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 .
Summary
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted November 25, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently, claim 3 is canceled, claim 1 is amended, resulting in claims 1-2 and 4 pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Netz (DE 102017201233 A1, English translation used for text citations and original document used for Figure citations).
Regarding claims 1-2, Netz teaches a battery cell comprising:
a negative electrode layer (element 21, Fig. 3)
an electrolyte layer (element 24, Fig. 3)
a positive electrode layer (element 22, Fig. 3)
the negative electrode layer comprising a negative electrode active material layer that has at least one recess portion (conical recesses in element 21, Fig. 3) and at least one planar portion (shown on annotated Fig. 3 below) on a surface of the negative electrode active material layer, the surface being adjacent to the electrolyte layer
the electrolyte layer being a solid electrolyte layer comprising a solid electrolyte (pg. 5)
each of the recess portions being a cone or pyramid shaped recess portion having a slant portion (Fig. 3)
the solid electrolyte being present within each of the recess portions (Fig. 3)
wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprises lithium metal (lithium metal layer, pg. 4 paragraphs 1-5)
PNG
media_image1.png
467
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (Park, J. et al. Size effects of micro-pattern on lithium metal surface on the electrochemical performance of lithium metal secondary batteries. Journal of Power Sources. 408, 136-142 (2018)) in view of Doux (Doux, J.M. et al. Pressure effects of sulfide electrolyte for all solid-state batteries. Journal of Materials Chemistry A. 8, 5049-5055 (2020)) and Katoh (US 2009/0197182 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a battery cell (LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2/Li cell, pg. 137 right column) having a negative electrode layer (micro-patterned lithium metal), an electrolyte layer (liquid electrolyte), and a positive electrode layer (cathode), the negative electrode layer comprising a negative electrode active material layer that has at least one recess portion and at least one planar portion on a surface of the negative electrode active material layer (Fig. 2), the surface being adjacent to the electrolyte layer (electrolyte between cathode and lithium metal; recess portions on the lithium metal surface, abstract), and the at least one recess portion being a cone or pyramid-shaped recess portion having a slant portion (Fig. 2).
Park does not teach the electrolyte layer being a solid electrolyte layer comprising a solid electrolyte and the solid electrolyte being present within each of the recess portions.
Doux teaches that all solid-state batteries are safer due to the use of solid electrolytes instead of liquid electrolytes, wherein this safety can be attributed to solid electrolytes being non-flammable (Doux abstract).
Since Doux teaches that using a solid electrolyte layer comprising a solid electrolyte can improve safety of secondary batteries, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a solid electrolyte layer comprising a solid electrolyte instead of the liquid electrolyte in the battery cell of Park in order to improve safety performance.
Katoh teaches that solid-state batteries may be formed by laminating a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a solid electrolyte, followed by pressing (Katoh [62]), which is also a method disclosed by the instant application (instant specification [43]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use lamination followed by pressing to fabricate the solid-state battery of Park in view of Doux, thus resulting in the solid electrolyte being present within each of the recess portions.
Additionally, the ordinary artisan would recognize that pressing would result in some of the solid electrolyte layer being present within each of the recess portions. It is noted that the limitation “present within each of the recess portions” does not limit the amount of or require a certain amount of solid electrolyte be present in the recess portions.
Regarding claim 2, Park in view of Doux teaches all features of claim 1 and further teaches the negative electrode active material layer comprising lithium metal (micro-patterned lithium metal, pg. 137 right column).
Regarding claim 4, Park in view of Doux teaches all features of claim 1 and further teaches the at least one recess portion and the at least one planar portion comprising a plurality of recess portions and a plurality of planar portions, and each of the planar portions being formed between the plurality of recess portions (Fig. 2).
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claims 1-4 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 are overcome by applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in the response received on November 25, 2025. These rejections of claims 1-4 are withdrawn.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 102 and 103
Applicant’s arguments regarding Park in view of Doux filed November 25, 2025 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On page 5 of the response, applicant recites that “Park does not disclose the use of a solid electrolyte layer as the electrolyte layer” and provides an explanation of “the object of the present application”. On pages 5-6 of the response, applicant appears to further allege that the technical concept of the present application is different than that of Park and that Doux does not “disclose or suggest the problem of the present application”. Thus, applicant appears to allege that due Park and Doux not expressly disclosing the problem of short circuits caused by dendrite formation in solid-state batteries, “it would not be easy to conceive of a configuration in which a solid electrolyte is present within the recess portions, and the present invention is non-obvious”.
The structure of Park in view of Doux meets the limitations of instant claim 1, as described above.
In response to applicant's argument that Park and Doux do not disclose the problem of the present invention, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
On page 5 of the response, applicant recites “In contrast, Park’s opening abstract states that “during the repeated Li…without resulting Li dendrite growth”.
It is noted that Park (Park, J. et al. Size effects of micro-pattern on lithium metal surface on the electrochemical performance of lithium metal secondary batteries. Journal of Power Sources. 408, 136-142 (2018)) was the reference cited to reject claim 1 in the Non-Final Office Action dated August 26, 2025. It does not appear that this quote provided by applicant is present in the abstract of Park or in the remaining text of Park (2018), rather it is present in the reference (Park, J. et al. Micro-Patterned Lithium Metal Anodes with Suppressed Dendrite Formation for Post Lithium-Ion Batteries. Advanced Materials Interfaces. 3, 1600140 (2016) which was cited as pertinent prior art not relied upon in the Non-Final Office Action dated August 26, 2025.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bae (Bae, H.S. et al. Large-area surface-patterned Li metal anodes fabricated using large, flexible patterning stamps for Li metal secondary batteries. Journal of Power Sources. 514, 230553 (2021)): appears to disclose a lithium metal layer comprising planar portions and cone or pyramid shaped recesses (Fig. 1, Fig. 3).
Joonam Park (Park, J. et al. Micro-Patterned Lithium Metal Anodes with Suppressed Dendrite Formation for Post Lithium-Ion Batteries. Advanced Materials Interfaces. 3, 1600140 (2016)): appears to disclose a lithium metal layer comprising planar portions and cone or pyramid shaped recesses (Fig. 2).
Kim (Kim, D. Hybrid Effect of Micropatterned Lithium Metal and Three Dimensionally Ordered Macroporous Polyimide Separator on the Cycle Performance of Lithium Metal Batteries. ACS Applied Energy Materials. 3, 3721-3727 (2020)): appears to disclose a lithium metal layer comprising planar portions and cone or pyramid shaped recesses (Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/J.S.C./
Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789