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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has complied with all of the conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 06/12/2024, 06/28/2024, and 05/16/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on 01/10/2024 were reviewed and are acceptable.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “for sa solid-state” in paragraph [0003] should be replaced with --for a solid-state--;
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “IThe” in paragraph [0029] should be replaced with --The--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “comprising a solid-state electrolyte according to claim 7” should be replaced with --comprising the solid-state electrolyte according to claim 7--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xiao (US 2019/0067675 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Xiao discloses a protective layer (protective coating, [0073]) formed of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE, [0073]).
With respect to the limitations “the protective layer provided for a solid-state electrolyte…” (emphasis added), it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed article is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed article from a prior art article satisfying the claimed structural limitations (see MPEP 2114(II)). Therefore, while the intended use language of the claim has been considered, it is noted that the prior art protective layer is capable of performing the functions as claimed because Xiao discloses a protective layer made of PTFE, which allows for the prior art to perform the functions as claimed (see also [0079] which describes a PTFE coating as converting to a desirable SEI layer for protecting lithium-containing electrodes).
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) 1 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0211498 A1; hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claims 1 and 7-8, Kim discloses a method for manufacturing a solid-state electrolyte for a battery cell, related solid-state electrolyte, and related battery cell (Title), the method comprising:
providing a ceramic green body (electrolyte green tape or green ceramic composite, [0047]);
sintering the green body (green ceramic composite is co-fired…to sinter, [0047]) to form a solid-state electrolyte material ([0047]), and
coating the solid-state material on an electrode side with a protective layer (coating of the solid electrolyte with a carbon-based polymer, claim 17) made at least partially of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (PTFE, claim 17).
Kim discloses sintering the solid-state electrolyte material at temperatures ranging from 200-1100 °C ([0047]) and coating the solid-state electrolyte material with the protective layer (as noted above), but does not explicitly disclose coating after the sintering, nor cooling the solid-state material.
Kim is analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely methods of manufacturing solid-state electrolytes.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that PTFE would necessarily vaporize at high sintering temperatures, e.g. 1100 °C, and thus would find it obvious to coat the sintered electrolyte material after sintering, so as to not vaporize the PTFE, and would further find it obvious to allow the sintered electrolyte to cool before utilizing the electrolyte in a battery cell.
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Kim discloses coating the protective layer on the solid-state electrolyte material (as noted above), but does not appear to disclose an appropriate thickness for such a coating, and therefore does not explicitly disclose a layer thickness between 0.05 mm and 10 mm. Kim does disclose that a layer of lithium-ion conducting solid electrolyte material is coated with a thickness of about 10 nm to 1 mm ([0051]).
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the protective layer must necessarily have some thickness, and would thus find it obvious that a similar coating thickness is appropriate, e.g. 10 nm to 1 mm, as suggested by Kim. The skilled artisan would thus find it further obvious to routinely select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges (10 nm to 1 mm significantly overlaps 0.05 to 10 mm) because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The present invention is related to, inter alia, a method for manufacturing a solid-state electrolyte comprising:
(claim 2) the protective layer is made completely of PTFE;
(claim 3) the solid-state electrolyte material is coated on both sides with the protective layer;
(claim 4) the solid-state material is coated at a temperature between 200°C and 250°C; and
(claim 5) the protective layer is applied by spraying.
Kim et al. (US 2016/0211498 A1; hereinafter “Kim”) is considered to be the closest relevant prior art to dependent claims 2-5. Kim discloses most of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Kim does not disclose, teach, fairly suggest, nor render obvious the above noted limitations. To the contrary, Kim explicitly discloses that the protective coating comprises particles of a lithium salt (claim 17), that one side of the solid-state electrolyte remains uncovered so as to permit electrolyte permeation (as shown in Fig 3 with only one side of the substrate (130) being covered by a coating (140); see also [0056]), that the sintered solid-state electrolyte should just be cooled from sintering temperature (as noted as obvious above), and that any of the various coating techniques are screen printing, vapor deposition, tape-casting, or dip-coating ([0045-0048]).
Accordingly, there does not appear to be any reasonable basis for the skilled artisan to abandon the disclosure of Kim and be directed towards the recited limitations because doing so would appear to contradict Kim for the reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Badding et al. (US 2016/0211546 A1) discloses reactive sintering of ceramic lithium ion electrolyte membranes; and
Xu et al. (Water Stable Sulfide Solid Electrolyte Membranes Directly Applicable in All-Solid-State Batteries Enabled by Superhydrophobic Li+ Conducting Protection Layer).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M ERWIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6am-3pm PDT.
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 571-270-3879. 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.
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 07/29/2026
Prosecution Insights