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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-10 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 14 September 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “comprising, which comprises” should read --comprising-- or --which comprises--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 11 and 12 recite a radius of curvature range of 5R or less (Claim 11) and 0.1R to 5R (Claim 12). It is unclear what the bounds of the claimed ranges are or what is meant by 5R and 0.1R as R is the common notation for radius of curvature and is not a standard unit for describing said value. Instead, within the art, radius of curvature is expected to be presented as a unit of length. Thus, one skilled in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claim as no units are given for the claimed radius of curvature. The instant specification provides no special definition of R as a unit for radius of curvature and provides no means for a skilled artisan to ascertain the scope of the claimed ranges. For the purposes of prosecution, the examiner interprets claims 11 and 12 to merely require a composite cathode which is curved and thereby, necessarily has a radius of curvature. Claims 12-19 are further rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 11 and claims 17-18 are further rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 12. While not a direct dependent of claim 11, claim 20 recites the composite cathode according to claim 11 and thus is rendered unclear for the same reasons described regarding claim 11 above.
Claim 13 recites a sintering temperature difference of the cathode active material and the oxide based solid electrolyte. Since the sintered composite oxide sheet contains both components and the instant specification describes the composite oxide sheet as a mixture of the two (instant specification, [0087]), it is unclear how they could be sintered at different temperatures. Furthermore, for the individual components alone, being the cathode active material and the oxide-based solid electrolyte, it is unclear what is meant by the sintering temperature as sintering temperature is not an inherent property but rather an experimental condition that can be performed over significant ranges. For the purposes of prosecution, the examiner interprets sintering temperature to merely describe a temperature range within which sintering could be performed.
Claim 18 further limits “the light-sintering aid” as first recited in claim 17. However, claim 17 does not require the inclusion of a light-sintering aid in the composite cathode and only optionally recites the light-sintering aid as a component of the sintered composite oxide sheet. Therefore, it is unclear whether the applicant means for claim 18 to require the light-sintering aid or is merely placing further limitations on the light-sintering aid which may only optionally be included in the sintered composite oxide sheet. For the purposes of prosecution, the examiner interprets claim 18 to require the sintered composite oxide sheet comprising the light-sintering aid wherein the light-sintering aid comprises the claimed materials.
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.
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.
Claims 11-12, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoff et al. (Proc. SPIE, Laser-based Micro- and Nanoprocessing XVI, 2022, 11989, 119890E), hereinafter “Hoff”, in view of Zou et al. (US 2023/0163367), hereinafter “Zou”.
Regarding claims 11, 12, and 20, as interpreted in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Hoff teaches a ceramic solid-state battery (corresponding to the claimed all-solid lithium secondary battery) including a ceramic electrolyte layer (corresponding to the claimed solid electrolyte layer), an anode, a metallic substrate current collector (corresponding to the claimed cathode current collector), a mixed cathode (corresponding to the claimed sintered composite oxide sheet and wherein both the metallic substrate and mixed cathode together correspond to the claimed composite cathode) which is laser sintered and consists of a cathode active material and electrolyte material such as lithium lanthanum zirconate (LLZO, corresponding to the claimed oxide-based solid electrolyte as one skilled in the art would recognize LLZO as a common solid oxide electrolyte material) (Hoff, pg. 1 par. 2, pg. 3 par. 2, Fig. 1), and deposition of the mixed cathode material on the current collector (corresponding to the claimed disposition of the sintered composite oxide sheet on at least one layer of the cathode current collector) (Hoff, pg. 3 par. 3).
Hoff does not teach a radius of curvature.
However, Zou teaches a lithium-ion battery of a wound structure capable of achieving a high energy density while preventing lithium plating and depicts the battery having a positive electrode with a radius of curvature (Zou, [0006], Fig. 1), wherein the specific radius of curvature parameters R, L, and β (describing a relationship between R and L) are set to provide the battery with a high energy density while avoiding lithium plating (Zou, [0070], [0083]-[0084], [0094], [0096], Fig. 1). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add Zou’s wound battery structure including R, L, and β, to the ceramic solid-state battery of Hoff in order to achieve a wound battery with a high energy density without lithium plating (Zou, [0084]). The resulting prior art combination would satisfy the limitations of claims 11 and 12 regarding radius of curvature ranges as discussed regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above.
Regarding claim 15, Hoff teaches an ionic conductivity of 2.3·10-4 S/cm (Hoff, pg. 7 par. 1) which meets the claimed range.
Regarding claim 17, Hoff teaches LLZO is ionically conductive (Hoff, pg. 6 par. 3) and thus, LLZO also corresponds to the claimed metal oxide-based conductive material as one skilled in the art would recognize that LLZO is a metal oxide-based material.
Regarding claim 18, as interpreted in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, the recitation of a light-sintering aid is intended use language, “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” MPEP §2111(II). The body of the claim recites the light-sintering aid comprising lithium metal oxide particles including at least one of the claimed elements and thus fully sets forth the limitations of the claimed invention. Therefore, the examiner interprets claim 18 to merely require lithium metal oxide particles including at least one of the claimed elements. Hoff teaches LCO in the mixed cathode material (corresponding to the claimed light-sintering aid comprising lithium metal oxide particles and cobalt as one skilled in the art would recognize that LCO, being lithium cobalt oxide, is a lithium metal oxide particle and includes cobalt as claimed) (Hoff, pg. 1 par. 2).
Regarding claim 19, the ceramic solid state battery suggested by Hoff modified by Zou includes Zou’s wound structure, wherein Zou depicts the positive electrode active material layer (corresponding to Hoff’s mixed cathode and thus also corresponding to the claimed sintered composite oxide sheet) on both inner and outer surfaces of the positive electrode current collector (Zou, Fig. 1). The positive electrode active material layer located on the outside of the positive electrode current collector corresponds to the claimed radius of curvature of the cathode current collector is smaller than a radius of curvature of the sintered composite oxide sheet.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoff in view of Zou as applied to claim 1 above, and further evidenced by Qin et al. (J. Power Sources, 2026, 677, 239958), hereinafter “Qin”, and Li et al. (US 10,541,414), hereinafter “Li”.
Regarding claim 13, as interpreted in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Hoff teaches high temperature treatment of LLZO and LCO and an incompatibility in decomposition temperature of the two (Hoff, Abstract, pg. 2 par.2), but is silent to the exact conditions of heat sintering of LLZO and LCO separately or of a sintering temperature difference between the two.
However, Qin teaches sintering of a doped LLZO at 1175 °C (Qin, pg. 2 col. 2 par. 4) and Li teaches sintering LCO at 900 to 1100 °C (Li, col. 3 ln. 10-20). Thus, the LLZO of Hoff would have a sintering temperature of 1175 °C as evidenced by Qin (Qin, pg. 2 col. 2 par. 4) and the LCO of Hoff would have a sintering temperature of 900 to 1100 °C as evidenced by Li (Li, col. 3 ln. 10-20), which together correspond to a sintering temperature difference range of 75 to 275 °C (as calculated by the examiner) which overlaps with the claimed sintering temperature difference. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoff in view of Zou as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 9,583,786), hereinafter “Lee”.
Regarding claim 14, Hoff teaches a side phase lanthanum cobalt oxide (LaCoO3, corresponding to the claimed secondary phase) generated during laser sintering and that the parameters of laser sintering affect the amount of LaCoO3 formed but is silent to the content by weight of LaCoO3 (Hoff, pg. 6 par. 1).
However, Lee teaches a solid electrolyte particle for a lithium secondary battery and that the solid electrolyte particles (Lee, [0002], [0011]) may include a secondary phase in an amount of 5 wt% or less, which meets the claimed range. When the secondary phase is greater than 5 wt%, the ionic conductivity of the electrolyte particles, and concurrently the capacity characteristics of the battery, may be decreased (Lee, [0043]).
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add Lee’s secondary phase range of the solid electrolyte to the mixed cathode layer of Hoff in order to maintain the ionic conductivity of the mixed cathode material and thereby also maintain the capacity characteristics of the battery (Lee, [0043]). The examiner notes that Lee’s weight percent range is based on a total weight of the solid electrolyte alone, whereas the claimed range is based on the total weight of the sintered composite oxide sheet. However, when Lee’s range of 0 to 5 wt% is applied to Hoff’s mixed cathode material, which includes both the cathode active material and LLZO, the upper bound of 5 wt% based on the LLZO alone would be smaller when based on the LLZO and cathode active material together and thus would still meet the claimed range.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoff in view of Zou as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Yoshima et al. (US 2019/0089009), hereinafter “Yoshima”.
Regarding claim 16, Hoff teaches ethyl cellulose (corresponding to the claimed organic compound) as a binder (Hoff, pg. 3 par. 3) but is silent to the weight percent.
However, Yoshima teaches a positive electrode including a positive electrode active material and a solid electrolyte which may be garnet type Li7La3Zr2O12 (LLZO) and including a binder in a range of 2 to 7 weight % based on the positive electrode active material-containing layer (corresponding to the claimed sintered composite oxide sheet). When the binder is within the given range the electrode has sufficient strength while reducing the insulating part of the electrode (Yoshima, [0098], [0110]).
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add Yoshima’s binder content range to Hoff’s ethyl cellulose binder in order to provide the mixed cathode with sufficient strength without increasing its insulating properties (Yoshima, [0098]), thereby providing a mixed cathode having a binder content of 2 to 7 % based on the total weight of the mixed cathode, which meets the claimed range.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Teng et al. (Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci., 2014, 18, 29-38) teaches LLZO ionic conductivity within claim 15 range. Finegan et al. (US 2022/0263060) and Miller et al. (US 6,461,759) teach delamination upon bending a cathode with cathode active material on the inside. Ramos et al. (ACS Energy Lett. 2022, 7, 3392-3400) teaches laser sintering of a LLZTO film.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMRAN S SAUND whose telephone number is (571)270-0845. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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 Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1177. 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.
/SIMRAN S. SAUND/Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights