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 .
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 18 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.
Claim 18 states that “the pressing gap is based on [an] equation,” however claim 18 does not recite an equation. Instead claim 18 recites a single mathematical expression without connecting that expression to another mathematical expression with an equal sign.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kelly et al. (hereinafter “Kelly”) (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0133563 A1, cited by Applicant).
The applied reference has a common applicant and inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claims 1-5 and 14, Kelly teaches a process 200 for forming an encapsulated electrode structure comprise an encapsulated anode structure, wherein a metal foil of one or more alkali metals such as Li may be selected for the electrode. To form an encapsulated anode, a solid-state electrolyte composite may be prepared as appropriate for use with the selected electrode material. The solid-state electrolyte (SSE) and electrodes are layered, then the SSE and electrodes are contacted to form a stack. Subsequently, pressure is applied to the stack (see paragraph 83).
A protected solid-state electrode laminate 602 may include two separator layers of a composite blend of a sulfide-based solid-state electrolyte (sulfide-bases solid electrolyte) and a binder (binding material). The SSE 606 may be coated as a thin layer on a carrier film 608. In one example, the carrier film 608 may be an aluminum foil (first carrier film; second carrier film; aluminum-based foil). A thin foil of lithium metal 610 (conductive foil; lithium-based foil) may be placed between two facing SSE layers 606 (first SSE layer; second SSE layer). To generate a protected electrode (e.g., anode) stack, two different sheets of the SSE 606 on foil 608 may be oriented such that the SSE layers are facing each other with the lithium metal layer 610 between the two SSE sheets. The layers forming the electrode stack 602 are fed between calendar rollers as an Aluminum-SSE-Lithium-SSE-Aluminum stack (pressing the electrode stack through a pressing device; pressing gap) (see paragraphs 51 and 52).
Regarding claims 6, 7, 12, 16 and 17, Kelly teaches that the respective rollers of the calendar press are spaced apart a distance less than the pre-calendared stack thickness (pressing gap is based on a thickness of at least one layer of the electrode stack) such that pressure on the stack being fed between the calendar rollers may reduce the porosity of the materials within the stack, enhance material contact, cause some layers to adhere or bond, and/or cause the SSE layers 606 to partially or completely separate from the aluminum foil 608 while laminating to the lithium foil 610 layer (reduces adhesion of the first SEE layer to the first carrier film and the second SSE layer to the second carrier film) (see paragraph 52).
Regarding claim 9, it has been held by the courts that the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
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.
Claim(s) 8, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly as applied to claims 1-5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16 and 17 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (hereinafter “Wang”) (CN 113067026 A, cited by Applicant; see English machine translation).
Regarding claims 8, 19 and 20, Wang teaches a battery lamination thermal bonding device including a roller pressing frame, a moving roller pressing wheel, a stationary roller pressing wheel, an adjusting device, a thickness measuring device (sensor associated with the calender press), and a controller (controller). Both the moving and stationary roller pressing wheels are rotatably mounted on the roller pressing frame, forming a roller pressing gap between them. The moving and stationary roller pressing wheels are used to perform roller pressing operations on the substrate to form composite electrodes. The thickness measuring device is connected to the controller and is used to measure the thickness data of the composite electrodes and send the thickness data to the controller. The controller is connected to the adjusting device and is used to send control commands to the adjusting device in real time based on the thickness data. The adjusting device is connected to the moving roller pressing wheel and is used to move the moving roller pressing wheel closer to or further away from the stationary roller pressing wheel according to the control commands, thereby reducing or increasing the roller pressing gap (see paragraph 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHAN J ESSEX whose telephone number is (571)270-7866. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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.
/STEPHAN J ESSEX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights