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 without traverse of Species B in the reply filed on April 27, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-7 and 13-15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 27, 2026.
Claims 8-12 are examined below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "10" and "30" have both been used to designate carbon fiber paper. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because the reference character"40" is used to label the metal foam. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the positive and negative electrodes with a solid electrolyte separator between them, and a current collector including an elastomer sandwiched between a pair of metal foil layers, such that one of the two metal foils in direct areal contact with the positive electrode and the other of the metal foil layers is in direct areal contact with the solid electrolyte separator (Claim 8) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
(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 8-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 20230083168 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Liu et al. teach a secondary solid-state battery comprising:
positive (positive electrode plate 1, [0038]) and negative electrodes (negative electrode plate 2, [0043]);
a solid electrolyte separator (separator 3, [0046]; or solid electrolyte, [0122] or [0128]) between the positive and negative electrodes ([0128]); and
a current collector (positive electrode current collector 10, [0039]; negative electrode current collector 21, [0044]) including an elastomer (resin layer [0058] or positive electrode organic support layer 101, Figures 1 and 3; silicone rubber [0016]) sandwiched between a pair of metal foil layers (two metal layers [0058]) such that
one of the metal foil layers is in direct areal contact with the positive electrode and the other of the metal foil layers is in direct areal contact with the solid electrolyte separator ([0099] states that the single sided material layer can be used instead of a multi-layered active material layer; therefore, one of the metal foils will be in direct areal contact with the positive electrode, and the other in contact with the separator, as shown in Figure 7, when one of the active material layers is removed to make a single sided material layered electrode),
It is deemed that (ii) and (iii), the current collector compressing responsive to expansion of the positive and negative electrodes during charge, and the current collector expanding responsive to contraction of the positive and negative electrodes during discharge, respectively, are inherent characteristics and/or properties of the specifically disclosed current collector. In this respect, MPEP 2112 sets forth the following:
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In this case, the current collector compressing or expanding responsive to expansion or contraction of the positive and negative electrodes is an inherent physical property of the current collector’s silicone rubber central layer, having high elasticity. Thus, the basic structure is given by Liu et al. and is the same as instant applicant.
Regarding Claim 9, Liu et al. teach the battery of claim 8, wherein the metal foil layers are the same material (aluminum based conductive layer 102, [0057] and [0058], Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Liu et al. teach the battery of claim 8, wherein the elastomer is a silicone rubber (Claim 7 and [0075]).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20230083168 A1) in view of Zhao et al. (US 20230085545 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Liu et al. teach the battery of claim 8, but they do not teach that the metal foil layers are different materials.
However, Zhao et al. teach a current collector, including a first metal layer and a second metal layer, and there is a silicone rubber polymer layer bonded to the first metal and second metal layer ([0009] and [0010]), and the current collector contributes to low internal resistance and efficient transmission of ions inside the battery ([0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the current collector of Liu et al. by using different materials for each metal layer flanking the silicone rubber layer to reduce internal resistance and contribute to efficient transmission of ions inside the battery, as taught by Zhao et al.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20230083168 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 20240014379 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Liu et al. teach the battery of claim 8, wherein the positive electrode, current collector, solid electrolyte separator, and negative electrode form an electrode assembly.
Liu et al. do not teach the battery further comprising a plurality of the electrode assemblies and carbon fiber papers interleaved with the electrode assemblies such that some but not all adjacent pairs of the electrode assemblies are separated by one of the carbon fiber papers.
However, Kim et al. teach the use of carbon fiber papers interleaved with the electrode assemblies ([0063] states the use of a conductive layer made of carbon fiber) to improve both the electrical performance and the structural stability of the positive electrode ([0011]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the electrode assemblies of Liu et al. by adding a carbon fiber conductive layer to the positive electrode layer to improve the battery's electrical performance and structural stability, as taught by Kim et al.
As for not all adjacent pairs of the electrode assemblies being separated by one of the carbon fiber papers, the seemingly arbitrary omission of a conductive layer from one electrode assembly would have the same properties as the prior art electrode assemblies without the addition of the conductive layer for improvement. Only replacing some of the positive electrode layers with the improved conductive layer included should still produce the same benefits, but to a smaller degree.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW N KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-9169. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00am-5pm.
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.
/ANDREW KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights