DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2026-05-26 has been entered.
In the amendment dated 2026-05-26, the following has occurred: Claim 1 has been amended; Claims 2, 5-7, and 14 have been (previously) canceled.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 8-13 are pending and are examined herein. This is a Non-Final Rejection.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 refers to “the lithium alloy,” without a proper antecedent basis. The claim has been amended to refer to “a lithium metal […] wherein the lithium metal is a lithium metal composite oxide.” It is not clear why a material that must be an oxide, with examples in the specification given as LixFe2O3 or LixWO2, wherein the lithium is an ionic species incorporated into the oxide lattice, is being described as “a lithium metal.” Similarly, if the claim has been amended to strike lithium alloy, it is unclear why “the lithium alloy” is being further described. The claims have been interpreted broadly to require an oxide comprising lithium and a transition metal. The dependent claims are rejected for depending on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3-4, 8-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishino (US 2014/0082931 to Nishino et al.), with reference to Hasegawa (US 2018/0287209 to Hasegawa et al.) for evidence of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claims 1 and 8, Nishino teaches:
a method of manufacturing a lithium metal unit cell for all-solid-state batteries comprising stacking a lithium anode (comprising active material and current collector), a solid electrolyte, and a positive electrode (comprising active material and current collector) to form a stack (Fig. 4A, ¶ 0040 and 0062)
wherein the anode can comprise conventional active materials in the art, including metals such as In, Al, Si, and Sn, or composite metal oxides, such as lithium titanium oxide, or lithiated Nb2O5 (¶ 0049)
wet-type cold isostatic pressure, performed in a sealed bag-type protector under water pressure (¶ 0071-0075)
Nishino further teaches:
pressing the stack isostatically at several hundred MPa, such as a range between 300-500 MPa (¶ 0073), including examples pressed at 400 MPa for 5 minutes (example 2)
As further evidence of ordinary skill in the art in this regard, the Office cites to Hasegawa (US 2018/0287209), directed towards a similar solid state battery, teaches cold isostatic pressing at 400 MPa, indicating that 400 MPa was well within conventionally known and used pressures for a handful of minutes. It would have been obvious to press the stack at about 400 MPa for 5 minutes, since it was taught by Nishino and was otherwise widely known in the art.
Regarding Claim 3, Nishino teaches:
pressing the stack all at once (Fig. 1C, e.g. ¶ 0035-0036)
Regarding Claim 4, Nishino teaches:
continuous target pressure without ramping (see e.g. ¶ 0038-0040 and examples)
Regarding Claim 9, Nishino teaches:
sulfide solid electrolytes (¶ 0056)
Regarding Claims 11-13, Nishino teaches:
a full battery cell, including an electrode assembly, manufactured according to the method (see Examples and Figs.)
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishino (US 2014/0082931 to Nishino et al.) with reference to Hasegawa (US 2018/0287209 to Hasegawa et al.) for evidence of ordinary skill in the art, in further view of Ohta (US 2014/0162113 to Ohta et al.).
Regarding Claim 10, Nishino teaches:
collectors of steel, aluminum, nickel, iron, titanium, carbon, and copper (para 0061)
Nishino does not explicitly teach a collector surface treatment. Such treatments were conventional in the art. See Ohta at paragraph 0035. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to treat the surface of the collector to improve its surface features.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, submitted 2026-05-26, have been considered but are unpersuasive. Despite the rejections pointing out that Nishino teaches an explicit example at 400 MPa for a few minutes (Example 2, Table 1), and referring to Hasegawa for evidence that 400 MPa was a thoroughly conventional pressure for isostatic pressing in the art, Applicant argues that: “Notably, in Nishino’s Examples, CIP pressing is performed under conditions of 200 MPa […]”. This is just a basic failure to engage with the facts of the prior art and the logic of the rejections. As to Applicant’s argument that the “significance of the present invention” (Remarks at p. 4) involves better appreciating some consequence of what is neither a novel nor non-obvious method of isostatic pressing, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights