DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the January 12th, 2026 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”).
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 .
Response to Amendments
In response to the amendments received in the Remarks on January 12th, 2026:
Claims 1 and 7-12 are pending in the current application. Claims 1and 7-8 have been amended. Claims 2-6 and 13 have been cancelled.
The previous objection to the claims has been overcome in light of the amendment.
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112 is overcome in light of the amendment.
The previous objection to the specification has been overcome in light of the amendment.
The cores of the previous prior art-based rejections have been overcome in light of the amendment. All changes made to the rejection are as necessitated by the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with the Remarks on January 12th, 2026 with respect to claims 1 and 7-12 are based on the claims as amended. While Applicant’s arguments are acknowledged, they are found to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, presented below, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the Claims.
Prior Art
Previously cited Thielen US PG Publication 2017/0162862 (“Thielen”)
Gronwald US PG Publication 2014/0272565 (“Gronwald”)
Previously cited Ota US PG Publication 2016/0308218 (“Ota”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thielen US PG Publication 2017/0162862 in view of Gronwald US PG Publication 2014/0272565 and Ota US PG Publication 2016/0308218.
Regarding Claim 1, Thielen teaches an electrode for an all solid-state battery (non-limiting, intended use language, although taught by Thielen [0018]) (entire disclosure relied upon) comprising:
an electrode active material layer ([0005]-[0007], [0050]) comprising a plurality of electrode active material particles ([0021]-[0022], [0049]), a polymeric solid electrolyte ([0051]-[0058]) and a conductive material (either conductive carbon particles taught at [0048] OR lithium-ion conductive polymer infiltrated into the active material particles and/or lithium-ion conductive liquid utilized in infiltrated particles [0021]-[0047]), and at least one of an oxidation-improving additive ([0149] Thielen discloses the use of lithium bisoxalatoborate, LiBOB, as an additive and the skilled artisan would recognize that LiBOB is an oxidation-improving additive as evidenced by Applicant in [0051] of Applicant’s own PG Publication) or a reduction-improving additive ([0149] Thielen discloses the use of lithium bisoxalatoborate, LiBOB, as an additive and the skilled artisan would recognize that LiBOB is a reduction-improving additive as evidenced by Applicant in [0052] of Applicant’s own PG Publication),
wherein gaps between the electrode active material particles are filled with the polymeric solid electrolyte ([0049] teaches embedding of the impregnated active material particles in the “solid electrolyte”/ “catholyte”/ “anolyte” that is explicitly taught as being a gel polymer electrolyte [0050]-[0051]), the polymeric solid electrolyte comprises a swellable polymer electrolyte ([0051]-[0058], note that the electrolyte material may be the same as those taught for the impregnated particle polymer electrolyte material [0052] which are explicitly taught as swellable polymers [0044] as well as being intrinsically swellable polymers), wherein the polymer solid electrolyte is in a swelled state ([0054]-[0055] teaches the addition of an organic solvent such as ethylene carbonate to the polymer electrolyte to cause it to become a gel polymer electrolyte that intrinsically requires swelling thereof to form the gel polymer electrolyte [0044]),
the electrode active material has a porosity of less than or equal to 5% ([0153]) (which falls within, and therefore anticipates, the claimed range of 0-18%).
While Thielen discloses wherein an organic solvent infiltrates into the polymeric solid electrolyte ([0028])1, Thielen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the organic solvent is at least one of N,N-dimethylacetamide (DMAc), N-methyl pyrrolidone (NMP), water, methanol, ethanol, propanol, n-butanol, isopropyl alcohol, decalin, acetic acid, glycerol, or a combination thereof.
However, Gronwald discloses an electrode structure (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon). Gronwald teaches the use of solvents such as water, methanol, ethanol, propanol, and butanol in combination with a polymer gel that is swollen by the solvent due to the inertness of the solvent with respect to other components of the battery and the ability to solvate the desired polymer gel ([0083]-[0085]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrode of Thielen such that the solvent is at least one of water, methanol, ethanol, propanol, or butanol (which meets the claim limitation of at least one of N,N-dimethylacetamide (DMAc), N-methyl pyrrolidone (NMP), water, methanol, ethanol, propanol, n-butanol, isopropyl alcohol, decalin, acetic acid, glycerol, or a combination thereof) due to the inertness of the solvent with respect to the other components of the battery and the ability to solvate the desired polymer gel, as taught by Gronwald.
Thielen in view of Gronwald fails to disclose wherein the oxidation-improving additive is selected from propane sultone, propene sultone, ethylene sulfate, succinonitrile, ethyl glycol bis(propionitrile)ether, adiponitrile, tris(trimethylsilyl)borate, tris(trimethylsilyl)phosphate, tris(pentafluorophenyl)borate, or n-butylferrocene, and the reduction-improving additive is selected from vinylene carbonate, catechol carbonate, fluoroethylene carbonate, vinyl ethylene carbonate, propane sultone, glycol sulfite, or ethylene glycol bis(2-cyanoethyl)ether.
However, Ota discloses a semi-solid electrode including an active material (Abstract). Ota teaches the use of additives within the electrode material in order to improve the redox reaction performance including vinylene carbonate (VC), vinyl ethylene carbonate (VEC), and fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) in order to provide a stable passivation layer on the electrode ([0085]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrode of Thielen in view of Gronwald to further comprise a reductive-improving additive such as vinylene carbonate (VC), vinyl ethylene carbonate (VEC), or fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) in order to provide a stable passivation layer on the electrode, as taught by Ota.
1The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 7, Thielen in view of Gronwald and Ota teaches the instantly claimed electrode according to Claim 1, and Thielen further discloses the polymeric solid electrolyte is a solid polymer electrolyte formed by adding a polymer resin to a solvated lithium salt ([0017]).
Regarding Claim 8, Thielen in view of Gronwald and Ota teaches the instantly claimed electrode according to Claim 1, and Thielen further discloses the swellable polymer electrolyte is included in an amount of 50 vol% or more in the polymeric solid electrolyte ([0007], more than or equal to 50 vol%).
Regarding Claim 9, Thielen in view of Gronwald and Ota teaches the instantly claimed electrode according to Claim 1, and Thielen further discloses the polymer solid electrolyte may comprise polyethylene oxide ([0047]), which is a “polyethylene derivative” meeting the claim language “as least one of a polyether polymer, a polycarbonate polymer, an acrylate polymer, a polysiloxane polymer, a phosphazene polymer, a polyethylene derivative, an alkylene oxide derivative, a phosphate polymer, a polyagitation lysine, a polyester sulfide, polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinylidene fluoride, a polymer containing an ionically dissociable group, or a mixture thereof.”
Regarding Claim 10, Thielen in view of Gronwald and Ota teaches the instantly claimed electrode according to Claim 1, and Thielen further discloses wherein the electrode active material layer comprises 1-100 parts by weight of the polymeric solid electrolyte based on 100 parts by weight of the electrode active material particles ([0049]-[0050]).
Regarding Claim 11, Thielen in view of Gronwald Ota teaches the instantly claimed electrode according to Claim 1.
Thielen is silent with respect to the electrode for an all solid-state battery according to Claim 1, wherein the electrode active material layer independently comprises each of the oxidation-improving additive or the reduction-improving additive in an amount of 0.1-5 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrode active material particles.
Thielen in view of Gronwald and Ota, however, discloses the reduction-improving additives vinylene carbonate (VC), vinyl ethylene carbonate (VEC), and fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) (Ota [0085]). Thielen further discloses the ion-conductive liquid includes at least one conducting salt, a particularly high and consistent conducting salt concentration may advantageously be achieved over all pores of the porous active material particles ([0025]).
While Thielen in view of Gronwald and Ota is silent with respect to the content of the reduction-improving additive, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the amount of reduction-improving additive in the range claimed of 0.1-5 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrode material particles. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a suitable, working range, of the reduction-improving additive to achieve the desired level of concentration over all pores of the active material and suitably high lithium ion conductivity, consistent with the teachings of Thielen.
Furthermore, this would have been obvious because differences in concentration or temperature generally do not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Here, the general conditions of the claimed invention are disclosed expressly by Thielen, including the claimed additive material, and it would have yielded nothing more than predictable results, achievable by nothing more than routine experimentation, to have identified the claimed range and provide a workable level of conductivity and reduction-improving additive (such as VC, VEC, or FEC) concentration for the system of Thielen.
Regarding Claim 12, Thielen in view of Gronwald and Ota teaches the instantly claimed electrode according to Claim 1. Thielen further discloses an all solid-state battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode and a solid electrolyte layer interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, wherein at least one of the positive electrode or the negative electrode is the electrode as defined in Claim 1 ([0018]).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA MASON MELFI whose telephone number is (703)756-4652. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-6pm EST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached on (571)272-1481. 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.
/O.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights