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 . If status of the application as subject to 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 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/12/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2 & 4-18 are pending in the application. Claims 1-2, 4, & 16-17 are withdrawn. Claims 5-15 were rejected in the office action mailed 2/13/2026. Claims 5-15 & 18 are presently examined.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
Applicant corrected Examiner’s understanding of a foreign references on an IDS. Examiner agrees with Applicant that a translated abstract of the foreign language patent is sufficient. Examiner removed the strike-through line for KR20200128256A, on the 12/5/2025 IDS, and resigned the IDS.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The 4/13/2026 amendment, in response to the 2/13/2026 office action, has been entered. Applicant's arguments and claim amendments, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 & 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
“It is respectfully asserted that the Change reference fails to disclose or suggest a porous conducting material of bismuth (Bi), tin (Sn), silicon (Si), zinc (Zn), silver (Ag), gold (Au), or an alloy thereof in such a porous conducting material sheet… the Change reference fails to disclose or suggest a porous metal or metalloid anode active material sheet wherein the porous metal or metalloid anode active material sheet is a porous conducting material sheet of bismuth (Bi), tin (Sn), silicon (Si), zinc (Zn), silver (Ag), gold (Au), or an alloy thereof and is capable of precipitating lithium into pores of the sheet during charging.” Remarks p.8
Examiner disagrees. US20220158226A1 (Chang) teaches an Si lithiophilic material in the pores of the porous anode current collector (paragraph 51). This porous portion of the current collector, with Si in the pores, is equivalent to the claimed “porous metal or metalloid anode active material sheet”. Lithium ions are electrodeposited [equivalent to the claimed “precipitating”] in the pores (paragraph 43).
Applicant argues:
“the Chang reference actually indicates that the anode current collector thereof should not be formed of such metal or metalloids. In particular, in paragraph [00112] the Chang reference indicates that the anode current collector may be formed of, "a material that does not react with lithium, i.e., a material that does not form either an alloy or a compound with lithium”
Examiner disagrees that Chang paragraph 112 overcomes Chang. Chang teaches:
“The porous anode current collector 21 may be formed of, for example, a material that does not react with lithium, i.e., a material that does not form either an alloy or a compound with lithium. Examples of the material forming the porous anode current collector 21 may be copper (Cu), stainless steel, titanium (Ti), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), and nickel (Ni)” [0112]
This teaching of Chang doesn’t prevent Chang from anticipating present claim 1 for the following three reasons:
First, Chang here uses the words “may be formed of”. Chang is referring to an optional embodiment. Chang doesn’t use the phrase “should not”, as asserted by the Applicant.
Second, although Chang presents Co, Cu, Fe, Ni, stainless steel, & Ti in paragraph 112, which differ from the claimed Ag, Au, Bi, Si, Sn, Si, & Zn, Chang also teaches the claimed Si in another embodiment (paragraph 51). For anticipation, there is no requirement that Chang teaches the claimed material in every embodiment.
Third, Chang provides for lithium electrodeposition in the pores because the pores include a lithiophilic material, such as Si (paragraphs 49 & 51). Even if the remainder of Chang’s porous anode current collector doesn’t react with or precipitate lithium, Chang’s porous anode current collector fulfills the requirement with the Si lithiophilic material.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “a porous metal or metalloid anode active material sheet on the anode current collector”. Claim 1 fails to distinguish the “porous metal or metalloid anode active material sheet” from the “anode current collector” in any way other than by name. The specification fails to provide a special definition to distinguish these components from each other.
For present examination, the “porous metal or metalloid anode active material sheet” and the “anode current collector” can be two separate structures or two regions of the same structure.
Claim 1 was thus amended: “the porous metal or metalloid anode active material sheet is… bismuth (Bi), tin (Sn), silicon (Si), zinc (Zn), silver (Ag), gold (Au)”. There is no clear guidance in MPEP 2111.03 of whether “is” means the same as “comprises” or “consists of”. The specification doesn’t use “is” for this relationship, but rather uses “include”:
“The porous metal-based anode active material sheet 2, 2' may include bismuth (Bi), tin (Sn), silicon (Si), zinc (Zn), silver (Ag), gold (Au), or an alloy thereof.”
MPEP 2111.03(I) interprets “includes” to be the same as “comprises”. For present examination, the word “is” in the above claim amendment is interpreted to mean “includes” / “comprises”.
New claim 18 states:
“the porous metal or metalloid anode active material sheet is a zinc (Zn) foam sheet”
The words “is” and “foam” need interpretation. Here is specification support for this new claim:
“A zinc (Zn) foam having a porosity of 50 % and a thickness of 100 μm was placed on one side of the SUS foil current collector, thereby forming an anode layer.”
Regarding the word “is”, it is unclear whether the claimed “zinc (Zn) foam” is the same as the complete “porous metal or metalloid anode active material sheet” of claim 18 or part of it. It is also unclear whether the “zinc (Zn) foam” consists of zinc, or comprises zinc. Using the reasoning for “is” in claim 1 above, the word “is” in claim in claim 18 is interpreted to mean “includes” / “comprises”.
Regarding “foam”, the specification provides no guidance for interpretation of this word. For present examination, the word “foam” is interpreted to mean the same as “porous”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 5-9 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20220158226A1 (Chang).
Chang teaches the following claim 5 limitations:
(from withdrawn independent claim 1) An anode layer for an all-solid-state (abstract) secondary battery (paragraph 113), the anode layer comprising:
an anode current collector; and a porous metal or metalloid anode active material sheet on the anode current collector, (Paragraphs 43 & 49: Part of the porous anode current collector, such as the core, is the claimed anode current collector, and part is the porous metal or metalloid anode active material sheet, such as an exterior. See the Claim Interpretation section above. Paragraph 51: Lithiophilic material in pores of the porous anode current collector is interpreted to be part of the porous anode current collector.) wherein:
the porous metal or metalloid anode active material sheet is capable of precipitating lithium into the sheet during charging (paragraph 43: “lithium ions transferred during charging may be electrodeposited into pores of the porous anode current collector”),
the porous metal or metalloid anode active material sheet is a porous conducting material sheet of bismuth (Bi), tin (Sn), silicon (Si), zinc (Zn), silver (Ag), gold (Au), or an alloy thereof (paragraph 51-52: lithiophilic material in pores of the porous anode current collector can be Si.)
the porous metal or metalloid anode active material sheet is capable of precipitating lithium into pores of the sheet during charging (paragraph 43: “lithium ions transferred during charging may be electrodeposited into pores of the porous anode current collector”), and
the porous metal or metalloid anode active material sheet has a porosity of 30% to 90% (paragraphs 50: 60% to 85% porosity)
(from dependent claim 5) An all-solid-state secondary battery, comprising: an anode layer according to claim 1; a cathode layer; and a solid electrolyte layer between the anode layer and the cathode layer. (paragraphs 9 & 123)
With regard to claim 6, Chang teaches the limitations of claim 5 as noted above. Chang also teaches the following claim 6 limitation:
the solid electrolyte layer includes a sulfide solid electrolyte (paragraph 126)
With regard to claims 7-8, Chang teaches the limitations of claim 5-6 as noted above. Chang also teaches the following limitations of claims 7-8:
Claim 7
the sulfide solid electrolyte includes an argyrodite-type solid electrolyte represented by Formula 1: Formula 1 Li+12-n-xAn+X2-6-xY-x in Formula 1, A is P, As, Ge, Ga, Sb, Si, Sn, Al, In, Ti, V, Nb, or Ta, X is S, Se, or Te, Y is Cl, Br, I, F, CN, OCN, SCN, or N3, 1≤n≤5, and 0≤x≤2
Claim 8
the argyrodite-type solid electrolyte includes Li7-xPS6-xClx, in which 0≤x≤2, Li7-xPS6-xBrx, in which 0≤x≤2, or Li7-xPS6-xIx, in which 0≤x≤2
Chang teaches Li6PS5Cl (paragraph 128).
With regard to claim 9, Chang teaches the limitations of claim 5 as noted above. Chang also teaches the following claim 9 limitation:
the solid electrolyte layer further includes at least one of a binder (paragraph 129) and a lithium salt (paragraph 132: lithium manganate)
With regard to claim 18, Chang teaches the limitations of claim 5 as noted above. Chang also teaches the following claim 18 limitation:
the porous metal or metalloid anode active material sheet is a zinc (Zn) foam sheet (paragraph 51: lithiophilic material in the pores of the porous anode current collector can include ZnO)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 10 & 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220158226A1 (Chang) in view of US20200243903A1 (Kushida).
With regard to claim 10, Chang teaches the following claim limitations:
the cathode layer (paragraph 130 & figure 1A: cathode layer 10) includes a cathode current collector (paragraph 130 & figure 1A: cathode current collector 11) and a cathode active material layer (paragraph 130 & figure 1A: cathode active material layer 12) on the cathode current collector (11), and the cathode active material layer (12) includes a cathode active material (paragraph 132)
Chang, however, fails to teach the following claim 10 limitation, which is taught by Kushida:
the cathode active material layer includes… a solid electrolyte (paragraph 190)
Kushida is directed to an all-solid state secondary battery in which a solid electrolyte composition provides mechanical strength to an electrode active material layer (paragraphs 6-7). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Chang’s cathode active material layer to include a solid electrolyte, as taught by Kushida, for mechanical strength.
With regard to claim 14, Chang teaches the limitations of claim 5, and Chang plus Kushida teach the limitations of claim 10, as noted above. Chang also teaches the following claim 14 limitation:
the solid electrolyte layer includes a sulfide solid electrolyte (paragraph 126)
With regard to claim 15, Chang & Kushida teach the limitations of claims 5, 10, & 14 as noted above. Chang also teaches the following limitation of claim 15:
the solid electrolyte includes a sulfide solid electrolyte, the sulfide solid electrode including Li7-xPS6-xClx, in which 0<x<2, Li7-xPS6-xBrx, in which 0<x<2, or Li7-xPS6-xIx, in which 0<x<2
Chang teaches Li6PS5Cl (paragraph 128).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220158226A1 (Chang) in view of US20200243903A1 (Kushida) and US20190157681A1 (Ho).
Chang fails to teach the following limitations, which are taught by Ho:
Claim 11
the cathode active material includes a lithium composite oxide represented by Formula 2: Formula 2 LixNi1-y-zMyCozO2 in Formula 2 0.90≤x≤1.1, 0≤y≤0.2, 0<z≤0.2, and 0.7≤1-y-z≤0.99, and M is manganese (M), aluminum (Al), titanium (Ti), calcium (Ca), or a combination thereof (paragraph 46: cathode active material is LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2, which is the claimed Formula 2 with x=1, y=0.1, z=0.1, M=Mn)
Claim 12
the lithium composite oxide has a lithium metal oxide coating layer on a surface thereof (paragraph 48: the cathode active material is a core-shell structure, and the shell can be LiCoO2)
Claim 13
the lithium metal oxide is an oxide including lithium and another metal, the other metal including… cobalt (Co)… (paragraph 48: the cathode active material is a core-shell structure, and the shell can be LiCoO2)
Ho is directed to a high quality lithium-ion battery with consistent performance (abstract). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Chang’s cathode active material layer to have Ho’s chemical composition, in order to achieve a high quality lithium-ion battery with consistent performance, as taught by Ho.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684.
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.
/R.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights