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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 9th 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed February 9th, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-8 remain pending in the application. Claims 9-17 remaining withdrawn by the Applicant. Applicant’s amendment to Claim 1 has overcome the 102 rejection in view of Kato, therefore the 102 rejection has been withdrawn. However upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Cobb US 2014/0186519 A1 and Cobb et al. US 2018/0175383 A1. New rejections follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato US 8,173,292 B2, further in view of Cobb US 2014/0186519 A1 (herein referred to as Cobb ‘519) and Cobb et al. US 20180175383 A1 (herein referred to as Cobb ‘383).
Regarding Claim 1, Kato discloses an anode for a lithium secondary battery (negative electrode for a solid battery) comprising an anode current collector and an anode active material layer formed on the current collector [Column 6 Lines 55-61]. Kato discloses that the anode active material layer comprises a first and second portion (bars of electrode active material and bars of electrolyte of the electrode), and that the first and second portions are repeatedly and alternately arranged multiple times [Column 2 Lines 23-27], which is further shown in Annotated Figure 1A below.
PNG
media_image1.png
292
527
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1A
Kato discloses that the first portion (active material of the electrode) is an anode active material such as lithium metal, alloys, carbon materials, or metal fibers [Column 9 Lines 53-64] and that the second portion (electrolyte of the electrode) is an electrolyte material such as a lithium ion conductive solid electrolyte [Column 4 Lines 32-40]. Kato discloses that the first portion (active material) comprises particles of active material [Column 3 Lines 27-30] thus Kato discloses that the first portion has a porosity, further shown in Annotated Figure 1B:
PNG
media_image2.png
606
647
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1B
Thus, Kato discloses first and second portion that have different porosities from each other.
Kato discloses that the first portion comprises an anode active material [Column 9 Lines 53-64], and the second portion comprises a lithium ion conductive solid electrolyte [Column 4 Lines 32-40].
However, Kato fails to specifically disclose that the second portion comprises an anode active material.
In a similar disclosure, Cobb ‘519 discloses a battery wherein a cathode is layered with an electrolyte and an anode, wherein the cathode and the anode both have two regions that are alternating multiple times (see Figure 6) [0021]. Cobb ‘519 discloses that the anode consists of an anode active material layered alternately with an intermediate material, wherein the intermediate material is a porous anode material [0021]. Thus, Cobb ‘519 discloses an anode electrode structure having two alternating region multiple times, wherein both regions comprise an anode active material.
Cobb ‘519 discloses that manufacturing an electrode structure such as this is simpler [0021].
In a related disclosure, Cobb ‘383 discloses the same electrode structure, wherein there are two regions alternating multiple times [Abstract, 0023-0024]. Cobb ‘383 discloses that an electrode with this structure is more efficient and high performing [0041].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the second portion of Kato to further comprise an anode active material based on the suggestion of Cobb (Cobb ‘519 and Cobb ‘383) wherein in both regions of a similarly structured anode (two regions alternating multiple times) comprise an anode active material for the benefit of simple manufacturing.
Thus, modified Kato discloses that both the first and second portions comprise an anode active material.
Regarding Claim 5, as shown in Figure 1A, Kato discloses that the first portion and the second portion have the same thickness:
PNG
media_image3.png
224
312
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Kato discloses a solid battery comprising the anode of Claim 1 and a cathode (positive electrode) [Column 2 Lines 9-31], more specifically that the solid battery can be used as a lithium secondary battery [Colum 4 Lines 48-49]. As shown in Figure 1A, Kato discloses that the cathode (positive electrode Item 11) faces the anode (Item 12) [Column 6 Lines 55-56].
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato, Cobb ‘519, and Cobb ‘383 as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of Kim US 10,629,944 B2.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Kato is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1, however is silent as to an anode tab protruding from one side of the anode current collector.
Kim discloses a battery cell comprising an anode tab (electrode lead) protruding from one end of the battery cell and attached to the electrode (Figure 4 Item 120).
Kim discloses that when a battery cell comprises an electrode lead, it acts as an electrode terminal that allows for electrical connecting to an external component, such as another battery or a device [Column 1 Line 65 – Column 2 Line 3].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the electrode tab of Kim in the battery cell of Kato to enable electrical connection to external components.
Modified Kato thus discloses the first portion and the second portion are alternately and repeatedly arranged along the protruding direction of the anode tab, as shown in Annotated Figure 1A – Anode Tab below:
PNG
media_image4.png
366
681
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1A – Anode Tab
Regarding Claim 3, modified Kato discloses, with the modification of Kim’s anode tab, that the first and second portions extend in a direction that is perpendicular to the protruding direction, as shown in Annotated Partial Figure 3 of Kato.
PNG
media_image5.png
432
641
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Partial Figure 3
Regarding Claim 4, as mentioned with regards to Claim 1 above, Kato discloses that each of the portions of the anode have a uniform porosity in the width direction [Figure 1B]. Thus, modified Kato discloses, that the first portion and the second portion each have uniform porosities along the protruding direction, show in Modified Annotated Figure 1A below.
PNG
media_image6.png
387
794
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Modified Annotated Figure 1A
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato US 8,173,292 B2, Cobb ‘519, and Cobb ‘383 as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of Forouzan et al. US 10,673,093 B1.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Kato is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1, however is silent as to the specific porosities of the first portion and the second portion.
Forouzan discloses an anode layer comprising a first portion (Figure 3 Item 314) and a second portion (Figure 3 Item 316) comprising different porosities [Column 12 Lines 56-60]. Forouzan discloses that the porosity of the first region can be 30% while the porosity of the second region is 18% [Column 12 Line 66 – Column 13 Line 2].
Forouzan discloses that an anode layer with this structure can reduce the rate of lithium plating and enhance the electrical conductivity of the anode [Column 1 Lines 27-29].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the porosities of the first and second portions of Forouzan in the first and second portions of the anode of Kato to achieve a battery cell with enhanced electrical conductivity and reduced lithium plating.
Thus, modified Kato discloses that the maximum porosity X of the anode active material layer is 30% and the minimum porosity Y of the anode active material layer is 18%. Thus, modified Kato discloses that the ratio Y/X 0.6, which falls within the range in Claim 6. In regards to the ratio Y/X, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2131.03 I. In the case where 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). Accordingly, the ratio Y/X disclosed in modified Kato anticipates the claimed range set forth in Claim 6. See MPEP 2131.03 I.
In regards to the limitation “X is the maximum porosity obtained by an X-ray microscopy”, the Examiner is treating it as a product by process claim, specifically regarding the phrase “obtained by an X-ray microscopy”. It has been shown that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113).
In regards to the limitation “Y is the minimum porosity obtained by an X-ray microscopy”, the Examiner is treating it as a product by process claim, specifically regarding the phrase “obtained by an X-ray microscopy”. It has been shown that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato US 8,173,292 B2, Cobb ‘519, and Cobb ‘383 and further in view of Muraoka et al. JP 2007/329077 A. Citations are mapped to the English machine translation provided.
Regarding Claim 7, Kato discloses that the first portion and the second portion adjacent to the first portion form a pattern, as shown above in Figure 1A. As mentioned with regards to Claim 1, Kato discloses that the first portion comprises particles, thus comprises a porosity, and as shown in Figure 1B, the second portion does not comprise particles, thus Kato discloses that the first portion has a higher porosity than the second portion. As shown in Figure 1B, Kato discloses that the first and second portions have uniform porosity.
Kato discloses that the active material bars have a width of 0.1-60 µm [Column 4 Lines 1-5] and the solid electrolyte bars have a width of 0.03-60 µm [Column 3 Lines 51-54]. Thus, Kato discloses that the maximum distance from the farthest point in the first portion to the farthest point in the second portion would be 120µm, as illustrated in Figure 1B below:
PNG
media_image7.png
606
647
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1B
Therefore, Kato discloses that a distance between a point of a maximum porosity (anywhere in the first portion due to uniform porosity) in the first portion in the pattern and a point of a minimum porosity (anywhere in the second portion due to uniform porosity) is in a range from 0-120µm (0-0.12mm), which fails to overlap with the claimed range.
Muraoka discloses a secondary battery and an electrode for the secondary battery [Page 2 Lines 21-24], wherein the electrode comprises a current collector and an active material layer [Page 2 Lines 22-23]. Muraoka further discloses that the active material layer comprises a first portion (central region) with a higher porosity (more pores) than a second portion (peripheral region) [Page 2 Lines 52-54, Page 8 Lines 27-29]], as further shown in Figure 3 below.
PNG
media_image8.png
375
797
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Muraoka discloses that the central region (having a higher porosity similar to the first portion of Kato) is 20mm in the width direction of the electrode, and the peripheral region (similar to Kato’s second portion) is 15mm in the width direction of the electrode, thus Muraoka discloses that the maximum distance from the farthest point in the central region to the farthest point in the peripheral region would be 0-35mmµm, as illustrated in Annotated Figure 3 below:
PNG
media_image9.png
375
775
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
Muraoka discloses that an electrode with this configuration provides a secondary battery with long charge/discharge cycle life and that is easy to manufacture [Page 2 Lines 17-18].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the width of the first and second portions Kato with the width of the first and second portions as suggested by Muraoka to provide a battery with along charge/discharge cycle life and easy manufacturability.
Thus, modified Kato discloses the first portion with a higher porosity than the second portion, wherein the distance between a point of a maximum porosity in the first portion in the pattern and a point of a minimum porosity in the second portion in the pattern is in a range from 0-35mm, which overlaps with the claimed range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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 ANNA E GOULD whose telephone number is (571)270-1088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/A.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1726 /DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726