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 .
Drawings
The drawings received on 06/01/2023 were reviewed and are acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 06/01/2023 was reviewed and is acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the first mixture of particles includes a first ionomer configured as a first binder” in lines 6-7 is redundant and was previously recited in lines 2-3.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a Nafion ionomer, does not reasonably provide enablement for any ionomer. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 recite “a first ionomer” and “a second ionomer”. Such recitations define the scope of the claims as any two ionomers.
The disclosure teaches that Nafion is an ionomer having a shape-memory effect (see Instant Specification [0039]), but fails to teach, or give examples of, any other ionomer. Therefore, Applicant has not enabled one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with the recited limitations.
Furthermore, and in accordance with the In re Wands factors (see MPEP 2164.01(a)), the claims are not enabled when considered in light of the following factors:
Breadth of the claims: the breadth of the claims is clear from an interpretive standpoint, and intends to include any ionomer having a shape-memory function. For example, polystyrene sulfonate is a common ionomer, but is not disclosed as appropriate for the current invention.
The nature of the invention: the invention is solid-state batteries and a method of manufacturing said batteries.
The state of the prior art: given the state of the prior art, the broad class of any ionomer requires a more detailed disclosure by the Applicant in order to enable one skilled in the art to make and use the invention as claimed because it is unclear which ionomers have a shape-memory function.
The level of one of ordinary skill in the art: one of ordinary skill in the art is considered to be an engineer, skilled in the design of solid-state batteries, and familiar with parameters that affect the rameters that affect teh supplies, and familiar with materials and conductorstime of the invention to make and use the invenperformance of such batteries.
The level of predictability in the art: the level of predictability in this art is considered to be low, insofar as there are many variables known to affect the manufacture of solid-state batteries.
The amount of direction provided by the inventor: the inventor does not provide adequate direction as to how to use any ionomer which meets the claim limitations. For example, no direction is provided for what other ionomers have a shape-memory function.
The existence of working examples: there are no examples in the specification which disclose any other ionomer besides Nafion, and therefore, the specification does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art the ability to make and/or use the invention.
The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure: the Applicant has not enabled one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to produce the invention. Therefore, an undue level of experimentation would be required for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to produce the specifics of the claimed invention.
Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 5-6, 13, and 15 is/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 5-6 recite the limitations “the first sub-layer” and “the second sub-layer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a first ionomer” in line 6. It is unclear whether this is intended to be the same “first ionomer” previously recited in line 2, or another separate and distinct ionomer. For purposes of this Office Action, it will be assumed that it is intended to be the same first ionomer previously recited.
Claim 15 recites the limitations “a first discreet sub-layer” and “a second discreet sub-layer” in lines 2-3 and 5. It is unclear whether this is intended to be the same “first sub-layer” and “second sub-layer” previously recited in claim 13, or separate and distinct sub-layers. For purposes of this Office Action, it will be assumed that it is intended to be the same sub-layers previously recited.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hupfer et al. (US 2020/0266479 A1; hereinafter “Hupfer”) in view of Neale et al. (US 2020/0223704 A1; hereinafter “Neale”).
Regarding claim 1, Hupfer discloses an electrode stack for a solid-state battery (Title/Abstract) comprising:
a cathode (20) including:
a cathode current collector (22); and
a first layer of material applied to the cathode current collector (as shown in Fig 1), including:
a cathode active material (24);
a first binder (23); and
a conductive material (26);
a solid electrolyte separator layer (first and second separator layers 30/40, [0029, 0034]), including a second binder (23, [0029]); and
an anode (10) including:
a layer including lithium metal (e.g. lithium on a metal substrate, [0026]); and
an anode current collector (12).
Hupfer discloses a binder included in the cathode ([0027]) and the solid electrolyte separator layer ([0029]), but does not appear to disclose what an appropriate binder is, and therefore does not disclose that the first and second binders are ionomers that include shape-memory ionomers configured for selectively restoring the electrode stack to an original shape.
Neale teaches stabilized electrodes for ion batteries (Title). Neale teaches that the electrodes may include an active material, a binder, a conductive material, and an electrolyte ([0058]). Neale teaches examples of suitable binders which includes e.g. Nafion ([0060]).
Hupfer and Neale are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely lithium-ion batteries.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the binder of Hupfer must necessarily be some specific material, and would therefore find it obvious to routinely select Nafion from amongst appropriate binders, as suggested by Neale, and because doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known material for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Accordingly, the skilled artisan would find it obvious that modified Hupfer discloses that the first and second binders comprise an ionomer (Neale: Nafion, [0060]), which is a shape-memory ionomer configured for selectively restoring the electrode stack to an original state, as evidenced by the Instant Specification ([0039]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Hupfer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Hupfer further discloses that the solid electrolyte separator layer includes:
a first sub-layer (Hupfer: separator layer 30) applied to the first layer of material (Hupfer: as shown in Fig 1) and including lithium halides (Hupfer: e.g. Li6PS5Cl, [0015]); and
a second sub-layer (Hupfer: separator layer 40) including a sulfide-based solid electrolyte material (Hupfer: sulfidic solid-state electrolyte, [0034]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Hupfer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Hupfer further discloses that the first ionomer and the second ionomer both include the shape-memory ionomer (Neale: Nafion, [0060], as noted above), which are shape-memory ionomers, as evidenced by the Instant Specification ([0039]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Hupfer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Hupfer further discloses that the solid electrolyte separator layer incudes a double layer solid electrolyte (Hupfer: first and second separator layers 30/40, [0029, 0034]), wherein the the first sub-layer and the second sub-layer exist as discreet layers (Hupfer: as shown in Fig 1).
Regarding claim 7, Hupfer discloses a solid-state battery (Title/Abstract) comprising:
an electrode stack (1) including:
a cathode (20) including:
a cathode current collector (22); and
a first layer of material applied to the cathode current collector (as shown in Fig 1), including:
a cathode active material (24);
a first binder (23); and
a conductive material (26);
a solid electrolyte separator layer (first and second separator layers 30/40, [0029, 0034]), including:
a first sub-layer (separator layer 30) applied to the first layer of material (as shown in Fig 1) and including lithium halides (e.g. Li6PS5Cl, [0015]); and
a second binder (23, [0029]); and
a second sub-layer (separator layer 40) including a sulfide-based solid electrolyte material (sulfidic solid-state electrolyte, [0034]); and
an anode (10) including:
a layer including lithium metal (e.g. lithium on a metal substrate, [0026]); and
an anode current collector (12).
Hupfer discloses a binder included in the cathode ([0027]) and the solid electrolyte separator layer ([0029]), but does not appear to disclose what an appropriate binder is, and therefore does not disclose that the first and second binders are ionomers that include shape-memory ionomers configured for selectively restoring the electrode stack to an original shape.
Neale teaches stabilized electrodes for ion batteries (Title). Neale teaches that the electrodes may include an active material, a binder, a conductive material, and an electrolyte ([0058]). Neale teaches examples of suitable binders which includes e.g. Nafion ([0060]).
Hupfer and Neale are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely lithium-ion batteries.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the binder of Hupfer must necessarily be some specific material, and would therefore find it obvious to routinely select Nafion from amongst appropriate binders, as suggested by Neale, and because doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known material for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Accordingly, the skilled artisan would find it obvious that modified Hupfer discloses that the first and second binders comprise an ionomer (Neale: Nafion, [0060]), which is a shape-memory ionomer configured for selectively restoring the electrode stack to an original state, as evidenced by the Instant Specification ([0039]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Hupfer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Hupfer further discloses that the first ionomer and the second ionomer both include the shape-memory ionomer (Neale: Nafion, [0060], as noted above), which are shape-memory ionomers, as evidenced by the Instant Specification ([0039]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Hupfer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Hupfer further discloses that the solid electrolyte separator layer incudes a double layer solid electrolyte (Hupfer: first and second separator layers 30/40, [0029, 0034]), wherein the the first sub-layer and the second sub-layer exist as discreet layers (Hupfer: as shown in Fig 1).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hupfer et al. (US 2020/0266479 A1; hereinafter “Hupfer”) in view of Neale et al. (US 2020/0223704 A1; hereinafter “Neale”), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0202990 A1; hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 2, modified Hupfer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Hupfer does not explicitly disclose that the solid electrolyte separator layer includes an oxide material configured for being electrochemically stable in relation to the cathode and the anode.
Lee teaches an all-solid-state battery (Title). Lee teaches that a solid electrolyte may include at least one of a polymeric solid electrolyte, an oxide-based solid electrolyte, and a sulfide-based solid electrolyte, and specifically, that different solid electrolytes may be used for the solid electrolyte membrane, and any material having a high ion conductivity may be used without limitation ([0137-0138]). Lee teaches examples of oxide-based solid electrolytes that include LLTO, LATP, or LLZO compounds ([0142]).
Lee is analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely lithium-ion batteries.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize an oxide-based solid electrolyte, e.g. LLTO, LATP, or LLZO, as suggested by Lee, in the solid electrolyte separator layer of modified Hupfer with a reasonable expectation of success, as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known material for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Accordingly, the skilled artisan would find it obvious that modified Hupfer discloses that the solid electrolyte separator layer includes an oxide material (Lee: e.g. LLTO, [0142]) configured for being electrochemically stable in relation to the cathode and the anode, as evidenced by the Instant Specification ([0007-0008]).
Claim(s) 6, 10, and 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hupfer et al. (US 2020/0266479 A1; hereinafter “Hupfer”) in view of Neale et al. (US 2020/0223704 A1; hereinafter “Neale”), as applied to claims 1 or 7 above, in further view of Cheng et al. (US 2017/0098818 A1; hereinafter “Cheng”).
Regarding claims 6 and 10, modified Hupfer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Hupfer further discloses that the solid electrolyte separator layer incudes a double layer solid electrolyte (Hupfer: first and second separator layers 30/40, [0029, 0034]), but does not disclose that the solid electrolyte separator layer includes a gradient solid electrolyte layer including a gradually changing mixture between the first sub-layer and the second sub-layer.
Cheng teaches a solvent-free dry powder coating method for electrode fabrication (Title) by electrostatic spray deposition ([0029]). Cheng teaches that the inventive method eliminates solvents, thereby limiting environmental impacts, and permits a wide variety of binders to be used, including self-healing polymers ([0035]). Cheng teaches that the inventive method allows for the production of solid electrodes and solid electrolytes, while avoiding costly vacuum technologies and allowing fabrication of all three components of solid-state batteries using simplified production with more effective control over process variables ([0036]). Cheng further teaches that the inventive method allows for controlled deposition of electrode and electrolyte layers to design cells with gradient components for enhanced utilization ([0038]).
Cheng is analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely lithium-ion batteries.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the electrostatic spray deposition method of Cheng to produce the solid-state battery of modified Hupfer with the reasonable expectation that doing so would eliminate solvents, thereby limiting environmental impacts, and allow fabrication using simplified means with more effective control over process variables, as suggested by Cheng. It would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan to routinely design the solid electrolyte layer of modified Hupfer with a gradient between the two sub-layers with the reasonable expectation that doing so would enhance utilization of the two sub-layers, as suggested by Cheng.
Accordingly, the skilled artisan would find it obvious that modified Hupfer discloses the solid electrolyte separator layer includes a gradient solid electrolyte layer including a gradually changing mixture between the first sub-layer and the second sub-layer (Cheng: via electrostatic spray deposition, [0038]).
Regarding claims 13 and 16, Hupfer discloses a method to manufacture an electrode stack of a solid-state battery (Title/Abstract) comprising:
creating a fix mixture of particles including a cathode active material (24), a first binder (23), and a conductive material (26);
depositing the first mixture of particles as a first layer (as the cathode 20, as shown in Fig 1) upon a planar substrate (as shown in Fig 1) configured for operation as a cathode current collector (22);
creating a second mixture of particles including lithium halides (e.g. Li6PS5Cl, [0015]) and a second binder (23, [0029]);
creating a second layer (first and second separator layers 30/40, [0029, 0034]) upon the first layer (as shown in Fig 1), including:
depositing the second mixture of particles as a first sub-layer (separator layer 30) of the second layer upon the first layer (as shown in Fig 1);
depositing a sulfide based solid electrolyte powder (sulfidic solid-state electrolyte, [0034]) as a second sub-layer (separator layer 40) of the second layer (as shown in Fig 1);
creating a layer of lithium metal (e.g. lithium on a metal substrate, [0026]) upon the second layer (as shown in Fig 1); and
creating a layer of anode current collector (12) material upon the layer of lithium metal (as shown in Fig 1).
Hupfer discloses a binder included in the cathode ([0027]) and the solid electrolyte separator layer ([0029]), but does not appear to disclose what an appropriate binder is, and therefore does not disclose that the first and second binders are ionomers that include shape-memory ionomers configured for selectively restoring the electrode stack to an original shape.
Neale teaches stabilized electrodes for ion batteries (Title). Neale teaches that the electrodes may include an active material, a binder, a conductive material, and an electrolyte ([0058]). Neale teaches examples of suitable binders which includes e.g. Nafion ([0060]).
Hupfer and Neale are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely lithium-ion batteries.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the binder of Hupfer must necessarily be some specific material, and would therefore find it obvious to routinely select Nafion from amongst appropriate binders, as suggested by Neale, and because doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known material for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Accordingly, the skilled artisan would find it obvious that modified Hupfer discloses that the first and second binders comprise an ionomer (Neale: Nafion, [0060]), which is a shape-memory ionomer configured for selectively restoring the electrode stack to an original state, as evidenced by the Instant Specification ([0039]).
Modified Hupfer discloses depositing the various layers, as noted above, but does not appear to disclose electrostatic spray deposition through first, second, and third sprays.
Cheng teaches a solvent-free dry powder coating method for electrode fabrication (Title) by electrostatic spray deposition ([0029]). Cheng teaches that the inventive method eliminates solvents, thereby limiting environmental impacts, and permits a wide variety of binders to be used, including self-healing polymers ([0035]). Cheng teaches that the inventive method allows for the production of solid electrodes and solid electrolytes, while avoiding costly vacuum technologies and allowing fabrication of all three components of solid-state batteries using simplified production with more effective control over process variables ([0036]). Cheng further teaches that the inventive method allows for controlled deposition of electrode and electrolyte layers to design cells with gradient components for enhanced utilization ([0038]).
Cheng is analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely lithium-ion batteries.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the electrostatic spray deposition method of Cheng to produce the solid-state battery of modified Hupfer with the reasonable expectation that doing so would eliminate solvents, thereby limiting environmental impacts, and allow fabrication using simplified means with more effective control over process variables, as suggested by Cheng. It would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan to routinely design the solid electrolyte layer of modified Hupfer with a gradient between the two sub-layers with the reasonable expectation that doing so would enhance utilization of the two sub-layers, as suggested by Cheng.
Accordingly, the skilled artisan would find it obvious that the method of modified Hupfer includes electrostatic spray deposition through first, second, and third sprays (Cheng: [0029]), and that the solid electrolyte separator layer includes a gradient solid electrolyte layer including a gradually changing mixture between the first sub-layer and the second sub-layer (Cheng: via electrostatic spray deposition, [0038]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Hupfer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Hupfer further discloses that the first ionomer and the second ionomer both include the shape-memory ionomer (Neale: Nafion, [0060], as noted above), which are shape-memory ionomers, as evidenced by the Instant Specification ([0039]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Hupfer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Hupfer further discloses that the solid electrolyte separator layer incudes a double layer solid electrolyte (Hupfer: first and second separator layers 30/40, [0029, 0034]), wherein the the first sub-layer and the second sub-layer exist as discreet layers (Hupfer: as shown in Fig 1).
Regarding claim 17, modified Hupfer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Hupfer further discloses utilizing a hot roller operation (Cheng: via calendaring, [0073]) to control porosity of a portion of the electrode stack (Cheng: [0073]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Hupfer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Hupfer further discloses that the sulfide based solid electrolyte powder includes Li2S-P2S5 system (Hupfer: Li2S/P2S5, [0015]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Hupfer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Hupfer further discloses that the conductive material includes carbon black (Neale: e.g. carbon black, [0007]).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hupfer et al. (US 2020/0266479 A1; hereinafter “Hupfer”) in view of Neale et al. (US 2020/0223704 A1; hereinafter “Neale”), as applied to claim 7 above, in further view of Goodenough et al. (US 2019/0115162 A1; hereinafter “Goodenough”).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, modified Hupfer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Hupfer discloses that the battery is a solid state lithium ion battery (Hupfer: Title), but does not appear to be concerned with the final form of the battery, and therefore does not appear to disclose that the solid state battery is a prismatic can battery including a plurality of electrode stacks, nor that the electrode stack is a jelly roll electrode.
Goodenough teaches heat energy powered electrochemical cells (Title). Goodenough teaches that the electrochemical cell uses a working cation, e.g. Li+ and may be an all solid state electrochemical cell ([0037]). Goodenough teaches that such cells may be as simple as a jelly roll or prismatic cell ([0038]).
Goodenough is analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely lithium ion batteries.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely design the solid state battery of modified Hupfer as a jelly roll or prismatic battery, as suggested by Goodenough, as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known form for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result. Assuming, arguendo, that the skilled artisan would not find it obvious that a prismatic battery necessarily utilizes a plurality of electrode stacks, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to include a plurality of electrode stacks because doing so utilizes the space within a prismatic housing and increases the energy density of the battery.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The present invention is related to, inter alia, a method to manufacture an electrode stack of a solid state battery comprising: once a cell impedance of the electrode stack is increased by 20% over an original cell impedance, heating the electrode stack.
Hupfer et al. (US 2020/0266479 A1; hereinafter “Hupfer”) in view of Neale et al. (US 2020/0223704 A1; hereinafter “Neale”) and Cheng et al. (US 2017/0098818 A1; hereinafter “Cheng”)is considered to be the closest relevant prior art to dependent claim 20. Hupfer in view of Neale and Cheng discloses most of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Hupfer does not disclose, teach, fairly suggest, nor render obvious the recited heating after the cell impedance is increased by 20%. At best, modified Hupfer discloses heating the produced battery (see e.g. Cheng: [0077]), but there does not appear to be any reasonable basis for the skilled artisan to be directed towards heating the produced battery specifically when an impedance has increased specifically 20%.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ye (US 2023/0321725 A1) discloses laser additive manufacturing for structured battery electrodes;
Yao (US 2023/0009422 A1) discloses solid state electrodes having an integrated sulfide separator; and
Thomas-Alyea et al. (US 2019/0273258 A1) discloses a solid electrolyte for a secondary battery.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M ERWIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6am-3pm PDT.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 01/14/2026