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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 02/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 4-15 are currently pending. Claims 1 and 10-11 are amended. Claims 12-15 are new. Support for the new and amended claims is found in the claims as originally filed.
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 and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura et al. (US 20170133712 A1) in view of Yoshimura et al. (US 20020192559 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mimura discloses an electrode (paragraph 0009) comprising: an electrode mixture layer (paragraph 0011, figure 1, positive electrode active material layer 4); and an electrode current collector layer (paragraph 0067, figure 1, positive electrode collector 5), wherein the electrode current collector layer is in contact with the electrode mixture layer (figure 1, positive electrode active material layer 4 and positive electrode collector 5), the electrode mixture layer includes a solid electrolyte material and an active material (paragraph 0011), the solid electrolyte material includes Li, M, and X, the M is at least one selected from the group consisting of metal elements other than Li and metalloid elements, the X is at least one selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, Br, and I (paragraphs 0029-0030), the electrode current collector layer includes an aluminum alloy (paragraph 0246), and the electrode current collector layer has a surface material in contact with the electrode mixture layer (paragraph 0067, figure 1, layers are in contact with each other), and the electrode is configured to be in contact with a solid electrolyte layer in an all-solid-state battery (Mimura paragraphs 0067-0068, figure 1, solid electrolyte layer 3). Mimura is silent regarding a copper content in the surface material being less than 50 mass%, and the copper content in the surface material being 0.03 mass% or more and 4.5 mass% or less.
Yoshimura discloses a lithium secondary battery with a positive electrode current collector containing an aluminum alloy with 0.1 to 10 wt% copper, within the claimed range of less than 50 mass% (Yoshimura paragraphs 0023-0024), and teaches a collector comprising an aluminum alloy with 0.1 wt% copper (Yoshimura paragraphs 0128-0129, table 7, Example B11, Cu within the claimed range of 0.03 to 4.5 mass%). Yoshimura further discloses that this alloy improves the strength of the positive electrode current collector, causing the positive electrode material to be more strongly held in the current collector, which improves the charge/discharge cycle performance of the battery (Yoshimura paragraphs 0023, 0129-0130). Yoshimura and Mimura are analogous because they both disclose secondary batteries comprising an active material layer on a metallic current collector.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode disclosed by Mimura to include the current collector disclosed by Yoshimura. Doing so would improve the current collector strength and battery cycle performance.
Regarding claim 6, modified Mimura discloses the limitations of claim 1. Mimura further discloses that the current collector includes aluminum as a main component (paragraph 0246).
Regarding claim 7, modified Mimura discloses the limitations of claim 6. Mimura further discloses that the electrode current collector layer further includes an element other than aluminum (paragraph 0246, aluminum with surface treatment or alloyed).
Regarding claim 8, modified Mimura discloses the limitations of claim 1. Mimura further discloses that the active material is a lithium-containing transition metal oxide (paragraphs 0184-0185, 0192-0194).
Regarding claim 9, modified Mimura discloses the limitations of claim 8. Mimura further discloses that the active material is lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (paragraphs 0184-0185).
Regarding claim 10, Mimura discloses an all-solid-state battery (paragraph 0003) comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and a solid electrolyte layer disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (paragraph 0067, figure 1, positive electrode active material layer 4, negative electrode active material layer 2, and inorganic solid electrolyte layer 3), wherein at least one selected from the group consisting of the positive electrode and the negative electrode is the electrode comprising: an electrode mixture layer (paragraph 0011, figure 1, positive electrode active material layer 4); and an electrode current collector layer (paragraph 0067, figure 1, positive electrode collector 5), wherein the electrode current collector layer is in contact with the electrode mixture layer (figure 1, positive electrode active material layer 4 and positive electrode collector 5), the electrode mixture layer includes a solid electrolyte material and an active material (paragraph 0011), the solid electrolyte material includes Li, M, and X, the M is at least one selected from the group consisting of metal elements other than Li and metalloid elements, the X is at least one selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, Br, and I (paragraphs 0029-0030), the electrode current collector layer includes an aluminum alloy (paragraph 0246), and the electrode current collector layer has a surface material in contact with the electrode mixture layer (paragraph 0067, figure 1, layers are in contact with each other), and the electrode is configured to be in contact with a solid electrolyte layer in an all-solid-state battery (Mimura paragraphs 0067-0068, figure 1, solid electrolyte layer 3). Mimura is silent regarding a copper content in the surface material being less than 50 mass%, and the copper content in the surface material being 0.03 mass% or more and 4.5 mass% or less.
Yoshimura discloses a lithium secondary battery with a positive electrode current collector containing an aluminum alloy with 0.1 to 10 wt% copper, within the claimed range of less than 50 mass% (Yoshimura paragraphs 0023-0024), and teaches a collector comprising an aluminum alloy with 0.1 wt% copper (Yoshimura paragraphs 0128-0129, table 7, Example B11, Cu within the claimed range of 0.03 to 4.5 mass%). Yoshimura further discloses that this alloy improves the strength of the positive electrode current collector, causing the positive electrode material to be more strongly held in the current collector, which improves the charge/discharge cycle performance of the battery (Yoshimura paragraphs 0023, 0129-0130). Yoshimura and Mimura are analogous because they both disclose secondary batteries comprising an active material layer on a metallic current collector.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode disclosed by Mimura to include the current collector disclosed by Yoshimura. Doing so would improve the current collector strength and battery cycle performance.
Regarding claim 11, modified Mimura discloses the limitations of claim 10. Mimura further discloses that the positive electrode is the electrode (paragraph 0011).
Regarding claims 12-13, modified Mimura discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 10. Mimura is silent regarding wherein the copper content in the surface material is 0.05 mass% or more and 0.20 mass% or less.
Yoshimura discloses a lithium secondary battery with a positive electrode current collector containing an aluminum alloy with 0.1 to 10 wt% copper (Yoshimura paragraphs 0023-0024), and specifically teaches a collector comprising an aluminum alloy with 0.1 wt% copper (Yoshimura paragraphs 0128-0129, table 7, Example B11, Cu within the claimed range of 0.05 to 0.20 mass%). Yoshimura further discloses that this alloy improves the strength of the positive electrode current collector, causing the positive electrode material to be more strongly held in the current collector, which improves the charge/discharge cycle performance of the battery (Yoshimura paragraphs 0023, 0129-0130). Yoshimura and Mimura are analogous because they both disclose secondary batteries comprising an active material layer on a metallic current collector.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode disclosed by Mimura to include the current collector disclosed by Yoshimura. Doing so would improve the current collector strength and battery cycle performance.
Regarding claims 14-15, modified Mimura discloses the limitations of claim 1 and 10. Mimura further discloses that the electrode is configured to be in direct contact with the solid electrolyte layer (paragraphs 0067, 0287, figure 1).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura et al. (US 20170133712 A1) in view of Yoshimura et al. (US 20020192559 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Asano et al. (WO 2018025582 A1, US 20190088995 A1 used as an English equivalent).
Regarding claim 4, modified Mimura discloses the limitations of claim 1. Mimura is silent regarding the solid electrolyte being represented by the composition formula LiαMβXγ, wherein α, β, and γ are each a value greater than 0.
Asano discloses a battery containing an electrode layer including a solid electrolyte (Asano paragraphs 0202-0204). Asano further discloses that the solid electrolyte is represented by the formula LiαMβXγ, wherein α, β, and γ are each a value greater than 0 (Asano paragraph 0021, Li3YX6). The reference further teaches that the electrolyte structure provides a solid electrolyte material with a high lithium ion conductivity that is stable in an assumed operation temperature range (Asano paragraph 0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode disclosed by Mimura to include the electrolyte disclosed by Asano. Doing so would provide a stable electrolyte with a high lithium ion conductivity.
Regarding claim 5, modified Mimura discloses the limitations of claim 1. Mimura is silent with respect to the M including yttrium.
Asano discloses a battery containing an electrode layer including a solid electrolyte (Asano paragraphs 0202-0204). Asano further discloses that the solid electrolyte includes Li, M, and X, wherein the M includes Yttrium (Asano paragraph 0021, Li3YX6). The reference further teaches that the electrolyte structure provides a solid electrolyte material with a high lithium ion conductivity that is stable in an assumed operation temperature range (Asano paragraph 0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode disclosed by Mimura to include the electrolyte disclosed by Asano. Doing so would provide a stable electrolyte with a high lithium ion conductivity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1-15, applicant argues that the combination of references presented in the rejection has no reasonable expectation of success. Specifically, applicant asserts that Mimura is directed to an all-solid-state secondary battery which differs in structure, operation, and material interaction from Yoshimura, which presents a liquid electrolyte battery. Applicant argues that these differences result in there being no reasonable expectation of improvements carrying over to solid electrolyte systems. In addition, applicant asserts that the cited combination relies on impermissible hindsight.
However, both Mimura and Yoshimura disclose forming active material layers on current collectors (see Mimura paragraph 0251, Yoshimura paragraph 0023) and a need for high charge/discharge characteristics (see Mimura paragraph 0238, 0293, Yoshimura 0012, 0023). Furthermore, Mimura discloses that an aluminum alloy is among the more preferred collector materials for the all-solid-state battery (Mimura paragraph 0246). The collector disclosed by Yoshimura is an aluminum alloy containing copper (Yoshimura paragraph 0023). Considering the functional similarities of the current collector between the cited references and the suggested advantages of Yoshimura (Yoshimura paragraph 0023), one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably expect that the collector disclosed by Yoshimura would successfully improve the all-solid-state battery of Mimura when chosen, as Mimura states that an aluminum alloy is a preferable material. Furthermore, it is known in the art, for example Minami et al. (US 20040072067 A1) to use current collectors containing copper in electrodes for solid electrolyte batteries for the purpose of improving adherence of the current collector and active material layer (see Minami paragraphs 0008, 0030, 0035). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the battery of Mimura with the collector of Yoshimura as it remains advantageous in both battery systems as evidenced by Minami. Therefore, a skilled artisan would find a reasonable expectation of success to utilize the collector disclosed by Yoshimura for the solid electrolyte battery disclosed by Mimura given the motivation provided. Reasonable expectation of success can be implicitly shown via the prior art teachings or as part of the obviousness analysis. See Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1376-77, 2023 USPQ2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2023). See also MPEP 2143.02. Additionally, there is no specific teaching suggesting that the combination would be inoperable or ineffective.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mimura in view of Yoshimura as the modification to the collector would have been advantageous in both battery systems. The disclosed advantages of Yoshimura and level of ordinary skill in the art, as evidenced by Minami, would have motivated the skilled artisan to look to the collector of Yoshimura without the knowledge of the applicant’s disclosure.
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 BENJAMIN T LUSTGRAAF whose telephone number is (571)272-0165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
/B.T.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights