12, 15-17 have been amended. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on March 27th 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein first dry process electrode layer comprises a cathode electrode, and wherein the second dry process electrode layer comprises an anode electrode layer” to specify the arrangement of elements. Since the two electrodes are arranged with only one layer in-between, the terms “first” and “second” designations are interchangeable, such that the broadest interpretation of the limitation is interpreted as “one of the electrodes is a cathode and the other electrode is an anode”.
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.
Claims 1-3, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2020/0028156) and further in view of Mitchell et al. (US 6007588 A) and Singhal et al. (US 2023/0361298 A1).
Claim 1: Zhang teaches a method for preparing an electrolyte layer supported by a dry process electrode layer [0008], the method comprising:
providing a stand-alone solid state electrolyte film (3) (Fig. 1) comprising sulfide electrolyte material (i.e. sulfide electrolyte layer) [0008, 0010, 0055, 0060];
providing an electrode film (2) (Fig. 1) (i.e. first dry process electrode layer) [0008, 0060];
arranging a first side of the sulfide electrolyte layer adjacent to a first side of the first dry process electrode layer (Fig. 1); and calendering the sulfide electrolyte layer and the first dry process electrode layer (Figs 5A and 5B) [0053] to compress (i.e. reduce the thickness of) the sulfide electrolyte layer [0008, 0060] to a predetermined thickness between 10 micrometers (µm) to100 µm [0058]).
Zhang teaches attaching the sulfide electrolyte layer and the first dry process electrode layer to a current collector [0084]. Zhang does not teach using an electrically conductive adhesive in this process. However, Mitchell teaches a method of attaching an electrode to a current collector using an electrically conductive polymeric adhesive disposed between the two layers which improves the adhesion of the composite electrode to the current collector which in turn improves cell life cycle (abstract, Col 2 lines 7-25, Col 3 lines 55-67), wherein the thickness of the adhesive layer is in the range 0.25 µm to 250 µm (Col 4, lines 5-9);
and the conductive polymeric adhesive comprises conductive carbon material (i.e., filler) that improves the electrical conductivity of the polymeric, wherein the conductive polymer contains 10% to 40% of the conductive filler (Col 4 lines 10-15).
Zhang does not teach a metal powder in an electrically conductive adhesive. However, Singhal teaches assembly of a carbon based electrode by a rolling process [0020] wherein the carbon-based electrode is attached to the current collector using an electrically conductive polymer adhesive comprising electrically conductive epoxy and silver paste to enhance bonding between the current collector and the carbon felt electrodes [0017, 0031].
Zhang does not explicitly teach a sulfide electrolyte layer with a thickness in the range of 5-50 µm, and Mitchell does not identically teach the thickness of the adhesive layer in range 0.5 µm to 20 µm. However, they teach ranges overlapping with the desired and operative ranges of thickness. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention to have prepared Zhang’s dry electrode by attaching the electrode layer with a thickness between 10 µm and 50 µm to a current collector using a conductive polymeric adhesive with a thickness between 0.5 to 20 µm, comprising silver and 40 wt % of an adhesive filler to improve the life cycle of the battery by enhancing the adhesion of the dry process electrode layer to the current collector.
Claim 2: Zhang teaches providing the sulfide electrolyte layer comprises:
preparing a mixture of a sulfide electrolyte and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) binder to create the sulfide electrolyte layer; and calendering the mixture one or more times to reduce a thickness of the sulfide electrolyte layer [0057].
Claim 3: Zhang teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the sulfide electrolyte comprises 75wt% to 99 wt% and the PTFE binder comprises 1wt% to 25wt% of the sulfide electrolyte layer [0057].
Claims 15-16: As described above, Zhang in combination with Singhal teach a conductive polymer adhesive comprising an epoxy polymer and a conductive filler comprising a metal powder, silver paste.
Claim 17: Zhang teaches a cathode electrode film acting as a substrate for the solid electrolyte layer [0088]. Zhang does not explicitly teach a layer on the other side of the electrolyte layer can also serve as a substrate. However, in the multi-layer embodiment wherein the solid electrolyte layer (3b) is arranged between the anode (20b) electrode and the cathode electrode (2b) (Fig. 7), the anode also serves as a substrate.
Claims 19-20: Zhang ‘156 teaches directly attaching one side the dry process cathode electrode layer to one side of a current collector (Fig. 7) [0087]. Zhang ‘156 does not teach using an electrically conductive adhesive in this process or attaching electrodes on both sides of the current collector. However, Mitchell teaches a method of preparing a solid electrochemical cell comprising coating the anode current collector with an electrically conductive polymeric adhesive (Col 4 lines 10-15) on both sides (Col 10 lines 27-31);
attaching dried slurry anode films on each side of the current collector (Col 10 lines 57-64, Col 11 lines 22-29);
coating both sides of the cathode current collector with conductive polymeric adhesive (Col 11 lines 1-3);
attaching dried slurry cathode films to each side of the cathode current collector (Col 11 lines 15-29);
and positioning a solid polymeric matrix electrolyte between the anode and the cathode (Col 11 lines 31-35).
Mitchel further teaches the layer of electrically conductive polymeric adhesive material significantly improves the adhesion of the current collector to the composite electrode which results in a reduction in impedance for the electrochemical cell and ensures the electrodes remain permanently attached (Col 3 lines 3-24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to have assembled Zhang’s dry process electrodes and a current collector by attaching electrode films on both sides of the current collector with electrically conductive adhesive because Mitchell teaches such is an operable battery cell electrode assembly with enhanced adhesion of electrodes to the current collector and, which in turn promotes efficiency and durability of the battery.
Claims 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang ‘156, Mitchell et al. (US 6007588 A) and Singhal et al. (US 2023/0361298 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhong (WO 2023/055644).
Claim 4: Zhang ‘156 teaches the first dry process electrode layer comprises: a mixture of a sulfide electrolyte, Li2S-P2S5 (LPS) [0063], active material [0063], and PTFE binder [0066]. Zhang ‘156 does not explicitly teach a conductive additive in the composite electrode. However, Zhong ‘644 teaches a composite dry process electrode layer comprising a mixture of an electrolyte [0012, 0017], active material [0046], PTFE binder [0047] and a conductive additive [0046]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention to add a conductive additive to Zhang ‘156’s composite dry process electrode mixture to enhance the electrode’s conductivity and performance.
Claim 5: Zhang ‘156 teaches the active material is predominant in composite dry process electrode layer [0063]. Zhang ‘156 does not explicitly teach the relative concentrations of the sulfide electrolyte, active material, conductive additive, and PTFE binder in the sulfide electrode layer. However, Zhong ‘644 teaches that the electrode may contain 5wt% to 30wt% of the solid electrolyte [0012], 82wt% to 99wt% of the active material [0046], 0wt% to 10wt% of the conductive additive [0046]. Zhong ‘644 does not explicitly teach the relative weight of PTFE binder. However, based on the information above, the binder may be present greater than 0wt% and less than or equal to 10wt%. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to have made a sulfide electrode by Zhang ‘156 comprising contain 5wt% of the solid electrolyte, 90wt% of the active material, 4wt% of the conductive additive and 1wt% of the PTFE binder because Zhong ‘644 teaches that such a mixture makes a functional electrode.
Claim 6: Zhang ‘156 teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the active material comprises cathode active material layer [0061].
Claim 7: Zhang ‘156 teaches active materials including lithium cobalt oxide [0062].
Claims 8-9: Zhang ‘156 teaches sulfide dry process electrodes [0008, 0060]. Zhang ‘156 does not explicitly teach dry process anode electrodes. However, Zhong ‘644 teaches a dry process anode electrode comprising anode active material, graphite [0046]. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to have made a sulfide dry process anode electrode by Zhang ‘156’s process, wherein the electrode comprises graphite active material, because Zhong ‘644 teaches that such is an operative electrode.
Claim 10: Zhang ‘156 teaches pseudoquaternary sulfide Li2S-P2S5 [0051, 0055].
Claim 11: Zhang ‘156 teaches composite electrode active material composition [0064, 0063]. Zhang ‘156 does not explicitly teach a conductive additive in the electrode composite. Zhong ‘644 teaches the use of carbon black as a conductive additive. [0046]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention to add carbon black to Zhang ‘156’s composite dry process electrode mixture to enhance conductivity and performance of the electrode.
Claim 12: Zhang ‘156 teaches arranging a solid sulfide electrolyte layer between a dry process cathode electrode and a Li metal anode [0089, 0103]. Zhang ‘156 does not teach a method of preparing an electrolyte supported by dry process anode electrodes. However, Zhong '644 teaches arranging a second dry process electrode layer adjacent to a second side of the sulfide electrolyte layer, wherein the first dry process electrode layer comprises a cathode electrode layer, and wherein the second dry process electrode layer comprises an anode electrode layer [0036]. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to substitute the Li anode electrode in Zhang ‘156’s arrangement with a dry process anode to enhance mechanical strength and adhesion to the anode current collector.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang ‘156, Mitchell et al. (US 6007588 A) and Singhal et al. (US 2023/0361298 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gotlib et al. (US 20180175355).
Claim 18: Zhang ‘156 does not teach using polyethylene terephthalate (PET) as the substrate. However, Gotlib teaches battery systems comprising of PET separators (75) [0042, 0071] arranged between anode (95A) and cathode (95B) electrodes (Figs. 1C and 2) [0053], and the use liquid or polymeric solid electrolytes [0055]. Gotlib does not explicitly teach the arrangement of a solid electrolyte, however, if a solid was part of this assembly, it would have to be arranged between the PET separators and each electrode, such that the PET separator serves as a substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to have arranged a PET substrate adjacent to the solid sulfide electrolyte disposed in an electrode in Zhang’s method because Gotlib teaches that such is an operative configuration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2026 have been fully considered in view of the amendment to claim 1.
The current amendments overcome prior rejection but they do not overcome the current rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.13t6(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 LINAH RUSERE whose telephone number is (571)272-9954. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/L.N.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1712
/MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights