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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 07/22/26, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, and 21 is/are amended; and claim(s) 2, 5–10, 13–15, 18, and 20 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; no new matter has been added. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous drawing objection, some of the claim objections, and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 112(d) rejections set forth in the Office Action mailed 05/01/26 has/have been withdrawn. However, one of the previous claim objections as well as the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has/have been maintained and altered as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, as set forth below.
Claim Objections
It is recommended that Applicant amend the claims as follows:
In claim 12, lines 8 and 9, “selected from among gold (Au), platinum (Pt) … and a combination thereof” should read “selected from among gold (Au), platinum (Pt) … [[and]] or a combination thereof” to conform to the “selected from A, B, or C” exemplary Markush group in MPEP 2117 (I) and to avoid potential confusion of the group’s scope (i.e., that the scope does not entail one of the metals and a combination thereof as a joint member of the Markush group).
In claim 21, lines 2–5, “wherein the solid electrolyte layer comprises an electrolyte, wherein the electrolyte comprises a solid electrolyte or a combination of the solid electrolyte and a gel electrolyte, wherein the solid electrolyte comprises the sulfide-based solid electrolyte and at least one of an oxide-based solid electrolyte or a polymer solid electrolyte” is recommended to read “wherein solid electrolyte layer comprises [[a]] the solid electrolyte or a combination of the solid electrolyte and a gel electrolyte, wherein the solid electrolyte comprises the sulfide-based solid electrolyte and at least one of an oxide-based solid electrolyte or a polymer solid electrolyte” for redundancy and proper antecedence based on claim 1’s “solid electrolyte layer comprises a sulfide-based solid electrolyte” (line 8).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “position determining portion configured to determine a position of the inactive member on the solid electrolyte layer” (claim 17).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification—an uneven surface region (¶ 0135)—as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid its/their being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1, 5–7, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Affinito et al. (US 20110177398 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 21, Affinito discloses a secondary battery (Li battery, Abstract) comprising (per annot. fig. 1 below) an electrode assembly (cell 10) comprising a cathode layer (50), and an anode layer (15).
Per the fig., the assembly may include multi-layer structure 40 between the anode and cathode, which may include single-ion conductive layers (¶ 0026) and, thus, form a solid electrolyte layer. Further, the single-ion conductor may include a ceramic layer with a network such as a sulfide (¶ 0053), and the single-ion conductive layer may be treated or filled with an ion-conductive solid polymer such as PEO or acrylates (e.g., ¶ 0056, 0064).
Although Affinito fails to explicitly embody a solid electrolyte layer comprising a solid electrolyte comprising a sulfide-based solid electrolyte and a polymer solid electrolyte in fig. 1—and, thus, an all-solid battery—it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form an all-solid battery by incorporating a solid electrolyte layer comprising a solid electrolyte comprising a sulfide-based solid electrolyte and a polymer solid electrolyte as part of Affinito’s multi-layer structure with the reasonable expectation of achieving successful ion conduction (further reading on claim 21).
Affinito further discloses that the anode layer comprises an anode current collector (ACC below) and a first anode active material layer (1AML).
PNG
media_image1.png
532
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Affinito further embodies primer layer 65 between cathode active layer 55 and cathode collector 60 in fig. 1 but clarifies that this primer can also be provided between the base anode active layer (20) and anode collector (25) to facilitate adhesion and electrical conduction between the layers (¶ 0113, 0156), disclosing that the primer may include an adhesive polymer like PVA (e.g., ¶ 0166/0167) and a conductive filler such as graphite or carbon nanofibers (¶ 0170, 0243).
Though Affinito fails to disclose the “first protective layer” in the fig. 1 embodiment, it would have been obvious to undercoat a conductive primer layer containing carbon such as graphite, as well as PVA, as a first protective layer between the “first anode active layer” (2AML) and anode collector with the reasonable expectation of successfully adhering the (second) active layer (20/2AML) to the collector and achieving good electrical conduction.
Affinito further discloses that the electrode assembly comprises a release layer 27 on one surface thereof (per above), which may remain with the electrode (¶ 0111). Affinito discloses that the release layer may be multi-layered (¶ 0114, 0131) and can act as a protective layer (¶ 0117) and, thus, would form a “second protecting layer”.
Affinito discloses that the release layer may withstand force application during fabrication and/or cell cycling and may be compatible with methods/articles relating to force application (¶ 0133). Importantly, Affinito elsewhere discloses that other members like electrode supports should be porous to withstand anisotropic force while maintaining the electrode’s structural integrity (¶ 0245).
Although Affinito fails to explicitly disclose a porous, multi-layered release layer/”second protecting layer”, it would have been obvious to incorporate such—and, thus, form a “porous cushioning layer and a porous covering layer on one surface or opposite surfaces of the porous cushioning layer” (as cushioning layer would be any porous, force-resistant layer in the release layer, and covering layer would be any layer on the cushioning layer) with the reasonable expectation of successfully withstanding anisotropic force during cell cycling.
Regarding claim 5, Affinito discloses the all-solid secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the first protecting layer further comprises a binder (PVA adhesive, ¶ 0157, 0166, 0167) and has a thickness of 0.1~10 microns (¶ 0171), falling within 10 μm or less.
Regarding claim 6, Affinito discloses the all-solid secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the first protecting layer is directly on the anode current collector (via undercoat, per above).
Affinito discloses that the adhesion promoter—such as PVA—is inert with respect to other cell components like the electrolyte (¶ 0134), and, thus, the first protecting layer would reasonably be inert with respect to the sulfide-based solid electrolyte (note also that this layer contains substantially similar components (graphite and PVA) as instant spec. (e.g., ¶ 0058) and, thus, would behave substantially similarly, per MPEP 2112.01 (I)).
Regarding claim 7, Affinito discloses the all-solid secondary battery of claim 1, wherein, the second protecting layer is on the anode layer (per above), the anode current collector comprises a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface (lower and upper surfaces, respectively, above), and the first protecting layer is on the first surface, and the second protecting layer is on the second surface (undercoat versus release layer, respectively, above).
Regarding claim 12, Affinito discloses the all-solid secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the first anode active material layer comprises a metal-based active material forming an alloy with lithium and comprising an alloy-forming element of tin or aluminum (e.g., Li-Sn or Li-Al alloy, ¶ 0031).
Regarding the limitation directed to the carbon-based material comprising amorphous carbon, under broadest reasonable interpretation, such is an optional limitation not positively required given claim 12’s reciting “a carbon-based anode active material, a metal-based anode active material or a combination thereof”. Here, the carbon-based material is unselected given Affinito’s Li alloy.
Regarding claim 13, Affinito discloses the all-solid secondary battery of claim 12, wherein the metal-based anode active material has a form of particles, and a diameter of the particles is preferably 1–3 μm (¶ 0269, 0270), falling within about 10 nm to about 4 μm.
Regarding claim 15, Affinito discloses the all-solid secondary battery of claim 1, further comprising a second anode active material layer between the anode current collector and the first anode active material layer (ref. 20/2AML in annot. fig. 1), wherein, the second anode active material layer is between the first anode active material layer and the first protecting layer (per above), the second anode active material layer is a metal layer comprising lithium or a lithium alloy (e.g., ¶ 0083).
That “the second anode active material layer is a plated layer” is a product-by-process limitation (MPEP 2113). In this case, the implied structure is simply the second active layer, which Affinito discloses. Nonetheless, Affinito discloses that this layer may be plated (¶ 0049).
Regarding claim 16, Affinito discloses the all-solid secondary battery of claim 1.
Affinito further envisions either current collector as, e.g., aluminized polyester films (¶ 0174)—and, thus, Al metal layer on one surface of a base polyester film—but fails to specify that the base film is one from the recited group.
Elsewhere, though, Affinito discloses a conductive support of an aluminized PET film (¶ 0166).
It would have been obvious to select a base film of PET as Affinito’s polyester with the reasonable expectation of achieving a successful current collector.
Regarding claim 18, Affinito discloses the all-solid secondary battery of claim 1, wherein, the cathode layer comprises a cathode active material layer (ref. 55 in annot. fig. 1), the cathode active material layer comprises a cathode active material (e.g., ¶ 0231).
Affinito further discloses that the active material may include transition-metal chalcogenides such as metal oxides (¶ 0231) but appears to fail to embody a specific metal oxide.
It would have been obvious to incorporate a metal oxide as Affinito’s cathode active material with the reasonable expectation of achieving a successful active material.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Affinito et al. (US 20110177398 A1), as applied to claim 1, in view of Cheng et al. (WO 2017216822 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Affinito discloses the all-solid secondary battery of claim 1.
As discussed above, Affinito exemplifies many conductive fillers as the carbon-based material, including graphite or carbon nanofibers (¶ 0243) but fails to explicitly disclose a two-dimensional carbon-based nanostructure of graphene doped with an n-type or p-type dopant from the recited group.
Cheng teaches an analogous battery anode with a nano-carbon additive (Abstract) such as graphene (¶ 0018), where the graphene may be B- or N-doped for better conductivity (¶ 0018).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate B- or N-doped graphene—i.e., doped with p- or n-type dopant, respectively—as Affinito’s conductive filler/carbon-based material with the reasonable expectation of improving conductivity, as taught by Cheng.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Affinito et al. (US 20110177398 A1), as applied to claim 1, in view of Kamai et al. (US 20180097239 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Affinito discloses the all-solid secondary battery of claim 1.
As discussed above, Affinito discloses that the conductive filler may be graphite (¶ 0243) yet, while further generally desiring good conductivity from this filler, Affinito fails to explicitly disclose that the carbon-based material is arranged in a fixed direction with respect to a surface of the anode current collector, and wherein the carbon-based material is arranged in a direction parallel to the surface of the anode current collector or arranged in an out-of-plane direction with respect to the surface of the anode current collector.
Kamai teaches an electrode structure in a fuel cell (Title), where the anode may include graphite in the electric conductor layer (¶ 0148). Kamai teaches that the graphene layers constituting the graphite are oriented perpendicular to the structure’s stacking direction to improve electric conductivity (¶ 0148). With such teaching, Kamai is directed to a pertinent problem-solving area of selecting an orientation of the carbon-based material such as graphite for conductivity considerations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to orient Affinito’s graphite carbon material in a fixed direction perpendicular to the electrode stacking direction—and, thus, parallel to the surface of the anode current collector (see Affinito’s fig. 1)—with the reasonable expectation of improving conductivity, as taught by Kamai.
Claim(s) 8–10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Affinito et al. (US 20110177398 A1), as applied to claim 1, in view of Waseda (US 20190280329 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Affinito discloses the all-solid secondary battery of claim 1.
Affinito further discloses that, of the two layers within the release layer, i.e., second protecting layer, the one bound directly to the collector may have relatively high adhesive affinity to the collector to prevent the layer from detaching (e.g., ¶ 0115). Further, as discussed in claim 1, Affinito desires at least part of the release layer to protect against anisotropic force, such as cell expansion/contraction ¶ 0318). However, Affinito fails to explicitly disclose that an elastic modulus of the porous cushioning layer is smaller than an elastic modulus of the porous covering layer as well as that the cushioning layer is an adhesive layer.
Waseda teaches an analogous solid battery with a two-layered resin covering the vicinity of the electrode laminate (Abstract), where the elastic/Young’s modulus of the first layer directly bound to the laminate is smaller than the elastic modulus of the second layer (Abstract). Like Affinito, Waseda recognizes that solid batteries’ expansion and contraction generates stress, so the layer immediately adjacent the cell stack should be more flexible to absorb such stress to prevent cracking (¶ 0035). Meanwhile, configuring the outer layer with a higher modulus provides greater rigidity and, thus, protection (¶ 0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure Waseda’s first release layer directly bound to the current collector to be the porous cushioning layer with a lower elastic modulus than the outer covering layer with the reasonable expectation of providing the desired balance between stress-absorption and protection, as taught by Waseda. It would have been further obvious to configure the cushioning layer to be an adhesive layer to prevent detachment of the release layer/2PL, as suggested by Affinito.
Regarding the cushioning layer’s thickness, Affinito discloses that the release layer’s total thickness may be 0.1~50 μm (¶ 0153), disclosing that a thinner release layer may be suitable when the release layer remains in the cell to reduce weight and improve energy density (¶ 0106, 0154). The skilled artisan, meanwhile, would recognize that the cushioning layer must be thick enough to sufficiently absorb stress. To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the cushioning layer’s thickness (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding the stipulation that the thickness of the porous cushioning layer is greater than the thickness of the porous covering layer, the skilled artisan would realize that some thickness must be chosen for each layer and would see that only three solutions exist: the cushioning layer must be thicker than, thinner than, or the same thickness as the covering layer. Further, again, the cushioning layer must be thick enough to adequately absorb stress, while the covering layer must be thick enough to adequately protect the stack. In determining the suitable thickness of each layer, then, it would have been obvious to routinely investigate a thicker cushioning layer with the reasonable expectation of achieving optimal flexibility and rigidity (MPEP 2143 (E.), 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding the porous cushioning layer’s comprising a porous foam or porous sponge, as discussed in claim 1, Affinito discloses that the described porous structures are applicable to the release layers for force/stress absorption. Importantly, Affinito discloses that such porous structures may comprise any suitable form, including foam (¶ 0249, 0250), and such cells—i.e., the pores—would be open because Affinito discloses that closed cells are generally not considered pores within the disclosure (¶ 0248).
Although Affinito fails to explicitly embody a porous-foam release layer including open cells, it would have been obvious to incorporate the cushioning layer as such with the reasonable expectation of absorbing force, as suggested by Affinito. Further, the limitation regarding the porous sponge’s comprising a closed cell, an open cell, or a combination thereof is optional given claim 8’s Markush group, where Affinito instead discloses a porous foam, as discussed above.
Regarding the air permeability of ≥ 1000 sec/100 cc, the skilled artisan would recognize that such correlates with porosity, as higher porosity would allow more air to pass through the layer. Importantly, as discussed above, the skilled artisan would appear to desire higher porosity in the cushioning layer for stress absorption. It would have been obvious to arrive at the recited range by maximizing the air permeability in the cushioning layer by selecting a higher porosity for sufficient stress tolerance (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 9, Affinito discloses the all-solid secondary battery of claim 1.
Affinito further discloses that, of the two layers within the release layer, i.e., second protecting layer, the one bound directly to the collector may have relatively high adhesive affinity to the collector to prevent the layer from detaching (e.g., ¶ 0115). Further, as discussed in claim 1, Affinito desires at least part of the release layer to protect against anisotropic force, such as cell expansion/contraction ¶ 0318). However, Affinito fails to specify the layers’ positioning relative to the current collector.
Waseda teaches an analogous solid battery with a two-layered resin covering the vicinity of the electrode laminate (Abstract), where the elastic/Young’s modulus of the first layer directly bound to the laminate is smaller than the elastic modulus of the second layer (Abstract). Like Affinito, Waseda recognizes that solid batteries’ expansion and contraction generates stress, so the layer immediately adjacent the cell stack should be more flexible to absorb such stress to prevent cracking (¶ 0035). Meanwhile, configuring the outer layer with a higher modulus provides greater rigidity and, thus, protection (¶ 0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure Waseda’s first release layer directly bound to the current collector to be the porous cushioning layer with a lower elastic modulus than the outer covering layer with the reasonable expectation of providing the desired balance between stress-absorption and protection, as taught by Waseda. It would have been further obvious to configure the cushioning layer to be an adhesive layer to prevent detachment of the release layer/2PL, as suggested by Affinito.
Importantly, regarding the porous cushioning layer’s comprising a polymer and/or rubber material, Affinito discloses that the release layer may include hydroxyl groups to provide relatively high adhesive affinity to a first layer but relatively low affinity to a second layer—as in the first release layer/cushioning layer—and exemplifies a vinyl alcohol-methyl methacrylate copolymer, i.e., a polyacrylic-based polymer, as a suitable polymer material (¶ 0143).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a vinyl alcohol-methyl methacrylate copolymer as a polyacrylic-based polymer into Affinito’s cushioning layer with the reasonable expectation of achieving the desired adhesion. Further, the rubber materials are optional given claim 9’s Markush group of “the porous cushioning layer comprises a polymer material, a rubber material, or a combination thereof”, where Affinito instead discloses a polymer material.
Regarding claim 10, Affinito discloses the all-solid secondary battery of claim 1.
Affinito further discloses that, of the two layers within the release layer, i.e., second protecting layer, the one bound directly to the collector may have relatively high adhesive affinity to the collector to prevent the layer from detaching (e.g., ¶ 0115). Further, as discussed in claim 1, Affinito desires at least part of the release layer to protect against anisotropic force, such as cell expansion/contraction ¶ 0318). However, Affinito fails to explicitly disclose the layers’ positioning relative to the current collector.
Waseda teaches an analogous solid battery with a two-layered resin covering the vicinity of the electrode laminate (Abstract), where the elastic/Young’s modulus of the first layer directly bound to the laminate is smaller than the elastic modulus of the second layer (Abstract). Like Affinito, Waseda recognizes that solid batteries’ expansion and contraction generates stress, so the layer immediately adjacent the cell stack should be more flexible to absorb such stress to prevent cracking (¶ 0035). Meanwhile, configuring the outer layer with a higher modulus provides greater rigidity and, thus, protection (¶ 0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure Waseda’s first release layer directly bound to the current collector to be the porous cushioning layer with a lower elastic modulus than the outer covering layer with the reasonable expectation of providing the desired balance between stress-absorption and protection, as taught by Waseda. It would have been further obvious to configure the cushioning layer to be an adhesive layer to prevent detachment of the release layer/2PL, as suggested by Affinito. Importantly, as the second/outer release layer, i.e., covering layer, is desired to exhibit a low affinity to its respective surface, it would have been obvious to implement the covering layer as a non-adhesive layer to allow detachment from the carrier substrate when incorporated into the cell (Affinito, e.g., ¶ 0109, 0115).
Regarding the thickness of 1~50 μm, Affinito discloses that the release layer’s total thickness may be 0.1~50 μm (¶ 0153), disclosing that a thinner release layer may be suitable when the release layer remains in the cell to reduce weight and improve energy density (¶ 0106, 0154). The skilled artisan, meanwhile, would recognize that the covering layer must be thick enough to sufficiently protect the laminate. To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the covering layer’s thickness (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding the porosity of 5~95% and pore size of 0.01~20 μm in the covering layer, Affinito discloses that the porosity and pore size are controllable by selecting appropriate particle sizes in the porous structures (¶ 0282). Importantly, the skilled artisan would realize that covering layer must possess some minimum porosity—and, thus, pore size—given that each release layer is porous, but the artisan would desire lower porosity and pore size in the covering layer to achieve the desired mechanical rigidity/protection. To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited porosity and pore size by routinely optimizing each parameter (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding the air permeability of ≤ 1000 sec/100 cc, the skilled artisan would recognize that such correlates with porosity, as higher porosity would allow more air to pass through the layer. As the artisan would appear to desire lower porosity in the covering layer to achieve the desired mechanical strength, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited range by minimizing this value by selecting a lower porosity in the covering layer (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Affinito et al. (US 20110177398 A1), as applied to claim 1, in view of Waseda (US 20190280329 A1) and Kim et al. (US 20190109309 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Affinito discloses the all-solid secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the porous covering layer comprises a porous film having a monolayer structure (again, the covering layer itself is a one-layered “porous film”).
However, Affinito fails to specify the layers’ positioning relative to the current collector.
Waseda teaches an analogous solid battery with a two-layered resin covering the vicinity of the electrode laminate (Abstract), where the elastic/Young’s modulus of the first layer directly bound to the laminate is smaller than the elastic modulus of the second layer (Abstract). Like Affinito, Waseda recognizes that solid batteries’ expansion and contraction generates stress, so the layer immediately adjacent the cell stack should be more flexible to absorb such stress to prevent cracking (¶ 0035). Meanwhile, configuring the outer layer with a higher modulus provides greater rigidity and, thus, protection (¶ 0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure Waseda’s first release layer directly bound to the current collector to be the porous cushioning layer with a lower elastic modulus than the outer covering layer with the reasonable expectation of providing the desired balance between stress-absorption and protection, as taught by Waseda.
Importantly, Affinito allows many different polymers (e.g., ¶ 0068, 0143) but fails to explicitly disclose that the covering layer is a nonwoven fabric and comprises cellulose nanofibers.
Kim teaches an analogous battery with a porous film—which may be non-woven fabric (¶ 0104)—including cellulose nanofibers (Abstract, ¶ 0003) to improve the film’s tensile strength (¶ 0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form Affinito’s covering layer as a non-woven fabric comprising cellulose with the reasonable expectation of achieving the desired strength, as taught by Kim.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Affinito et al. (US 20110177398 A1), as applied to claim 1, in view of Frieberg et al. (US 20220320489 A1) and Suzuki et al. (US 20190157723 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Affinito discloses the all-solid secondary battery of claim 1.
Affinito discloses that second base electrode material layer 35, i.e., “first anode active material layer”—which may be Li-metal-based (e.g., ¶ 0031)—may shield the first electrode material layer from damage during (dis)charge (¶ 0026)—and, thus, should reasonably be mechanically robust—but Affinito fails to explicitly disclose that the first anode active material layer further comprises a binder, and an amount of the binder is about 0.5 parts by weight to about 30 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the first anode active material layer.
Frieberg teaches an analogous battery negative electrode including a Li alloy (Abstract), where the electrode includes a binder to structurally support the active material (¶ 0048). Frieberg teaches that the matrix phase, which may consist of the binder, may constitute 2–4% of the negative electrode active material layer (¶ 0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a binder at 2–4 wt% into Affinito’s “first anode active material layer” with the reasonable expectation of providing the desired structural support to the active material, as taught by Frieberg.
Affinito further discloses that the cathode layer comprises a cathode active material layer (ref. 55 of annot. fig. 1), yet, despite further desiring high capacity from each electrode (¶ 0363), Affinito fails to explicitly disclose the instant charge-capacity ratio C1/C2 of the first anode active material layer to the cathode active material layer of about 0.001 to about 0.45.
Suzuki teaches an analogous solid battery (Title) with an anode including a Li metal layer (e.g., ¶ 0008). Suzuki teaches a ratio of 0.01 < b/a < 0.5, where b and a are the initial charge capacities of the anode and cathode active layers, respectively (¶ 0007) and, thus, equivalent to C1/C2. Similar to Affinito’s structure, Suzuki teaches that this ratio, where the cathode active layer’s initial charge capacity is higher than the anode’s, allows the anode active layer to cover and protect the metal layer and inhibit dendrite growth to prevent shorting (¶ 0008).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure Affinito’s battery to exhibit a C1/C2 of greater than 0.01 and less than 0.5 with the reasonable expectation of providing a balanced capacity ratio compatible with Li-containing anode active material and protecting such from dendrite growth and shorting, as taught by Suzuki.
This range overlaps the recited about 0.001 to about 0.45. To balance the above dendrite inhibition with ensuring suitable capacity from each electrode, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited C1/C2 by routinely optimizing each electrode’s charge capacity, including within the overlap (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Affinito et al. (US 20110177398 A1) (Affinito), as applied to claim 1, in view of Angerbauer et al. (US 20210218065 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Affinito discloses the all-solid secondary battery of claim 1.
Affinito discloses that the cell may further include a non-conductive layer, i.e., inactive member, wrapping around the edge of the electrode as insulation to prevent shorting (¶ 0381) but fails to explicitly embody such in fig. 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate an insulating layer wrapping around the edge of Affinito’s cathode layer—so that the inactive member would be along a side surface of the cathode layer to surround the cathode—with the reasonable expectation of preventing shorting.
Despite envisioning this “inactive member”, Affinito fails to explicitly disclose that such comprises a position determining portion configured to determine a position of the inactive member on the solid electrolyte layer.
Angerbauer teaches an analogous, solid, bipolar cell (Abstract), where edge insulation may be secured to the cathode side of the bipolar plate or secured to a periphery of the solid electrolyte overlying the anode active layer (¶ 0017). Angerbauer teaches that edge insulation 60 may include a feature such as a recess (¶ 0077), which may be engaged to ensure that spacing is maintained between the insulation’s inner peripheral edge 64 and first active material layer edge 31 (¶ 0076/0077, fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Affinito’s insulation/inactive member with a feature such as a recess—i.e., an uneven surface and, thus, a “position determining portion” (see 112(f) section)—with the reasonable expectation of being able to determine and fix the position of the insulation however desired, as suggested by Angerbauer.
Thus, the “position determining portion”, in allowing one to determine and fix the position of the “inactive member”, would reasonably be configured to determine a position of the inactive member on the solid electrolyte layer if the inactive member were on such.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Affinito et al. (US 20110177398 A1), as applied to claim 1, in view of Ose et al. (US 20170244097 A1).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Affinito discloses the all-solid secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the cathode layer comprises a cathode active material layer (ref. 55 in annot. fig. 1) and the cathode active material layer comprises a cathode active material (¶ 0231).
Affinito further envisions metal-oxide-based cathode active materials (¶ 0231) as well as an embodiment with a mixture of chalcogenide active material with sulfur-based materials (¶ 0238), but appears to fail to explicitly disclose that the cathode active material comprises a lithium transition metal oxide represented by at least one of Formulae 1–7, as well as that the active layer further comprises an oxide- or sulfide-based solid electrolyte.
Ose teaches an analogous solid battery (Title) with a cathode active layer including a lithium transition metal oxide cathode active material as well as a sulfide solid electrolyte (Abstract, ¶ 0046), where the active material is, e.g., LiMPO4, where M is, e.g., Fe (¶ 0046). Ose teaches that the battery including this composition experiences lower resistance (e.g., ¶ 0083).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a mixture of a lithium transition metal oxide such as LiFePO4 (reading on Formula 7, where a = z = 1, and M3 = Fe) as well as a sulfide solid electrolyte into Affinito’s cathode active layer with the reasonable expectation of lowering resistance, as taught by Ose.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 (103) and 12 (claim objection) have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
Claim Objection of Claim 12:
Applicant appears to argue that claim 12’s “selected from among gold (Au), platinum (Pt) … and a combination thereof” does not warrant an objection because Applicant has not located a Markush group in claim 12, at least one based on the “selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C” format. Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that claim 12’s “selected from among gold (Au), platinum (Pt) … and a combination thereof” is a Markush group in alternate form given it presents a list of alternative limitations. Importantly, Examiner suggested amending to “selected from among gold (Au), platinum (Pt) … [[and]] or a combination thereof” to conform to the “selected from A, B, or C” format in MPEP 2117 (I) and avoid potential confusion over whether one of the metals plus “a combination thereof” is meant to be a joint member, which is clearly not intended even by Applicant’s remarks on p. 12. Thus, this objection is maintained.
103 of Claim 1:
Applicant argues that Affinito fails to disclose that other members—like the release layer corresponding to the instant second protecting layer—should be porous to withstand forces and that Affinito discloses tailoring the porosity of structural members to withstand forces versus that adding pores would help withstand such forces. To this end, Applicant argues that adding pores reduces structural integrity such that one skilled in the art would not add such to Affinito’s release layer to withstand force.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that—as Applicant cites—Affinito discloses that pores in the porous support can be tailored such that the resulting electrode is able to withstand force while maintaining structural integrity (¶ 0245). Importantly, Affinito discloses that the release layer may withstand force application during fabrication and/or cell cycling and may be compatible with methods/articles relating to force application (¶ 0133)—i.e., tailoring porosity for force absorption. Further, Affinito clearly discloses that the porous structures enhance cell performance and are able to withstand anisotropic forces (e.g., ¶ 0245), which is reasonable given pores are well known to cushion or absorb force relative to a monolithic body. Thus, that the skilled artisan would not make Affinito’s release layer porous is unpersuasive.
Applicant further argues that mapping any porous, force-resistant layer in Affinito’s multi-layer release layer to the “cushioning layer” and mapping any layer on the “cushioning layer” to the “covering layer” is overbroad. Examiner respectfully disagrees because claim 1 merely requires a “porous multilayer member [that] comprises a porous cushioning layer and a porous covering layer on one surface”. Absent special definition of “cushioning” or “covering”, the broadest reasonable interpretation of such terms appear to allow a given layer in Affinito’s (now porous) release layer to be the “porous cushioning layer” because such would “cushion” the electrode assembly by absorbing force (as detailed above and alluded to in ¶ 0133 and 0245), and any layer atop the “cushioning layer” would be the “porous covering layer” on at least one surface of the cushioning layer because such would be porous and would “cover” the cushioning layer.
Applicant further argues that the cushioning and covering layers are specifically chosen to balance stress relaxation with protection from contamination and unnecessary contact with the environment. Examiner respectfully submits that it is unclear that the prior art cannot achieve such effects because, again, a more inward layer in Affinito’s (porous) multi-layered release layer could be considered the cushioning layer and, thus, absorb stress/force via the pores, and a more outward layer could be considered the covering layer and, thus, would reasonably cover/protect the more inward layer from outside contact. Further, the argument that the covering layer is designed to be non-adhesive is outside claim 1’s scope.
Applicant further argues that Affinito’s release layer includes a porous cushioning layer or porous covering layer. Such appears to repeat the above argument, so Examiner reiterates the above response.
Applicant further argues that Affinito does not recognize the manufacturing problem addressed by the porous layer, namely that conventional elastic members may accidentally adhere during manufacturing, whereas the instant structure maintains elasticity/cushioning while avoiding this phenomenon by employing a non-adhesive covering layer. Examiner respectfully disagrees at least because, again, claim 1 does not require the covering layer to be non-adhesive. Moreover, as explained in claim 10, Affinito appears to allow the second/outer release layer to exhibit low affinity to its respective surface to allow detachment from the carrier substrate when incorporated into the cell (¶ 0109, 0115), meaning making the covering layer non-adhesive appears obvious for a substantially similar reason as Applicant’s disclosure.
Applicant further argues that the Office’s selecting the release layer to be multi-layered constitutes improper hindsight by employing a different embodiment. Examiner respectfully disagrees that such is improper. Any obviousness rejection inherently contains some degree of hindsight, but such is proper as long as the information was within the knowledge of or available to one of ordinary skill before the claimed invention’s effective filing date. Here, Affinito clearly discloses, in an embodiment separate from the cited fig. 1 embodiment, that the release layer may be a combined layer (e.g., ¶ 0114, 0131), so incorporating such would seemingly have yielded a predictably successful release layer supporting the electrode and absorbing anisotropic force for the reasons detailed above. Thus, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant further argues that, rather than the claimed invention, Affinito appears to provide 1) a release layer to release the electrode assembly from a carrier substrate and that may be released with the substrate or remain with the assembly; 2) the release layer may be positioned in various places, including on the substrate and on the current collector or between electrode components and, thus, not on a surface of the electrode assembly; 3) no disclosure that the release layer is porous; and 4) no disclosure of a porous cushioning layer alongside a porous covering layer on at least one surface of the cushioning layer in the release layer.
Regarding 1), as Applicant acknowledges, Affinito discloses that the release layer may remain with the electrode assembly (e.g., ¶ 0108), which is further seen in the cited fig. 1 embodiment in release layer 27 atop the electrode assembly. Regarding 2), again, fig. 1 embodies release layer 27 atop the assembly. 3) Regarding 3), again, the release layer is compatible with methods/articles relating to force application (¶ 0113)—i.e., tailoring porosity to withstand anisotropic forces (¶ 0245). Regarding 4), again, because Affinito’s release film may be multi-layered and, based on the above modification, would be porous throughout, a given layer could be the “porous cushioning layer” in that it would absorb/withstand forces and, thus, “cushion” the electrode assembly, while a given layer atop the “cushioning layer” could be the “covering layer” given it “covers” the cushioning layer. Thus, because Affinito discloses or renders obvious an all-solid battery including a second protecting layer on at least one surface of the electrode assembly, the 2PL including a porous cushioning layer as well as a porous covering layer on at least one surface of the cushioning layer, this argument is unpersuasive.
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 JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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, Jonathan Leong, can be reached on 571-270-192. 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.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 9/28/2026
