DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9, 12-16, 19 are amended. Claims 21-23 are newly added. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-19 and 21-23 are being examined on the merits in this office action.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been entered. A reply to the Applicant’s remarks/arguments is presented after addressing the claims.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office Action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments or/and arguments.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. References cited in the current Office action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Amendments
Applicant should have specifically pointed out where in the specification supports Applicant’s amended limitations and newly added claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following:
Claim 23 recites “… layer is selected from …”. The materials listed in the Markush group are materials, not a layer.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
1) As mentioned in the interview (See the Interview Summary dated Jan. 20, 2026), independent claims 1 and 16 both recite a negative limitation “no sulfide electrolyte is disposed …”. However, any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1019, 194 USPQ 187, 196 (CCPA 1977) (“[the] specification, having described the whole, necessarily described the part remaining.”). See also Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983), aff'd mem., 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. Any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Note that a lack of literal basis in the specification for a negative limitation may not be sufficient to establish a prima facie case for lack of descriptive support. Ex parte Parks, 30 USPQ2d 1234, 1236 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993). See MPEP § 2163 - § 2163.07(b) for a discussion of the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
In the instant case, the negative limitation does not have basis in the original disclosure, and thus the claims containing the negative limitation is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
2) The above rejection based on negative limitation also similarly applies to claim 21 due to the use of the term “without” and claim 22 due to the use of “does not”.
3) Claim 21 recites “a second pre-lithiation layer disposed between the first anode layer and the second anode layer” does not appear to be supported by the specification.
Claims 6-7 and 16-19 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.
Claims 6-7 recite the limitation "the anode electrode of claim 5". There is no antecedent basis for this limitation because claim 5 has been canceled. Claim 6 further recites “the first anode layer includes the first anode active material”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “adjacent to” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “adjacent to” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The related limitations have been rendered indefinite due to the use of the term “adjacent to”. Claims 17-19 are also rejected because of their dependencies on claim 16.
In claim 21, the structural relationship between various layers recited in the claim is unclear, which render the claim indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-11 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae et al. (US 20210218016 A1, hereafter Chae) in view of Ito et al. (US 20170256786 A1, hereafter Ito) and Inagake et al. (US 20090061292 A1, hereafter Inagake).
Regarding claims 1 and 6-7, Chae teaches an anode electrode, comprising (See, e.g., Fig. 1):
a current collector (“130”);
a first anode layer (“112”) arranged on the current collector and comprising a first anode active material ([0034]-[0036]);
a first pre-lithiation layer (“120”) arranged on and in contact with the first anode layer; and
a second anode layer (“114”) arranged on and in contact with the first pre-lithiation layer and comprising second anode active material ([0034]-[0036], Fig. 1).
Chae further teaches no sulfide electrolyte is disposed i) between the current collector and the first anode layer; and ii) between the first anode layer and the second anode layer.
Chae appears silent as to a sulfide electrolyte included in at least one of the first anode layer and the second anode layer. Chae appears also silent as to various ranges recited in claims 6-7.
However, in the absence of evidence that the various ranges are critical, the selection of various ration of components of an anode active materials involves merely ordinary capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. For instance, in the same field of endeavor, Ito discloses an anode active material layer comprising an anode active material of a carbonaceous active material ([0076]) in a weight ratio of about 20% to about 95% ([0078]), and a sulfide electrolyte (e.g., a pseudobinary sulfide Li2S-P2S5, [0056]-[0060], the word “same” in [0070]) in a weight ratio of about 10% to about 95% ([0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention have incorporated the teachings of Ito into Chae such that the above weight ratios are used for the Chae’s first anode layer comprising the active material and the sulfide electrolyte in order to improve discharge capacity ([0006], Ito). As a result, the claimed ranges as recited in claims 6-7 overlap those disclosed in Ito, respectively. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Chae in view of Ito further discloses a binder is included in the anode active material layer ([0079], Ito), but is silent as to a composition and amount of the binder. However, it is well known in the art that a certain amount of binder may be included in an anode active material layer. For instance, Inagaki discloses that a PVDF binder is included in a negative electrode active material layer in an amount of 5 wt% ([0126]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant inventio to have used an amount of 5 wt% of PVDF as a binder in the Chae in view of Ito, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Additionally, as to the claimed ranges, it is noted that "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Chae as modified teaches the anode electrode of claim 1, and the instantly claimed limitations represent a duplication of the first pre-lithiation layer and the second anode layer arranged on the first pre-lithiation layer. However, the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.04.
Regarding claim 3, Chae as modified teaches the anode electrode of claim 1, wherein the first anode active material may comprise a carbonaceous material such as graphite ([0083]), and the first pre-lithiation layer may comprise a lithium metal layer ([0084]-[0085], [0040], Chae), reading on a lithium foil or a stabilized lithium metal powder.
Regarding claims 9-11, Chae as modified teaches the anode electrode of claim 1, but appears silent as to a sulfide electrolyte as well as the various ranges as claimed in claim 9.
However, in the absence of evidence that the various ranges are critical, the selection of various ration of components of an anode active materials involves merely ordinary capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. For instance, in the same field of endeavor, Ito discloses an anode active material layer comprising an anode active material of a carbonaceous active material ([0076]) in a weight ratio of about 20% to about 95% ([0078]), a sulfide electrolyte (e.g., a pseudobinary sulfide Li2S-P2S5, [0056]-[0060], the word “same” in [0070]) in a weight ratio of about 10% to about 95% ([0078]), and a first conductive additive in a weight ratio of about 1% to 50% (“conducting material”, such as graphite, [0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention have incorporated the teachings of Ito into Chae such that the above weight ratios are used for the second anode layer of Chae in order to improve discharge capacity ([0006], Ito). As a result, the claimed ranges as recited in claim 9 overlap those disclosed in Ito, respectively. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Chae in view of Ito further discloses a binder is included in the anode active material layer ([0079], Ito), but is silent as to a composition and amount of the binder. However, it is well known in the art that a certain amount of binder may be included in an anode active material layer. For instance, Inagaki discloses that a PTFE as a binder is included in a negative electrode active material layer in an amount of 2 wt% to 28wt% ([0048]-[0049]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant inventio to have used an amount of 2 wt% to 28 wt% of PTFE as a binder in the Chae in view of Ito, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP § 2144.07. The claimed range of 1 to 20 wt% overlaps that of 2 wt% to 28 wt% disclosed in the prior art. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Additionally, as to the claimed ranges, it is noted that "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007).
Regarding claim 21, Chae as modified teaches the anode electrode of claim 1. The instant limitation does appear to require both the first and second pre-lithiation layers are disposed between the first and second anode layers. However, “making integral” or “making separable” is prima facie obvious (See MPEP § 2144.04 V (C)-(D)). The first pre-lithiation layer can be considered an integral formed of two lithiation layers.
Regarding claim 22, Chae as modified teaches the anode electrode of claim 1. As for the instant limitations, see the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae in view of Ito and Inagaki, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (CN 107799721 A, whose English machine translation is being employed for citation purposes, hereafter Huang).
Regarding claim 4, Chae as modified teaches the anode electrode of claim 1, but appears silent on the instantly claimed thicknesses of the first anode layer and the first pre-lithiation layer.
However, in the absence of the thicknesses that are critical, the selection of thickness of the said layers involves merely ordinary capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. For instance, Huang discloses a similar anode electrode, wherein the thickness of the first anode layer (“120”, Fig. 1) is in the range of 2 µm to 200 µm ([0053]), and the thickness of the pre-lithiation layer (“140”) is in the range of 10 nm to 80 µm ([0030]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily arrived at the claimed thicknesses. Further, the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the above ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Chae and Inagaki.
Regarding claims 12-15, Ito teaches a battery cell (“1”, Fig. 1) comprising:
an anode electrode layer (“20”);
an electrolyte layer (“30”) arranged on the anode electrode;
a cathode electrode (“10”) arranged adjacent to the electrolyte layer; and
a second current collector ([0092]) in contact with the cathode electrode.
Ito is silent on the anode electrode layer being the anode electrode of claim 1. However, the anode electrode of claim 1 is a pre-lithiated negative electrode, which may increase the capacity and improve the electrochemical performance of a lithium secondary battery by securing the initial reversibility of a negative electrode (at least: Abstract, Chae). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have used the anode electrode layer of claim 1 as an alternative to the anode electrode layer of Ito for the benefits stated above. As such, the electrolyte layer is necessarily on the second anode layer as required by a basic structure of a battery.
Ito in view of Chae teaches the cathode electrode includes sulfide electrolyte in a range of about 10 wt% to 95 wt% ([0062], Ito), a cathode active material (e.g., a rock salt layered oxide LiMO4, [0050]) in a range of about 10 wt% to about 99 wt% ([0066]), a first conductive additive (e.g., graphite, [0067]) in a range of about 1 wt% to about 50 wt% ([0067]). The claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the above ranges, respectively. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I). Furthermore, Ito in view of Chae discloses that the cathode electrode may further include an additive, such as a binder ([0067]-[0069], Ito). Based on the total weight percentage of the cathode electrode being 100%, the binder may be in a range of 0 wt% to 79 wt% (i.e., 100%-10%-10%-1%), which overlaps the claimed 1 to 20 wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I). Although Ito is silent to a specific composition of the binder, common-used binders, such as PVDF and PTFE, are well known to be used in a cathode layer, as evidenced by, for example, Inagaki-II ([0088]).
Additionally, as to the claimed ranges, it is noted that "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007).
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Inagaki and Chae.
Regarding claims 16-18, Ito teaches a battery cell (“1”, Fig. 1) comprising:
a first current collector ([0094]);
an anode electrode layer (“20”);
an electrolyte layer (“30”) arranged adjacent to the anode electrode;
a cathode electrode (“10”) arranged adjacent to the electrolyte layer; and
a second current collector ([0092]) arranged adjacent to the cathode electrode.
Ito discloses an anode comprising a first anode layer arranged on the first current collector ([0094]), and the first anode layer comprises an anode active material of a carbonaceous active material ([0076]) in a weight ratio of about 20% to about 95% ([0078]), and a sulfide electrolyte (e.g., a pseudobinary sulfide Li2S-P2S5, [0056]-[0060], the word “same” in [0070]) in a weight ratio of about 10% to about 95% ([0078]). The claimed ranges as recited in claim 5 overlap those disclosed in Ito, respectively. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I). Ito further discloses a binder is included in the anode active material layer ([0079], Ito), but is silent as to a composition and amount of the binder. However, it is well known in the art that a certain amount of binder may be included in an anode active material layer. For instance, Inagaki discloses that a PVDF binder is included in a negative electrode active material layer in an amount of 5 wt% ([0126]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant inventio to have used an amount of 5 wt% of PVDF as a binder in Ito, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP § 2144.07. Additionally, as to the claimed ranges, it is noted that "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007).
Ito in view of Inagaki is silent as to a first pre-lithiation layer arranged on the first anode and a second anode layer arranged on the first pre-lithiation layer. However, in the same field of endeavor, Chae discloses a pre-lithiated negative electrode (Fig. 1) comprising a first pre-lithiation layer (“120”) arranged on the first anode (“112”) and a second anode layer (“114”) arranged on the pre-lithiation layer, and the pre-lithiated negative electrode may increase the capacity and improve the electrochemical performance of a lithium secondary battery by securing the initial reversibility of a negative electrode (at least: Abstract, Chae). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings of Chae into Ito such that a pre-lithiation layer is arranged on the first anode layer and a second anode layer is arranged on the first pre-lithiation layer in order to achieve the benefits stated above. The first pre-lithiation layer may comprise a lithium metal layer ([0084]-[0085], [0040], Chae), reading on a lithium foil or a stabilized lithium metal powder as claimed.
The second anode layer of Chae appears silent as to a sulfide electrolyte being included as well as various ranges as claimed for the second anode layer. However, in the absence of evidence that the various ranges are critical, the selection of various ration of components of an anode active materials involves merely ordinary capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. For instance, Ito discloses an anode active material layer comprising an anode active material of a carbonaceous active material ([0076]) in a weight ratio of about 20% to about 95% ([0078]), a sulfide electrolyte (e.g., a pseudobinary sulfide Li2S-P2S5, [0056]-[0060], [0070]) in a weight ratio of about 10% to about 95% ([0078]), and a first conductive additive in a weight ratio of about 1% to 50% (“conducting material”, such as graphite, [0078]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention have further used the above weight ratios for the second anode layer of Ito in view of Inagaki and Chae in order to improve discharge capacity ([0006], Ito). As a result, the claimed ranges for the second anode layer overlap those disclosed in Ito, respectively. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I). As to the claimed range of the fibrillating polymer binder, it is well known in the art that a certain amount of binder may be included in an anode active material layer. For instance, Inagaki discloses that a PTFE as a binder is included in a negative electrode active material layer in an amount of 2 wt% to 28wt% ([0048]-[0049]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant inventio to have used an amount of 2 wt% to 28 wt% of PTFE as a binder in the second anode layer of Ito in view of Inagaki and Chae, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP § 2144.07. The claimed range of 1 to 20 wt% overlaps that of 2 wt% to 28 wt% disclosed in the prior art. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Additionally, as to the claimed various ranges, it is noted that "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007).
According to the foregoing, Ito in view of Inagaki and Chae teaches no sulfide electrolyte is disposed i) between the current collector and the first anode layer; and ii) between the first anode layer and the second anode layer.
Regarding claims 19, Ito in view of Inagaki and Chae teaches the battery cell of claim 16, and further teaches the cathode electrode includes sulfide electrolyte in a range of about 10 wt% to 95 wt% ([0062], Ito), a cathode active material (e.g., a rock salt layered oxide LiMO4, [0050]) in a range of about 10 wt% to about 99 wt% ([0066]), a first conductive additive (e.g., graphite, [0067]) in a range of about 1 wt% to about 50 wt% ([0067]). The claimed ranges overlap or lie inside the above ranges, respectively. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I). Furthermore, Ito in view of Chae discloses that the cathode electrode may further include an additive, such as a binder ([0067]-[0069], Ito). Based on the total weight percentage of the cathode electrode being 100%, the binder may be in a range of 0 wt% to 79 wt% (i.e., 100%-10%-10%-1%), which overlaps the claimed 1 to 20 wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I). Although Ito is silent to a specific composition of the binder, common-used binders, such as PVDF and PTFE, are well known to be used in a cathode layer, as evidenced by, for example, Inagaki ([0088]).
Additionally, as to the claimed ranges, it is noted that "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae in view of Ito and Inagaki, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yun et al. (US 20230021950 A1, hereafter Yun).
Regarding claim 23, Chae as modified teaches the anode electrode of claim 1, but is silent on a material as claimed for the first pre-lithiation layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Yun discloses many kind of materials, such as a metal aluminum alloy with lithium (See [0054]-[0060]), can be used to form a pre-lithiation layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used a lithium aluminum alloy as the material for the pre-lithiation layer of Chae as modified, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Jan. 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1) Applicant's arguments are based on the claims as amended. The amended claims have been addressed in the new rejections above.
2) In response to “Chae is abs
3) Applicant’s argument that “There is no suggestion in Ito to provide an anode electrode composed of multiple anode layers and a pre-lithiation layer, where one or more of the anode layers comprise sulfide electrolyte …”.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (the Ito reference), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In Ito, both cathode and anode may comprise the same sulfide electrolytes (See the word “same” in [0070]).
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 ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-4809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ZHONGQING WEI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727