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 .
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.
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 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu et al. (US 2023/0231181 A1, hereinafter Zhamu, previously cited) in view of Li et al. (WO 2023/121462 A1, hereinafter Li, previously cited).
Re Claim 1. Zhamu teaches an oxide-based solid-state battery cell (para. 11 & 13) comprising:
a cathode electrode comprising:
a cathode current collector (para. 67);
a cathode active layer arranged adjacent to the cathode current collector and comprising cathode active material that exchanges lithium ions and a solid oxide electrolyte (para 67); and
an in-situ polymerization gel (para. 11 & 27);
a separator layer comprising a solid oxide electrolyte (para. 11), a porous layer (para. 65), and the in-situ polymerization gel (para. 11 & 27); and
an anode electrode comprising an anode current collector (para. 69), a silicon film (para. 70), and the in-situ polymerization gel (para. 11 & 27).
Zhamu fails to specifically teach that the silicon film has a first cycle efficiency greater than 92%, a loading of less than 3 mAh/cm2, a thickness of less than five micrometers, and a porosity in a range from greater than 0% to less than or equal to 20%.
The invention of Li encompasses solid state Li-ion battery. Li teaches that the silicon film has a loading of 0.75 to 12 mAh/cm2, a thickness of 1 to 30 micrometer, and a porosity in a range from greater than 10% to less than or equal to 80% (P13).
In view of Li, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Zhamu to employ the silicon film of Li, since Li teaches the advantage of using it, which is to improve stability of anode material (P16)
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). "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Zhamu in view of Li does not expressly disclose that that the silicon film has a first cycle efficiency greater than 92%.
However, since Zhamu in view of Li and the claimed battery cell employ substantially similar materials and components, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (the silicon film having a first cycle efficiency greater than 92%) would have naturally flowed following the teachings of Zhamu in view of Li. See MPEP 2112.01 & In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2145 & Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Re Claim 3. The combination teaches wherein the silicon film comprises pure silicon (Zhamu, para. 70 & Li, abstract).
Re Claim 4. The combination teaches wherein the silicon film comprises columnar silicon (Li, abstract).
Re Claim 5. The combination teaches wherein the anode current collector is made of a material selected from a group consisting of stainless steel, nickel, copper (para. 69).
Re Claim 6. The combination teaches wherein the in-situ polymerization gel comprises a liquid electrolyte, a polymer monomer, and an initiator (para. 27).
Re Claim 7. The combination teaches wherein the liquid electrolyte comprises a lithium salt, a solvent, and an additive (para. 27).
Re Claim 8. The combination teaches wherein: the lithium salt comprises LiPF6 (para. 58), the solvent comprises carbonate ester (para. 46), and the additive comprises fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) (para. 49).
Re Claim 9. The combination teaches wherein the polymer monomer is selected from a group consisting of ethylene oxide (EO), vinylidene fluoride (VDF), VDF-hexafluoropropylene (VDF-HFP), propylene-oxide (PO), acrylonitrile (AN) (para. 14).
Re Claim 10. The combination teaches wherein the initiator is selected from a group consisting of peroxide, an azo compound (para. 61).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu in view of Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (WO 2020/214009 A1, hereinafter Kim, cited by applicant).
Zhamu teaches that the solid oxide electrolyte comprises Li1+xAlxTi2−x(PO4)3 (para. 95), but fails to specifically teach that 0.3 ≤ x ≤ 0.5.
The invention of Kim encompasses solid electrolyte composite. Kim teaches that 0 ≤ x ≤ 1 (para. 45).
In view of Kim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Zhamu in view of Li to use 0 ≤ x ≤ 1, since using a well-known composition for the solid electrolyte is within purview of one skill in the art.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu in view of Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim and Wang et al. (US 2024/0079565 A1, hereinafter Wang).
Zhamu teaches the cathode active layer comprises: 75 wt% of cathode active material (para. 188), which comprises lithium ion manganese oxide (LMO) (Claim 25), 15 wt% of Li1+xAlxTi2−x(PO4)3 electrolyte (para. 188), 5 wt% of carbon and carbon nanotube (para. 188), 5 wt% of polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) (para. 188).
Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) See MPEP 2144.05, I.
Zhamu in view of Li fails to specifically teach lithium manganese iron phosphate (LMFP) in a range from 76 wt% to 20 wt%/40 wt% to 48 wt%, lithium ion manganese oxide (LMO) in a range from 20 wt% to 76 wt%/40 wt% to 48 wt%, and 0.3 ≤ x ≤ 0.5.
The invention of Kim encompasses solid electrolyte composite. Kim teaches that 0 ≤ x ≤ 1 (para. 45).
In view of Kim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Zhamu in view of Li to use 0 ≤ x ≤ 1, since using a well-known composition for the solid electrolyte is within purview of one skill in the art.
The invention of Wang encompasses modified positive electrode material. Wang teaches that cathode active material can comprise lithium manganese iron phosphate (LMFP) and lithium ion manganese oxide (LMO) (para. 80).
In view of Wang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Zhamu in view of Li and Kim to employ LMFP and LMO as cathode active material, since using well-known cathode active material is within purview of one skill in the art.
As Zhamu teaches that the composition of the cathode active layer is a result effective variable (para. 31), one would perform routine experimentation to find out optimum composition of the cathode active layer.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu in view of Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ionescu et al. (US 2022/0263082 A1, hereinafter Ionescu, previously cited).
Zhamu in view of Li fails to specifically teach that an N:P ratio of the oxide-based solid-state battery cell is in a range from 1 to 2.5.
The invention of Ionescu encompasses silicon anode battery. Ionescu teaches that an N:P ration of the battery is in a range from 0.5 to 2 (para. 27).
In view of Ionescu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Zhamu in view of Li to have an N:P ratio of the oxide-based solid-state battery cell to be in a range from 0.5 to 2, since Ionescu teaches the advantage of using it, which is to increase the stability of the anode (para. 27).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu in view of Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoo et al. (US 2019/0044178 A1, hereinafter Yoo).
Zhamu in view of Li fails to specifically teach that wherein the porous layer comprises polymer having a porosity in a range from 35% to 55%.
The invention of Yoo encompasses thermally stable battery separator design. Yoo teaches that the porous layer comprises polymer having a porosity in a range from 35% to 65% (para. 7).
In view of Yoo, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Zhamu in view of Li to have the porous layer having polymer with a porosity in a range from 35% to 65%, since Yoo teaches the advantage of using it, which is to control over transfer across the separator (para. 39).
Claim(s) 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu in view of Li, Kim and Yoo.
Re Claim 15. See rejections of Claims 1, 2, and 14, in combination.
Re Claim 16. See rejection of claim 4.
Re Claim 17. See rejection of claim 6.
Re Claim 18. See rejections of claim 7, 9, and 10, in combination.
Re Claim 19. See rejection of claim 8.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu in view of Li, Kim and Yoo as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Wang.
Zhamu teaches the cathode active layer comprises: 75 wt% of cathode active material (para. 188), which comprises lithium ion manganese oxide (LMO) (Claim 25), 15 wt% of Li1+xAlxTi2−x(PO4)3 electrolyte (para. 188), 5 wt% of carbon and carbon nanotube (para. 188), 5 wt% of polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) (para. 188). Zhamu also teaches that carbon black (Super P) can be used with carbon nanotube (para. 67 & 206).
The invention of Wang encompasses modified positive electrode material. Wang teaches that cathode active material can comprise lithium manganese iron phosphate (LMFP) and lithium ion manganese oxide (LMO) (para. 80).
In view of Wang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Zhamu in view of Li, Kim and Yoo to employ LMFP and LMO as cathode active material, since using well-known cathode active material is within purview of one skill in the art.
As Zhamu teaches that the composition of the cathode active layer is a result effective variable (para. 31), one would perform routine experimentation to find out optimum composition of the cathode active layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Previously applied reference, Li addresses the new limitations.
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.
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
6/25/2026
Prosecution Insights