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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 15, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the cited references do not recognize the problem addressed by the claimed invention (p. 4), the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (CN 106654362 B; all citations refer to English translation attached to the office action mailed April 21, 2026) in view of Wu et al. (“Reducing the thickness of solid-state electrolyte membranes for high-energy lithium batteries”, Energy and Environmental Science 14, pp. 12-36, October 2020).
Regarding claim 8, Zhao teaches a solid-state battery comprising a cathode layer, solid electrolyte layer, and anode layer in that order (Zhao [0081]), in which the solid electrolyte layer comprises a first layer comprising a solid electrolyte adjacent to the electrodes (second composite adhesive layer comprising Li2S-SiS2), a second layer comprising the solid electrolyte and a porous support adjacent to the first layer (first composite adhesive layer on glass mesh comprising Li2S-SiS2), and a third layer opposite the first layer comprising the same solid electrolyte such that one is adjacent to the anode and the other is adjacent to the cathode (layers B) (Zhao [0079]-[0080] and Fig. 1), with the solid electrolyte on the surface and in the pores of the porous support (Zhao [0034]).
Zhao does not disclose a vehicle comprising the battery. Zhao teaches that lithium-ion batteries are used for electric transportation (i.e. in a vehicle) (Zhao [0004]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the battery of Zhao in an electric vehicle, since Zhao teaches that this is a known use for such a battery.
Zhao gives an example in which the porous support is a non-woven fabric (Zhao [0064]).
The solid electrolyte is Li2S-SiS2 (Zhao [0079]), which is a sulfide.
Zhao does not teach any particular porosity for the support material, indicating only that it is a high porosity material (Zhao [0072]). Wu is directed to the optimization of the electrolyte component of all-solid-state lithium batteries (Wu Abstract). Wu teaches that a high porosity scaffolding material for a solid electrolyte has a porosity of ~70%, which falls within the range of the instant claim, and that such a support contributes to the well-developed 3D continuous ionic pathway (Wu 4.1.1 Polymer Scaffolds, 2nd paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the scaffold of Wu to achieve a well-developed 3D continuous ionic pathway.
Zhao does not teach any particular scaffolding layer thickness. Wu teaches that a high porosity scaffolding material for a solid electrolyte with a thickness of ~13 µm, which falls within the range of the instant claim, contributes to the well-developed 3D continuous ionic pathway (Wu 4.1.1 Polymer Scaffolds, 2nd paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the scaffold of Wu to achieve a well-developed 3D continuous ionic pathway.
In addition, Wu teaches that SSE thickness must be balanced to maximize energy density without compromising mechanical integrity, and that thickness should be much less than 80 µm (Wu 4. Strategies to reduce the thickness of SSEs, first paragraph), which overlaps the range of the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Zhao does not teach any particular coating layer thickness. Wu teaches that SSE thickness must be balanced to maximize energy density without compromising mechanical integrity, and that thickness should be much less than 80 µm (Wu 4. Strategies to reduce the thickness of SSEs, first paragraph), which overlaps the range of the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
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 1.136(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 JAMES A CORNO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights