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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda (US 2018/0366785). Honda is being cited and relied on for the first time with this office action. Honda is being cited and relied on for the first time with this office action. Its use here was necessitated by applicant’s amendment.
With respect to claim 1, Dasgupta discloses a battery comprises a cathode part comprising a cathode current collector (electrode support laminate 6 in conjunction with foil 16) having unit cathodes 4 spaced apart from one another, a anode part comprising a anode current collector (electrode support laminate 2 in conjunction with foil 14) having unit anodes 1 spaced apart from one another where both of these parts have electrolyte layer 8 disposed over both the unit anodes and cathodes as well as over the current collectors (fig. 1 and col. 6, ll. 12-35). Both the cathode and anode parts have a shape folded in a zigzag form where the anode and cathodes parts are divided into unit areas analogous to that of the present invention. See fig. 2 of Dasgupta and compare with fig. 1 of the present invention. Electrodes 4 and 1 are all oriented vertically defining a unit area. Moreover, in this zigzag form the protrusions of the cathode and anode parts (i.e. where the collector is bent over itself) is inserted into the recessed portions of the anode and cathode parts respectively (i.e. where 2 or 6 arch over the bent portions of 6 and 2 respectively) (fig. 2).
With respect to Dasgupta being “all-solid-state”, applicant has no limitations drawn to the device being made of only solid components so this limitation is interpreted as being the intended use of the device. However, Dasgupta is constructed with solid components (in particular the electrolyte is a solid polymer (col. 4, ll. 1-11)) so Dasgupta is interpreted as being all-solid-state even if this limitation were to be given further due consideration.
With respect to the electrolyte of the battery consisting of first and second electrolytes, it is noted that Dasgupta relies on a single electrolyte and doesn’t separately provide the electrolyte into first and second electrolyte layers on the anode and cathode portions. Honda discloses an analogous folded battery where each cathode and anode (221, 231, 222, 232) are separately coating with solid electrolyte layers (241, 242) and the two portions of the solid electrolyte form a single solid electrolyte layer after folding (see fig. 36 and par. 0507-0509).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing for Dasgupta to rely on individual electrolyte layers on the cathode and anode parts to arrive at the final product of fig. 2 as suggested by Honda because the utility of known alternative construction schemes for stacked and/or folded batteries requires only routine skill in the art.
With respect to the first and second solid electrolyte layers completely covering the surfaces of the unit anode and cathodes, fig. 36 of Honda clearly suggests the solid electrolyte (241, 242) cover the visible sides of the figure. See also fig. 6 of Honda where the electrolyte layer 242 is larger than the unit electrodes 222, and 232 which suggests that the Honda coating step covers all sides of the electrodes.
With respect to the set forth current collector compositions, Honda discloses that any of SUS, Al, and Cu all find utility in the art for the anode and cathode current collectors (par. 0127).
With respect to claims 2 and 8, Dasgupta teaches that the unit cathodes and unit anodes are on one surface of their respective current collectors (fig. 2).
With respect to claims 3 and 9, Dasgupta teaches the use of 200 micron unit cathodes (col. 7, ll. 46-54). As to the unit anode thickness, although the 450 micron utilized in embodiment 2 is outside the claimed range (col. 8, ll. 52-55), earlier Dasgupta suggested the anode can be made of same thickness or less as that of the cathode (i.e. the lithiated transition metal oxide) when elemental lithium is used (col. 5, ll. 11-19). The use of 200 microns or less overlaps the claimed range and thereby renders the claim obvious.
With respect to claims 4 and 10, see Honda fig. 42.
With respect to claims 5 and 11, Dasgupta teaches that the entire electrolyte layer can be less than 1 mm and typically between 40 and 400 microns (col. 4, ll. 35-37). This reads on the claim even if this electrolyte thickness were construed as between first and second electrolyte layers in the alternative rejection.
With respect to claims 6 and 12, Dasgupta teaches a solid polymer electrolyte (col. 4, ll. 1-5).
With respect to claims 7 and 13 as amended, Dasgupta teaches that battery can consist of 33 folds (col. 8, ll. 16-18) meaning the distance between at least the first and last unit electrodes prior to being folded into a zigzag shape would have to be at least 33 times the width of the electrodes. Either unit electrode dimension of 95 or 140 mm times 33 would clearly exceed 10 times 200 microns (i.e. the thickness suggest for the unit electrodes).
With respect to claim 14, both unit electrodes are disclosed having a length and width that are the same (95 x 140 mm) (see example 1 in col. 7).
With respect to claim 18, the structure of fig. 2 of Dasgupta is entirely analogous to the structure of fig. 1 of the present invention and has a reaction area between the unit anodes and unit cathodes. That reaction area clearly occurs over the electrolyte layer 8 of Dasgupta which is equivalent to the first and second electrolyte layer of the Honda modification.
With respect to claims 19 and 20, the unit cathodes and unit anodes of Dasgupta are between the electrolyte layer 8 and the current collectors (see fig. 1).
Claim 15 is rejected over Dasgupta in view of Honda as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kaido et al (US 2001/0012588). Dasgupta set forth all the limitations but did not suggest that the unit anode have a width greater than the unit cathode. Kaido in an alternate lithium battery suggests that the size of the anode can limit the ability for Li to intercalate at the electrode (par. 0112). Although this is expressed by Kaido in terms of the cathode not being larger than the anode, this nonetheless establishes that anode size relative to the cathode is a known variable for controlling battery performance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize an anode in Dasgupta larger than the cathode as suggested by Kaido in order to make sure the anode is not limited in its ability to absorb Li.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected over Dasgupta in view of Honda as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Yang et al (USP 6,461,762).
Dasgupta set forth all the limitations of the claims and had foils 14 and 16 act as cathode and anode tabs for collecting the current (col. 6, ll. 46-55). However, Dasgupta could have collected the current as any of the possible connection points for the electrodes including at the top portion of the device. This is explicitly shown by Yang in an alternated folded battery cell where tabs (15 and 16) in fig. 6 are being shown at the outer most side of the stacked cell. This has the advantage as the outer most portion of the cell is the best access point for the electrode plates. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize the teaching of Yang for the batter of Dasgupta because the utility of known conventional connection points when Dasgupta explicitly suggested relying on (col. 6, ll. 51-55) requires only routine skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the argument that Dasgupta fails to teach covering the side surfaces of the cathode, it is noted that this limitation is being addressed by the teaching of Honda.
It is noted that the examiner has withdrawn for now the previous use of Song, Platt, Kawakami in favor of the teaching of Honda to simplify the rejection. The examiner also withdrew the use of Yoshida as Honda disclosed the same current collector materials and Yoshida is now superfluous.
Conclusion
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 KAJ K OLSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights