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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 06/29/26, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1, 5–8, 12, 14, and 15 is/are amended; and claim(s) 2–4, 9–11, and 13 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; no new matter has been added. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous specification objections, some of the claim objections, as well as the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 03/27/26 has/have been withdrawn. Additionally, in light of Applicant’s terminal disclaimer filed 06/29/26 (and approved 07/09/26), the pending provisional, non-statutory double-patenting rejection over co-pending 18/342206 is withdrawn. However, the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections has/have been maintained and altered as necessitated by the amendment, as set forth below.
Claim Objections
It is recommended that Applicant amend the claims as follows:
In claim 1, every instance of “poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiphene)” should read “poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene)” for proper spelling.
In claim 4, lines 1 and 2, “the poly 3,4-ethylenedioxythiphene polystyrene sulfonate layer” should read “the poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) polystyrene sulfonate layer” for proper spelling and nomenclature (and consistency with prior recitation in claim 1).
In claim 8, line 2, “a poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiphene) polystyrene sulfonate layer” should read “should read “a poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) polystyrene sulfonate layer” for proper spelling and nomenclature (and consistency with prior recitation in claim 1).
In claim 11, lines 1 and 2, “the poly 3,4-ethylenedioxythiphene polystyrene sulfonate layer” should read “the poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) polystyrene sulfonate layer” for proper spelling and nomenclature (and consistency with prior recitation in claim 1).
In claim 12, line 4, “a carrier film and poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiphene) polystyrene sulfonate layer” should read “a carrier film and a poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) polystyrene sulfonate layer” for proper spelling and grammar.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
4. The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
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), the poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene polystyrene sulfonate) layer defining both a current collector (Abstract) and a strain buffer layer (by being highly stretchable (¶ 0006, 0007, 0038) and, thus, reasonably strain-cushioning); a negative electrode coated directly on the poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene polystyrene sulfonate) layer (e.g., ¶ 0038, 0048); and a positive electrode (e.g., ¶ 0037/0038).
As established above, 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, during expansion of the negative electrode, compress, and, during contraction of the negative electrode, expand, as in the instant disclosure’s PEDOT-PSS (MPEP 212.01 (I)). Specifically, Kim’s PEDOT-PSS is arranged in layer form (fig. 5(b)) and would directly sandwich the negative electrode to the separator (as implied in, e.g., ¶ 0037, 0060 and 0061), as in the instant specification’s arrangement (see negative electrode 64 between PEDOT-PSS layer 62 and solid electrolyte 70 in fig. 6).
Moreover, the functional requirement to compress during negative electrode expansion and expand during negative electrode contraction is the mechanism of any cushioning layer; i.e., such appears to simply define elastic movement that the stretchable layer would be configured to undergo. Because Kim’s PEDOT-PSS comprises a substantially similar material as and is arranged substantially similar to the instant specification’s layer, Kim’s PEDOT-PSS would reasonably be configured to expand and contract in response to the negative electrode’s movements, as recited, absent evidence otherwise.
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, 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 (see MPEP 2131.02 (III)).
Assuming, arguendo, that Kim failed to anticipate the solid electrolyte/battery, as Kim discloses such a narrow set of possible electrolytes, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art, 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.
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 defining both a current collector and a strain buffer layer, where the negative electrode is coated directly on the PEDOT-PSS layer such that, during expansion of the negative electrode, the poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) polystyrene sulfonate layer compresses, and during contraction of the negative electrode, the poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) polystyrene sulfonate layer expands.
Kim teaches an analogous battery electrode including a negative active layer coated directly on a PEDOT-PSS current collector (e.g., Abstract, ¶ 0038). Kim teaches that this PEDOT-PSS film provides both excellent stretchability and electrical conductivity (¶ 0006).
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, the PEDOT-PSS layer would be configured to, during expansion of the negative electrode, compress, and, during contraction of the negative electrode, expand, as in the instant disclosure’s PEDOT-PSS (MPEP 212.01 (I)). Specifically, Kim’s PEDOT-PSS is arranged in layer form (fig. 5(b)) and would directly sandwich the negative electrode to the separator when incorporated into Koga’s cell (as seen in Koga’s neg. active layer 14 directly between neg. collector 13 and solid electrolyte 15 in fig. 1), as in the instant specification’s arrangement (see negative electrode 64 between PEDOT-PSS layer 62 and solid electrolyte 70 in fig. 6).
Moreover, the functional requirement to compress during negative electrode expansion and expand during negative electrode contraction is the mechanism of any cushioning layer; i.e., such appears to simply define elastic movement that the stretchable layer would be configured to undergo. Because Kim’s PEDOT-PSS comprises a substantially similar material as and is arranged substantially similar to the instant specification’s layer, Kim/Koga’s PEDOT-PSS would reasonably be configured to expand and contract in response to the negative electrode’s movements, as recited, absent evidence otherwise.
Further, modified Koga would disclose that the negative electrode is positioned between the poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) polystyrene sulfonate layer and the solid electrolyte separator (as established from Koga’s fig. 1).
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 an analogous battery electrode component including a conductive layer 11 atop an insulating substrate 10 (¶ 0005, fig. 1), where the substrate may be PI (¶ 0057).
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 on the carrier film (per Kim).
The requirement that the PEDOT-PSS layer be “coated on the carrier film” appears to be a product-by-process limitation not imparting distinct structure beyond the PEDOT-PSS layer atop the carrier (MPEP 2113). Nonetheless, Li exemplifies several different forms of applying a conductive layer atop an insulating carrier film, including “coating” methods such as dip coating and spraying (¶ 0057).
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). Thus, Giddey pertains to a reasonably pertinent problem-solving area of 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.
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 one adjacent pair of the electrode assemblies is separated by one of the carbon fiber papers and another adjacent pair of the electrode assemblies is not separated by one of the carbon fiber papers (as one carbon fiber paper could be considered to separate, e.g., a pair of adjacent assemblies but not separate all assemblies; note that “not separated by one of the carbon fiber papers” appears to allow selecting the same “carbon fiber paper” as in the previous “one of the carbon fiber papers”).
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 a positive electrode and a negative electrode (11/12 and 13/14, respectively, fig. 1), a solid electrolyte separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (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). Thus, Giddey pertains to a reasonably pertinent problem-solving area of 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.
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 one adjacent pair of the electrode assemblies is separated by one of the carbon fiber papers and another adjacent pair of the electrode assemblies is not separated by one of the carbon fiber papers (as one carbon fiber paper could be considered to separate, e.g., a pair of adjacent assemblies but not separate all assemblies; note that “not separated by one of the carbon fiber papers” appears to allow selecting the same “carbon fiber paper” as in the previous “one of the carbon fiber papers”).
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 an analogous 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).
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 an analogous battery electrode component including a conductive layer 11 atop an insulating substrate 10 (¶ 0005, fig. 1), where the substrate may be PI (¶ 0057).
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 on the carrier film (per Kim).
The requirement that the PEDOT-PSS layer be “coated on the carrier film” appears to be a product-by-process limitation not imparting distinct structure beyond the PEDOT-PSS layer atop the carrier (MPEP 2113). Nonetheless, Li exemplifies several different forms of applying a conductive layer atop an insulating carrier film, including “coating” methods such as dip coating and spraying (¶ 0057).
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 an analogous 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 an analogous battery electrode component including a conductive layer 11 atop an insulating substrate 10 (¶ 0005, fig. 1), where the substrate may be PI (¶ 0057).
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 on the carrier film (per Kim).
The requirement that the PEDOT-PSS layer be “coated on the carrier film” appears to be a product-by-process limitation not imparting distinct structure beyond the PEDOT-PSS layer atop the carrier (MPEP 2113). Nonetheless, Li exemplifies several different forms of applying a conductive layer atop an insulating carrier film, including “coating” methods such as dip coating and spraying (¶ 0057).
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), wherein the secondary solid-state battery further comprises 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). Thus, Giddey pertains to a reasonably pertinent problem-solving area of 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.
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 one adjacent pair of the electrode assemblies is separated by one of the carbon fiber papers and another adjacent pair of the electrode assemblies is not separated by one of the carbon fiber papers (as one carbon fiber paper could be considered to separate, e.g., a pair of adjacent assemblies but not separate all assemblies; note that “not separated by one of the carbon fiber papers” appears to permit selecting the same “carbon fiber paper” as in the previous “one of the carbon fiber papers”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 7, and 12 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
Claim 1:
Applicant argues, against the 102/103, that Kim’s stretchable conductive layer is not equivalent to a strain buffer layer accommodating expansion and contraction of an adjacent negative electrode because Kim provides no teaching that the PEDOT-PSS is intended to absorb or accommodate electrode volume changes. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Kim need not explicitly elucidate such given that the rejection is based on a prima facie case of inherency.
Kim’s PEDOT-PSS is 1) highly stretchable/elastic—and, thus, would reasonably be able to cushion electrode expansion/swell during electrode contraction—2) in layer form, and 3) arranged substantially similarly to the instant specification’s orientation (PEDOT-PSS directly sandwiching negative electrode to solid electrolyte, e.g., instant fig. 6). Applicant is yet to provide evidence or other explanation rebutting such inherency. Instead, given the above facts, Examiner respectfully maintains that Kim’s PEDOT-PSS would be configured to buffer stain by cushioning electrode expansion (i.e., elastically deforming) and swelling during electrode contraction (i.e., returning to the pre-deformed state). Thus, absent additional evidence, in accordance with MPEP 2112.01 (I), this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant further argues, against the 103, that Koga fails to disclose the PEDOT-PSS layer, making the combination unfeasible. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Kim was used to teach this layer, whereas Koga is the primary reference. As established above, Koga discloses that 1) it is known that current collectors’ thermal expansion puts stress on the battery and aims to alleviate such stress, and 2) 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. Thus, the skilled artisan would have employed Kim’s PEDOT-PSS as Koga’s collector and reasonably expected to achieve the desired, excellent stretchability and electrical conductivity, as Kim teaches.
Moreover, as in Kim’s configuration, because Koga’s neg. collector directly sandwiches the negative electrode to the separator (fig. 1), employing Kim’s PEDOT-PSS as the collector would reasonably achieve not only current collection but also strain buffering for the reasons detailed above, in accordance with MPEP 2112.01 (I). Examiner reiterates that Koga generally recognizes that that (conventional) current collectors’ expansion is known to put stress on batteries and aims to mitigate such, and, thus, it appears that employing Kim’s layer would have achieved the desired alleviation.
Claim 7:
Applicant argues that Koga/Giddey never suggests placing one carbon paper between one adjacent pair of electrode assemblies and omitting the paper between another adjacent pair and that the rejection “relies on a hypothetical interpretation of how a carbon paper sheet might be viewed … which is not reasonable … in light of the specification” (Remarks, p. 7).
Examiner respectfully submits that claim 7 does not require omission, merely that “one adjacent pair of the electrode assemblies is separated by one of the carbon fiber papers and another adjacent pair of the electrode assemblies is not separated by one of the carbon fiber papers”. Thus, absent additional recitation, “one of the carbon fiber papers” appears to allow the same “carbon fiber paper” to be selected such that the “one” paper would separate one adjacent pair of electrode assemblies but not separate another adjacent pair. Moreover, the instant specification appears devoid of any special definition of “separated”, “adjacent”, or other positional terms that would exclude such interpretation. Thus, under broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification—here, each term’s plain meaning to one skilled in the art—Examiner respectfully maintains that this interpretation is reasonable, rendering the argument unpersuasive.
Claim 12:
Applicant argues that the rejection impermissibly extracts only Kim’s PEDOT-PSS to incorporate into Koga’s battery without considering Kim’s nanofiber structure, specifically that replacing Kim’s nanofiber current collector with a laminated carrier film supporting a PEDOT-PSS coating (via Li) would alter Kim’s collector’s architecture and frustrate Kim’s intended purpose (i.e., the stretchability, conductivity, and mechanical strength of the nanofibers).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nowhere does Koga dictate the morphology of the current collector; rather, as noted above, Koga discloses that the collector’s material may be selected based on the desired tensile strength and conductivity and allows multiple architectures such as foil, plate, or mesh (¶ 0061). Thus, the skilled artisan would have simply incorporated Kim’s PEDOT-PSS nanofiber layer as Koga’s collector and reasonably expected to achieve the desired conductivity and mechanical properties.
Applicant further argues that Li fails to cure this deficiency because Li is not concerned with stretchable polymer current collectors and, at most, suggests that PI may serve as a substrate. Examiner agrees but respectfully echoes that such is why Examiner employed Li as a teaching reference. Koga discloses that an insulating layer may be provided between the collector 13 and conductive layer 16 (¶ 0088). Li teaches an insulating substrate 10 of, e.g., polyimide—i.e., a carrier film—supporting a conductive layer 11 (fig. 4/5, ¶ 0056, 0057), where Li appears generally unconcerned with the conductive layer’s material besides the requirement for conductivity. Thus, Examiner started with Koga’s base structure (insulation-collector-neg. electrode) and used Kim for the collector’s material and Li for the insulation’s material, arriving at claim 12’s PEDOT-PSS layer coated on a carrier film and in direct areal contact with the negative electrode. In other words, given that Koga recognizes an insulating support, Li seems to demonstrate that, regardless of conductor type, one skilled in the art would have reasonably expected success from using an insulating substrate such as PI to support Koga/Kim’s PEDOT-PSS collector.
Applicant further argues that such does explain why one of ordinary skill would have incorporated PI and reconstructed Kim’s collector from an electrospun, nanofiber structure to a carrier film coated with PEDOT-PSS. On the first point, Examiner respectfully submits that PI was a simple substitution/routine selection of a known insulator, and Examiner observes no unexpected results of record specifically from selecting PI over other like polymers. On the second, Examiner respectfully reiterates the response to the 103 of claim 1 (i.e., Koga appears to allow any suitable material and morphology as the collector and, thus, seems to avoid any allegations of frustrating Kim’s intended purpose or rendering Kim’s collector inoperable) and further reiterates that the PEDOT-PSS’s being “coated on the carrier film” appears to be a product-by-process limitation not imparting distinct structure beyond the PEDOT-PSS layer atop the carrier film. Nonetheless, as also detailed above, Li exemplifies several different forms of applying a conductive layer atop an insulating carrier film, including “coating” methods such as dip coating and spraying (¶ 0057), making this argument further unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 8/14/2026
Prosecution Insights