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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in ¶ 0004, 0045, and 0058, “poly 3,4-ethylenedioxythiphene” should read “poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene)” for proper spelling and nomenclature. Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: claim 12’s “poly 3,4-ethylenedioxythiphene polystyrene layer” lacks antecedent basis in the specification because the specification only supports a layer of poly 3,4-ethylenedioxythi[o]phene polystyrene sulfonate (see ¶ 0004, 0045, and 0058).
Claim Objections
It is recommended that Applicant amend the claims as follows:
In claim 1 (line 4), claim 4 (lines 1 and 2), claim 8 (line 2), claim 11 (lines 1 and 2), and claim 12 (line 4), “poly 3,4-ethylenedioxythiphene” is suggested to read “poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene)” for proper spelling and nomenclature.
In claim 7, lines 2–4, “each of the electrode assemblies including positive and negative electrodes, a solid electrolyte separator between the positive and negative electrodes” should read “each of the electrode assemblies including a positive and a negative electrode[[s]], a solid electrolyte separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode[[s]]” for clearer syntax and to clarify that the separator is between a respective pair of electrodes within each electrode assembly (as clearly intended by, e.g., ¶ 0034 and 0052; see also single cell 32, synonymous with electrode assembly, each including these components in fig. 3).
In claim 12, line 4, “a carrier film and poly 3,4-ethylenedioxythiphene polystyrene layer” (while accounting for the above correction) is suggested to read “a carrier film and a poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) polystyrene layer” for proper grammar, spelling, and nomenclature.
In claim 14, lines 1–3, “the positive electrode, the solid electrolyte separator, negative electrode, and current collector form an electrode assembly, further comprising a plurality of the electrode assemblies” is suggested to read “the positive electrode, the solid electrolyte separator, negative electrode, and current collector form an electrode assembly, wherein the secondary solid-state battery further comprises a plurality of the electrode assemblies” for clearer syntax (and as clearly intended in, e.g., ¶ 0063).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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) 5–11, 14, 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 and 14 each recites “wherein the positive electrode, the solid electrolyte separator, negative electrode, and current collector form an electrode assembly, further comprising a plurality of the electrode assemblies and carbon fiber papers interleaved with the electrode assemblies” in lines 1–4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the electrode assemblies” in line 3 of each claim because these claims previously recite “an electrode assembly,” making it unclear what other electrode assembly/assemblies “the electrode assemblies” references.
¶ 0063 details that the positive electrode, solid electrolyte separator, negative electrode, and current collector form a cell/electrode assembly, and such can be used to create a battery comprising multiple assemblies with carbon fiber papers interleaved with the assemblies. This description is exemplary, however (by describing embodiment of fig. 6; see, e.g., ¶ 0017 and 0058), meaning the structure is not limited to this configuration. Moreover, the specification appears devoid of a special definition of “plurality”. Thus, under the claim’s broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification, for this Office Action claims 5 and 14 will be interpreted to require at least two of the electrode assembly (i.e., a “plurality”) interleaved with at least two carbon fiber papers, as appears suggested by ¶ 0063.
Claims 6, 7, and 15 each recites “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” (lines 1–3; 6 and 7; and 1–3, respectively). The intended number of electrode assemblies required to be separated by one of the carbon fiber papers is indefinite because the claims recite “some … adjacent pairs of the electrode assemblies”, but it is structurally unclear that “one” paper may separate more than one adjacent “pair” of electrode assemblies.
Fig. 3 as well as ¶ 0039 and 0044 detail an adjacent pair of electrode assemblies 32 separated by carbon fiber paper 10, where another pair of adjacent assemblies is not separated by the carbon paper, though this description is exemplary (by describing an embodiment; see, e.g., ¶ 0014) and, thus, non-limiting. Thus, under broadest reasonable interpretation, for this Office Action claims 6, 7, and 15 will each be interpreted to require carbon fiber papers interleaved with the electrode assemblies such that at least one adjacent pair of electrode assemblies is separated by a given paper, and another adjacent pair is not separated by the paper, as appears suggested by fig. 3 and ¶ 0039/0044.
The remaining dependent claims fail to correct these deficiencies and are rejected likewise. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 12 recites a “poly 3,4-ethylenedioxythiphene polystyrene layer coated on the carrier film” (lines 4 and 5). In light of the above specification objection—and consistent with the remaining claims—Examiner believes claim 12’s poly 3,4-ethylenedioxythiphene polystyrene layer was a typographical error intended to recite a “poly 3,4-ethylenedioxythiphene polystyrene sulfonate layer” (notwithstanding the spelling/nomenclature issue above). Thus, for this Office Action and the sake of compact prosecution, claim 12 will be interpreted to require a poly 3,4-ethylenedioxythiphene polystyrene sulfonate layer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by or, alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kim (US 20230387419 A1; EFD 05/25/22).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a secondary battery (LIB, Title) comprising a current collector including a poly 3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene polystyrene sulfonate layer (PEDOT-PSS collector, Abstract); a negative electrode coated on the poly 3,4-ethylenedioxythiphene polystyrene sulfonate layer (e.g., ¶ 0038, 0048); and a positive electrode (e.g., ¶ 0037/0038).
Kim further discloses that, due to PEDOT-PSS, the current collector is highly stretchable (e.g., ¶ 0006, 0007, 0038). Thus, the PEDOT-PSS layer would be configured to compress and expand in response to any expansion and contraction, respectively, from the negative electrode, as in the instant disclosure’s PEDOT-PSS (MPEP 212.01 (I)).
Kim further discloses that the electrolyte may be an organic liquid electrolyte, an inorganic liquid electrolyte, a solid polymer electrolyte, a gel-type polymer electrolyte, a solid inorganic electrolyte, or a molten-type inorganic electrolyte (¶ 0066)—and, thus, the ability to form a solid-state battery via solid electrolyte, which would further necessarily serve as a solid separator between the electrodes for ion conduction and insulation (similar to ¶ 0060–0064). As Kim discloses such a narrow set of possible electrolytes, Examiner submits that one skilled in the art, before the claimed invention’s effective filing date, would readily envisage a solid electrolyte/separator such as an inorganic or polymer electrolyte. Per MPEP 2131.02 (III), a reference disclosure may anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but fails to expressly spell out the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim if the skilled artisan, in reading the reference, would “at one envisage” the claimed arrangement or combination.
Assuming, arguendo, that Kim failed to anticipate the solid electrolyte/battery, as Kim discloses such a narrow set of possible electrolytes—and considering that Kim is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries with PEDOT-containing current collectors—it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan, before the claimed invention’s effective filing date, to routinely incorporate a solid electrolyte/separator and battery with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful battery (see, e.g., MPEP 2143 (A.) and 2144.07).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga (US 20220077546 A1) in view of Kim (US 20230387419 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Koga discloses a secondary solid-state battery (e.g., Abstract) comprising a current collector (Abstract) comprising a current collector (negative electrode current collector 16, fig. 1); a negative electrode coated on the current collector (negative active material layer 14, fig. 1); a positive electrode (positive current collector 11 plus active layer 12, fig. 1); and a solid electrolyte separator between the positive and negative electrodes (solid electrolyte layer 15, fig. 1).
Koga discloses that 1) it is known that current collectors’ thermal expansion puts stress on the battery and aims to alleviate such stress (e.g., ¶ 0019, 0023), as well as 2) that the current collector may formed of any electrically conductive material, which may be appropriately chosen in consideration of the production process, electrical conductivity, and tensile strength (¶ 0061), but Koga fails to explicitly disclose that the collector includes a poly 3,4-ethylenedioxythiphene polystyrene sulfonate (PEDOT-PSS) layer, where the negative electrode is coated on the PEDOT-PSS layer such that, responsive to expansion and contraction of the negative electrode, the PEDOT-PSS layer is configured to compress and expand respectively.
Kim teaches a battery electrode including a negative active layer atop a PEDOT-PSS current collector (e.g., Abstract, ¶ 0038). Kim teaches that this PEDOT-PSS film provides both excellent stretchability and electrical conductivity (¶ 0006).
Kim and Koga are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery current collectors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Kim’s PEDOT-PSS current collector into Koga’s battery with the reasonable expectation of achieving the desired, excellent stretchability and electrical conductivity, as taught by Kim.
Thus, because modified Koga’s PEDOT-PSS layer is highly stretchable, it would be configured to, responsive to expansion and contraction of the negative electrode, compress and expand, respectively, as in the instant disclosure’s PEDOT-PSS (MPEP 212.01 (I)).
Claim(s) 2–4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga (US 20220077546 A1) in view of Kim (US 20230387419 A1), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Li et al. (US 20190221855 A1) (Li).
Regarding claims 2–4, modified Koga discloses the secondary solid-state battery of claim 1.
Koga further discloses that when connection layer 16 is electrically conductive, an electrically insulating layer may be provided between this layer and current collector 13 (¶ 0088), though Koga fails to explicitly disclose that the current collector further includes a carrier film of a polyimide (PI) substrate, wherein the PDOT-PSS layer is coated on the carrier film.
Li teaches a battery electrode component including a conductive layer 11 atop an insulating substrate 10 (¶ 0005, fig. 1), where the substrate may be PI (¶ 0057).
Li is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery current collectors with insulating supports/carriers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a PI substrate as Koga’s nonconductive layer beneath the current collector with the reasonable expectation of providing successful insulation, as taught by Li and desired by Koga.
Thus, modified Koga would disclose that the current collector further includes a carrier film of a polyimide (PI) substrate (per Li), wherein the PDOT-PSS layer is coated on the carrier film (per Kim).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga (US 20220077546 A1) in view of Kim (US 20230387419 A1), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Giddey et al. (US 20080199740 A1) (Giddey).
Regarding claim 5, modified Koga discloses the secondary solid-state battery of claim 1, wherein the positive electrode, the solid electrolyte separator, negative electrode, and current collector form an electrode assembly (unit cell 1a, fig. 1), further comprising a plurality of the electrode assemblies (Koga’s unit cells 1a and 1b, fig. 1; note that such is exemplary, and the battery can contain four or more unit cells, per Koga’s ¶ 0138).
Koga further discloses connection layer 16 between each unit cell/electrode assembly (fig. 1), where the layer may be composed of an electrically conductive material (¶ 0082, 0088), though Koga fails to explicitly disclose carbon fiber papers interleaved with the electrode assemblies.
Giddey teaches a fuel cell including unit cells/electrode assemblies 102 and 103 separated and electrically connected via carbon paper 105 (e.g., fig. 11, ¶ 0054 and 0057).
Giddey is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they are reasonably pertinent to a problem the inventor would have faced, namely selecting a suitable material to separate yet electrically connect the electrode assemblies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form each of Koga’s connection layers as carbon paper films—and, thus, interleaved with the electrode assemblies—with the reasonable expectation of achieving successful separation and conductive connection, as taught by Giddey.
Regarding claim 6, modified Koga discloses the secondary solid-state battery of claim 5.
As discussed above, Koga’s fig. 1’s number of cells is exemplary, and the battery may contain four or more (¶ 0138).
Based on the desired capacity versus battery weight, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely scale up the number of cells/electrode assemblies in Koga’s battery with the reasonable expectation of achieving the desired capacity, as suggested by Koga. Moreover, such would amount to merely duplicating parts, which is generally prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04 (VI.)(B.)).
Thus, because there is a connection layer (of carbon paper) between each of Koga’s electrode assemblies (e.g., four assemblies), modified Koga would then disclose that the carbon fiber papers are 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 (as one carbon fiber paper could be considered to separate, e.g., two pairs of adjacent assemblies but not separate all assemblies).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga (US 20220077546 A1) in view of Giddey et al. (US 20080199740 A1) (Giddey).
Regarding claim 7, Koga discloses a secondary solid-state battery (Abstract) comprising: a plurality of electrode assemblies (unit cells 1a/1b, fig. 1), each of the electrode assemblies including positive and negative electrodes (11/12 and 13/14, respectively, fig. 1), a solid electrolyte separator between the positive and negative electrodes (ref. 15, fig. 1), and a current collector in direct areal contact with the negative electrode such that the negative electrode is between the solid electrolyte separator and current collector (current collector 13 connected directly to negative active layer 14, fig. 1).
Koga further discloses connection layer 16 between each unit cell/electrode assembly (fig. 1), where the layer may be composed of an electrically conductive material (¶ 0082, 0088), though Koga fails to explicitly disclose carbon fiber papers interleaved with the electrode assemblies.
Giddey teaches a fuel cell including unit cells/electrode assemblies 102 and 103 separated and electrically connected via carbon paper 105 (e.g., fig. 11, ¶ 0054 and 0057).
Koga is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery current collectors and electrode assemblies. Giddey is analogous because they are reasonably pertinent to a problem the inventor would have faced, namely selecting a suitable material to separate yet electrically connect the electrode assemblies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form each of Koga’s connection layers as carbon paper films—and, thus, interleaved with the electrode assemblies—with the reasonable expectation of achieving successful separation and conductive connection, as taught by Giddey.
As discussed above, Koga’s fig. 1’s number of cells is exemplary, and the battery may contain four or more (¶ 0138).
Based on the desired capacity versus battery weight, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely scale up the number of cells/electrode assemblies in Koga’s battery with the reasonable expectation of achieving the desired capacity, as suggested by Koga. Moreover, such would amount to merely duplicating parts, which is generally prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04 (VI.)(B.)).
Thus, because there is a connection layer (of carbon paper) between each of Koga’s electrode assemblies (e.g., four assemblies), modified Koga would then disclose that the carbon fiber papers are 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 (as one carbon fiber paper could be considered to separate, e.g., two pairs of adjacent assemblies but not separate all assemblies).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga (US 20220077546 A1) in view of Giddey et al. (US 20080199740 A1) (Giddey), as applied to claim 7, further in view of Kim (US 20230387419 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Koga discloses the secondary solid-state battery of claim 7.
Koga discloses that 1) it is known that current collectors’ thermal expansion puts stress on the battery and aims to alleviate such stress (e.g., ¶ 0019, 0023), as well as 2) that the current collector may formed of any electrically conductive material, which may be appropriately chosen in consideration of the production process, electrical conductivity, and tensile strength (¶ 0061), but Koga fails to explicitly disclose that the collector includes a PEDOT-PSS layer.
Kim teaches a battery electrode including a negative active layer atop a PEDOT-PSS current collector (e.g., Abstract, ¶ 0038). Kim teaches that this PEDOT-PSS film provides both excellent stretchability and electrical conductivity (¶ 0006).
Kim is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery current collectors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Kim’s current collector formed of a PEDOT-PSS layer into Koga’s battery with the reasonable expectation of achieving the desired, excellent stretchability and electrical conductivity, as taught by Kim.
Claim(s) 9–11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga (US 20220077546 A1) in view of Giddey et al. (US 20080199740 A1) (Giddey), as applied to claim 7, further in view of Kim (US 20230387419 A1), as applied to claim 8, further in view of Li et al. (US 20190221855 A1) (Li).
Regarding claims 9–11, modified Koga discloses the secondary solid-state battery of claim 8.
Koga further discloses that when connection layer 16 is electrically conductive—as above—an electrically insulating layer may be provided between this layer and current collector 13 (¶ 0088), though Koga fails to explicitly disclose that the current collector further includes a carrier film of a polyimide (PI) substrate, wherein the PDOT-PSS layer is coated on the carrier film.
Li teaches a battery electrode component including a conductive layer 11 atop an insulating substrate 10 (¶ 0005, fig. 1), where the substrate may be PI (¶ 0057).
Li is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery current collectors with insulating supports/carriers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a PI substrate as Koga’s nonconductive layer beneath the current collector with the reasonable expectation of providing successful insulation, as taught by Li and desired by Koga.
Thus, modified Koga would disclose that the current collector further includes a carrier film of a polyimide (PI) substrate (per Li), wherein the PDOT-PSS layer is coated on the carrier film (per Kim).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga (US 20220077546 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 20190221855 A1) (Li) and Kim (US 20230387419 A1).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Koga discloses a secondary solid-state battery (Abstract) comprising positive and negative electrodes (11/12 and 13/14, respectively, fig. 1); a solid electrolyte separator between the positive and negative electrodes (15 of fig. 1), wherein the negative electrode is between the solid electrolyte separator and a current collector (14 between 15 and 13, respectively, fig. 1), and the current collector is in direct areal contact with the negative electrode (fig. 1).
Koga discloses that 1) it is known that current collectors’ thermal expansion puts stress on the battery and aims to alleviate such stress (e.g., ¶ 0019, 0023), 2) that the current collector may formed of any electrically conductive material, which may be appropriately chosen in consideration of the production process, electrical conductivity, and tensile strength (¶ 0061), and 3) that when connection layer 16 is electrically conductive, an electrically insulating layer may be provided between this layer and current collector 13 (¶ 0088), though Koga fails to explicitly disclose that the current collector further includes a carrier film of a PI substrate and [a] PDOT-PSS layer coated on the carrier film.
Kim teaches a battery electrode including a negative active layer atop a PEDOT-PSS current collector (e.g., Abstract, ¶ 0038). Kim teaches that this PEDOT-PSS film provides both excellent stretchability and electrical conductivity (¶ 0006). Further, Li teaches a battery electrode component including a conductive layer 11 atop an insulating substrate 10 (¶ 0005, fig. 1), where the substrate may be PI (¶ 0057).
Li, Kim, and Koga are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery current collectors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Kim’s current collector formed of a PEDOT-PSS layer into Koga’s battery with the reasonable expectation of achieving the desired, excellent stretchability and electrical conductivity, as taught by Kim. It would have been further obvious to incorporate a PI substrate as Koga’s nonconductive layer beneath the current collector with the reasonable expectation of providing successful insulation, as taught by Li and desired by Koga.
Thus, modified Koga would disclose that the current collector further includes a carrier film of a polyimide (PI) substrate (per Li) and a PDOT-PSS layer coated on the carrier film (per Kim).
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga (US 20220077546 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 20190221855 A1) (Li) and Kim (US 20230387419 A1), as applied to claim 12, further in view of Giddey et al. (US 20080199740 A1) (Giddey).
Regarding claim 14, modified Koga discloses the secondary solid-state battery of claim 12, wherein the positive electrode, the solid electrolyte separator, negative electrode, and current collector form an electrode assembly (as unit cell 1a in Koga’s fig. 1), further comprising a plurality of the electrode assemblies (unit cells 1a and 1b in Koga’s fig. 1).
Koga further discloses connection layer 16 between each unit cell/electrode assembly (fig. 1), where the layer may be composed of an electrically conductive material (¶ 0082, 0088), though Koga fails to explicitly disclose carbon fiber papers interleaved with the electrode assemblies.
Giddey teaches a fuel cell including unit cells/electrode assemblies 102 and 103 separated and electrically connected via carbon paper 105 (e.g., fig. 11, ¶ 0054 and 0057).
Koga is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery current collectors and electrode assemblies. Giddey is analogous because they are reasonably pertinent to a problem the inventor would have faced, namely selecting a suitable material to separate yet electrically connect the electrode assemblies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form each of Koga’s connection layers as carbon paper films—and, thus, interleaved with the electrode assemblies—with the reasonable expectation of achieving successful separation and conductive connection, as taught by Giddey.
Regarding claim 15, modified Koga discloses the secondary solid-state battery of claim 15.
As discussed above, Koga’s fig. 1’s number of cells is exemplary, and the battery may contain four or more (¶ 0138).
Based on the desired capacity versus battery weight, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely scale up the number of cells/electrode assemblies in Koga’s battery with the reasonable expectation of achieving the desired capacity, as suggested by Koga. Moreover, such would amount to merely duplicating parts, which is generally prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04 (VI.)(B.)).
Thus, because there is a connection layer (of carbon paper) between each of Koga’s electrode assemblies (e.g., four assemblies), modified Koga would then disclose that the carbon fiber papers are 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 (as one carbon fiber paper could be considered to separate, e.g., two pairs of adjacent assemblies but not separate all assemblies).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 7 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1 and 7 of copending Application 18/342206 (reference application, published as US 20250006948 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as follows:
Ref. claims 1 and 7 together encompass instant claim 7. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not been patented.
Conclusion
The cited art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
CN 114552027 A: bipolar solid-state battery with negative electrode current collector including PEDOT.
WO 2021225416 A1 (citation to English equivalent US 20240105961 A1): negative electrode current collector with conductive polymer layer such as PEDOT-PSS, where electrolyte may be solid.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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, Jonathan Leong, can be reached on 571-270-192. 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.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751