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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/17/2025 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
In view of the cancellation of claims 6, and 7, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) of claims 6 and 7 has been withdrawn.
In view of the cancellation of claims 3, 6, and 7, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 3, 6, and 7 has been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to the claim 1, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 of claims 1, 2, and 10-12 has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 4, 5, 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained and the addition of claims 21 and 22 and the cancellation of claims 13-20 have been acknowledged.
New analysis follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/ have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the combination of Nguyen and Linde is improper as Linde is not in the same field of .
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen (US20230402599A1) in view of Linde et. al. (US20180015705A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nguyen discloses an all-solid-state battery (ASSB) cell (¶[0009], Fig 1), comprising:
an anode comprising lithium metal (¶[0011],);
a solid electrolyte layer (i.e. SE layer, ¶[0017], Fig. 1);
a cathode current collector (¶[0017]); and
a cathode composite layer between the cathode current collector and the solid electrolyte layer(¶[0017]), the cathode composite layer comprising:
cathode active material (i.e. CAM, ¶[0017], Fig. 1);
cathode layer solid electrolyte(¶[0008]); and
conductive pathways, a conductive pathway comprising: a cylindrical carbon nanostructure (see carbon fiber, ¶[0008], see nanometer scale diameter 150 nm ¶[0050]);
an insulating sheath covering the cylindrical carbon nanostructure (i.e. oxide coating ¶[0008], which is insulating ¶[0016])
wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the carbon fiber has a first end and a second end with an exterior wall extending between the first end and the second end but Nguyen does not disclose the conductive pathway further comprising: an uncovered portion of the cylindrical carbon nanostructure, the uncovered portion being the first end and a first portion of the exterior wall directly adjacent the first end and the second end and a second portion of the exterior wall directly adjacent the second end.
Linde, related to coating carbon fibers, teaches an electrically insulated carbon fiber with the ends stripped of insulation creating an uncovered portion (Fig. 4) to provide better electrical connection within an electric circuit (¶[0014]) such as a battery (¶[0005]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize uncovering end portions of the carbon fibers of Nguyen would provide greater electrical connection within the battery of Nguyen.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the carbon fibers of Nguyen to have uncovered ends to improve electrical connection.
Regarding claim 2, modified Nguyen discloses the ASSB of claim 1 and Nguyen further discloses wherein the cathode layer solid electrolyte is a sulfide-based electrolyte (¶[0008]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Nguyen discloses an ASSB cell of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the uncovered portion is between 3%-6% of a surface area of the cylindrical carbon nanostructure.
Linde additionally teaches only a small portion of the ends of the carbon fiber are uncovered (Figs. 4-6) while rest remains covered by the insulation coating thereby improving insulation properties while also having a stripped area to provide added conductive properties(¶[0039]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized optimizing the % uncovered portion would improve connectivity while maintaining insulative properties of the coating (¶[0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have optimized the % uncovered portion to improve conductivity and insulative properties.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 10, modified Nguyen discloses the ASSB of claim 1 , and Nguyen further discloses wherein the insulating sheath has a thickness of between 10 nm and 20 nm (¶[0011], Fig. 3, see 20 nm coating thickness on carbon fiber)
Regarding claim 11, modified Nguyen discloses the ASSB of claim 1, and Nguyen further discloses wherein the cylindrical carbon nanostructure is carbon fiber (¶[0011], Fig. 3, see VGCF, vapor growth carbon fiber).
Regarding claim 21, modified Nguyen discloses the ASSB of claim 1, wherein Linde further teaches the insulating sheath may be an insulating polymer (¶[0019]).
Claim 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen (US20230402599A1) in view of Linde et. al. (US20180015705A1) and further in view of Lu et. al. (Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2012, 14, 12099–12104).
Regarding claim 5, modified Nguyen discloses an ASSB cell of claim 1, but does not teach, wherein the conductive pathway is aligned in the cathode composite layer to be parallel to a stacking direction of the ASSB cell, with the first end in contact with the cathode current collector.
Lu, related to carbon nanotubes in electrodes, teaches a sheathed carbon nanotubes aligned with one end in contact with the cathode current collector (Fig. 1, page 12101, col. 2, last paragraph) providing rapid charge-discharge process and high rate capacity (page 12101, col. 2, last paragraph and page 12102, col. 1, first paragraph)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized vertically aligning the carbon nano fibers of Nguyen would have provided a rapid charge-discharge process and high rate capacity and the stacking direction of the cell may be in any direction and therefore the layer may be parallel to the stacking direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have aligned the nanofibers of modified Nguyen to provide a rapid charge-discharge process and high rate capacity.
Regarding claim 8, Nguyen discloses an ASSB cell of claim 1, but does not teach, wherein the conductive pathway is aligned in the cathode composite layer to be parallel to a stacking direction of the ASSB cell, with the first end in contact with the cathode current collector.
Lu, related to carbon nanotubes in electrodes, teaches a sheathed carbon nanotubes aligned with one end in contact with the cathode current collector (Fig. 1, page 12101, col. 2, last paragraph) providing rapid charge-discharge process and high rate capacity (page 12101, col. 2, last paragraph and page 12102, col. 1, first paragraph).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized vertically aligning the carbon nano fibers of Nguyen would have provided a rapid charge-discharge process and high rate capacity and the stacking direction of the cell may be oriented in any direction and therefore the layer may be parallel to the stacking direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have aligned the nanofibers of modified Nguyen to provide a rapid charge-discharge process and high rate capacity.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen (US20230402599A1) in view of Linde et. al. (US20180015705A1) and Lu et. al. (Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2012, 14, 12099–12104) and further in view of Smalley et. al. (US20020136683A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Nguyen discloses an ASSB cell of claim 8, but does not explicitly teach wherein the cylindrical carbon nanostructure is a carbon nano-helix.
Smalley, related to carbon fibers for batteries, teaches the nanofibers may be nanotubes with helix shape (see helicity of nanotubes, ¶[0123]) leading to improved physical properties including flexibility(¶[0262]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized adding helicity to the carbon fibers of modified Nguyen would have added flexibility thereby improving physical properties of the material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the carbon fiber of Nguyen to add helicity to improve the physical properties.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen (US20230402599A1) in view of Linde et. al. (US20180015705A1) and Lu et. al. (Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2012, 14, 12099–12104) and further in view of Darolles et. al. (US20220140307A1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Nguyen discloses the ASSB of claim 1 , but does not disclose wherein the insulating sheath is a material selected from the group consisting of MgO, (Li2O—Li3PO4)CaO, CaCO3, AlxSiyOz, ZnO, and ZnS.
Darolles, related to battery electrode structures, teaches a ZnO coating onto a carbon nanotube as a protective layer (¶[0091]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized using the ZnO coating of Darolles on the carbon fiber of Nguyen would provide a protective layer.
Therefore is would have been obvious to provide the ZnO coating of Darolles on the carbon fiber of Nguyen to provide a protective layer.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen (US20230402599A1) in view of Linde et. al. (US20180015705A1) and Lu et. al. (Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2012, 14, 12099–12104) and further in view of Liu et. al. (Applied Surface Science 442 (2018) 204–212).
Liu, related to lithium ion batteries, teaches a carbon nanotube wrapped in silicon dioxide(page 205, section 2.1) which is amorphous(page 206, first paragraph section 3.1) and has enhanced electrochemical performance(title).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized amorphous SiO2 as a glass material and adding it to the carbon fiber of Nguyen would provide enhanced electrochemical performance.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added the SiO2 coating of Liu to the carbon fiber of Nguyen to provide enhanced electrochemical performance.
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 KAREN J. ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am-6 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, Jeffrey 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.
/K.J.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1726 /RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726