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 .
Summary
This is a non-final office action for application 18/360,086 filed on 07/27/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, claims 1-2 and 6-10, in the reply filed on 07/23/2026 is acknowledged. Species B-F, claims 3-5 and 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 07/23/2026.
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. CN202310168844.6 filed on 02/16/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/15/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains informal/unclear language. Specifically, the phrase “A first capacitor electrode is arranged at least one of” is grammatically incomplete and unclear.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: part number 230 in FIG. 2D. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 recites the limitation “90 wt% to 70 wt% liquid electrolyte” however this range is backwards and should be written from lower endpoint to higher endpoint such as “70 wt% to 90 wt% liquid electrolyte”’.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2 and 6-10 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, claim 1 recites “a first capacitor electrode arranged at least one of” followed by a list of positional relationships. The phrase “arranged at least one of” is unclear because it does not clearly specify whether the first capacitor electrode is arranged in one selected position, in multiple selected positions, or whether multiple first capacitor electrodes are required. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claimed arrangement are unclear. Better wording would be “a first capacitor electrode arranged in at least one location selected from the group consisting of:”. Claims 2 and 6-10 are rejected for their dependency upon claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6, claims 6 recites the phrase “other lithium transition-metal oxides” in the Markush group however this renders the scope of the claims unclear because it is not clear what materials are included within the term “other” and what materials are excluded from the listed cathode active materials.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 11 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,145,922.
Regarding Claim 1, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,145,922 recites a solid-state battery cell comprising an anode, a cathode spaced from the anode, a solid-state electrolyte layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, and a capacitor assisted interlayer sandwiched between at least one of (i) the anode and the solid-state electrolyte layer and (ii) the cathode and the solid-state electrolyte layer. Claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,145,922 further recites a rechargeable solid-state lithium ion battery cell comprising a cathode comprising a lithium-based active material capable of storing lithium, an anode comprising a lithium host material capable of storing lithium at a lower electrochemical potential relative to the cathode, a solid-state electrolyte layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, and a first capacitor assisted interlayer sandwiched between the anode and the solid-state electrolyte layer.
This corresponds closely to the recited limitations of claim 1 of the instant application, which claims a solid-state battery cell comprising an anode electrode comprising an anode current collector and an anode coating, a cathode electrode comprising a cathode current collector and a cathode coating, wherein the anode electrode and the cathode electrode exchange lithium ions, a separator layer arranged between the anode electrode and the cathode electrode, and a first capacitor electrode arranged at least one of: between the anode coating and a first side of the separator layer; between the anode coating and the anode current collector; between a second side of the separator layer and the cathode coating; and between the cathode coating and the cathode current collector.
While these claims are not identical because the instant application recites the anode electrode and cathode electrode as including respective current collectors and coatings, and further refers to the capacitor assisted interlayer as a “capacitor electrode,” these differences do not render the claims patentably distinct. The anode and cathode of U.S. Patent No. 11,145,922 correspond to the claimed anode electrode and cathode electrode of the instant application, and the solid-state electrolyte layer of U.S. Patent No. 11,145,922 corresponds to the separator layer of the instant application. Further, the capacitor assisted interlayer of U.S. Patent No. 11,145,922 corresponds to the claimed first capacitor electrode because both are capacitor-type layers positioned between an electrode and the separator/electrolyte layer of a solid-state lithium ion battery cell.
The recitation of an anode current collector, an anode coating, a cathode current collector, and a cathode coating in the instant application does not provide a patentable distinction because such current collectors and active material coatings are conventional electrode substructures in lithium ion battery cells. Further, the claimed arrangement of the first capacitor electrode between the anode coating and a first side of the separator layer, or between a second side of the separator layer and the cathode coating, is not patentably distinct from the capacitor assisted interlayer sandwiched between the anode and solid-state electrolyte layer or between the cathode and solid-state electrolyte layer as claimed in U.S. Patent No. 11,145,922.
Regarding Claim 2, claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,145,922 recites that the capacitor assisted interlayer comprises a first capacitor assisted interlayer sandwiched between and in intimate contact with the anode and the solid-state electrolyte layer, and a second capacitor assisted interlayer sandwiched between and in intimate contact with the cathode and the solid-state electrolyte layer. Claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,145,922 similarly recites a second capacitor assisted interlayer sandwiched between the cathode and the solid-state electrolyte layer, wherein the second capacitor assisted interlayer is in intimate contact with both the cathode and the solid-state electrolyte layer.
This corresponds closely to claim 2 of the instant application, which recites that the first capacitor electrode is arranged between the anode coating and the first side of the separator layer and further comprises a second capacitor electrode arranged between the second side of the separator layer and the cathode coating.
While claim 2 of the instant application refers to the capacitor layers as “capacitor electrodes” and specifies that the first capacitor electrode is between the anode coating and the first side of the separator layer and that the second capacitor electrode is between the second side of the separator layer and the cathode coating, this is not patentably distinct from the first and second capacitor assisted interlayers of U.S. Patent No. 11,145,922 being sandwiched between the anode and solid-state electrolyte layer and between the cathode and solid-state electrolyte layer, respectively. The claimed anode coating and cathode coating are merely conventional active material portions of the anode and cathode, and positioning the capacitor layers adjacent those coatings at the separator/electrolyte interfaces does not provide a patentable distinction over the already claimed arrangement of capacitor assisted interlayers at both electrode/electrolyte interfaces.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US-20210021009-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Li discloses a solid-state battery cell (see e.g. "a solid-state battery cell" in paragraph [0005] and part number 100 in FIG. 1) comprising:
an anode electrode (see e.g. "a negative electrode 102" in paragraph [0030] and part number 102 in FIG. 1) comprising an anode current collector (see e.g. "a negative current collector 112" in paragraph [0031] and part number 112 in FIG. 1) and an anode coating (see e.g. "an anode layer 103" in paragraph [0031] and part number 103 in FIG. 1);
a cathode electrode (see e.g. "a positive electrode 104" in paragraph [0030] and part number 104 in FIG. 1) comprising a cathode current collector (see e.g. "a positive current collector 116" in paragraph [0032] and part number 116 in FIG. 1) and a cathode coating (see e.g. "a cathode layer 105" in paragraph [0032] and part number 105 in FIG. 1), wherein the anode electrode and the cathode electrode exchange lithium ions (see e.g. "the transfer of lithium ions between the anode active material 110 and the cathode active material 114" in paragraph [0044]);
a separator layer arranged between the anode electrode and the cathode electrode (see e.g. "a solid-state electrolyte layer 106 disposed between the negative electrode 102 and the positive electrode 104" in paragraph [0030] and part number 106 in FIG. 1); and
a first capacitor electrode (see e.g. "a capacitor assisted interlayer" in paragraph [0005]) arranged at least one of:
between the anode coating and a first side of the separator layer (see e.g. "A first capacitor-assisted interlayer 118, is disposed between the negative electrode 102 and the solid-state electrolyte layer 106" in paragraph [0031] and part number 118 in FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 2, Li discloses the solid-state battery cell of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Li further discloses that the first capacitor electrode is arranged between the anode coating and the first side of the separator layer (see e.g. "A first capacitor-assisted interlayer 118, is disposed between the negative electrode 102 and the solid-state electrolyte layer 106" in paragraph [0031] and part number 118 in FIG. 1) and further comprising a second capacitor electrode arranged between the second side of the separator layer and the cathode coating (see e.g. "A second capacitor assisted interlayer 120 is disposed between the positive electrode 104 and the solid-state electrolyte layer 106" in paragraph [0032] and part number 120 in FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Li discloses the solid-state battery cell of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Li further discloses that the anode coating comprises an anode active material including a silicon-based material, carbonaceous material, metal, metal alloy, and metal oxide (see e.g. "The anode active material 110 may include a carbonaceous material such as graphite, hard carbon, and soft carbon; silicon; silicon-graphite mixture; lithium titanate (Li4Ti5O12); a transition-metal such as Sn; a metal oxide or metal sulfide such as TiO2, FeS, SnO2, and other lithium-accepting anode materials such as lithium-Indium (Li—In)." in paragraph [0034]) and the cathode coating comprises a cathode active material selected from a group including at least a spinel material, other lithium transition-metal oxides and a surface coated cathode material (see e.g. “The cathode active material 114 includes one or more lithium-based active material that is capable of storing lithium. Examples of such lithium-based active materials include, but are not limited to, Lithium manganese oxide (LiMn2O4) and LiNbO3-coated LiMn2O4” in paragraph [0036]).
Regarding Claim 7, Li discloses the solid-state battery cell of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Li further discloses that the separator layer is selected from a group consisting of a solid electrolyte layer and a solid electrolyte layer with gel electrolyte (see e.g. “The solid electrolyte layer 106 may include a first solid-state electrolyte” in paragraph [0045] and “Polymer-based SSE, such as: the polymer host together with a lithium salt act as a solid solvent. Polymer: PEO, PPO, PEG, PMMA, PAN, PVDF, PVDF-HFP, PVC” in paragraph [0048] and “PVDF-HFP-based gel electrolyte” in paragraphs [0038] and [0043]).
Regarding Claim 8, Li discloses the solid-state battery cell of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Li further discloses that the separator layer comprises a polymer layer (see e.g. “The solid electrolyte layer 106 may include a first solid-state electrolyte” in paragraph [0045] and “Polymer-based SSE, such as: the polymer host together with a lithium salt act as a solid solvent. Polymer: PEO, PPO, PEG, PMMA, PAN, PVDF, PVDF-HFP, PVC” in paragraph [0048]).
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US-20210021009-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Herle (US-20160204408-A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Li discloses the solid-state battery of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Li does not disclose that the separator layer comprises a polymer layer and a ceramic coating.
Herle, however, in the same field of endeavor, separators for high performance electrochemical devices discloses a separator (see e.g. "a coated separator" in paragraph [0035] of Herle) which comprises a polymer layer (see e.g. "The coated separator 130 comprises: a porous (e.g., microporous) polymeric substrate" in paragraph [0041] of Herle) and a ceramic coating (see e.g. "a thin, low ionic resistance ceramic coating is formed on a polymeric microporous substrate" in paragraph [0033] of Herle).
Herle also teaches that as compared to conventional ceramic coated separators, the ceramic coated polymeric separator of Herle enhances the ionic conductivity of the overall electrolyte and demonstrates superior separator performance (see e.g. paragraph [0034] of Herle). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the separator layer of Li et al. such that it comprises a polymer layer and a ceramic coating as taught by Herle in order to have a separator that enhances ionic conductivity and demonstrates superior performance as suggested by Herle.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US-20210021009-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wright et al. (US-20130280579-A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Li discloses the solid-state battery of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Li does not disclose that the separator layer comprises a free-standing gel membrane including a polymer and a liquid electrolyte, the free-standing gel membrane has a thickness in a range from 10 µm to 100 µm, and the free-standing gel membrane comprises 10 wt% to 30 wt% polymer and 90 wt% to 70 wt% liquid electrolyte.
Wright, however, in the same field of endeavor, solid state gel separator layers, discloses a gel electrolyte layer that provides physical separation between an anode layer and a cathode layer and comprises a polymer into which at least one ionic liquid and electrolyte salt have been imbibed (see e.g. "a non-aqueous gel electrolyte layer coupled to the anode layer and cathode layer" in paragraph [0018] and FIG. 1 of Wright). Wright discloses that the gel electrolyte comprises a polymer and a liquid electrolyte (see e.g. "The electrolyte includes a room temperature ionic liquid electrolyte imbibed into a polymer to form a non-aqueous gel," in paragraph [0019] of Wright), has a thickness in a range from 15 µm to 30 µm (see e.g. "Electrolyte thicknesses were between about 15 and 30 μm" in paragraph [0157] of Wight), and
the gel electrolyte comprises 15 wt % to 60 wt% polymer and 40 to 85 wt % liquid electrolyte (see e.g. "weight of ionic liquid electrolyte to polymer is greater than 20%, and preferably ranging between 25% and 90%, and more preferably between 40 and 85%." in paragraph [0093] of Wright).
Wright discloses ranges that lie within or overlap with the ranges claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range within the claimed range or range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Wright also teaches that ionic liquid gel electrolytes have liquid-like ion transport properties while also being structurally robust and maintaining physical separation between electrodes making these type of electrolytes desirable in solid-state battery applications (see e.g. paragraph [0067] or Wright). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the separator layer of Li et al. such that it comprises a free-standing gel membrane including a polymer and a liquid electrolyte, the free-standing gel membrane has a thickness in a range from 10 µm to 100 µm, and the free-standing gel membrane comprises 10 wt% to 30 wt% polymer and 90 wt% to 70 wt% liquid electrolyte as taught by Wright et al. in order to have a separator layer with liquid-like ion transport properties but also being able to maintain physical separator between electrodes as suggested by Wright.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure:
Kong et al. (US-20210151260-A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSE EFYMOW whose telephone number is (571)270-0795. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10:30 am - 8:30 pm 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, TONG GUO can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.J.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights