RESPONSE TO AMMENDMENT
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 .
2. Claims 1-11, 13 and 15 are pending in the application. Claims 12 and 14 have been cancelled.
3. Amendments to the claims 1, 13 and 15, filed on 07/16/2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The 35 U.S.C. §112 rejections of claim 1, made of record in office action mailed 04/16/2026, page 2, paragraphs 4-7 and page 3, paragraph 1 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 07/16/2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §102 rejection of claims 1-10 over Ozawa (US PG Pub 2021/0104773), made of record in office action mailed 04/16/2026, page 3, paragraph 4 through page 4, paragraphs 1-9 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 07/16/2026.
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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-10, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa (US PG Pub 2021/0104773) in view of Yoon (US PG Pub 2018/0114979).
Regarding claim 1, Ozawa discloses an all-solid-state battery (title). The battery comprises a cathode layer comprising a cathode active material (para. [0537], ref.7, Fig. 3) and an anode layer comprising an anode active material (ref.8, Fig. 3,). A solid electrolyte layer is interposed between the cathode layer and the anode layer (ref.1-3, Fig. 3). The solid electrolyte layer comprises a core layer part (ref.2, Fig. 3) and a surface layer part (ref.3, Fig. 3) disposed on at least one surface of the core layer part (Fig. 3). The core layer part comprises a first solid electrolyte (second SE layer, para. [0537]) and the surface layer part comprises a second solid electrolyte (first SE layer, para. [0537]). The core layer part/first solid electrolyte (second SE layer) includes inorganic solid electrolyte particles with a particle size of 1-5 µm (para. [0093]). The surface layer part/second solid electrolyte (first SE layer) includes inorganic solid electrolyte particles with a particle size of 0.3 µm - 0.9 µm (para. [0093]). Thus, the average particle diameter and D50 of the first solid electrolyte is greater than an average particle diameter and D50 of the second solid electrolyte. Ozawa also discloses the cathode layer comprising a first interface portion that is a region ranging from a main surface in contact with the solid electrolyte layer to a predetermined depth in a thickness direction, and the first interface portion comprising the cathode active material (see figure below). The anode layer comprises a second interface portion that is a region ranging from a main surface in contact with the solid electrolyte layer to a predetermined depth in a thickness direction, and the second interface portion comprises the anode active material (see figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
863
1431
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Ozawa fails to disclose the cathode and anode active materials having an average particle diameter or D50 of 5 µm to 20 µm.
Yoon discloses an all-solid-state battery (title) comprising a cathode layer (para. [0105], ref. 200, Fig. 4), a solid electrolyte layer (ref. 300, Fig. 4) and anode layer (ref. 100, Fig. 4). The cathode layer and the anode layer comprise an active material composed of respective cathode particles (para. [0042], ref. 21, Fig. 4) and anode particles (para. [0042], ref. 11, Fig. 4) with a particle size of 3-30 µm (para. [0012]).
Furthermore, Yoon teaches that the active material provides a stable interface between the electrode and the solid electrolyte layer (para. [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the active material of Yoon as the cathode and anode active materials of Ozawa in order to provide a stable interface between electrode active material and solid electrolyte materials.
Regarding claim 2, Ozawa further discloses that the thickness of the core layer part, or second solid electrolyte layer, is 3 µm to 50 µm (para. [0116]).
Regarding claim 3, Ozawa discloses the core layer part, or second solid electrolyte layer (para. [0114], ref. 2, Fig. 4) comprising a first solid electrolyte with a particle size of 1 µm to 5 µm (para. [0093]).
Regarding claim 4, Ozawa discloses that the first solid electrolyte comprises a sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte or an oxide-based inorganic solid electrolyte (para. [0124]).
Regarding claim 5, Ozawa discloses that the first solid electrolyte comprises a crystalline solid electrolyte, an amorphous solid electrolyte, or combinations thereof (para. [0131]).
Regarding claim 6, Ozawa discloses that the thickness of the surface layer part, or first solid electrolyte layer, is 1 µm to 5 µm (para. [0116]).
Regarding claim 7, Ozawa discloses the surface layer part, or first solid electrolyte layer (para. [0114], ref. 3, Fig. 4) comprising a second solid electrolyte with a particle size of 0.3 µm to 0.9 µm.
Regarding claim 8, Ozawa discloses that the second solid electrolyte comprises a sulfide-based inorganic solid electrolyte or an oxide-based inorganic solid electrolyte (para. [0124]).
Regarding claim 9, Ozawa discloses the second solid electrolyte comprises a crystalline solid electrolyte, an amorphous solid electrolyte, or combinations thereof (para. [0131]).
Regarding claim 10, Ozawa discloses a solid electrolyte layer further comprising a binder (para. [0146]).
Regarding claims 13 and 15, Ozawa further teaches that the cathode and anode active material layers have a thickness of 10 µm to 1,000 µm (para. [0117]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa (US PG Pub 2021/0104773) in view of Yoon (US PG Pub 2018/0114979) and further in view of Tsuchida (US PG Pub 2014/0308572).
Ozawa and Yoon are relied upon as described above.
The combination of Ozawa and Yoon fail to teach a binder comprised of butadiene rubber, nitrile butadiene rubber, hydrogenated nitrile butadiene rubber, polyvinylidene fluoride, polytetrafluoroethylene, or combinations thereof.
Tsuchida discloses an all-solid-state battery (title) comprising a solid electrolyte layer (para. [0074], ref. 13, Fig. 3). The solid electrolyte layer comprises particles (para. [0068]) and binder (para. [0084]). The binder includes fluorine-containing binders such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF).
Tsuchida further teaches that the PTFE and PVDF binders selected impart flexibility on the solid electrolyte layer (para. [0084]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) or polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) as the binder in the combination of Ozawa and Yoon as taught by Tsuchida in order to obtain a flexible solid electrolyte layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in response filed 07/16/2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §112 rejections of claims 1-15 made of record in the office action mailed on 04/16/2026 been considered but are moot since the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments in response filed 07/16/2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §102 rejection of claims 1-10 made of record in the office action mailed on 04/16/2026 have been considered but are moot since the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 07/16/2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 13 and 15 made of record in the office action mailed on 04/16/2026 have been carefully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Yoon does not describe or suggest that each of its cathode layer and anode layer has active material “having an average particle diameter (D50) of 5 µm to 20 µm,” as claimed and that Yoon does not disclose [1] the claimed average particle diameter range, and [2] the claimed average particle diameter range for the cathode and anode layer. See Applicant remarks in 2nd full paragraph of page 2.
Furthermore, Applicant argues that Yoon does not describe or suggest any advantage or benefit associated with the cathode and anode active material “having an average particle diameter (D50) of 5 µm to 20 µm,” as claimed and that the combination of Ozawa and Yoon is lacking a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify Ozawa’s cathode layer and anode layer with the active material of Yoon having the claimed particle size range. See Applicant remarks starting last paragraph of page 2. Applicant further argues that the solid binder disclosed by Yoon rather than the particle size of the active material attributes to the stability of the interface between the active material and electrolyte particles and that motivation is lacking absent impermissible hindsight gleaned from the present invention to modify Ozawa’s cathode layer and anode layer with the active material of Yoon. See Applicant remarks in 1st full paragraph through 2nd full paragraph of page 3.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Yoon discloses a cathode layer (para. [0105], ref. 200, Fig. 4) and an anode layer (ref. 100, Fig. 4) comprising active material composed of respective cathode particles (para. [0042], ref. 21, Fig. 4) and anode particles (para. [0042], ref. 11, Fig. 4) with a particle size of 3-30 µm (para. [0012]). Yoon also teaches that the active material disclosed provides a stable interface between the electrode and the solid electrolyte layer (para. [0002]). Therefore, one would be motivated to use the active material of Yoon as the cathode and anode active materials of Ozawa in order to provide a stable interface between electrode active material and solid electrolyte materials. Furthermore, Yoon teaches that a large contact area between the solid electrolyte and electrode active materials is necessary for the facilitation of lithium ion transport (para. [0006]) and that fine grained solid electrolyte particles (para. [0008], ref. 2b, Fig. 1B) have been used in the prior art to increase contact area between the electrolyte particles and electrode active materials (para. [007], ref. 1, Fig. 1B). Hence, Yoon implicitly teaches that the size of the cathode active (para. [0042], ref. 21, Fig. 4) and anode active particles (para. [0042], ref. 11, Fig. 4) relative to the surrounding electrolyte particles (para. [0041], ref. 12a, Fig. 4) determines contact area and hence facilitation of lithium ion transport rather than the solid binder (para. [0080], ref. 13, Fig. 2) alone. Additionally, in lines 6-14, page 10 of the specification of the instant application, the average particle diameter or D50 of the second solid electrolyte, which is in contact with the cathode and anode active material layers, ref. 20 and 30 of Fig. 1 respectively, may be about 0.1 µ to 1 µm. Furthermore, Yoon teaches that the fine-grained solid electrolyte particles contacting the electrode active material particles have a particle size of 1 µm or less as well (para. [0067]). Therefore, Yoon teaches motivation to use the disclosed cathode and anode active material particle size of 3-30 µm (para. [0012]), to enhance the contact area the electrode active particles and surrounding electrolyte particles.
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 NATHAN ANDREW JON MCMULLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0127. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/N.A.M./
Nathan A McMullen
Examiner, Art Unit 1788
08/31/2026
/Alicia Chevalier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights