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 Amendments
In response to the amendments received 03/30/2026:
Claims 1-2 and 4-15 are pending in the current application. Claims 13-14 remain withdrawn. Claims 1-2 have been amended. Claim 3 has been canceled.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “…wherein the particles comprise metal particles, and the metal particles consist essentially of nickel (Ni), iron (Fe), or any combination thereof”. It is noted that the disclosure indicates additional metals may be used including metal particles and metal components (which are also particles) and where claimed metal particles may have a carbon coating (P12.18-20.93-95.101 of PGPUB US20230317914A1). The disclosure teaches metal particles without ion conductivity and with ion conductivity and includes no ratios or relative amounts. There is no evidence that the presence of additional metals would materially affect the basic and novel characteristic of the claimed invention. Therefore, for the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, “consisting essentially of” will be construed as equivalent to “comprising.” If an applicant contends that additional steps or materials in the prior art are excluded by the recitation of “consisting essentially of,” applicant has the burden of showing that the introduction of additional steps or components would materially change the characteristics of the claimed invention. MPEP 2111.03 III
The term “all-solid state battery” is interpreted as a rechargeable secondary battery that includes an electrolyte in a solid state for transferring ions between the electrodes of the battery (P7 of PGPUB US20230317914A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5,7,9-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 20230268517).
Regarding claim 1, Cho teaches an all-solid-state battery comprising (P6): an anode current collector; an anode layer, or coating layer disposed on the anode current collector and comprising particles which do not have lithium ion conductivity, or particles (P37) and interparticular pores formed between the particles (P37-39; Fig. 4); a solid electrolyte layer disposed on the anode layer ;a cathode active material layer disposed on the solid electrolyte layer; and a cathode current collector disposed on the cathode active material layer; (P46.50) wherein the particles comprise metal particles, and the metal particles may comprise nickel (Ni) (P8.17.37).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select Ni as the metal particles as a listed choice of particles which do not have lithium-ion conductivity and provide the intended result. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.07
Regarding claim 2, Cho teaches the particles further comprise organic-particles and inorganic particles (P37-38).
Regarding claim 5, Cho teaches the particles have an average diameter of about 20 µm or less, or 1 µm or less (P7.35), overlapping the claimed range of about 500 nm or less. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05- I
Regarding claim 9, Cho teaches the anode layer may further comprise a metal component capable of alloying with lithium such as zinc and bismuth (P8.17.37). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.07 & MPEP 2131.02
Regarding claim 10, Cho teaches the metal component may comprise zinc and bismuth (P8.17.37).
Regarding claim 11, Cho teaches the anode layer, or coating layer has a thickness of 5-50 µm (P32), overlapping the claimed range of about 10 µm to 30 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05- I
Regarding claim 12, Cho teaches wherein the all-solid state battery comprises lithium precipitated and stored inside the anode layer during charging, wherein lithium ions are stored within/behind layer and precipitated through (P39).
Regarding claim 15, Cho teaches a vehicle comprising the all-solid state battery of claim 1 (P62).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Katoh (US 20090197182).
Regarding claim 4, Cho is silent in teaching the particles have a spherical shape; however, Katoh, also teaching particle size D50 of less than 5 µm, teaches having spherical particles, for uniformity and to increase pathways and enabling distances for ion transfer (P52.75-77).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the particles of Cho be spherical, to fit within the particle size range allowing increased ion transfer and pathways within the electrode, as taught by Katoh.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Ionescu et al. (US 20220263082).
Regarding claim 6, Cho teaches interparticular pores formed between particles wherein the pores provide lithium ion channels during charge/discharge of a battery allowing continuous charge/discharge of the battery (P39)
Cho is silent in teaching the interparticular pore diameter of about 160 nm or less; however, Ionescu, teaching solid state batteries (P22.86-87), teaches that an anode material formed of a plurality of particles that can cooperatively form pores based on the shape and size of the particles. The average diameter of the pores is minimized to a range including 0.1 nm to i.e., 100 nm to allow thermal expansion while maintaining efficiency (P33-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to minimize the interparticular pore size of Cho, to a range such as 0.1 nm to 100 nm, as taught by Ionescu, to account for particle expansion while allowing ion charge and discharge. Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 7-8 as applied to at least claim 1 and further in view of Huawei, Song, Cui Hao, and Wang Chengxin. "Abnormal Cyclibility in Ni@ Graphene Core–Shell and Yolk–Shell Nanostructures for Lithium Ion Battery Anodes." (2014).
Regarding claim 7, Cho teaches the particles have a carbon coating layer formed on their surface, or wherein the metal particles are coated with carbon particles (and vice versa) (P33). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.07
Furthermore, Huawei, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches forming a carbon coating layer on the surface of particles improves cyclability, rate capability, and stability (pg. 13765.13767-13768).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to form the particles with a carbon coating layer as suggested by Cho, and taught by Huawei to improve electrochemical performance. Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, modified Cho in view of Huawei teaches the carbon coating layer has a thickness of about 5 nm, overlapping the claimed thickness of about 10 nm or less (pg. 13766-13767; Fig. 2-5). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05- I
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the new claim limitations overcome the previous showing of obviousness. The amendments overcome the previous rejections. New and amended grounds of rejection are above set forth. New and amended grounds of rejection are necessitated by the claim amendments. Examiner notes as presently claimed, the battery does not limit the inclusion of active material, or an active material layer, oxide inclusion, or other characteristics of the layer. Therefore, well-known active material layers comprising alloys or oxides of nickel, or comprising nickel powders or grains can be interpreted to read on the claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Amanda Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5 pm.
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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/Amanda Rosenbaum/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights