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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5, 7-18, and 20-21 are currently pending
Claims 2-3, 10-12, 15-17, and 20 have been previously withdrawn
Claim 6 is cancelled
Claims 1, 15, and 18 are amended
Status of Amendments
The amendment filed 4 September 2025 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Status of Objections and Rejection pending since the Office Action of 8 July 2025
The 103 rejections over Takano in view of Park and Watanabe, further in view of Chen, Herrmann, and Sakamoto, respectively, have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment. However, a new grounds of rejection over Takano in view of Hiroshi, Park, and Watanabe, further in view of Herrmann and Sakamoto, respectively has been set forth as necessitated by applicant’s amendment.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano et al. (JP 5599366 B2, using the JP 2012243395 English translation for paragraph citations and JP 5599366 B2 English translation as an alternate translation option), hereinafter Takano, in view of Hiroshi et al. (JP WO2017146133 A1 ), hereinafter Hiroshi, further in view of Park et al. (KR 20120117306 A), hereinafter Park, further in view of Watanabe et al. (US 20140020240 A1), hereinafter Watanabe.
Regarding claim 1, Takano teaches a method for forming a solid-state battery, the method comprising:
disposing one or more cell units 10 along a continuous current collector 1 or 3 to form a stack precursor, wherein each cell unit comprises one or more first electrodes 11, one or more second electrodes 13, and one or more electrolyte layers physically separating the one or more first electrodes and the one or more second electrodes 12;
applying heat, pressure, or a combination of heat and pressure to the stack precursor to form a compressed stack [0024];
and cutting the continuous current collector to form the solid-state battery [0038].
Takano is silent as to the continuous current collector having a thickness greater than or equal to about 40 µm to less than or equal to about 60 µm. However, Hiroshi teaches a secondary battery comprising a continuous laminate formed on a continuous current collector (pg. 11, ¶ 3) comprising metals known to be malleable, like aluminum, copper, gold, or platinum (pg. 5, ¶ 3), and having a thickness in the range of 3 μm to 50 μm (pg. 5, ¶ 6). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Both Takano and Hiroshi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of manufacturing batteries with continuous current collectors. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lack of a specific current collector thickness in Takano with the current collector thickness of Hiroshi. Doing so would have ensured that the current collector is both not easily cracked during production and capable of sufficiently supporting the rest of the electrode stack (Hiroshi pg. 5, ¶ 6)).
Takano is silent as to cutting a first side of the compressed stack and also a second side of the compressed stack, the first side being parallel with the second side. However, Park teaches laser cutting both ends of a bent separator (pg. 8, ¶ 3 and Fig. 16), the ends being parallel with each other.
Both Takano and Park are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of forming secondary batteries through cell stacking methods. The examiner notes that Park uses a continuous separator instead of a continuous current collector. However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cutting process of Takano to include the teachings of Park and cut a first side of the compressed stack and also a second side of the compressed stack, the first side being parallel with the second side. Doing so would have reduced the volume of the cell stack and increased the capacity of the battery (Park pg. 8, ¶ 3).
Takano and Park are both silent as to the current collector being cut using a machine die cutter. However, Watanabe teaches a battery electrode manufacturing apparatus that cuts the electrode material using a front end die cutter 3 [0022] or laser cutters [0096].
Takano, Park, and Watanabe are all considered to be equivalent to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of secondary batteries. Watanabe teaches die cutting and laser cutting as being functional equivalents. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cutting process of Park to use a machine die cutter, as taught by Watanabe, instead of laser cutting. See MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding claim 4, modified Takano teaches the method of claim 1. Takano further teaches the continuous current collector being a z-folded current collector. Takano is silent as to the disposing the one or more cell units along the continuous current collector comprising: inserting the one or more cell units into one or more pockets formed by folds of the continuous current collector. However, Park teaches folding a separator in a zigzag form in advance to form a cell stack, wherein electrodes are placed in a space formed left and right of the separator after folding (pg. 3, ¶ 7).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takano to insert the one or more cell units of Takano into one or more pockets formed by folds of the continuous current collector in the same manner as taught by Park. Doing so would have improved the alignment and drastically reduced the production time (Park pg. 3, ¶7). Moreover, (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930).
Regarding claim 5, modified Takano teaches the method of claim 1. Takano further teaches the disposing of the one or more cell units along the continuous current collector comprising:
disposing a first cell unit 10, in this case the ones attached to 1, of the one or more cell units on or adjacent to a first surface of the continuous current collector 3;
folding the continuous current collector to form a first pocket that surrounds the first cell unit;
disposing a second cell unit of the one or more cell units on or adjacent to a second surface of the continuous current collector that is defined by an exterior-facing surface of the first pocket;
and folding the continuous current collector to form a second pocket that surrounds the second
cell unit [0023 and Fig. 3].
Regarding claim 8, modified Takano teaches the method of claim 1. Takano further teaches one or more anode tabs and one or more cathode tabs being defined in the continuous current collector, in this case a negative electrode lead 53 and a positive electrode lead 51 [0040]. Alternatively, the portion of the continuous current collector 3 that is connected to the negative lead 53 corresponds to the claimed “anode tab” and the portion of the current collector 1 that is connected to the positive lead 51 corresponds to the “cathode tab” (see Fig.1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Takano teaches the method of claim 1. Takano is silent as to the continuous current collector comprising one or more surfaces at least partially coated with one or more electrically conductive adhesive layers. However, Hiroshi teaches joining the current collector and each electrode with calcined carbide (pg. 2, ¶ 5). One of ordinary skill in the art would expect a carbide to be electrically conductive. Therefore, the calcined carbide capable of joining the current collector with each electrode is considered to be an electrically conductive adhesive.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takano to include the calcined carbide of Hiroshi. Doing so would have helped to produce an all-solid state secondary battery with low interfacial resistance between the electrodes and the current collector and high battery performance (Hiroshi pg. 22, ¶ 3).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano in view Hiroshi, Park, and Watanabe, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Herrmann (US 20180233782 A1), hereinafter Herrmann.
Modified Takano teaches the method of claim 1. Takano is silent as to the current collector being a cladded foil comprising a first layer parallel with a second layer. However, Herrmann teaches a current collector made of nickel-coated aluminum [0038].
Both Takano and Herrmann are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of stacked solid-state batteries. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lack of a specific current collector material of Takano to be the nickel-coated aluminum current collector as taught by Herrmann. “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use,” in the instant case using nickel coated aluminum to make a current collector, “supports prima facie obviousness determination” (MPEP 2144.07).
Claims 13-14, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano in view of Hiroshi, Park, and Watanabe, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Sakamoto (US 20210043967 A1), hereinafter Sakamoto.
Regarding claim 13, modified Takano teaches the method of claim 1. Takano is silent as to the stack precursor being heated to a temperature greater than or equal to about 50 °C to less than or equal to about 350 °C to form the compressed stack. However, Sakamoto teaches heating the pre-laminate to a temperature of 250 °C [0128]. "If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the lack of a specific heating temperature in Takano with the heating temperature of Sakamoto. Doing so would have eliminated the interfacial impedance and improved the wettability in order to improve contact between the active material and the solid electrolyte [Sakamoto 0128].
Regarding claims 14 and 21, modified Takano teaches the method of claim 1. Takano is silent as to a pressure greater than or equal to about 5 PSI to less than or equal to about 300 PSI, as required by claim 14, or greater than or equal to about 5 PSI to less than or equal to about 10 PSI, as required by claim 21, being applied to the stack precursor to form the compressed stack. However, Sakamoto teaches applying pressure to the pre-laminate in a range of 0.01 MPa to 10 MPa [0103]. This converts to a range of about 1.45 psi to 1450 psi. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takano with the applied temperature and pressure of Sakamoto. Doing so would have eliminated the interfacial impedance and improved the wettability in order to improve contact between the active material and the solid electrolyte [Sakamoto 0128], helped the lithium penetrate the solid electrolyte, and improved the critical current density [Sakamoto 0006].
Regarding claim 18, Takano teaches a method of forming a solid-state battery, the method comprising:
disposing one or more cell units 10 along a first surface of a continuous current collector 3 to form a stack precursor, wherein the continuous current collector is a z-folded current collector [0023] and each cell unit comprises one or more first electrodes, one or more second electrodes, and one or more electrolyte layers physically separating the one or more first electrodes and the one or more second electrode [0017];
applying heat, pressure, or a combination of heat and pressure to the stack precursor to form a compressed stack [0024];
and cutting the continuous current collector to form the solid-state battery [0038].
Takano is silent as to the continuous current collector having a thickness greater than or equal to about 40 µm to less than or equal to about 60 µm. However, Hiroshi teaches a secondary battery comprising a continuous laminate formed on a continuous current collector (pg. 11, ¶ 3) comprising metals known to be malleable, like aluminum, copper, gold, or platinum (pg. 5, ¶ 3), and having a thickness in the range of 3 μm to 50 μm (pg. 5, ¶ 6). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lack of a specific current collector thickness in Takano with the current collector thickness of Hiroshi. Doing so would have ensured that the current collector is both not easily cracked during production and capable of sufficiently supporting the rest of the electrode stack (Hiroshi pg. 5, ¶ 6)).
Takano is silent as to cutting a first side of the compressed stack and also a second side of the compressed stack, the first side being parallel with the second side. However, Park teaches laser cutting both ends of a bent separator (pg. 8, ¶ 3 and Fig. 16) the ends being parallel with each other.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cutting process of Takano to include the teachings of Park and cut a first side of the compressed stack and also a second side of the compressed stack, the first side being parallel with the second side. Doing so would have reduced the volume of the cell stack and increased the capacity of the battery (Park pg. 8, ¶ 3).
Takano is also silent as to the current collector being cut using a machine die cutter. However, Watanabe teaches a battery electrode manufacturing apparatus that cuts the electrode material using a front end die cutter 3 [0022] or laser cutters [0096]. Watanabe teaches die cutting and laser cutting as being functional equivalents. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cutting process of Park to use a machine die cutter, as taught by Watanabe, instead of laser cutting. See MPEP 2144.06.
Takano is also silent as to the applying heat comprising heating the stack to a temperature greater than or equal to about 50 °C to less than or equal to about 350 °C and the applying pressure comprising pressing the stack at a pressure greater than or equal to about 5 PSI to less than or equal to about 300 PSI. However, Sakamoto teaches heating the pre-laminate to a temperature of 250 °C [0128] and applying pressure to the pre-laminate in a range of 0.01 MPa to 10 MPa [0103]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takano with the applied temperature and pressure of Sakamoto. Doing so would have eliminated the interfacial impedance and improved the wettability in order to improve contact between the active material and the solid electrolyte [Sakamoto 0128], helped the lithium penetrate the solid electrolyte, and improved the critical current density [Sakamoto 0006].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 DUSTIN KENWOOD VAN KIRK whose telephone number is (703)756-4717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/DUSTIN VAN KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights