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
Claim 1 is amended. Claims 52-78 are cancelled. Claims 79-82 are newly added. Claims 1-12, 15, 18-29, and 79-82, as filed 28 May 2026, are examined herein. No new matter is included.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues (page 13 of remarks) that Kajiura claim 1 recites sintering of a lithium transition metal oxide at a temperature higher than an melting point of the current collector, then pressing the sheet to the current collector, then heating at a temperature lower than the melting point of the current collector, thereby integrating the anode sheet and the current collector, which therefore does not meet the limitation of amended claim 1, “wherein said anode electrode does not include current collector material incorporated within said anode electrode”. Applicant's argument is not persuasive. Also, this argument is moot in light of a rejection using Chiang in view of Johnson, where the sintering temperature is 1100˚C for 4 hours, and the electrode is not heated in contact with a current collector.
Further regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues (page 21 of remarks) that Kajiura’s sintering (page 6, lined 65-col. 7 line 11) at 800˚C for 3 hours in air could leave anode binder material that is not completely oxidized. At page 23, Applicant states that Kajiura’s sintering process does burn out the organic binder, but that Kajiura’s process of integrating the electrode and current collector incorporates current collector material into the anode electrode. This is not persuasive in light of the amended rejection of claim 1, Applicant's argument is not persuasive. Also, this argument is moot in light of a rejection using Chiang in view of Johnson, where the sintering temperature is 1100˚C for 4 hours, and the electrode is not heated in contact with a current collector.
Further, while Applicant has presented data showing sintered anode and cathode provide excellent charge and discharge properties, it seems that these excellent results likely stem from (pages 1-3 of instant specification) design architecture choices to create thick sintered electrodes in combination with a tailored amount of continuous open porosity. The instant specification provides data from experimental examples but does not appear to provide control examples with (for example) a sintered electrode having 0.05% residual carbon or 0.05% copper from the current collector incorporated into the sintered electrode. Said differently, there is no evidence of criticality showing the benefit of 0.000% residual carbon or copper in the electrode as compared to 0.05% or 0.01% residual carbon or copper.
Applicant further argues (page 23 of remarks) that Kajiura teaches the possible inclusion of electrically conductive material. (Kajiura col. 1, lines 25-48). Applicant's argument is not persuasive. Also, this argument is moot in light of a rejection using Chiang in view of Johnson, where the sintering temperature is 1100˚C for 4 hours, and the electrode is not heated in contact with a current collector.
Applicant further argues (page 24 of remarks) that Chiang’s focus is on pore structure and tortuosity, not on the elimination of additives. Applicant's argument is not persuasive. Chiang is cited to teach the use of specific positive and negative active materials. Chaing’s alleged ‘focus’ is not relevant.
Applicant further argues (page 24 of remarks) that Examiner’s reasoning for claim 16 is based on conjecture. Specifically, Applicant argues that there is not a factual basis to assume that Kajiura’s sintering of the anode at 800 ˚C for 3 hours in air will have the same outcome as Kajiura’s sintering of the cathode. This is not persuasive. At page 23, line 1 of the remarks dated 28 May 2026, Applicant states “Kajiura’s sintering process does burn out the organic binder used in the coating solution.” Further, this argument is moot in light of a rejection using Chiang in view of Johnson, where the sintering temperature is 1100˚C for 4 hours, and the electrode is not heated in contact with a current collector.
Applicant further argues (page 25 of remarks) that “Applicant’s anode electrode is a self-supporting porous disk.” Examiner notes that porosity is required in instant claims 20-23, however there is no claim limitation requiring “self supporting porous disk, therefore”, therefore Applicant’s argument is moot.
Applicant further argues (page 25-26 of remarks) that neither Kajiura nor Chiang discloses a sintered Li4Ti5O12 anode in a full cell with a sintered cathode, and that the sintered Li4Ti6O12 anode is not taught or suggested by the prior art. This is not persuasive. Chiang at [0090] and [0097] discloses the use of Li4Ti6O12 active anode material. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Applicant further arguments (page 25-26 of remarks) unexpected results. This is not persuasive.
Applicant has attached (pages 29-49) Appendix A and Appendix B, which contain arguments in support of patentability, attacks on the motivation to combine, and various attempts to traverse independent and dependent claim rejections. Some of these arguments duplicate or overlap arguments made on pages 12-28 of Remarks. Appendix A and Appendix B are not signed therefore do not appear to part of Applicant’s formal traversal of the rejections under 35 USC 103. Examiner will respond to these arguments and comments if they are presented in a timely manner as part of the Remarks and also signed by Applicant’s representative.
Claim Interpretation
Amended claim 1 includes the limitations “an anode electrode comprised of porous spaces and sintered active material” and “a cathode electrode comprised of porous spaces and sintered active material.” Examiner notes that the term “comprised” is considered “open” claim language.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 6-11, 15, 20-29, 79-82 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang (US 20120315538 A1) in view of Johnson (US 20090092906 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chiang teaches an electrochemical device (abstract) comprising:
a cathode electrode comprised of porous spaces and sintered active material, ([0086]) positive electrode … LiCoO2 compound, [0110] oriented pore structure. At [0031] Chiang teaches the matrix constituent of the porous electrode “may be LiCoO2 and/or any of a variety of electrode active materials described in more detail below.” While a specific worked example is not provided, Chiang discloses at [0086] NMC as a positive electrode material. ) wherein said cathode electrode is configured to be in electronic communication with a cathode current collector, ([0108] tested with stainless steel current collectors) and wherein said cathode electrode is free of battery binder material and conductive additive material; wherein said sintered active material of said cathode is 100 percent sintered active material on a weight basis, and wherein said cathode electrode does not include current collector material incorporated within said cathode electrode; ([0110-0114] LiCoO2 slurry is prepared with 1% dispersant and 2% organic binder, freeze cast, then sintered at 1100˚C for 4 hours, producing an electrode having porosity.) Examiner notes that because the cathode electrode has been sintered at 1100˚C for 4 hours, it should be entirely free or substantially free of any binder residue or other detectable carbon.
Regarding an anode electrode comprised of porous spaces and sintered active material, at FIG. 4 and [0041] Chiang discloses a porous electrode. At [0031] Chiang teaches the matrix constituent of the porous electrode may be LiCoO2 “and/or any of a variety of electrode active materials described in more detail below.”. While a specific worked example is not provided, Chiang discloses at [0090] Li4Ti5O12 (LTO) as an anode material.
A person of ordinary skill would expect Chiang’s LTO to be manufacturable by Chiang’s fugitive sintering process, as disclosed above at [0110-0114] for LiCoO2, based on Chaing’s teaching at [0031], with a reasonable expectation of success. This renders obvious the selection of an anode wherein said anode electrode is configured to be in electronic communication with an anode current collector, and wherein said anode electrode is free of battery binder material and conductive additive material; wherein said sintered active material of said anode is 100 percent sintered active material on a weight basis, and wherein said anode electrode does not include current collector material incorporated within said anode electrode.
The selection of Chiang’s LTO and NMC as negative and positive active materials is rendered obvious by Chiang’s teaching ([0086], [0090], [0110-0114]) of a candidate materials for porous sintered active materials. The selection of LTO with NMC represents one of a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the need for a positive and negative porous electrode pair.
However, Chiang does not provide a specific worked example of Li4Ti5O12 (LTO) as an anode material with NMC as a cathode material.
Johnson, in the field of (abstract) solid state rechargeable batteries, discloses (abstract) a battery with sintered anode and cathode materials. At [0034] Johnson states that an LTO anode can be made in the same way as a composite cathode, and can combined with a lithium-NCM (NMC) cathode to make an all ceramic battery structure with a voltage of -2.5V. While Johnson does teach a solid electrolyte battery, a person of ordinary skill would understand that Johnson’s teaching of the LTO/NMC combination for Johnson’s solid electrolyte battery provides evidence for the success of Chiang’s LTO/NMC liquid electrolyte battery.
Returning to Chiang:
a separator comprised of channels, disposed between said anode electrode and said cathode electrode; ([0108] Celgard 2500 microporous separator)
wherein said device is configured to contain an electrolyte in ionic contact with said anode electrode, said cathode electrode, and said separator, ([0108] electrolyte … was added to cover the stack.)
wherein said device is configured to allow the electrolyte to fill said porous spaces within the anode electrode and cathode electrode; ([0107-0109] disclosing porosity of electrode materials, therefore electrolyte will fill porous spaces. FIG. 1b shows that the porosity is open porosity.)
The selection of a Li4Ti5O12 (LTO) anode and an LiNiXMnyCozO2 cathode; where x+y+z = 1. (NMC cathode), which are candidate within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives, is rendered obvious by Chiang as set forth above ([0086], [0090], [0110-0114]) and Johnson provides evidence for the success of this combination. ([0034])
Regarding claim 6, Chiang in view of Johnson teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Chiang further teaches at [0108) a separator and LiPF6 in an organic carbonate solution, which meets the limitation wherein said ionic contact includes said electrolyte dispersed within said channels of said separator.
Regarding claim 7, Chiang in view of Johnson teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Chiang is silent on the separator being a solid state electrolyte type or polymer electrolyte type. Johnson at [0016] teaches that a ceramic electrolyte coating can be used as a separator, and a lithium battery fabricated in such a manner would not require additional packaging.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to replace the liquid electrolyte of Chiang with the solid state electrolyte of Johnson, with a reasonable expectation of successfully reducing the need for additional packaging.
Regarding claims 8 and 10, Chiang in view of Johnson teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Chiang at [0108] discloses an example of an electrode cut to 0.5 mm thick and lapped to a thickness of 220 µm. Chiang at [0024] discloses the need for ion transport, and that porosity and tortuosity allow the electrodes to be fabricated with a higher energy density, higher capacity per unit area of electrode (mAh/cm), and greater thickness than comparable electrodes while still providing high utilization of the active material in the battery during use. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize electrode thickness to balance ion transport (more current collectors = utilization of all of the active material) with energy density (thicker electrodes = less volume or weight used by current collectors), with a reasonable expectation of selecting an anode electrode thickness of about 400 µm. This also renders obvious the selection of a cathode electrode with the same thickness, as in claim 10.
Regarding claims 9 and 11, Chiang in view of Johnson teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Chiang at [0108] discloses an electrode cut to 0.5 mm thick and lapped to a thickness of 220 µm, which falls within the claimed range (anode thickness 100 to 1000µm.) This also renders obvious the selection of a cathode electrode with the same thickness, as in claim 11.
Regarding claim 15, Chiang in view of Johnson teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Chiang further teaches a functioning battery ([0090]), therefore anode current collector is configured to be in communication with an external circuit and the cathode current collector is configured to be in communication with an external circuit.
Regarding claims 20 -23, Chiang in view of Johnson teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Chiang FIG. 12B discloses the optimization of porosity for a sintered electrode, and discloses [0121] an optimized porosity of about P = 0.36 (equivalent to 64% solids by volume), and discloses [0122] achieving enhanced discharge rates. This falls withing the claimed range of claim 21 (45% solid by volume to 70% solid by volume).
Chiang’s 64% solids by volume is so close the claimed 60% solids by volume of claim 20 that the skilled artisan would have expected it to have substantially the same properties and thus render obvious the selection of a material having the claimed porosity 60% porosity. For similar reasons, a cathode meeting the limitations of claims 22 and 23 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claims 24-27, Chiang in view of Johnson teaches all of the limitations as considered above. Further, the battery composition and structure as claimed has been rendered obvious (including the lithium-ion full cells disclosed on page 28, paragraph 2 of the instant specification to have the claimed properties). Therefore, the battery composition and structure of modified Chiang would be expected to have the same areal capacity as in the limitations of claims 24-27.
Regarding claims 28 and 29, Chiang in view of Johnson teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Chiang further teaches wherein a flat cell in a custom made “Swagelock cell” (e.g. a type of battery casing). This also renders obvious the limitation of claim 29, the selection of a flat cell, which is a candidate within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives.
Regarding claims 79-81, Chiang in view of Johnson teaches all of the limitations as considered above. Further, the battery composition and structure as claimed has been rendered obvious (including the lithium-ion full cells disclosed on page 28, paragraph 2 of the instant specification to have the claimed properties). Therefore, the battery composition and structure of modified Chaing would be expected to have the same areal capacity as in the limitations of claims 24-27.
Regarding claim 82, Chiang in view of Johnson teaches all of the limitations as considered above. Chiang further teaches ([0108] LiPF6) the cell further comprising an electrolyte.
Claim(s) 2-5, 12, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang (US 20120315538 A1) in view of Johnson (US 20090092906 A1), as set forth in claim 1, above, and in further view of Kawakami (US 20060127773 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Chiang in view of Johnson teaches all of the limitations as considered above. Chiang does not explicitly teach, but Kawakami does teach:
an anode buffer structure disposed between said anode current collector and said anode electrode; (FIG. 4A buffer layer 408, [0021] ”electron-conductive buffer layer”; [0073-0074]; [0080-0083])
a cathode buffer structure disposed between said cathode current collector and said cathode electrode; or ([0021]; [0073-0074]; [0080-0083])
an anode buffer structure disposed between said anode current collector and said anode electrode and a cathode buffer structure disposed between said cathode current collector and said cathode electrode. ([0021]; [0073-0074]; [0080-0083])
A person of ordinary skill in the art was motivated, as of the effective filing date of the instant application, to combine the solid-state battery of modified Chiang with the buffer structure of Kawakami, because Kawakami explicitly teaches [0013] the demand for negative electrodes that can provide a long service lifetime, and [0058] to alleviate the stress of the interface between the current collector and the main active material layer.
Regarding claim 3, Chiang in view of Johnson and Kawakami teaches all of the limitations as considered above. Chiang does not explicitly teach, but Kawakami does teach:
wherein either said anode buffer structure or said cathode buffer structure or both of said anode buffer structure and said cathode buffer structure are comprised of a: battery binder material; conductive additive material; or battery binder material and conductive material. ([0080-0083] graphite, SBR)
A person of ordinary skill in the art was motivated, as of the effective filing date of the instant application, to combine the solid-state battery of modified Chiang with the buffer structure including binder of Kawakami, because Kawakami explicitly teaches [0013] the demand for negative electrodes that can provide a long service lifetime, and [0058] to alleviate the stress of the interface between the current collector and the main active material layer.
Regarding claim 4, Chiang in view of Johnson and Kawakami teaches all of the limitations as considered above. Chiang does not explicitly teach, but Kawakami does teach:
wherein said battery binder material is at least one of any combination of the following: polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF); styrene butadiene rubber (SBR), carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), or polyacrylonitrile. ([0080-0083] SBR)
A person of ordinary skill in the art was motivated, as of the effective filing date of the instant application, to combine the solid-state battery of modified Chiang with use of the SBR binder of Kawakami, because Kawakami explicitly teaches [0013] the demand for negative electrodes that can provide a long service lifetime, and [0058] to alleviate the stress of the interface between the current collector and the main active material layer.
Regarding claim 5, Chiang in view of Johnson and Kawakami teaches all of the limitations as considered above. Chiang does not explicitly teach, but Kawakami does teach:
wherein said conductive additive material is at least one of any combination of the following: carbon black, graphite, carbon nanotubes, or graphene. ([0080-0083] graphite)
A person of ordinary skill in the art was motivated, as of the effective filing date of the instant application, to combine the solid-state battery of modified Chiang with the conductive material of Kawakami, because Kawakami explicitly teaches [0021] the importance of an electron-conductive buffer layer.
Regarding claim 12, Chiang in view of Johnson teaches all of the limitations as considered above. However, Chiang is silent on wherein said anode current collector and/or said cathode current collector are in the shape of a frame or border. Kawakami teaches ([0078]) a “punched metal plate”.
A person of ordinary skill in the art was motivated, as of the effective filing date of the instant application, select a punched metal plate for the current collector of modified Chiang, because Kawakami explicitly teaches [0005] the importance of high energy density and [0078] the importance of a current collector for supplying electric current. Examiner notes that a punched metal plate will reduce the weight of the current collector and therefore enhance gravimetric energy density.
Regarding claim 18, Chiang in view of Johnson and Kawakami teaches all of the limitations as considered above. However, Chiang is silent on wherein said anode electrode is further configured with a coating disposed on the exterior so as to be an integrated, operable portion of said anode electrode.
Kawakami teaches ([0024] surface coating; [0036] “in the alternate form … the composite anode is fabricated using identical methods to the composite cathode but using a lower voltage material such as LTO.”) Kawakami discloses ([0024]) a surface coating, and [0028] the importance of a surface coating having electron conductivity and ion transmissibility. At [0057] Kawakami contemplates that the rise of electric resistance can be suppressed, and charge/discharge efficiency is improved.
A person of ordinary skill in the art was motivated to combine the battery electrodes of modified Chiang with the coating material of Kawakami, with a reasonable expectation of suppressing the rise of electric resistance and improving charge/discharge efficiency.
Regarding claim 19, Chiang in view of Johnson teaches all of the limitations as considered above. However, Chiang is silent on wherein said cathode electrode is further configured with a coating disposed on the exterior so as to be an integrated, operable portion of said cathode electrode. Kawakami discloses ([0024]) a surface coating, and [0028] the importance of a surface coating having electron conductivity and ion transmissibility. At [0057] Kawakami contemplates that the rise of electric resistance can be suppressed, and charge/discharge efficiency is improved.
A person of ordinary skill in the art was motivated to combine the battery electrodes of modified Chiang with the coating material of Kawakami, with a reasonable expectation of suppressing the rise of electric resistance and improving charge/discharge efficiency.
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 CLAIRE A RUTISER whose telephone number is (571)272-1969. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM M-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 at 571-270-1292. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
CLAIRE A. RUTISER
Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/C.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
