DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 2026-01-30, the following has occurred: Claim 1 has been amended; Claims 2, 7, and 14 have been (previously) canceled.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-13 pending and are examined herein. This is a 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 § 103
Claims 1, 3-6, 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, wherein Nishino explicitly contemplates a lithium battery, such that the anode, at least in the charged state will be a lithium alloy with those metals (¶ 0049)
Hasegawa, from the same field of invention, also regarding a pressing method for a lithium battery, teaches that the negative electrode active material can be lithium alloys, including lithium, indium, tin, silicon, oxides thereof, and alloys or composites thereof (para 0088). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an alloy of In/Al/Si/Sn with lithium, since Nishino suggests that the negative electrode is ultimately a lithium alloying anode, Hasegawa, related to a similar pressing formation method, teaches the use of lithium and metal (oxides) that form alloys and combinations with lithium, and because they were conventional in the art for solid state cells formed by pressing.
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)
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 5, Nishino teaches:
cold and warm isostatic pressing (¶ 0071)
Regarding Claim 6, Nishino teaches:
wet-type cold isostatic pressure (¶ 0071)
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
The arguments submitted 2026-01-30 have been considered but do not place the application in condition for allowance. In the claim amendments filed with the RCE and accompanying Remarks of 2025-09-02, the claims were amended to require a negative electrode “consist[ing] of lithium metal.” Applicant argued in those remarks that the cited prior art, Nishino and Hasegawa, did not teach a negative electrode consisting of lithium metal. The claims were rejected in the Non-Final Rejection of 2025-10-30 under § 112, for new matter and indefiniteness because the as-filed specification did not appear to provide support for an anode consisting solely of lithium (alloy).
The claims have now been amended to require an anode comprising a current collector and a “lithium metal” that can include a wide range of “alloys” and “metal composite oxides.” The § 112 rejections are therefore withdrawn. Previously cited Nishino, however, teaches the anode active material is not particularly limited and is intended to include conventional materials like carbons and graphites, lithium alloying metals like In, Al, Si, and Sn, and complex oxides like niobium oxide, lithium titanate, and silicon oxide (¶ 0049). Hasegawa is cited for teaching lithium alloys and mixtures as anode material in a similar pressing process, disclosing lithium titanate and silicon oxide, as well as metals like lithium, indium, tin, silicon, and composites thereof (¶ 0088). It would have been obvious to use common lithium alloys, such as lithium-indium, lithium-tin, and lithium silicon, since Hasegawa explicitly contemplates such alloys and Nishino says the active material is not particularly limited and conventionally known anode active materials can be used. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). For additional evidence of ordinary skill in the art, the Office points to Li et al. “High-performance all-solid-state Li-Se batteries induced by sulfide electrolytes.” Energy Environ. Sci. 2018, 11, 2828 (July 2018). Li teaches an all-solid-state Li battery with anode, solid electrolyte, and cathode, formed via high pressure pressing of the components, wherein the anode is a lithium alloy of Li-Sn (pp. 2830-2831), similar to that suggested by Hasegawa.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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