ALL SOLID STATE BATTERY

§103 §DP

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 07/31/26, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are amended; claim(s) 4 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; claim(s) 2, 3, and 5 is/are canceled; and claim 7 is added without entering new matter. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment. Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous claim objection set forth in the Office Action mailed 05/01/26 has/have been withdrawn. However, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection as well as non-statutory double-patenting rejection over co-pending 17/892714 has/have been maintained and altered as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, as set forth below. Additionally, new claim 7 necessitated the new grounds of rejection below. Claim Objections Claim 7 is objected to for the following informality: in lines 1 and 2, “the electrode stacked body is confined … in a thickness direction” should read “the electrode stacked body is confined … in [[a]] the thickness direction” for proper antecedence based on claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. 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, 4, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto et al. (RU 2725177 C1, from 05/01/25 IDS; citation to English equivalent US 20200280102 A1, from 02/22/24 IDS) in view of 1) Joo et al. (US 20150099185 A1, from 06/12/26 IDS), 2) Ueno et al. (WO 2021024876 A1, from 05/01/25 IDS; citations to English equivalent US 20220294007 A1, from 05/01/25 IDS), and 3) Shishihara et al. (JP 2015028854 A, with machine translation from 08/07/25 IDS) or Matsuyama et al. (JP 2017168387 A, with machine translation from 05/01/25 IDS). Regarding claims 1, 4, and 5, Sakamoto discloses a vehicle (¶ 0003) comprising an all solid state battery (Title, exs.) comprising an electrode stacked body including a cathode layer, an anode layer, and a solid electrolyte layer placed between the cathode layer and the anode layer (e.g., fig. 1), wherein the electrode stacked body is confined under confining pressure of, e.g., 0.08 MPa (Ex. 1, Table 1), falling within 0–2 MPa. Sakamoto further discloses that the anode layer may include an active material of Si (¶ 0167) but fails to explicitly disclose an anode active material with a volume expansion rate due to charge of 105% or more. Joo teaches an analogous battery negative electrode active material made of nanofibers (Abstract, 0014), where the nanofibers may be Si-based (¶ 0014, 0281). Joo recognizes that in conventional anodes, Si’s volume contraction/expansion from (dis)charging leads to pulverization, breaking, and degradation, but this nanofibrous material avoids these issues, allowing the active material to expand its volume at least 150% while yielding high energy density and stability (¶ 0118). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Joo’s Si nanofibers as Sakamoto’s anode active material—such that the active material would exhibit a volume-expansion rate due to charge of ≥ 150%, satisfying ≥ 105% (and further reading on claim 4 as a Si-based anode active material)—with a reasonable expectation of yielding high energy density and stability with accommodated volume expansion, as taught by Joo. Sakamoto further discloses that the solid electrolyte layer includes a sulfide solid electrolyte (e.g., ¶ 0156; see also Ex. 1, ¶ 0182) and a binder (¶ 0162; see also butadiene rubber in ¶ 0182) but, in being unconcerned with the binder’s concentration, fails to explicitly disclose that a ratio of the binder in the solid electrolyte layer is 20–30 volume%. Ueno, in teaching an analogous solid battery (Title), teaches incorporating the binder at 0.1–30 vol% of the solid electrolyte layer (¶ 0074). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Sakamoto's binder must necessarily be incorporated into the solid electrolyte layer with some concentration, and, as demonstrated by Ueno, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to employ a concentration of, e.g., 0.1–30 vol% as an appropriate concentration. More importantly, Ueno teaches that the binder maintains favorable joining within the solid electrolyte of the solid electrolyte layer, prevents cracking within the solid electrolyte, and minimizes a decrease in ion conductivity and an increase in grain-boundary resistance (¶ 0074). The skilled artisan, meanwhile, would appreciate that Sakamoto’s solid electrolyte provides ion conductivity. To balance proper ion conductivity with favorable joining, prevented cracking, and minimalized decreases in ion conductivity and increases in grain-boundary resistance, it would have been obvious to arrive at the instant 20–30 vol% by routinely optimizing the binder’s vol%, including within Ueno’s overlap (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)). As seen in instant Table 1, the elastic modulus inversely varies with binder content at a given confining pressure. Importantly, then, as discussed above, although modified Sakamoto may fail to explicitly disclose that a bending elastic modulus in the solid electrolyte layer is 5.0 GPa or less, to balance the above considerations such as cracking and ion conductivity, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited elastic modulus by routinely optimizing the binder content and, thus, necessarily controlling the elastic modulus (MPEP 2144.05 (II)). Nonetheless, Shishihara, in teaching an analogous solid battery with a sulfide-electrolyte protective layer between the electrodes (Abstract), teaches that it is desirable that the sulfide electrolyte membrane is sufficiently soft, displaying a low Young’s modulus—which reasonably constitutes a “bending” elastic modulus because the elastic modulus reflects a material’s resistance to elastic deformation and, thus, flexibility—of preferably 0.08–20 GPa (¶ 0027, 0028). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Sakamoto's sulfide electrolyte layer must necessarily be incorporated with some degree of elasticity/rigidity, and, as demonstrated by Shishihara, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to employ a Young’s modulus/bending elastic modulus of 0.08–20 GPa with the reasonable expectation of forming a successful sulfide electrolyte and battery. This range overlaps the recited ≤ 5.0 GPa such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful sulfide electrolyte with suitable physical properties (MPEP 2144.05 (I)). More importantly, though, the skilled artisan would recognize that a compromise necessarily exists in the elastic modulus, where a higher modulus yields a more rigid or deformation-resistant material, while a lower modulus yields a more flexible or resilient material. To balance these effects, then, it would have been further obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the elastic modulus (MPEP 2144.05 (II)). Additionally or alternatively, Matsuyama, in teaching an analogous solid electrolyte sheet for a solid battery (¶ 0001), where the electrolyte is preferably sulfide-based (¶ 0021), teaches that the sheet’s Young’s modulus is preferably 1.0 GPa to 1.0 TPa (¶ 0038, 0039). Matsuyama teaches that setting the modulus to the lower limit improves the layer’s strength and prevents cracking from electrode volume change during (dis)charge, while setting the modulus no higher than the upper limit improves the layer’s stress relaxation to further prevent cracking and improve battery characteristics (¶ 0039). To balance improved strength with improved stress relaxation to prevent cracking, it would have been further obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the solid electrolyte layer’s Young’s/bending modulus, including within Matsuyama’s broader range or Shishihara’s narrower, encompassed range and, thus, within the overlap, as taught by Matsuyama (MPEP 2144.05 (II)). Regarding claim 7, modified Sakamoto discloses the vehicle according to claim 1. As noted above, Sakamoto confines the electrode body under confining pressure of, e.g., 0.08 MPa in a thickness direction (binding pressure in Ex. 1, Table 1), a value so close to the instant 0 MPa that one skilled in the art would have reasonably expected the electrode bodies resulting from the claimed and prior-art pressure values to exhibit substantially similar properties, absent demonstrated criticality (MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Specifically, Sakamoto never attributes poor performance to binding at pressure slightly above 0 MPa—indeed, Sakamoto allows binding at ≤ 1.0 MPa (¶ 0010)—and the data of record appear to lack criticality isolatable to a confining pressure of 0 MPa, at least relative to the prior art’s 0.08 MPa, because confining pressure of 1 MPa achieved substantially similar charge/discharge as 0 MPa in instant Table 1. Thus, absent demonstrated criticality attributable to a binding pressure of 0 MPa, the instant value appears merely an obvious variant of Sakamoto’s 0.08 MPa. Additionally, as noted above, Sakamoto generally allows binding at ≤ 1.0 MPa, which overlaps the recited 0 MPa such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successfully confined electrode body (MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto et al. (RU 2725177 C1; citation to English equivalent US 20200280102 A1) in view of 1) Joo et al. (US 20150099185 A1), 2) Ueno et al. (WO 2021024876 A1; citations to English equivalent US 20220294007 A1), and 3) Shishihara et al. (JP 2015028854 A) or Matsuyama et al. (JP 2017168387 A), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Hirose et al. (US 20090035651 A1, from 05/01/25 IDS). Regarding claim 6, modified Sakamoto discloses the all solid state battery according to claim 1, wherein the electrode stacked body includes an anode current collector at a location on an opposite side to the solid electrolyte layer, with respect to the anode layer (e.g., first collector 1a of Sakamoto’s fig. 1; see also Sakamoto’s ¶ 0171). Sakamoto further bonds the anode current collector to anode layer 1b via adhesive (¶ 0039) and, thus, clearly desires sufficient adhesion between these layers but fails to explicitly disclose a rough surface, which has a surface roughness Rz of ≥ 0.6 μm, formed on an anode layer side surface of the anode current collector. Hirose, in teaching a battery anode (Title), teaches roughening the anode collector’s surface to improve adhesion between the collector and active material layer (¶ 0048)—and, thus, the roughened surface is the anode-layer-side surface. Hirose teaches a roughness Rz of ≥ 1.5 μm for sufficient adhesion (¶ 0049). Hirose is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery anodes. Alternatively, Hirose is analogous because they are reasonably pertinent to a problem the inventor would have faced, namely increasing adhesion between the current collector and anode (as in spec.’s ¶ 0051). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to roughen Sakamoto’s anode collector’s anode-layer-side surface to an Rz of ≥ 1.5 μm—falling within ≥ 0.6 μm—with the reasonable expectation of desirably improving adhesion between the collector and anode layer, as taught by Hirose. Double Patenting The text forming the basis for the non-statutory double-patenting rejection may be found in a prior Office Action. Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, and 7 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1 of copending Application 17/892714 (reference application, published as US 20230075357 A1) in view of Sakamoto et al. (RU 2725177 C1; citation to English equivalent US 20200280102 A1). Ref. claim 1 includes or encompasses all limitations of instant claims 1–6 besides reciting a vehicle comprising the battery. Sakamoto teaches an analogous all-solid battery (Abstract), teaching that such batteries are well known to be applied as power sources for automobiles (¶ 0003). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely incorporate the ref.’s battery into a vehicle with the reasonable expectation of achieving a successfully powered vehicle, as taught by Sakamoto. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not been patented. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 7 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive. 103: Applicant argues that Sakamoto fails to disclose 20–30 vol% binder in the solid electrolyte layer. Examiner agrees and respectfully notes that Ueno was used to teach this limitation. Applicant further argues that Ueno’s 0.1–30 vol% is overbroad compared to Applicant’s allegedly critical 20–30 vol% with respect to the correlation between binder content and (dis)charge capacity. Examiner respectfully disagrees because it is unclear that the data of record support criticality to this range for the reasons discussed below. Applicant further argues that Ueno fails to teach the confining pressure. Examiner agrees but notes that Ueno was only used to teach the binder content because Sakamoto discloses the confining pressure within claim 1’s range. Applicant further argues that Ueno is not a solid battery because they use a solvent, and Ueno uses an electrolyte with different properties than the instant sulfide and, thus, is inapplicable. Examiner respectfully disagrees with the solvent argument because Ueno explicitly removes solvent after manufacturing the solid electrolyte layer (¶ 0118). Examiner notes that Applicant’s cited ¶ 0042 of Ueno, which describes that the solid electrolyte layer may be a liquid-injection type in which the layer is dissolved or dispersed in solvent, is merely one embodiment (i.e., “may be”), whereas Ueno describes many other embodiments, including the conventional laminated solid battery within ¶ 0042 (see MPEP 2123 (I) and (II), where a reference is good for all it would have reasonably suggested to one skilled in the art and does not teach away without actively discrediting the teaching in question). Thus, this argument is unpersuasive. Further, Examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument that Ueno’s binder content is inapplicable because the reasons for the 0.1–30 vol% binder in the solid electrolyte layer—balance of joining/cohesion within solid electrolyte (i.e., general purpose of binder in solid electrolyte layer) with ion conductivity (i.e., general purpose of solid electrolyte, as skilled artisan would readily understand)—are clearly generic to both the solid electrolyte and binder types. Thus, the skilled artisan would have readily applied Ueno’s teachings to Sakamoto’s solid electrolyte layer and arrived at the instant 20–30 vol% via routine experimentation to ensure favorable joining, prevented cracking, and suitable ion conductivity. Such further addresses Applicant’s argument that Ueno does not consider the correlation between the binder content and charge/discharge capacity. Specifically, Ueno seems to implicitly consider this effect by recognizing that the binder content is important for minimizing reduction in ion conductivity and increases in grain-boundary resistance (¶ 0074), both of which would reasonably affect (dis)charge efficiency by impacting the ease of ion flow across the solid electrolyte layer. Nonetheless, even if, arguendo, Ueno does not recognize Applicant’s correlation, Applicant’s recognizing another advantage that would flow naturally from following the prior art’s suggestions cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious (MPEP 2145 (II)). Here, the skilled artisan still would have applied Ueno’s 0.1–30 vol% binder to Sakamoto’s general disclosure and optimized within this range for the benefits above, making this range appear to remain obvious and the argument unpersuasive. Applicant further argues that Shishihara’s solid electrolyte layer is used for the electrode layers, not the solid electrolyte layer, and, thus, Shishihara fails to teach the bending modulus ≤ 5.0 GPa in the solid electrolyte layer. Examiner first respectfully notes that Applicant is yet to respond to the assertion that because the bending modulus varies inversely with binder content (instant Table 1), in optimizing the binder content based on Ueno, the skilled artisan would have indirectly optimized the bending modulus routinely arrived at the claimed range. Nonetheless, Examiner respectfully disagrees against the above argument because Shishihara’s sulfide-electrolyte protecting layer is still an ion-conducting solid electrolyte between the electrodes (¶ 0021) and, thus, spatially and functionally analogous to Sakamoto’s solid electrolyte layer. Moreover, regarding Applicant’s auxiliary argument that Shishihara’s solid electrolyte layer 40 is an oxide electrolyte versus sulfide, Examiner relied on the sulfide-electrolyte protective layer 41, rendering this argument moot. Applicant further argues that Shishihara fails to teach a confining pressure of 0–2 MPa and that one skilled in the art would not apply Shishihara’s teachings to Sakamoto because Shishihara confines the electrode laminate at ~ 50 MPa. Examiner respectfully notes that Shishihara was only used to render obvious the bending modulus given Sakamoto discloses the confining pressure. Further, it is unclear that Shishihara’s generic modulus teachings would be incompatible with Sakamoto’s solid electrolyte layer because the skilled artisan would understand that Sakamoto’s solid electrolyte, in being solid, must necessarily possess certain mechanical properties such as elastic modulus (i.e., resistance to plastic deformation) and would have recognized Shishihara’s 0.08–20 GPa as a reasonable starting point from which to experiment to reach the instant range to balance mechanical integrity (reflected by higher modulus) with flexibility/resilience (reflected by lower modulus) as desired. Per MPEP 2145 (IV), obviousness hinges not on individual teachings but on the prior art’s combined suggestions to one skilled in the art. Applicant further argues that Matsuyama’s Young’s modulus is inapplicable because the solid electrolyte sheet is preferably substantially free of binder. Examiner first respectfully notes that Matsuyama allows binder in ¶ 0045, but, nonetheless, Examiner maintains that Matsuyama’s preferred binder content does not negate the skilled artisan’s awareness that Sakamoto’s solid electrolyte layer—regardless of binder content—must necessarily possess some elastic modulus and, in consulting Matsuyama, would have readily experimented to reach the instant range—either within Matsuyama’s broader range or Shishihara’s narrower range—to balance strength and crack prevention with stress relaxation as essentially an extension of the general knowledge of balancing rigidity with resilience. Again, see MPEP 2145 (IV). Turning finally to Applicant’s alleged criticality, Applicant first appears to argue that a confining pressure of 0–2 MPa achieves unexpectedly superior (dis)charge efficiency (i.e., unexpected given conventional pressing requires higher confining pressure to achieve comparable discharge efficiency, as allegedly reflected by Comp. Ex. 9–12). Examiner respectfully submits, however, that because Sakamoto, in being the primary reference, already disclosing a confining pressure falling within 0–2 MPa (e.g., 0.08 MPa, Ex. 1, Table 1), Sakamoto is invulnerable to unexpected results over this parameter; rather, unexpected results would need to be demonstrated for a different parameter (see MPEP 716.02(e), where unexpected results must compare to the closest prior art, which, here, is Sakamoto and a binding pressure of 0.08 MPa). Thus, this argument is unpersuasive. Applicant further argues that the binder content of 20–30 vol% is critical to achieving unexpectedly superior (dis)charge efficiency. Examiner initially notes, however, that there are no examples testing above 30%, whereas MPEP 716.02(d) requires that criticality showings include a sufficient number of tests inside and outside—and, thus, above and below—the range to determine whether the results are truly unexpected across the range. Here, it is unclear if the results are unexpectedly superior across the range because effects above 30% are indeterminable. Additionally, although Examiner acknowledges Comp. Exs. 1–8, with binding pressure within 0–2 MPa and binder content < 20 vol%, it appears that at least some of the examples change multiple parameters concurrently—binder content and binding pressure—such that it is unclear if the poorer results are isolatable to the binder content. Nonetheless, even if the results demonstrated unexpectedly superior (dis)charge efficiency across 20–30 vol% binder, the results appear incommensurate with claim 1 at least as follows: Claim 1 allows any binder in the solid electrolyte layer, whereas the skilled artisan would recognize that different binder types (e.g., water-soluble, rubber, fluoropolymer, vinyl such as styrene) would achieve different degrees of binding by different physical and chemical interactions with the solid electrolyte (which appears further reflected by Applicant’s exemplifying rubber or fluorine-based binders in ¶ 0034 alongside many others in ¶ 0035/0036). Such could affect (dis)charge efficiency because such depends on electrolyte availability to react with each active material, whereas if the electrolyte delaminated from either electrode (due to insufficient binding, as implied in Ueno’s ¶ 0074), there would necessarily be less electrolyte available to react. Thus, is unclear if the results would occur using, e.g., xantham gum as the binder. Claim 1 allows any sulfide solid electrolyte at any concentration, whereas the skilled artisan would realize that (dis)charge efficiency depends on electrolyte reactivity with each electrode active material and would understand that many different sulfide electrolytes exist (e.g., amorphous sulfides, crystalline sulfides, lithium thiophosphates like Li3PS4, argyrodites like Li6PS5Cl, mixed sulfide-halide electrolytes, etc., as in Sakamoto’s ¶ 0157). It is unclear if the results would occur using any sulfide electrolyte and at any concentration. Claim 1 allows any anode active material with a volume expansion rate ≥ 105% and at any concentration, but the skilled artisan would understand that (dis)charge efficiency depends on the active material’s reactivity with the electrolyte, which is based on the active material’s type and concentration. As many active materials are known to exhibit high volume expansion rates (e.g., Si and derivatives, similar to discussion in ¶ 0039–0031 of spec.), it is unclear if the results would occur using any active material with expansion rate ≥ 105% and at any concentration. Claim 1 allows any cathode active material at any concentration, but the skilled artisan would understand that (dis)charge efficiency depends on the active material’s reactivity with the electrolyte, which is based on the active material’s type and concentration. It is unclear if substantially similar results would occur using, e.g., 90 wt% LiCoO2 as 75 wt% sulfur. Thus, based on MPEP 716.02(d), this argument is further unpersuasive. For new claim 7, see the new grounds of rejection above. Double Patenting: Applicant argues that the pending double-patenting rejection over co-pending 17/892714 is moot because this application has been abandoned as of 07/30/26. However, there is neither a request for express abandonment from Applicant nor a notice of abandonment from the USPTO in the ‘714 file wrapper, and, thus, the application is still pending. Thus, the rejection is maintained for the above reasons. 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