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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 19 February 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 19 February 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakamoto et al (US 2021/0043967 A1).
As to claim 1, Sakamoto discloses a method of improving interfacial contact at an electrode-to-solid-electrolyte interface in a solid-state battery cell ([0111] “…to avoid loss of contact area.” [0158] “During the first pulse, a slight decrease in interfacial resistance is observed (F in FIG. 20), which may be attributed to improved interfacial contact when current flowed the first time”), the method comprising:
providing a solid-state battery cell including a solid-state electrolyte and electrodes defining an anode and a cathode, wherein each of the anode and cathode are adjacent to the solid- state electrolyte at an interface ([0105] [0141] “a cell with smaller electrodes ˜250 μm wide and ˜500 μm tall and a larger spacing between electrodes was used” which is described with example 2, starting at [0114] with electrolyte and electrode synthesis described [0177]-[0181]);
electrochemically increasing interfacial contact between at least one of the electrodes and the solid-state electrolyte by applying a voltage pulse to the cell at a high current density for a short duration, wherein electrode material diffuses into pores formed in the solid electrolyte interface, thereby healing the pores and eliminating an interfacial space charge effect ([0141] “a two second pulse of high current at a nominal current density of 75 mA/cm2 was applied.” Where the result of “wherein electrode material diffuses into pores formed in the solid electrolyte interface, thereby healing the pores and eliminating an interfacial space charge effect” is deemed to be a result of the claimed method as described in the prior art and thereby met. See MPEP 2112.02).
As to claims 2 and 3, the instant claim of the cut off voltage does not have a limiting effect based on the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. The interpretation of the specification defines the phrase at which the voltage not exceed at a point in the charging process and thus any process which does not exceed the claimed voltages may arbitrarily posses the claimed cut-off voltage as it is not integrated into the claimed method steps outsides defining a parameter not used within the context of the claimed voltage application step.
As to claim 4, Sakamoto further discloses wherein the high current density applied to the cell is at least five times greater than the critical current density at a cell level. ([0022] discloses the CCD is 2 mA/cm2 and thus the applied current cited above is greater than 5 times said CCD).
As to claim 6, Sakamoto discloses wherein the short duration is greater than or equal to 0.1 ms. ([0141] 2 seconds).
As to claim 9, Sakamoto discloses wherein the voltage pulse includes more than one pulse ([0147] “Following this initial cycle at high current density, the same amount of charge was repeatedly cycled at nominal current densities of 5 mA/cm.sup.2 (5 cycles) and then 10 mA/cm.sup.2 (5 cycles)).
As to claims 10 and 11, Sakamoto further discloses wherein the solid-state electrolyte is one of an inorganic solid electrolyte, a solid polymer electrolyte, and a composite polymer electrolyte and wherein the solid-state electrolyte is one of a garnet, a NASICON, a LISICON, an argyrodite-like, a lithium nitride, a lithium hydride, a lithium halide, a lithium phosphorous oxynitride, a lithium thiophosphate, a perovskite, a polyether-based electrolyte, a polycarbonate-based electrolyte, a polyester-based electrolyte, a polynitrile-based electrolyte, a polyalcohol-based electrolyte, a polyamine-based electrolyte, a polysiloxane-based electrolyte, a fluoropolymer-based electrolyte, a gel polymer electrolyte, an ionogel electrolyte, and a gel electrolyte. ([0089]-[0097]).
As to claim 12, Sakamoto further discloses wherein the anode comprises a Li-based active material, a Na-based active material, a K-based active material, a Mg-based active material, or a Zn-based active material. ([0088]).
As to claim 13, Sakamoto further discloses wherein the pores in the solid-state electrolyte are reduced or completely filled up due to local heating of the anode material at the interface in the vicinity of the pores. ([0117], [0121], and [0151]).
As to claim 14, Sakamoto further discloses wherein the method is performed in-operando ([0122], [0141] “in-plane operando…).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto in view of Sakamoto et al (US 2021/0226193 A1 herein referred to as Sakamoto ‘193).
As to claims 7 and 8, Sakamoto fails to disclose the pulses are applied in a duration of 0.1 to 0.5 ms, or less than 1 ms.
Sakamoto ‘193 discloses applying current pulses in order to deposit lithium at the electrode-electrolyte interface where the use of pulse currents improves the uniformity of the as deposited materials (Abstract). Sakamoto ‘193 discloses appropriate time frames for the application of the current density in which several ranges overlap the claimed range (Fig. 1A ton [0099]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a time on of the current density of less than 1 ms as taught in Sakamoto ‘193 for the time on period of the current density of Sakamoto as the ranges are recognized appropriate for the deposition of metal at the solid-solid interface with pulse control to optimize uniformity of the deposited metal (Sakamoto ‘193 [0110], See MPEP 2144.05 I and II).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUIS J RUFO whose telephone number is (571)270-7716. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 am to 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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/LOUIS J RUFO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795