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 Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on June 1, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 10-20 are withdrawn.
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 2 is 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.
In claim 2, lines 2 and 3, it is unclear what is meant by “a first one” and “a second one” of the bipolar electrode, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 9 contains the trademark/trade name Super P. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe carbon black and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Su et al. (“Su”, US 2024/0079594 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Su discloses solid-state batteries ([0046]) and teaches they may have a bipolar stack design ([0046]). The bipolar stacking design includes, for example, a plurality of bipolar electrodes where a first mixture of solid-state electroactive material particles (and optional solid-state electrolyte particles) is disposed on a first side of a current collector, and a second mixture of solid-state electroactive material particles (and optional solid-state electrolyte particles) is disposed on a second side of a current collector that is parallel with the first side ([0046]). The first mixture may include cathode material particles and the second mixture may include anode material particles ([0046]). Su teaches the solid-state electrodes may include PTFE fibrils ([0084]-[0086]).
As to claim 2, Su teaches the solid-state electrolyte particles may comprise one or more sulfide-based particles and halide-based particles, inter alia ([0061]). The sulfide-based particles may include a pseudobinary sulfide, a pseudoternary sulfide, and/or a psuedoquaternary sulfide ([0064]). Su teaches the electrolyte layer is a solid-state or semi-solid state separating layer that physically separates the negative electrode from the positive electrode ([0049]).
As to claim 3, Su teaches a positive electroactive material selected from a rock salt layered oxide, a spinel, a polyanion cathode, inter alia ([0010]). Su teaches the negative electroactive particles may comprise one or more carbonaceous negative electroactive materials such as graphite and graphene, and silicon-based particles such as silicon alloy and/or silicon-graphite mixture ([0071]).
As to claim 9, Su teaches the positive electrode may further include one or more conductive additives such as graphite, acetylene black, graphene (such as graphene oxide), carbon black (such as Super P), inter alia ([0082]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su.
Su is applied as in the rejection of claims 1-3 and 9 above.
As to claim 4, Su teaches the precursor of the polymeric binder material capable of being fibrillated to for fibers comprises solid polymeric binder particles comprising PTFE that have an average particle diameter of greater than or equal to 300 micrometers and less than or equal to 700 micrometers ([0087]).
MPEP 2144.05 states: In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 5, Su teaches negative electrode may include 30 to 98 wt.% electroactive material ([0070]), 2 to 10 wt.% electrically conductive additives ([0074]), and 1 to 10 wt.% binder ([0074]), which may be PTFE fibrils ([0086]). Su teaches the same ranges for the positive electrode (see [0077] and [0083]).
As to claim 6, Su teaches the negative electrode may contain 1 wt.% to 10 wt.% binder ([0074]) and teaches the same for the positive electrode ([0083]). Su teaches the binder may be PTFE fibrils ([0086]).
As to claims 7 and 8, Su teaches the solid-state electrolyte layer may be in the form of a porous layer or a composite that comprises the first plurality of solid-state electrolyte particles ([0060]). Su teaches one or more binder particles may be mixed with the solid-state electrolyte particles in an amount of 0.5 wt.% to 10 wt.%, and the binders include PTFE ([0068]), which are taught in the form of fibrils ([0088]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL H. LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2548. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
DANIEL H. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/DANIEL H LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights