DETAILED ACTION
(1)
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 . Applicant’s amendment filed May 29, 2026, is entered. Applicant cancelled claims 2 and 13 and amended claim 10. No new matter is entered. Claims 1, 3-12 and 14-20 are pending before the Office for review.
(2)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0293958), which is cited in Applicant’s information disclosure statement.
With respect to claim 1, Jang teaches a solid-state battery (Figure 3(B)) comprising a plurality of unit cells (unit cells 1 and 2), wherein each of the unit cells includes a cathode (16a, 16b), an electrolyte (not labeled; dispersed in the cathode layer) and an anode (20a, 20b), and further comprising a carbon-based bipolar membrane to separate the two unit cells. Figure 3(A) and Paragraphs 145, 146 and 151. The bipolar membrane is carbon-based within the scope of the claimed invention because it is coated with graphene. Paragraph 151. Jang further teaches a cathode and anode current collector (18a, 18c) provide a positive and negative pole, respectively, for the solid-state battery. Figure 3(B) and Paragraph 145.
(3)
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.
Claims 3, 4, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0293958) in view of Li et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0038998).
With respect to claims 3 and 4, Jang teaches a carbon-based bipolar membrane but is silent as to whether it comprises conductive carbon nanomaterial film.
However, Li, which deals with solid-state batteries, teaches the bipolar membrane (14; clad foil) of such a battery is provided with a carbon nanotube film (conductive carbon nanomaterial film) to improve its thermal and electrical conductivity. Paragraphs 35, 43 and 44. The carbon nanotube film has a density of 2.1 g/cm3. As per the MPEP, "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) (internal citation omitted).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jang’s carbon-based bipolar membrane to include the carbon nanotube film because Li teaches doing so improves the thermal and electrical conductivity.
With respect to claims 18 and 20, Examiner notes that the claim is a product-by-process claim. “If the product in the product-by-process is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP 2113.
Modified Jang teaches a solid-state battery (Figure 3(B)) comprising a plurality of unit cells (unit cells 1 and 2), wherein each of the unit cells includes a cathode (16a, 16b) and electrolyte bilayer (electrolyte is not labeled; dispersed in the cathode layer) and a lithium anode (20a, 20b) attached to a solid electrolyte side thereof, and further comprising a carbon-based bipolar membrane comprising a carbon nanotube film to serially connect the two unit cells. Jang, Figure 3(A) and Paragraphs 145, 146 and 151 and Li, Paragraphs 35, 43 and 44. Jang further teaches a cathode and anode current collector (18a, 18c) provide a positive and negative pole, respectively, for the solid-state battery. Figure 3(B) and Paragraph 145.
(4)
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0293958) in view of Herrmann et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0233768).
With respect to claims 5 and 6, Jang teaches the carbon-based bipolar membrane but is silent as to whether it is coated with a metallic layer.
However, Herrmann, which deals with batteries, teaches it is known in the art to nickel-coat a bipolar current collector. Paragraph 19.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the combination of Jang with Herrmann is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. Both Jang and Herrmann are directed toward bipolar current collectors. Herrmann teaches it is known in the art to nickel-coat the bipolar current collectors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly nickel-coat Jang’s current collector because Herrmann teaches this to be an effective technique in the art, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success.
(5)
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0293958) in view of Li et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0038998), as applied to claims 3, 4, 18 and 20 above, and further in view of Adamson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0069360).
With respect to claims 7 and 8, Jang teaches the carbon-based bipolar membrane but is silent as to whether it is coated with a titanium carbide (TiC) layer.
However, Adamson, which deals with batteries, teaches it is known in the art to coat a bipolar plate with TiC. Paragraph 77.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the combination of Jang with Adamson is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. Both Jang and Adamson are directed toward bipolar current collectors. Adamson teaches it is known in the art to coat the bipolar plate with TiC. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly nickel-coat Jang’s current collector because Adamson teaches this to be an effective technique in the art, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success.
(6)
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0293958) in view of Li et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0038998), as applied to claims 3, 4, 18 and 20 above, and further in view of Herrmann et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0233768).
With respect to claim 19, modified Jang teaches the carbon-based bipolar membrane but is silent as to whether it is coated with a metallic layer.
However, Herrmann, which deals with batteries, teaches it is known in the art to nickel-coat a bipolar current collector. Paragraph 19.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the combination of Jang with Herrmann is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. Both Jang and Herrmann are directed toward bipolar current collectors. Herrmann teaches it is known in the art to nickel-coat the bipolar current collectors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly nickel-coat Jang’s current collector because Herrmann teaches this to be an effective technique in the art, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success.
(7)
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0293958) in view of Li et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0038998), as applied to claims 3, 4, 18 and 20 above, and further in view of Adamson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0069360).
With respect to claim 19, modified Jang teaches the carbon-based bipolar membrane but is silent as to whether it is coated with a titanium carbide (TiC) layer.
However, Adamson, which deals with batteries, teaches it is known in the art to coat a bipolar plate with TiC. Paragraph 77.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the combination of Jang with Adamson is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. Both Jang and Adamson are directed toward bipolar current collectors. Adamson teaches it is known in the art to coat the bipolar plate with TiC. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly nickel-coat Jang’s current collector because Adamson teaches this to be an effective technique in the art, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success.
(8)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 14-17 are in condition for allowance.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, individually or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest the solid-state battery of the claimed invention, the battery requiring a holey graphene-cathode-solid electrolyte trilayer, as required by claims 9 and 14.
(9)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed May 29, 2026, are not persuasive. Applicant argues Jang teaches a carbon-based membrane used as a part of a current collector portion and not a carbon-based bipolar membrane, as required by the claimed invention. Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s position as it misunderstands the breadth of the claimed invention.
The claimed invention requires a carbon-based bipolar membrane, but is otherwise non-specific as to the required structure. To that end, Jang’s structure, in Applicant’s own words, is bipolar, a membrane and is coated with a carbon material on both sides. Accordingly, Jang teaches a carbon-based bipolar membrane within the breadth of the claimed invention. If Applicant wants a narrower interpretation of this claim limitation, Applicant is encouraged to be more structurally descriptive as to the nature of the claimed invention.
Applicant further argues the current collector in the present application is a completely separate element that does not contain a carbon-based bipolar membrane. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because it relies on unclaimed features.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
(10)
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 ELI S MEKHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ELI S MEKHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights