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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 17 June 2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 52-78 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claim 1 includes the limitations “an anode electrode comprised of porous spaces and sintered active material” and “an electrolyte … fills said porous spaces within the anode electrode and cathode electrode”; claim 52 includes the limitation “an anode electrode consisting of porous spaces, an electrolyte which fills said porous spaces within the anode electrode, and sintered active material”. These claims also include similar limitations with respect to the cathode. Claim 1, using “open” claim language”, can include a binder or a conductive additive. Claim 52, using “closed” claim language, excludes the presence of a binder or a conductive additive. These are different inventions.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 52-78 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is amended. Claims 52-78 are newly added and are withdrawn. Claims 1-12 and 15-29 are examined herein. No new matter is included.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues (page 4) that the cited references fail to teach or suggest the present invention “wherein said sintered active material of said anode is 100 percent sintered active material on a weight basis” is not met because Kajiura teaches sintering the lithium transition metal oxide at a higher temperature than the melting point of the current collector to form a sheet consisting of sintered material. This argument is moot in light of the “open” claim language of claim 1, “comprising”. Further, the claim requires the sintered active material to be 100% sintered active material. Some diffusion of the current collector into the LTO electrode, which might occur, or might be blocked by the buffer layer of Kawakami, does not prevent the sintered active material from being considered 100% sintered active material.
Claim Objection
Amended claim 1 includes the limitations “LiN2O4 … where N can be any transition metal….”. Because “N” is commonly used to represent the element nitrogen, the use of “N” to represent “any transition metal …” creates confusion. Applicant is requested to use a letter which does not represent an element. Appropriate correction is required.
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 -7, 9, 11, 15-17, and 20-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kajiura (US 6679926B) in view of Chiang (US 20120315538 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kajiura teaches an electrochemical device (abstract) comprising:
an anode electrode comprised of porous spaces and sintered active material, (col. 6 lines 65- col. 7 line 11) “heated at a temperature lower than the melting point of the current collector … preferrable in air.” (col. 7 lines 56-67) “fired at 800 deg C … for 3 hours”)
wherein said anode electrode is configured to be in electronic communication with an anode current collector; (col. 6 line 65 – col. 7 line 8)
Regarding the limitation wherein said sintered active material of said anode is 100 percent sintered active material on a weight basis; Kajiura discloses (col. 6 lines 65- col. 7 line 11) “heated at a temperature lower than the melting point of the current collector … preferably in air.” (col. 7 lines 56-67) “fired at 800 deg C … for 3 hours” and regarding the cathode (col. 5 lines 33-55) “the sintering temperature is such a level as the binder is completely oxidized and decomposed” and “in a range of 800 ˚C to 1000 ˚C”. While Kajiura does not explicitly teach that anode binder material is completely oxidized and decomposed, Kajiura’s sintering of the anode at 800 ˚C for 3 hours in air is expected to have the same outcome as Kajiura’s sintering of the cathode. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would expect the anode material of Kajiura to be 100% sintered active material.
a cathode electrode comprised of porous spaces and sintered active material, (col. 4 lines 1-5)
wherein said cathode electrode is configured to be in electronic communication with a cathode current collector; (col. 3 lines 35-57 sintered material and the current collector are integrated … contact resistance can be decreased)
wherein said sintered active material of said cathode is 100 percent sintered active material on a weight basis; (col. 5 lines 33-55 “the sintering temperature is such a level as the binder is completely oxidized and decomposed.” “in a range of 800 ˚C to 1000 ˚C”)
a separator comprised of channels, disposed between said anode electrode and said cathode electrode; and (col. 8 lines 2-9 “separator of porous polyethylene film”)
an electrolyte in ionic contact with said anode electrode, said cathode electrode, and said separator, and which also fills said porous spaces within the anode electrode and cathode electrode; and (col. 9 lines 25-35 “laminate immersed in an electrolyte solution”
Regarding the positive and negative electrode materials, Kajiura discloses (col. 5 lines 5-11) that the positive electrode active material may be “any conventionally known material.” For example, LixMn2O4, which is a candidate within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives. At (col. 5 lines 13-20) Kajiura discloses multiple candidates for negative electrode materials, including silicon, carbon, graphite, and combinations. Kajiura does not disclose any particular limitations on the positive or negative active materials, however, Kajiura does not explicitly disclose the use of Li4Ti5O12 (lithium titanate) or LiN2O4 (where N is a transition metal, Al, or an alkali metal) as a negative electrode material.
Chiang discloses (abstract) a similar porous sintered electrode material which may be filled with electrolyte, for the purpose of achieving high energy density and high power. At [0082] “a variety of electrode materials may be used”, with the requirement that “the negative electrode storing the working ion of interest at a lower absolute electrical potential than the positive electrode.” At [0086] the use of LiCoO2 (equivalent to the claimed LiMO2) and NMC (equivalent to the claimed LiNixMnyCozO2) are disclosed as positive active materials and at [0094] LiMn2O4 is disclosed (equivalent to the claimed LiM2O4). These candidates are within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives. Regarding the negative electrode, Chiang discloses [0090] lithium titanate spinel and at [0092] the formula AxMyOz, where A can be Li and M is a transition metal (equivalent to the claimed LiM2O4) – these are candidates within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select a LixMn2O4 or NMC positive active material for use with a Li4Ti5O12 (lithium titanate) or LiN2O4 negative active material, as these represent selections from a finite list of alternatives taught by Chiang, with a reasonable expectation of creating a successful battery.
While Kajiura and Chiang do not explicitly teach a negative active material/ positive active material pair comprising Li4Ti5O12/ LiMO2, Li4Ti5O12/ LiM2O4, LiN2O4/ LiM2O4, Li4Ti5O12/ NMC, or LiN2O4/ NMC, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select Li4Ti5O12 as a negative electrode (as taught by Chiang), in combination with the LiCoO2 (taught by both Kajiura and Chiang) because this active material pairing meets the limitation “the negative electrode storing the working ion of interest at a lower absolute electrical potential than the positive electrode”, with a reasonable expectation of achieving a successful battery.
Regarding claim 6, Kajiura in view of Chiang teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, Kajiura further teaches (col. 5 lines 1-6) a separator including non-aqueous electrolyte solution. (meets the limitation wherein said ionic contact includes said electrolyte dispersed within said channels of said separator.)
Regarding claim 7, Kajiura in view of Chiang teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, Kajiura further teaches (col. 5 lines 1-6) a separator including a polymer solid electrolyte (meets the limitation wherein said separator itself provides ionic conductive contact if said separator is solid state electrolyte type or polymer electrolyte type.)
Regarding claim 9, Kajiura in view of Chiang teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Kajiura is silent on the thickness of the anode electrode, however, Kajiura discloses (col. 7 lines 17-35) the thickness of the cathode sintered body is about 300 µm. (falls within the claimed range of 100 µm to 1000 µm.) However, Kajiura does not explicitly wherein the thickness of the anode electrode is in the range of 100 µm to 1000 µm. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select a value of about 300 µm for the anode electrode, based on Kajiura’s teaching that a suitable thickness for the cathode sintered body is about 300 µm, with a reasonable expectation of making a successful battery. Further evidence for the selection of a thickness between 100 µm and 1000 µm is provided by Chiang at [0108], which discloses an electrode thickness of 220 µm having good charge and discharge capabilities.
Regarding claim 11, Kajiura in view of Chiang teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Kajiura further discloses (col. 7 lines 17-35) the thickness of the cathode sintered body is about 300 µm. This falls within the claimed range of 100 µm to 1000 µm.
Regarding claim 15, Kajiura in view of Chiang teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Kajiura further teaches a functioning battery (abstract), 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 claim 16, Kajiura in view of Chiang teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Kajiura does not explicitly teach wherein said anode electrode is free of battery binder material, conductive additive material, or battery binder material and conductive additive material. However, Kajiura discloses (col. 6 lines 65- col. 7 line 11) “heated at a temperature lower than the melting point of the current collector … preferrable in air.” (col. 7 lines 56-67) “fired at 800 deg C … for 3 hours”). Kajiura discloses regarding the cathode (col. 5 lines 33-55) “the sintering temperature is such a level as the binder is completely oxidized and decomposed” and “in a range of 800 ˚C to 1000 ˚C”. While Kajiura does not explicitly teach that anode binder material is completely oxidized and decomposed, Kajiura’s sintering of the anode at 800 ˚C for 3 hours in air is expected to have the same outcome as Kajiura’s sintering of the cathode at a similar temperature. Examiner notes that Kajiura (col. 1 lines 25-48) states that the addition of an electrically conductive material can be eliminated or reduced. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have been motivated to sinter the negative electrode at a temperature sufficient to burn out any binder, and to avoid adding an electrically conductive additive, with a reasonable expectation of success, thus meeting the instant claim limitaiton.
Regarding claim 17, Kajiura in view of Chiang teaches all of the limitations as set forth above wherein said cathode electrode is free of: battery binder material, conductive additive material, or battery binder material and conductive additive material. (col. 5 lines 33-54 “the binder is completely oxidized and decomposed.”) Examiner notes that Kajiura (col. 1 lines 25-48) states that the addition of an electrically conductive material can be eliminated or reduced.
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Kajiura in view of Chiang teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Kajiura further teaches (col. 6 lines 13-24) the porosity of the cathode is in the range of 15-60%, and preferably in a range of 30% to 50% (equivalent to 50% to 70% solid by volume fraction). However, Kajiura does not explicitly teach the porosity of the negative electrode.
Chiang discloses (abstract) a similar porous sintered electrode material which may be filled with electrolyte, for the purpose of achieving high energy density and high power. 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). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select Chiang’s 64% solids by volume for the anode active material of modified Kajiura, with a reasonable expectation of successfully achieving the desirable result of enhanced discharge rate.
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.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Kajiura in view of Chiang teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Kajiura further teaches (col. 6 lines 13-24) the porosity of the cathode is in the range of 15-60%, and preferably in a range of 30% to 50% (equivalent to 50% to 70% solid by volume fraction) which encompasses the limitation of the instant claim (active material of said cathode electrode is about 60% solid by volume fraction.) The teaching of a range of 30% to 50% (equivalent to 50% to 70% solid by volume fraction also encompasses the limitation of claim 23 (wherein said active material of said cathode electrode is in the range of the following ranges: … about 45% solid by volume fraction to about 70% solid by volume fraction…)
Regarding claims 24-27, Kajiura in view of Chiang 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 Kajiura would be expected to have the same areal capacity as in the limitations of claims 24-27.
Regarding claim 28, Kajiura in view of Chiang teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Kajiura further teaches the device further comprising a cell casing configured to at least partially enclose said device. (col. 4 lines 32-42 “battery casing”)
Regarding claim 29, Kajiura in view of Chiang teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Kajiura further teaches wherein the device is a flat cell (FIG. 1A), which is a candidate within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives.
Claim(s) 2-5, 12, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kajiura in view of Chiang (US 20120315538 A1), as set forth in claim 1, above, and in further view of Kawakami (US 20060127773 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kajiura in view of Chiang teaches all of the limitations as considered above. Kajiura 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 Kajiura 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, Kajiura in view of Chiang teaches all of the limitations as considered above. Kajiura 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 Kajiura 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, Kajiura in view of Chiang teaches all of the limitations as considered above. Kajiura 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 Kajiura 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, Kajiura in view of Chiang teaches all of the limitations as considered above. Kajiura and Cobb do 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 Kajiura with the conductive material of Kawakami, because Kawakami explicitly teaches [0021] the importance of an electron-conductive buffer layer.
Regarding claim 12, Kajiura in view of Chiang teaches all of the limitations as considered above. However, Kajiura 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 Kajiura, 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, Kajiura in view of Chiang teaches all of the limitations as considered above. However, Kajiura 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.”)
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 Kajiura with the coating material of Kawakami, because Kawakami explicitly teaches [0028] the importance of a surface coating having electron conductivity and ion transmissibility.
Regarding claim 19, Kajiura in view of Chiang teaches all of the limitations as considered above. However, Kajiura 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 teaches ([0024]) a surface coating.
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 Kajiura with the coating material of Kawakami, because Kawakami explicitly teaches [0028] the importance of a surface coating having electron conductivity and ion transmissibility.
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kajiura (US 6679926B) in view of Chiang (US 20120315538 A1) as set forth in claim 1, above, and in further view of Young (Young et. al, 2013, Electronic Conductivity in the Li4/3Ti5/3O4–Li7/3Ti 5/3O4System and Variation with State-of-Charge as a Li Battery Anode, Adv. Energy Mater. 2013, 3, 1125–1129), which was cited by Applicant in the IDS dated 28 September 2023.
Regarding claim 8, Kajiura in view of Chiang teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Kajiura is silent on the thickness of the anode electrode and does not teach wherein the thickness of the anode electrode is about 400 µm. Chiang discloses ([0024-0026]) that thicker electrodes enable higher energy density and higher power, however if the tortuosity of the paths in the electrode is too high, the electrode will need to be made thinner in order to maintain high utilization of the active material.
Young, in the field of (page 1 col. 1) lithium titanate spinel anode material for a solid-state battery, discloses (page 1 col. 2) that “stable cycling with little capacity loss was observed for at least 20 cycles at C/20 rate in samples of 100–500 μm thickness.” (encompasses the claimed range).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to optimize the thickness of the anode of modified Kajiura based on the range taught by Young, in order to balance energy density and power with utilization of the active material, with a reasonable expectation of selecting the claimed thickness of 400 µm.
Regarding claim 10, Kajiura in view of Chiang teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Kajiura discloses (col. 7 lines 17-35) the thickness of the cathode sintered body is about 300 µm, however Kajiura does not explicitly teach any limitations on the thickness of the positive electrode, and does not teach the claim 10, wherein the thickness of the cathode electrode is about 400 µm. Chiang discloses ([0024-0026]) that thicker electrodes enable higher energy density and higher power, however if the tortuosity of the paths in the electrode is too high, the electrode will need to be made thinner in order to maintain high utilization of the active material.
Young, in the field of (page 1 col. 1) lithium titanate spinel anode material for a solid-state battery, discloses (page 1 col. 2) that “stable cycling with little capacity loss was observed for at least 20 cycles at C/20 rate in samples of 100–500 μm thickness.” (encompasses the claimed range).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the cathode material to be in a similar thickness range as the anode material, and would have been motivated to optimize the thickness of the cathode of modified Kajiura based on the range taught by Young, in order to balance energy density and power with utilization of the active material, with a reasonable expectation of selecting the claimed thickness of 400 µm.
Conclusion
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
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 11/25/2025