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/Restrictions
2. Applicant's election with traverse of Group A, claims 1-12 & 14 in the reply filed on November 7th, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Zhou does not disclose the shared technical features. This is not found persuasive because Group A and Group B lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a battery assembly comprising: an anode unit, comprising an anode current collector and an anode on the anode current collector; and electrolyte layer on a side of the anode remote from the anode current collector, and a cathode unit on a side of the electrolyte layer remote from the anode, wherein the battery assembly further comprises: an interface layer formed at a contact interface between the anode current collector and the anode, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Zhou. Zhou discloses a battery assembly (thin film battery, [006]) comprising: an anode unit (anode-41, [0062]), comprising an anode current collector ([008]) and an anode on the anode current collector ([0022]); and electrolyte layer on a side of the anode remote from the anode current collector ([0013]), and a cathode unit on a side of the electrolyte layer remote from the anode (cathode-43, [0062]), wherein the battery assembly further comprises: an interface layer formed at a contact interface between the anode current collector and the anode (buffer layer-11, [0058]).
Applicant has amended Claim 1 and Claim 15 to include “wherein the anode current collector comprises a first face proximate to the anode and a second face opposite to the first face, and the first face comprises a first region covered by the anode and a second region not covered by the anode, wherein a height of an interface between the first region and the interface layer relative to the second face is lower than a height of the second region relative to the second face”.
The examiner notes that this shared technical feature does not make a contribution over Wang (US20210320324). See 112(b) & 103 rejection below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 1-12 & 14 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 “wherein the anode current collector comprises a first face proximate to the anode and a second face opposite to the first face, and the first face comprises a first region covered by the anode and a second region not covered by the anode, wherein a height of an interface between the first region and the interface layer relative to the second face is lower than a height of the second region relative to the second face” is unclear as to what height is as “interface” is not defined and it is further unclear if the first region to interface layer height is being measured relative to the first region to second region height, or second region to interface layer height. Claim 1 is further unclear where the first region and second region are in relation to each other. For purposes of examination the examiner in interpreting the “first face” to be the side of the anode current collector towards the anode, the “second face” to be the opposite side of the current collector from the first face, and “wherein a height of an interface between the first region and the interface layer relative to the second face is lower than a height of the second region relative to the second face” to mean that the distance from the first face to the interface layer is less than the distance of the interface layer to the second face.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the interface layer comprises a first subregion and a second subregion, a content of a high- valence metal X is greater than a content of a low-valence metal X in the first subregion, a content of the low-valence metal X is greater than a content of the high-valence metal X in the second subregion, a minimum distance between the first subregion and the anode is less than a minimum distance between the second subregion and the anode, and a minimum distance between the second subregion and the anode current collector is less than a minimum distance between the first subregion and the anode current collector” is unclear as to whether valence metal X is the same metal as active metal X and how the same active metal X could have a low-valence and high-valence metal. Furthermore, since it is unclear how to measure the low-valence metal X and high-valence metal X, it is unclear how to determine the first and second subregions of the interface layer. For purposes of examination the examiner is interpreting any gradient in the concentration of active metal X, from claim 2, would satisfy the claim limitations of claim 14.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US20210320324).
Regarding Claim 1, Wang discloses a battery assembly ([002]), comprising:
An anode unit, comprising an anode current collector and an anode on the anode current collector (anode interface layer and optional anode act as anode, [0026], and anode current collector-150, [0045], Fig. 2);
An electrolyte layer on a side of the anode remote from the anode current collector (solid electrolyte); and
A cathode unit on a side of the electrolyte layer remote from the anode (cathode-120,[0045]);
Wherein the battery assembly further comprises: an interface layer (metal interface layer, [0026])
Wang does not directly disclose wherein the interface layer is formed at a contact interface between the anode current collector and the anode, wherein the anode current collector comprises a first face proximate to the anode and a second face opposite to the first face, and the first face comprises a first region covered by the anode and a second region not covered by the anode, wherein a height of an interface between the first region and the interface layer relative to the second face is lower than a height of the second region relative to the second face.
The examiner notes that 112(b) rejection above for claim interpretation.
Wang discloses wherein the anode interface layer can have a thickness that ranges from 10 to 100 nm ([007]). Wang further discloses wherein the anode interface layer is between the bulk electrolyte layer and the anode current collector ([0013]). Wang further discloses wherein the metal interface layer is configured so that the anode interface layer is formed on one side of the metal interface layer and the anode current collector is formed on the other side of the interface layer ([0026]). Wang further discloses wherein the metal interface layer can range from 10-100 nm ([0050]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Wang to have wherein the interface layer is formed at a contact interface between the anode current collector and the anode, wherein the anode current collector comprises a first face proximate to the anode and a second face opposite to the first face, and the first face comprises a first region covered by the anode and a second region not covered by the anode, wherein a height of an interface between the first region and the interface layer relative to the second face is lower than a height of the second region relative to the second face.
Regarding Claim 2, Wang discloses the limitations as set forth above. Wang further discloses wherein the anode current collector is made from an active metal X, and the active metal X comprises a pre-hydrogen metal which a metal located before metallic hydrogen in activity series of metals (anode current collector can be nickel, [0066]).
Regarding Claim 3, Wang discloses the limitations as set forth above. Wang further discloses wherein the active metal is selected from transition metal elements (nickel is a transition metal element, [0066]).
Regarding Claim 4, Wang discloses the limitations as set forth above. Wang further discloses wherein the active metal comprises at least one or a combination of nickel ([0066]).
Regarding Claim 5, Wang discloses the limitations as set forth above. Wang further discloses wherein the anode is made from a compound material containing lithium (anode interface layer can comprise lithium oxide, [008], [0017], lithium anode, [0045]).
Regarding Claim 7, Wang discloses the limitations as set forth above. Wang further discloses wherein the cathode unit comprises: a cathode on a side of the electrolyte layer remote from the anode, and a cathode current collector on a side of the cathode remote from the electrolyte layer (cathode current collector-110, cathode-120, Fig. 2, [0045]).
Regarding Claim 8, Wang discloses the limitations as set forth above. Wang further discloses wherein the battery assembly is a bulk-type battery, and the anode unit and the cathode unit are combined (Fig. 2, [0045]).
Regarding Claim 9, Wang discloses the limitations as set forth above. Wang further discloses wherein the battery assembly is a thin-film battery ([002]), and further comprises a substrate on which the anode unit is located (anode current collector can be formed on a substrate, [0067]).
Regarding Claim 10, Wang discloses the limitations as set forth above. Wang does not directly disclose wherein the substrate is flexible substrate or a rigid substrate.
Wang discloses wherein the substrate can be formed of meta ([0027]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Wang to have wherein substrate is a rigid substrate.
Regarding Claim 11, Wang discloses the limitations as set forth above. Wang further discloses wherein the rigid substrate is made from a metal ([0027]).
Claim(s) 6, 12 & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US20210320324) in view of Yasuaki (JP2017182930A, see Machine Translation for citations) (Provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on August 15th, 2023).
Regarding Claim 6, Wang discloses the limitations as set forth above. Wang further discloses wherein the anode is made from a lithium oxide ([0017]).
Wang does not directly disclose wherein the interface layer comprises a crystalline compound formed by crystallization of the metal X and the lithium oxide.
Yasuaki discloses a nickel current collector ([0026]) for an electrode formed of a lithium oxide active material ([0022]). Yasuaki further discloses a NiO layer that is formed between the electrode active material and the nickel current collector, by being formed on the surface of the nickel current collector ([0012]). Yasuaki further discloses wherein the NiO layer is formed through heating and crystallization ([0012]). Yasuaki teaches that this structure provides improved conductivity and electron transfer which increased the discharge capacity of the lithium secondary battery ([0012]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Wang with the teachings of Yasuaki to have wherein the interface layer comprises a crystalline compound formed by crystallization of the metal X and the lithium oxide. This modification would yield the expected result of improved discharge capacity of the lithium secondary battery.
Regarding Claim 12, Wang discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Wang does not directly disclose wherein the interface layer is a crystalline interface layer, the interface layer has a thickness of 5-10 nm.
Wang discloses wherein the metal layer can be 10nm to 100 nm ([0012]).
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) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
Therefore, absent a showing of criticality, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Wang to have wherein the interface layer has a thickness of 5-10 nm.
Yasuaki discloses a nickel current collector ([0026]) for an electrode formed of a lithium oxide active material ([0022]). Yasuaki further discloses a NiO layer that is formed between the electrode active material and the nickel current collector, by being formed on the surface of the nickel current collector ([0012]). Yasuaki further discloses wherein the NiO layer is formed through heating and crystallization ([0012]). Yasuaki teaches that this structure provides improved conductivity and electron transfer which increased the discharge capacity of the lithium secondary battery ([0012]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Wang with the teachings of Yasuaki to have wherein the interface layer is a crystalline interface layer. This modification would yield the expected result of improved discharge capacity of the lithium secondary battery.
Regarding Claim 14, Wang discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Wang does not directly disclose wherein the interface layer comprises a first subregion and a second subregion, a content of a high- valence metal X is greater than a content of a low-valence metal X in the first subregion, a content of the low-valence metal X is greater than a content of the high-valence metal X in the second subregion, a minimum distance between the first subregion and the anode is less than a minimum distance between the second subregion and the anode, and a minimum distance between the second subregion and the anode current collector is less than a minimum distance between the first subregion and the anode current collector.
The examiner notes the 112(b) rejection above for the claim interpretation of claim 14.
The examiner notes that the instant claim application forms the interface layer through an annealing process, where the annealing temperature ranged from 25-800 degree C to form a crystalline structure.
Yasuaki discloses a nickel current collector ([0026]) for an electrode formed of a lithium oxide active material ([0022]). Yasuaki further discloses a NiO layer that is formed between the electrode active material and the nickel current collector, by being formed on the surface of the nickel current collector ([0012]). Yasuaki further discloses wherein the NiO layer is formed through heating and crystallization ([0012]). Yasuaki further discloses wherein the heating NiO layer is formed through subjecting the current collector to annealing ([0012]) where the annealing is performed at a temperature of 400 to 800 C ([0031]). Yasuaki teaches that this structure provides improved conductivity and electron transfer which increased the discharge capacity of the lithium secondary battery ([0012]).
The examiner notes that the process to form the interface layer of Yasuaki is substantially similar to the instant application, where the process to create both would create variations in the distribution of the nickel metal ions in the crystalline interface layer structure.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Wang with the teachings of Yasuaki to have wherein the interface layer comprises a first subregion and a second subregion, a content of a high- valence metal X is greater than a content of a low-valence metal X in the first subregion, a content of the low-valence metal X is greater than a content of the high-valence metal X in the second subregion, a minimum distance between the first subregion and the anode is less than a minimum distance between the second subregion and the anode, and a minimum distance between the second subregion and the anode current collector is less than a minimum distance between the first subregion and the anode current collector. This modification would yield the expected result of improved discharge capacity of the lithium secondary battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANKITH R SRIPATHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 am - 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
/ANKITH R SRIPATHI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728