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 .
Claim Status
An amendment, filed 6/30/2026, is acknowledged. Claim 1 is amended. No new matter is present. Claims 1-4 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujino et al. (JPH09293516A)(machine translation provided)(of record) in view of Morita et al. (JP 2010033782A)(of record) and Oku et al. (US 2006/0263666)(of record).
With respect to Claim 1, Fujino teaches a solid-state battery with a sulfide-based electrolyte, wherein the battery has a steel current collector. (pgs. 1-2 of translation). In particular, the reference teaches that the steel current collector preferably contains less than 1 wt% of Mo to prevent corrosion, including stainless steel examples such as SUS304, and teaches that the steel current collector composition “is not limited to the alloys described” in the disclosure. (pgs. 2-4 of translation). Thus, Fujino teaches a sulfide-based solid-state battery comprising a stainless steel current collector, but is silent as to a specific stainless steel current collector composition, as instantly claimed.
Morita teaches a ferritic stainless steel current collector in the form of a plate (i.e. sheet) for use in a battery, the steel having a composition, by mass%, as follows (p. 1, 3-5 of translation):
Claim 1
Morita
C
0.001-0.050
≤ 0.015
Si
0.01-2.00
≤ 0.5
Mn
0.01-1.00
≤ 2
P
≤ 0.050
≤ 0.05*
S
≤ 0.010
≤ 0.03*
Cr
18.0-32.0
12-32
Ni
0.01-4.00
≤ 2*
Al
0.001-0.150
≤ 0.5*
N
≤ 0.050
≤ 0.025*
Co
0.01-0.50
-
Fe
Balance with inevitable impurities
Balance with incidental impurities
Other
-
Ti: ≤ 0.4*
Mo: ≤ 2*
Cu: ≤ 2*
Nb: ≤ 0.8*
B: ≤ 0.3*
V: ≤ 0.3*
Zr: ≤ 0.3*
*optional element
Compositional ranges including zero (e.g. the claimed ranges of P, S, and N) are interpreted as optional elements. Therefore, Morita teaches a ferritic stainless steel sheet current collector with compositional ranges overlapping each of the instantly required compositional ranges with the exception of cobalt (Co) and that does not require any element outside those claimed.
Fujino and Morita are thus, both drawn to stainless steel alloys useful as a current collector in a battery, wherein the composition is selected to improve corrosion resistance. (see Morita, p. 4 of translation, disclosing addition of Cr for corrosion resistance properties; Fujino, abstract). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sulfide-based solid-state battery of Fujino, to substitute the stainless steel sheet current collector for a ferritic stainless steel current collector having the composition of Morita, in order to obtain a battery having a current collector with excellent corrosion resistance. Furthermore, as Fujino teaches the substitutability of stainless steel alloys (providing 1 wt% or less of Mo) for the current collector, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one stainless steel current collector for another, with the same function and desired properties, with a predictable result of success.
With respect to the content cobalt (Co), Oku teaches a ferritic stainless steel alloy for use as a separator of a polymer electrolyte fuel cell (thus, constituting a current collector), the alloy comprising compositional ranges of C, Si, Mn, P, S, Cr, Ni, Al, and Fe substantially overlapping those of Morita and the instant claims. (see abstract). Oku further teaches the addition of up to 0.50 mass% of Co to improve corrosion resistance. (para. 35).
Morita and Oku are thus, both drawn to stainless steel alloys for current collectors in the art of batteries/fuel cells, wherein the composition is selected to improve corrosion resistance. (see Morita, p. 4 of translation, disclosing addition of Cr, Mo, and Ti for corrosion resistance properties). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sulfide battery comprising a stainless steel current collector sheet of Fujino in view of Morita, to include up to 0.50 mass% Co, as taught by Oku, in order to further improve the corrosion resistance of the stainless steel material.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claimed composition overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
Morita further teaches that the stainless steel sheet has a thickness of 3 to 100 µm, overlapping the instantly claimed range. (p. 5 of translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a sheet thickness from the portion of the overlapping ranges. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claim 2, Morita teaches a ferritic stainless current collector further optionally comprising Mo and/or Cu in ranges overlapping those claimed. (see rejection of claim 1). Fujino teaches that up to 1 wt% of Mo may be present in the steel current collector to obtain desired corrosion properties. (pgs. 2-3 of translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an amount of Mo and/or Cu in the steel current collector selected from the portion of the overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claimed composition overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claims 3-4, Morita teaches a ferritic stainless current collector further optionally comprising one or more of Ti, Nb, V, Zr, and B in ranges overlapping those claimed. (see rejection of claim 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claimed composition overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/30/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Fujino in view of Morita have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Specifically, Morita fails to teach a content of cobalt (Co), as required by the amended claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Fujino in view of Morita in view of Oku, as detailed above.
Applicant’s arguments are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A HEVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0361. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/JOHN A HEVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights