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 .
BATTERIES AND METHODS OF MAKING THE SAME
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/368,154 Art Unit: 1727 June 12, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response to restriction filed May 04, 2026 has been received. Claims 1-8, 15-18 and 21-28 are currently pending. Claims 1 and 8 have been amended. Claims 9-14 and 19-20 have been canceled. Claims 21-28 are newly added.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8 and 15-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 04, 2026.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-7 and 21-28is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2016/0043409 A1).
As to Claims 1, 3-4 and 21-28, Park discloses a battery, comprising; a cathode; a solid-state electrolyte; and an anode comprising a lithium metal alloy comprising up to 80 wt% lithium and alloyed with magnesium and calcium (Abstract, paragraphs [0062-0063]). Park does not specifically disclose wherein magnesium is contained in a greater amount than calcium. However, the amounts taught by Park overlap with the claims and the courts have held that 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), see MPEP 2144.05, I. In addition, generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such is critical, see MPEP 2144.05, II, A. Park is further recognizing the amounts of metals alloyed with lithium as a result-effective variable in providing an anode material capable of optimally releasing lithium (paragraph [0062]). The courts have held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, see MPEP 2144.05, II, B. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the amounts of lithium, magnesium and calcium to read on the claims because Park teaches that an anode material capable of optimally releasing lithium is provided (paragraph [0062]).
As to Claims 6-7, it is the position of the Office that the battery of Park intrinsically comprises the claimed characteristics given that the materials and structure of the claimed invention and the prior art are the same, see MPEP 2112.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2016/0043409 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 6-7 and 21-28 above and in further view of Moon et al. (US 2016/0093916 A1).
As to Claim 2, Park does not specifically disclose the claimed thickness of the anode.
However, Moon teaches of a battery, comprising a solid electrolyte and an anode having a lithium metal alloy with a thickness of about 20 microns (paragraphs [0236 and 0330]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the solid electrolyte of Park to comprise the claimed solid electrolyte because Chang teaches that an electrolyte that allows the passage of only lithium ions can be provided (paragraph [0058]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2016/0043409 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 6-7 and 21-28 above and in further view of Chang et al. (US 2019/0214685 A1).
As to Claim 5, Park does not specifically disclose the claimed electrolyte.
However, Chang teaches of a battery, comprising an anode having a lithium metal alloy and a solid electrolyte comprising LiPON or LLZO (paragraphs [0061 and 0063]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the solid electrolyte of Park to comprise the claimed solid electrolyte because Chang teaches that an electrolyte that allows the passage of only lithium ions can be provided (paragraph [0058]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 ET.
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.
/ADAM A ARCIERO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights