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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Claims 1–7 in the reply filed on 26 December 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups I to IV are closely related and share common technical features, and furthermore that a thorough search for the subject matter of any one group of claims would encompass a search for the subject matter of the remaining claims, and therefore, the search and examination of the entire claims could be made without serious burden. This is not found persuasive, as the above is not considered when determining unity of invention. As set forth in the Requirement for Restriction/Election mailed 31 October 2025, restriction is required in the instant case because unity of invention is not present, as Groups I–IV have a shared technical feature that does not make a contribution over the prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8–15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 26 December 2025.
Response to Amendment and Claim Status
The amendment filed 26 December 2025 has been entered. Claims 1–15 are pending in the application. Claims 8–15 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein a current collector” in line 7. The use of the article “a” makes it unclear whether “a current collector” is meant to refer to the current collectors recited previously in the claim limitation “wherein each of the positive electrode and the negative electrode comprises a current collector, and at least one current collector has a thickness of less than 5 µm”, or if it is meant to refer to new, separate current collectors not previously recited.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “wherein a current collector in the positive electrode or the negative electrode that does not include an electrode active material layer directly faces the solid electrolyte layer” in lines 7–8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the positive electrode or the negative electrode that does not include an electrode active material layer” in the claim.
In light of the above, for the purposes of this Office Action, Claim 1 has been interpreted as follows:
An all-solid-state battery comprising:
a positive electrode;
a solid electrolyte layer; and
a negative electrode,
wherein each of the positive electrode and the negative electrode comprises a current collector, and at least one current collector has a thickness of less than 5 µm,
wherein one of the positive electrode or the negative electrode does not include an electrode active material layer,
and wherein the current collector comprised in the positive electrode or the negative electrode that does not include an electrode active material layer directly faces the solid electrolyte layer.
The term “high affinity” in line 2 of Claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high affinity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of scope of the invention.
Claims 2, 4, 5, and 6 recite the claim element “the current collector”, however it is unclear which current collector is being referred to and further limited by these claims, i.e. the current collector comprised in the positive electrode, the current collector comprised in the negative electrode, only the current collector which is present in the positive electrode or the negative electrode that does not include an electrode active material layer, etc. For the purposes of this Office Action, each of these claims is interpreted as further limiting either the current collector comprised in the positive electrode or the current collector comprised in the negative electrode.
Claims 2–7 are further rejected as they depend on Claim 1 and/or Claim 2 and do not resolve the indefinite language described above.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotani et al. (US 2014/0106240 A1) as evidenced by Sastry et al. (US 2019/0089023 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kotani discloses an all-solid-state battery (see air battery 11, [0045], FIG. 1; note that [0113] discloses that the electrolyte layer can be a solid electrolyte, thus rendering air battery 11 all-solid-state) comprising:
a positive electrode (see air cathode 1, [0045], FIG. 1);
a solid electrolyte layer (see electrolyte layer 3, [0045]; note that [0113] discloses the electrolyte layer can be solid); and
a negative electrode (see anode 2, [0045], FIG. 1),
wherein each of the positive electrode and the negative electrode comprises a current collector (for positive electrode, see air cathode current collector 6, [0049], FIG. 1; for negative electrode, see anode can 8, [0050], FIG. 1),
wherein the positive electrode (1) does not include an electrode active material layer ([0045] and FIG. 1 disclose that the positive electrode (1) comprises a catalyst layer 4 and a gas diffusion layer 5, but Kotani does not disclose any positive electrode active material layer),
and wherein the current collector (6) comprised in the positive electrode (1) that does not include an electrode active material layer directly faces the solid electrolyte layer (3) (FIG. 1 shows that the face of the current collector (6) of the positive electrode (1) directly faces, i.e. is positioned with one of its surfaces toward, the solid electrolyte layer (3)).
Kotani further discloses ([0099]) wherein the positive electrode current collector has a thickness of preferably 400 µm or less, which overlaps with the claimed range of 5 µm or less. Note that when the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). Also note that Kotani is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of all-solid-state batteries.
Furthermore, it is well-known in the field of all-solid-state batteries that increasing the thickness of the current collector increases the volume and mass of the battery, but also decreases the potential drop across the collector, as evidenced by Sastry ([0071]).
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the thickness of the current collector is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting the volume and mass of the battery, and potential drop across the current collector, as evidenced by Sastry, thus making the thickness of the current collector a result-effective variable. Therefore, in addition to the prima facie case of obviousness set forth above, it would have further been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the all-solid-state battery of Kotani such that the thickness of the positive electrode current collector is less than 5 µm via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving a suitable mass and volume of the battery, and suitable levels of potential drop across the current collector.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Kotani discloses the all-solid-state battery of Claim 1. Kotani further discloses wherein the current collector comprised in the positive electrode does not comprise lithium metal, by teaching ([0098]) that the current collector (6) comprised in the positive electrode (1) can include metal materials such as stainless steel, nickel, aluminum, iron, titanium and copper, carbonaceous materials such as carbon fiber and carbon paper, and highly electron-conductive ceramic materials such as titanium nitride (as Kotani does not mention lithium metal as a suitable material for the current collector, one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the current collector comprised in the positive electrode of Kotani does not comprise lithium metal).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotani et al. (US 2014/0106240 A1) as evidenced by Sastry et al. (US 2019/0089023 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Dong et al. (CN 109449443 A; see attached machine translation).
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, modified Kotani discloses the all-solid-state battery of Claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the current collector comprises a metal with high affinity for lithium (Claim 2), nor wherein the metal with high affinity for lithium is at least one selected from the group consisting of Au, Ag, Pt, Zn, Si, Mg, CuO, ZnO, CoO, and MnO (Claim 3).
Dong teaches a current collector for a negative electrode (see porous graphene/silver nanoparticle composite lithium metal secondary battery anode current collector, [0008]) comprising porous graphene and silver nanoparticles ([0008]), for a battery (see lithium metal secondary battery, [0008]) such as a metal-air battery (see lithium-air battery, claim 8). Dong teaches that the negative electrode current collector comprising porous graphene and silver (Ag) nanoparticles has reduced local current density and more uniform deposition of lithium due to the porous graphene, and suppressed formation of lithium dendrites and improved cycle life due to the silver nanoparticles.
Dong is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of secondary batteries. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the all-solid-state battery of modified Kotani such that the current collector comprised in the negative electrode is the current collector of Dong, which comprises porous graphene and a metal with a high affinity for lithium, specifically Ag, in the form of silver nanoparticles, for the purpose of reducing local current density, improving uniform deposition of lithium, suppressing formation of lithium dendrites, and improving cycle life.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotani et al. (US 2014/0106240 A1) as evidenced by Sastry et al. (US 2019/0089023 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Kitaura et al. (US 2012/0216394 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Kotani discloses the all-solid-state battery of Claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the current collector is thermally treated together with the solid electrolyte layer.
Kitaura teaches ([0029]–[0030], [0076]) a method for producing an all-solid-state battery comprising inserting a laminate of the positive electrode (including the positive electrode current collector, [0029], [0056], FIG. 1), solid electrolyte layer, and negative electrode (including the negative electrode current collector, [0029], [0056], FIG. 1) of the all-solid-state battery into an outer case, followed by simultaneous pressing and thermal treatment of the cell. Kitaura teaches ([0076]) that thermally treating the cell via this method softens the solid electrolyte layer to enhance adhesion, ion conductivity, and electrical conductivity.
Kitaura is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of all-solid-state batteries. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the all-solid-state battery of modified Kotani such that during production, a laminate of the positive electrode, solid electrolyte layer, and negative electrode is inserted into an outer case, pressed, and thermally treated, as taught by Kitaura (one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that this constitutes thermal treatment of the current collector and the solid electrolyte layer together), for the purpose of softening the solid electrolyte layer to enhance adhesion, ion conductivity, and electrical conductivity.
It is noted, however, that these limitations are considered to be product-by-process limitations, and 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 (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotani et al. (US 2014/0267632 A1) as evidenced by Sastry et al. (US 2019/0089023 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Affinito et al. (US 2019/0267632 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Kotani discloses the all-solid-state battery of Claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the current collector is formed through a deposition and transfer process.
Affinito teaches a current collector formed through a deposition and transfer process, by teaching deposition of a current collector on to a release layer formed on a carrier substrate ([0023], [0111]), and subsequent removal of the release layer and carrier substrate ([0025]). Affinito teaches ([0017]) that the process of forming electrode layers on a carrier substrate which is eventually removed can facilitate handling during fabrication and/or assembly.
Affinito is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of secondary batteries. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the all-solid-state battery of modified Kotani such that the current collector is formed through a deposition and transfer process, as taught by Affinito, for the purpose of facilitating handling during fabrication and/or assembly.
It is noted, however, that these limitations are considered to be product-by-process limitations, and 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 (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotani et al. (US 2014/0267632 A1) as evidenced by Sastry et al. (US 2019/0089023 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, as further evidenced by Palomares et al. (Palomares, V.; Serras, P.; Irune, V.; Hueso, K.; Carretero-González, J.; Rojo, T. Na-ion batteries, recent advances and present challenges to become low cost energy storage systems, Energy Environ. Sci., vol. 5, p. 5884–5901, published 1 February 2012).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Kotani discloses the all-solid-state battery of Claim 1. Kotani further discloses ([0058]) wherein the all-solid-state battery is a metal-air battery such as a sodium-air battery, a potassium-air battery, a magnesium-air battery, a calcium-air battery, a zinc-air battery, an aluminum-air battery, or an iron-air battery, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the all-solid-state battery does not comprise lithium.
However, it is well-known in the field of secondary batteries that lithium as a resource has uncertain availability, feasibility, and environmental impact, and therefore less resource-limited, low-cost alternatives for batteries such as sodium are needed, as evidenced by Palomares (p. 5885–5886, ¶ “This way, up till…” and “The use of Na…”).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the all-solid-state battery of modified Kotani such that it does not comprise lithium, as it is well-known in the field of secondary batteries that lithium as a resource has uncertain availability, feasibility, and environmental impact.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA MARIE FEHR, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/J.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725