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 without traverse of Group 1 (claims 1-16) in the reply filed on 7/13/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 17-20 will not be examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US20190386296A1 (He).
Regarding claim 1, He teaches a Li battery [abs]; a battery, comprising: a current collector [#18]; a cathode comprising a first major surface and a second major surface opposite the first major surface, the current collector disposed on the second major surface; an interlayer disposed on the first major surface of the cathode, the interlayer comprising a polymeric matrix, a lithium salt, and a sulfone compound [0107], the lithium salt and the sulfone compound [0047] positioned within the polymeric matrix [0101-103]; a solid-state electrolyte disposed on the interlayer; and a lithium anode disposed on the solid-state electrolyte [0077; fig. 2; a cathode active material layer, comprising a sulfur-containing material selected from a sulfur-carbon hybrid, sulfur-graphite hybrid, sulfur-graphene hybrid, conducting polymer-sulfur hybrid, metal sulfide, sulfur compound, or a combination thereof, and an optional cathode current collector supporting said cathode active material layer] [0094]. It is noted in para 0096, He teaches the 1st cathode-protecting layer may be the same as or different than the 1st anode-protecting layer. The 2nd cathode-protecting layer may be the same as or different than the 2nd cathode-protecting layer; therefore the cited paras that teach the composition for the anode protecting layer also can be the same for the claimed cathode interlayer.
Regarding claim 2, He teaches wherein the polymeric matrix comprises an acrylic-based polymer [0028, 0044].
Regarding claim 6, He teaches wherein the lithium salt comprises at least one of: lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI), lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI), lithium perchlorate (LiCIO4), lithium tetrafluoroborate (LiBF4), lithium triflate (LiSO3CF3), LiC(SO2CF3)3, or combinations thereof [0042] .
Regarding claim 7, He teaches wherein the sulfone compound comprises at least one of: sulfolane, 3-methylsulfolane, dimethyl sulfone, ethyl methyl sulfone, or combinations thereof [0047, 0118].
Regarding claim 8, He teaches wherein the sulfone compound comprises sulfolane, and the lithium salt comprises lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI) [0042].
Regarding claim 12, He teaches wherein the cathode comprises at least one of lithium cobaltite (LCO), lithium manganite spinel (LMO), lithium nickel cobalt aluminate (NCA), lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NCM) (LiNiaCoeMni-d-O2, where 0 < d < 1, 0< e < 1), lithium iron phosphate (LiFePG4) (LFP), lithium cobalt phosphate (LCP), lithium titanate, lithium niobium tungstate, lithium nickel manganate, and lithium titanium sulfide (LiTiS2), or combinations thereof [0036].
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(s) 3-5 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190386296A1 (He).
Regarding claim 3, He does not explicitly teach wherein an interfacial resistance between the cathode and the solid-state electrolyte, as-formed, is about 300 D cm2 or less at 25°C. However, the Examiner notes interfacial resistance in batteries is an inherent characteristic of the electrochemical system, arising from the physical and chemical nature of the electrode–electrolyte interface; thus, He inherently teaches the claimed interfacial resistance as He teaches the battery composition and structure of claim 1. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claim 4, He does not explicitly teach wherein the battery comprises a capacity retention of about 90% or more after 90 cycles at 0.2C with a cutoff voltage of 4.5V and at 45°C. He does teach the structure/composition of the battery as required in claim 1; Capacity retention is the ability of a battery to maintain its initial charge storage capability over time which is a fundamental property of the electrochemical system. It is determined by the intrinsic stability of the electrode materials, the electrolyte, and the interfaces between them. For example, in lithium‑ion batteries, the rate at which active material degrades, the stability of the solid electrolyte interphase (SEI), and the extent of side reactions are all built into the chemistry and materials chosen. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position, He inherently discloses the capacity as required by the instant claim. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claim 5, He does not explicitly teach wherein the battery comprises a capacity of about 150 mAh/g or more after 90 cycles at 0.2C with a cutoff voltage of 4.5V and at 45°C. Battery capacity is considered an inherent characteristic of a battery, defined by its chemistry, design, and materials, Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position, He inherently discloses the capacity as required by the instant claim. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claim 9, He does not explicitly teach wherein a molar ratio of the lithium salt to the sulfone compound is about 0.125 or more. However, He does teach the amount of sulfone compound but teaches adding up to 30% by weight of lithium salt reduces the elasticity deformation which leads to a better battery performance [0141]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the molar ratio of the salt to the sulfone compound as required by the instant claim as this not considered to be inventive. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 10, as noted above in claim 9, modified He teaches wherein the molar ratio of lithium salt to the sulfone compound is from about 0.2 to about 1.1 [0141].
Claim(s) 11, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190386296A1 (He) in view of US20220223917A1 (He ‘3917)
Regarding claim 11, He does not teach wherein the current collector comprises aluminum. He ‘3917 teaches the current collector comprises aluminum [0027]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified He and incorporate the teachings of HE’3917 to have the current collector comprise aluminum as this is a known element to use as a current collector and one would have a reasonable expectation of success. The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2143.02).
Regarding claim 15, He does not teach wherein the solid-state electrolyte comprises lithium, lanthanum, zirconium, and oxygen. He ‘3917 teaches a battery, and teaches the solid state electrolyte comprises lithium, lanthanum, zirconium, and oxygen [0104-0105, 0185-0188]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified He in view of HE ‘3917 and incorporate the solid state electrolyte as claimed, as this enables for high voltage solid electrolyte batteries [0104].
Regarding claim 16, Modified He teaches wherein the solid-state electrolyte comprises at least one of:
(i) Li7−3aLa3Zr2LaO12, with L=Al, Ga, or Fe and 0<a<0.33;
(ii) Li7La3−bZr2MbO12, with M=Bi or Y and 0<b<1;
(iii) Li7−cLa3(Zr2−c,Nc)O12, with N═In, Si, Ge, Sn, V, W, Te, Nb, or Ta and 0<c<1;
(iv) protonated LLZO (e.g., HxLi6.5−xLa3Zr1.5I0.5O12, with I═In, Si, Ge, Sn, V, W, Te, Nb, or Ta and 0<x<4 or HxLi6.25−xE0.25La3Zr2O12, with E=Al, Ga, or Fe and 0<x<4); or
a combination thereof [0105, HE ‘3917].
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190386296A1 (He) in view of US20160079590A1 (Roev)
Regarding claim 13, He does not teach wherein a ratio of a weight of the cathode to an area of the first major surface is from about 1 mg/cm2 to about 5 mg/cm2. In a similar field of endeavor, Roev teaches a cathode for a lithium battery and teaches a similar composition as required by claim 1 [0060-80] and the weight of the cathode to be 2 mg/cm2 [0118], which falls with the range of the instant claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified He in view of Roev and incorporate the weight of the cathode to be within the required range as Roev teaches that having the weight at 2mg/cm2 confirmed that the cathodes prepared according to Examples 4 to 6 had lower resistance to lithium ion transfer between the cathode and the electrolyte [0141], which results in improved battery capacity and performance.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190386296A1 (He) in view of US20200313227A1 [Hu]
Regarding claim 14, He does not teach wherein a ratio of a volume of the interlayer to an area of the first major surface of the cathode from about 5 µL/cm2 to about 20 µL/cm2. In a similar field of endeavor, Hu teaches a lithium battery [abs] and teaches the volume of the interlayer to be with 2-4 µL/cm2 [0122]; which is close to the claimed ranges. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified He in view of Hu and incorporate the volume of the interlayer to be within the required range as Hu teaches that a skilled artisan will understand how to make changes and modifications to the present invention to meet their specific requirements or conditions. Such changes and modifications may be made without departing from the scope and spirit of the invention [0132]. Additionally, Hu teaches incorporating the volume of the interlayer as noted above demonstrates solid-state Li metal batteries with high energy densities and good cyclability based on bilayer garnet frameworks, and high mass-loading cathodes [0116].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARIKA GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)272-9907. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights