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
Claims 1-13 remain pending in the application, with claims 12-13 previously withdrawn from consideration. The amendments filed 01/28/2026 have been entered but do not place the application in condition for allowance. The amendment to claim 2 overcomes the objection to the claim in the previous office action. The amendments to claim 1 do not overcome the previous prior art rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tani et al (JP 2013016364 A).
Regarding claim 1, Tani teaches a battery (11, machine translation: [0028]) comprising:
A positive electrode (13, [0028]);
A negative electrode (1, Fig. 1 and [0012]); and
A solid electrolyte layer positioned between the positive electrode and the negative electrode,
(17, [0039] and [0041] teach a solid lithium ion conductor such as a polymer gel electrolyte or an inorganic material can be used as electrolyte, which would correspond to a solid electrolyte layer; [0042] teaches an electrolyte can be filled into the battery can to cover the electrode plate group; one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that a solid electrolyte material would fill the gaps between the positive electrode and the negative electrode in order to facilitate lithium ion conductivity), wherein
The solid electrolyte layer comprises a solid electrolyte having lithium-ion conductivity, ([0039] teaches using electrolytes having lithium ion conductivity)
The negative electrode comprises:
A negative electrode current collector (3, Fig. 1 and [0012]); and
A negative electrode active material layer (7, Fig. 1 and [0012]) positioned between the negative electrode current collector (3, Fig. 1 and [0012]) and the solid electrolyte layer
(Figs. 1 and 3, and [0054], teach the negative electrode active material is formed to cover the surface of the current collector; accordingly, the negative electrode active material layer is positioned between the current collector and the solid electrolyte layer ([0039], [0041])),
The negative electrode active material layer comprises a plurality of columnar particles and is substantially free of an electrolyte, and
(Figs. 1 and 3 show the negative electrode active material layer 7 is separated into a plurality of portions that is a plurality of columnar particles. Tani teaches the electrolyte can be a solid inorganic material, which is a solid material that would not be present in the negative electrode active material layer but rather in spaces around the layer; therefore, the negative electrode active material layer is substantially free of an electrolyte)
The columnar particles comprise silicon as a main component.
([0018] teaches that the negative electrode active material layer 7 mainly contains silicon and that it is preferably 70 mass% or more. A specific example is given in [0052] of a thin film made of pure Si formed on a current collector provided with protrusions, which would also indicate formation of columnar particles comprising silicon as a main component)
There is a gap between the columnar particles adjacent to each other.
(Figs. 1 and 3 indicate the negative electrode active material layer 7 is separated into a plurality of portions that are columnar particles, wherein adjacent columnar particles are separated by gaps occupied by protrusions 5 of the negative electrode current collector 3, as claimed. For clarity, examples of gaps between adjacent columnar particles are indicated in annotated Figs. 1 and 3 below.
Furthermore, it is noted that that Tani teaches the surface of the negative electrode active material layer is preferably uneven in order to ensure a reaction area with Li ions [0018], and the instant application does not require the gaps to extend through the entire extent of the negative electrode active material layer. Therefore, the taught irregularities on the surface of the negative electrode active material would also give rise to gaps between columnar particles adjacent to each other.)
Annotated Fig. 1 of Tani:
PNG
media_image1.png
306
372
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Tani:
PNG
media_image2.png
358
504
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Tani teaches the negative electrode active material comprises a structure in which the plurality of columnar particles is arrayed along a surface of the negative electrode current collector to cover the surface. Figs. 1 and 3 show the negative electrode active material layer 7 comprises a plurality of columnar particles arrayed along a surface of the negative electrode current collector (that is, protrusions 5 of the negative electrode current collector 3) to cover the surface ([0016] also discloses that the negative electrode active material layer 7 is formed integrally on the surface(s) of the negative electrode current collector 3).
Regarding claim 3, Tani teaches the battery of claim 1 and further teaches the negative electrode active material can have a thickness of 0.5 µm to 10 µm ([0018] lines 11-13), which overlaps with the claimed range of a thickness of 4 µm or more and 20 µm or less.
Regarding claim 4, Tani teaches the battery of claim 1 and further teaches a content of the silicon in the negative electrode active material is preferably 70 mass% or more, which overlaps with the claimed range of 95 mass% or more ([0018] lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 5, Tani teaches the battery of claim 1. Tani further teaches the solid lithium ion conductor (i.e. solid electrolyte) can be an inorganic solid electrolyte that is a sulfide material ([0041]).
Regarding claim 6, Tani teaches the battery of claim 1 and Tani further teaches the negative current collector 3 ([0013]-[0014]) can be made of at least one metal selected from the group consisting of copper, nickel, and stainless steel, and that they can be used alone ([0013]), thereby teaching the negative current collector comprises as a main component, copper or nickel.
Regarding claim 7, Tani teaches the battery of claim 6 and further teaches that it is preferable to use copper foil for the negative electrode current collector from the viewpoint of the thinness, strength, and conductivity of the foil ([0013]).
Regarding claim 8, Tani teaches the battery of claim 1 and further teaches that it is preferable to use copper foil for the negative electrode current collector from the viewpoint of the thinness, strength, and conductivity of the foil ([0013]).
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 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tani et al (JP 2013016364 A as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Casimir et al, “Silicon-based anodes for lithium-ion batteries: Effectiveness of materials synthesis and electrode preparation,” Nano Energy 27 (2016) 359-376, and Peled et al “Tissue-like Silicon Nanowires-Based Three-Dimensional Anodes for High-Capacity Lithium Ion Batteries,” Nano Lett. 2015, 15, 6, 2907-3916.
Regarding claim 9, Tani teaches the battery of claim 1 but does not teach wherein when constant-current charge is performed to -0.62 V at a current value of 0.05 C by using the negative electrode and a LiIn counter electrode and subsequently constant-current discharge is performed to 1.4 V at a current value of 0.05 C, a discharge capacity of the battery is 2500 mAh/g or more and 3 mAh/cm2 or more.
In the same field of endeavor, Casimir teaches that for large-scale applications such as electric vehicles, there has been a push for better anode materials with a high capacity; for example, they disclose the next generation anodes for lithium-ion batteries need to have at least a stable specific capacity of 1000 mAh/g and that silicon is a promising anode material because it has a high theoretical gravimetric capacity of 4200 mAh/g at very low potentials (p361 left col para 3). Given that Tani teaches lithium secondary batteries, such as lithium ion batteries, can be used as driving power sources ([0002]), one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to use routine optimization to fabricate Tani’s battery such that its discharge capacity was between 1000 mAh/g and 4200 mAh/g to surpass the benchmark of 1000 mAh/g for next generation anode materials and approach the theoretical maximum of silicon as an anode material to support large-scale applications such as electric vehicles, and would have arrived at a range overlapping with the claimed range of mAh/g discharge capacity under the recited operating conditions. 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)
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor, Peled teaches in current lithium-ion-battery technology, the areal capacity is about 3–4 mAh/cm2 (p3908 right col para 2 lines 1-3) and further teaches that improving to 3-33 mAh/cm2 as shown in their experiments constitutes a property that meet the requirements of lithium batteries for future portable and electric vehicle applications (p3910 left col para 1 lines 8-13). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have also been motivated to fabricate Tani’s battery such that its discharge capacity was 3 mAh/cm2 or higher, which includes the claimed range, to improve battery properties for powering future electric vehicles, as Tani also teaches the use of lithium ion batteries as driving power sources ([0002]). 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)
Regarding claims 10-11, the combination above teaches the battery of claim 9, and as previously pointed out in addressing claim 9, primary reference Tani discloses that lithium secondary batteries, such as those taught in their invention, can be used as driving power sources ([0002]); accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to use routine optimization to fabricate Tani’s battery such that its discharge capacity was between 1000 mAh/g and 4200 mAh/g to surpass the benchmark of 1000 mAh/g for next generation anode materials and approach the theoretical maximum of silicon as an anode material to support large-scale applications such as electric vehicles (p361 left col para 3), and would have arrived at an overlapping range to the claimed range of mAh/g discharge capacity under the recited operating conditions. 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)
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have also been motivated to use routine optimization to fabricate Tani’s battery with areal discharge capacity > 3 mAh/cm2 to better meet the requirements of lithium batteries for future portable and electric vehicle applications, as taught by Peled (p3910 left col para 1 lines 8-13), as Tani also teaches the use of lithium ion batteries as driving power sources ([0002]). 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)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered but the Examiner respectfully submits they are not persuasive. Tani teaches the negative electrode active material layer 7 comprises columnar particles and also teaches a gap between columnar particles adjacent to each other, as pointed out in the prior art rejection above and based on Figs. 1 and 3 of Tani. The teaching of a thin film does not preclude gaps within the thin film. Applicant’s instant specification also discloses the formation of the negative electrode active material layer in the form of a thin film (Sample No. 1 to 6).
Additionally, as pointed out in addressing the earlier limitation of a solid electrolyte layer, Tani’s disclosure teaches the electrolyte used can be an inorganic solid material, which is a solid material that would not be present in the negative electrode active material layer but rather in spaces around the negative electrode active material layer. Accordingly, Tani also teaches the negative electrode active material layer is substantially free of an electrolyte.
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 GIGI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2017. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 6.
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.
/G.L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 6 April 2026