DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. MPEP 818.01(a) is reproduced below:
As indicated in the first sentence of 37 CFR 1.143, the traverse to a requirement for restriction must be complete as required by 37 CFR 1.111(b). Under this rule, the applicant is required to specifically point out the reason(s) on which he or she bases his or her conclusion(s) that a requirement to restrict is in error. A mere broad allegation that the requirement is in error does not comply with the requirement of 37 CFR 1.111. Thus the required provisional election (see MPEP § 818.01(b)) becomes an election without traverse if accompanied by an incomplete traversal of the requirement for restriction.
Accordingly, given the traversal does not specifically point out any reason(s) on which the conclusion that a requirement to restrict is in error and is a mere broad allegation that the “present claims are directed to a single inventive concept deserving full substantive consideration on the merits,” the traversal is treated as an election without traverse.
Thus, claims 15-23, are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim, wherein the election of Group I, claims 1-14, is treated as an election without traverse in the absence of specific reason(s) on which the requirement to restrict is in error (see comments above). Newly added claims 28-31 are also under examination.
It is noted that method claims (i.e., those currently withdrawn) will be reconsidered for rejoinder at the time of finding an allowable product claim. Applicant should amend the method claims to be fully commensurate in scope with the product claim during prosecution to be eligible for rejoinder.
Claim Analysis
Applicant as his/her own Lexicographer
3. An applicant is entitled to be his or her own lexicographer and may rebut the presumption that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning by clearly setting forth a definition of the term that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning(s). See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Where an explicit definition is provided by the applicant for a term, that definition will control interpretation of the term as it is used in the claim. Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Industries Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1301, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 1999); MPEP 2111.01, Section IV.
The Applicant has provided their own definitions to the following terms and/or phrases:
“room temperature,” (P33), “about” (P34), “nanoscale, nanoporous, etc. (P35), “essentially” (P36), and how each of wt.%, vol.%, mol.%, or atomic% are defined (P37).
Accordingly, these explicit definitions will control the interpretations of these phrases, respectively, as the phrase is used in the claim.
Product-by-Process Claims
4. Claim 1 is reproduced below with emphasis added:
An active layer, comprising:
a cold-sprayed composite layer positioned above a substrate,
wherein the composite layer comprises an active component, a conductive component, and a binder,
wherein the composite layer is formed from a solid-state material.
The claim recites product-by-process transforming it and all claims dependent thereon to product-by-process claims (MPEP § 2113), wherein the court has held:
“Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
The product-by-process language is thus evaluated for the implicit or explicit structure provided to the product claim. There is no explicit structure recited in claim 1 for either of the product-by-process language features. An analysis as to the structure considered intrinsically imparted to the claims follows:
With respect to the feature of “cold-sprayed”:
The only structure that is considered intrinsic to cold-spraying (any) layer directly onto a substrate or directly onto another layer appears to be the following (P71; all references to the PGPUB):
“Cold spray of materials results in deposition of a range of materials where the materials are intermixed at the interface of the layers. The interface between adjacent layers may be characterized by particles of each layer embedded in the each of the layers.”
The claims, however, do not recite such a feature and instead states that there is a cold-sprayed layer “positioned above a substrate” (claim 1) or analogous language (see claims 9, 10, 12). There could be subsequent processing steps that render the above material intermixing non-existent. For example, a cold-sprayed layer could be applied onto a quartz substrate (optionally including a release layer) and then subsequently peeled off the quartz substrate and then applied to be “positioned above a substrate” (claim 1) or in the other locations of the claims (claims 9, 10, 12). Such cold-sprayed layer(s) would not have any intermixing of materials at the interface of any layers. Accordingly, in the absence of claims reciting that the cold-spraying is such that a given layer is cold-sprayed directly onto [another layer/substrate/etc.], the product-by-process language within at least claims 1, 9, 10, and 12 does not impart any implicit structure to the product claim.
The structure of deformed particles appears to require a specific velocity (depending on the material), wherein the particles deform and adhere to a substrate “if gas velocity is correctly chosen” (P60, 69). Adhesion to the substrate also appears dependent on gas velocity and particle size (P72). Density of the achieved layers also appears to depend on physical characteristics of the materials (e.g., ductility, hardness), physical characteristic of the particles of the material (e.g., particle size, shape distribution), and overall cold spray conditions (e.g., gas temperature, gas pressure, velocity, etc.) (P73). Accordingly, while a cold-sprayed composite layer may have certain features such as deformed particles, adhesion to the substrate, a specific density, or other characteristics (P70), this would appear to be highly dependent on the characteristics of the material(s) utilized (e.g., ductility, hardness); physical characteristic of the particle(s) of the material(s) (e.g., particle size, shape distribution); and overall cold spray conditions (e.g., gas temperature, gas pressure, velocity, etc.) (P73).
With respect to the feature of “wherein the composite layer is formed from a solid-state material”:
There is no evidence in the instant application specification that this feature imparts any implicit or explicit structure to the final product claim.
It is noted that the language does not require only solid-state materials to be utilized in the composite layer forming step, and thus, so long as there is one solid-state material in the method utilized (e.g., a powder (i.e., “a solid-state material”) dispersed in liquid that is aerosolized), the process of the product-by-process language would be considered met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claim 2 and claim 14 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.
Claim 1 defines the active material comprises an active component; a conductive component; and a binder. Claim 2 then states that the composite layer includes lithium. It is not clear from the claim whether this is an additional component (e.g., claim 2 requires an active component; a conductive component; a binder; and lithium), or if lithium is one of the already recited components (i.e., the active material) and the claim fails to properly invoke antecedent basis to one of the already defined components. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 2 are unclear rendering the claim indefinite. It appears based on the specification that the issue is one of failing to invoke proper antecedent basis (i.e., wherein the active component includes lithium).
Claim 14 recites a multi-stack solid-state battery, comprising at least two repeating sets of at least some of the layers recited in claim 12. The solid-state battery that is recited in claim 12 is a multi-stack solid state battery based on its defined components and is a two-cell stack given the required components collectively defined in claims 9/(1)-10-12). Accordingly, the claim is not clear in terms of whether this is requiring an additional two repeating sets of at least some of the layers recited in claim 12; or if this is in effect a non-limiting claim (a 35 U.S.C. 112(d) issue).
If this is intended to claim an additional two repeating sets of at least some of the layers recited in claim 12, the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear given these layers are defined relative to the layers of the (first) cell stack (defined in claims 9/(1)-1-12) (e.g., “a cold-sprayed second electrolyte layer positioned above the current collector layer; a cold-sprayed second composite layer positioned above the second electrolyte layer; etc.). In other words, claim 14 is an independent claim incorporating layers of claim 12; however, claim 12 requires features and layers from other parent claims and it is not clear whether these requirements and/or other layers are applicable to the construct claimed. The claim is further unclear because it is not clear how it is possible to provide a functional multi-stack battery without all of the layers recited in claim 12 being repeated in each “set” or unit cell. For example, omitting any one layer of claim 12 when providing a repeating cell unit would provide a non-functional unit of the multi-cell stack. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear rendering the claim indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required. The claims will be examined as best as possible for compact prosecution purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Birt et al. (US 2020/0176752).
Regarding claim 1, Birt teaches an active layer (110/120 or 114/1221) (see Fig. 1) or (510/505 or 530/535) (see Fig. 5; note all embodiments and the entire disclosure are relied upon) for a battery2(P3; entire disclosure), comprising:
a cold-sprayed (P4, 9, 31; Figs. 2, 4, 6) cathode layer 110 or anode layer 114 (“composite layer”) positioned above a substrate (corresponding current collector 120 or 122, respectively) (P21-74, 94-105) wherein the composite layer (110 or 114) comprises:
an active component (P22-25, 64-67, 99),
a conductive component [options: ductile metallic powder such as Al, titanium, copper, steel, etc. acting as a metallic binder (P30); additive such as graphite, carbon black that are electrically conductive (P67, 99); solid polymer electrolyte or solid ceramic electrolyte that are ionically conductive (P67)], and
a binder [options3: ductile metallic powder such as Al, titanium, copper, steel, etc. acting as a metallic binder (P30); polymeric binder materials (P28, 62, 84, 88, 94); stearic acid, parrafin wax (i.e., waxy binder materials) (P67); solid polymer electrolyte material that functions as both an ionic transport medium and binder (P67, 103, 105)],
wherein the cathode layer 110 or anode layer 114 (“composite layer”) is formed from a solid-state material (P21-74, 94-105; Figs. 2, 4, 6).
It is noted the claim is a product-by-process claim (see MPEP § 2113; Claim Analysis section above). All of the product-by-process limitations are fully met by Birt such that the claim is anticipated in terms of any implicit or explicit structure imparted to the claim by said product-by-process language.
Regarding claim 2, Birt teaches wherein the composite layer includes lithium (P67, 99).
Regarding claim 3, Birt teaches wherein the active component includes at least one material selected from the group consisting of: lithium, nickel, manganese, cobalt, cobalt oxides, lithium iron phosphate, lithium cobalt oxides, lithium manganese oxides, carbon, silicon, and a combination thereof (P23, 67, 99).
Regarding claim 5, Birt teaches wherein the conductive component is selected from the group claimed including at least carbon black and graphite (P67).
Regarding claim 6, Birt teaches the active layer further comprising a solid polymer electrolyte or ceramic electrolyte (“a solid- state electrolyte material”) (P67).
Regarding claim 7, Birt teaches wherein the composite layer is an anode layer 114 (P22; entire disclosure relied upon).
Regarding claim 8, Birt teaches wherein the composite layer is a cathode layer 110 (P22; entire disclosure relied upon).
Regarding claim 28, Birt teaches the active layer as recited in claim 1, wherein the solid-state material comprises a plurality of particles (P24-27, 31-32, 62, 67-68).
Regarding claim 29, Birt teaches the active layer as recited in claim 28, wherein the cold-sprayed composite layer (110 or 114) comprises the solid-state material having structural characteristics of impaction of the particles on the substate (corresponding current collector 120 or 122, respectively) and/or previously deposited particles (e.g. sprayed separator blend 520 onto which anode blend 530 is sprayed), wherein one of the structural characteristics of impaction includes structural deformation of the particles (P9, 87, 101, 104).
Regarding claim 30, Birt teaches the active layer as recited in claim 29, wherein another of the structural characteristics of impaction includes the particles being adhered to the substrate and/or previously deposited particles (P84, 94 (describes affixing the agglomerates to a current collector (relied upon “substrate”) or battery structure (e.g., the sprayed separator blend 520 onto which anode blend 530 is sprayed).
Regarding claim 31, Birt teaches the cold spray process (P4, 9, 31; Figs. 2, 4, 6) and that supersonic speeds are utilized to spray the materials (P6, 9, 22, 26-27). Accordingly, taking the anode blend 530 that is cold-sprayed onto the cold-sprayed separator blend 520, it is considered intrinsic to the described configuration that the particles of the anode blend 530 are embedded in the previously deposited cold-sprayed separator blend 520 (i.e., “the previously deposited particles”) given the method utilized (P6, 9, 22, 26-27). It further appears that the described cold-spray process technique intrinsically also provides the sprayed cathode blend 510 onto the cathode current collector 505 (see Claim Analysis section; P71 of the instant application) as having the feature of the particles being embedded in the substrate (the current collector).
It is noted that the claim is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/ 103
9. 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.
10. Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Birt et al. (US 2020/0176752).
Regarding claim 9, Birt teaches a solid-state battery (Fig. 5), comprising:
the active layer (114 or 110 in Fig. 1; 510 or 530 in Fig. 5) as recited in claim 1; and
a current collector layer (120 in Fig. 1 or 535 in Fig. 5) positioned above the composite layer (114 or 110 in Fig. 1; 510 or 530 in Fig. 5).
Birt fails to teach that the current collector layer (120 in Fig. 1 or 535 in Fig. 5) is a cold-sprayed current collector layer as claimed. The language is product-by-process language which is evaluated for its explicit or implicit structure. The location of the “cold-sprayed current collector layer” is simply “above the composite layer” (i.e., not in direct contact therewith, not directly applied to it or another layer, etc.). Accordingly, there is no implicit structure implied by the language of a “cold-sprayed current collector layer positioned above the composite layer” such that the structure that is taught by Birt appears to fully anticipate the structure made explicit or implicit through the product-by-process language (see Claim Analysis section, incorporated here and not repeated). Alternatively, any differences provided by the product-by-process limitation would provide a product that is obvious from the current collector (120 in Fig. 1 or 535 in Fig. 5) of Birt as there does not appear to be any difference in a cold-sprayed current collector versus the taught current collector of Birt. Regarding product-by-process limitation, see MPEP § 2113:
"[T]he lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith." In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972).
Regarding claim 10, Birt teaches wherein the solid-state battery comprises a cold-sprayed electrolyte layer 520 positioned between the composite layer (510) and the current collector layer (535) (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11, Birt teaches the solid-state battery as recited in claim 10, further comprising, an anode layer 530 positioned above the electrolyte layer 520 (Fig. 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birt et al. (US 2020/0176752) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Du et al. (US 2023/0095801).
Regarding claim 4, Birt teaches wherein the binder may be a polymeric binder material (P28, 62, 84, 88, 94) or solid polymer electrolyte material that functions as both an ionic transport medium and binder (P67, 103, 105). Birt does not explicitly teach examples of the polymeric binder material or solid polymer electrolyte material and that it is a non-metal binder selected from the group consisting of: an organic polymer and an inorganic binder as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, Du teaches analogous art of cold-sprayed anode and cathode layers (P91, 331-339) in which a binder may be utilized and is taught as including polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyacrylic acid (PAA), styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR), etc. (P90, 124, 158) (i.e., “non-metal binder selected from the group named including organic polymers). The courts have held (MPEP § 2144.07):
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ("…selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to select any of PVDF, PAA, and/or SBR as the polymeric binder of Birt given Du teaches such binders are suitable for the intended use of being implemented as a binder in a solid-state battery active layer that is applied via cold-spraying (P91, 331-339)
12. Claim 31 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birt et al. (US 2020/0176752) as applied to at least claims 1 and 28-29 above, and further in view of Sunagawa et al. (US 2006/0159997).
Regarding claim 31, as detailed above, Birt teaches the cold spray process (P4, 9, 31; Figs. 2, 4, 6) and that supersonic speeds are utilized to spray the materials (P6, 9, 22, 26-27). Accordingly, taking the anode blend 530 that is cold-sprayed onto the cold-sprayed separator blend 520, it is considered intrinsic to the described configuration that the particles of the anode blend 530 are embedded in the previously deposited cold-sprayed separator blend 520 (i.e., “the previously deposited particles”) given the method utilized (P6, 9, 22, 26-27). It further appears that the described cold-spray process technique intrinsically also provides the sprayed cathode blend 510 onto the cathode current collector 505 (see Claim Analysis section; P71 of the instant application) as having the feature of the particles being embedded in the substrate (the current collector).
Alternatively, in the same field of endeavor, Sunagawa teaches analogous art of an electrode for a lithium secondary battery in which active material particles are arranged on a current collector, and are directly bonded to the current collector surface in a state where the bottom of the active material particle is imbedded in the current collector surface (P9; Figs. 1-2; 7A, 7B) which is achieved by a cold-spray method (P15) and allows favorable current collectability to be maintained even with repetition of the charge/discharge reactions, thereby enabling favorable charge/discharge cycle characteristics (P9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the parameters of the cold-spray process that affect the resulting layered structure 164 (i.e., the active material layer) including the options listed at P32-46 of Birt such as gas pressure including supersonic speeds above 120 PSI up to 700 PSI, nozzle geometry, substrate type and thickness, etc. in order to achieve embedding of the particles in the current collector substrate and/or previously deposited particles given the construct is known and taught by Sunagawa (P9), may be achieved by a cold spray process (P15), and provides the taught, predictable results of allowing favorable current collectability to be maintained even with repetition of the charge/discharge reactions, thereby enabling favorable charge/discharge cycle characteristics (P9).
13. Claims 9-14 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birt et al. (US 2020/0176752) in view of Chapman et al. (US 2025/0030057)4.
Regarding claim 9, Birt teaches a solid-state battery (Fig. 5), comprising:
the active layer (114 or 110 in Fig. 1; 510 or 530 in Fig. 5) as recited in claim 1; and
a current collector layer (120 in Fig. 1 or 535 in Fig. 5) positioned above the composite layer (114 or 110 in Fig. 1; 510 or 530 in Fig. 5).
Birt fails to teach that the current collector layer (120 in Fig. 1 or 535 in Fig. 5) is a cold-sprayed current collector layer as claimed. The language is product-by-process language which is evaluated for its explicit or implicit structure. The location of the “cold-sprayed current collector layer” is simply “above the composite layer” (i.e., not in direct contact therewith, not directly applied to it or another layer, etc.). Accordingly, there is no implicit structure implied by the language of a “cold-sprayed current collector layer positioned above the composite layer” such that the structure that is taught by Birt appears to fully anticipate the structure made explicit or implicit through the product-by-process language (see Claim Analysis section, incorporated here and not repeated). Alternatively, any differences provided by the product-by-process limitation would provide a product that is obvious from the current collector (120 in Fig. 1 or 535 in Fig. 5) of Birt as there does not appear to be any difference in a cold-sprayed current collector versus the taught current collector of Birt.
In the interest of compact prosecution in terms of whether there is implicit structure somehow not met by Birt (not conceded) and/or future claims that clarify the cold-spraying is directly onto (some layer), in the same field of endeavor, Chapman teaches analogous art of methods of making a solid-state electrochemical cell and that it is a known technique to provide a current collector layer of a solid-state battery by way of either thermal spraying a composition comprising metal or cold spraying a composition comprising metal (P72). It is the position of the Examiner that either method would result in intrinsic structure of intermixing the materials of the applied current collector and the underlying layer that it is being applied to (P72; Fig. 1A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to adopt this known technique when providing the current collector (120 in Fig. 1 or 535 in Fig. 5) of Birt positioned above the composite layer (114 or 110 in Fig. 1; 510 or 530 in Fig. 5) (i.e., directly applying the current collector 535 via cold-spraying or thermal spraying to 530 or 110) given Chapman teaches it is known technique by which a current collector layer of a solid-state battery by way of either thermal spraying a composition comprising metal or cold spraying a composition comprising metal (P72; Fig. 1A), the technique providing the predictable result of adhering the applied current collector to the underlying layer with intrinsic intermixing at the surfaces thereof which provide for better electrical conduction.
Regarding claim 10, Birt teaches wherein the solid-state battery comprises a cold-sprayed electrolyte layer 520 positioned between the composite layer (510) and the current collector layer (535) (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11, Birt teaches the solid-state battery as recited in claim 10, further comprising, an anode layer 530 positioned above the electrolyte layer 520 (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 12, Birt teaches the solid-state battery as recited in claim 10, further comprising formation of multiple cells using the process to achieve aggregate multi-cell assembly (P106). Birt does not explicitly detail the construct of the taught multiple cell construct (P106); however, such cells are well-known in the art as taught by Chapman (see Fig. 4).
Accordingly, it would be obvious to adopt this known configuration of Chapman for the taught multi-cell construct of Birt (P106) such that there is a:
a second electrolyte layer positioned above the current collector layer;
a second composite layer positioned above the second electrolyte layer; and
a second current collector layer positioned above the second composite layer.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to cold-spray each of the above layers given Birt teaches the technique of cold-spraying electrolyte layers and active material layers (i.e., the claimed “second composite layer”) (Fig. 5; entire disclosure), and Chapman teaches the known technique of cold-spraying current collector layers (P72; not limited to entire disclosure).
Regarding claim 13, Birt teaches by illustration that a shape of the solid-state battery is a cylindrical cell configuration (see Fig. 4 in which the achieved battery 1164 is cylindrically wound). Applying this same technique to the multi-cell stack taught at P106 is considered an obvious design choice given the selection of a given 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). It is noted that the different shapes that batteries may take (e.g., cylindrical, prismatic, pouch, etc.) would be immediately known to those having ordinary skill in the art, and well within the ambit of one having ordinary skill in the art to select and implement based on design choice.
Regarding claim 14, Birt teaches a multi-stack solid-state battery, comprising at least two repeating sets of at least some of the layers as recited in claim 12 (i.e., claim 12 defines a multi-cell stack requiring at least two cells as defined by the requirement components of claims 9(1)-10-12). In the instance that the claim is meant to define an additional two cell “sets,” duplicating these is considered prima facie given such a construct is taught by Chapman (Fig. 4) and provides the predictable result of increased electrical output.
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Sonal et al. (US 2023/0197922) teaches deposition of an active material layer on a current collector via cold spraying to achieve an anode or cathode (abstract; P25, 37; Fig. 1).
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA J BILLIET whose telephone number is (571)270-7867. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am - 6pm CST.
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, Ula C Tavares-Crockett can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/AMANDA J BILLIET/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
1 These reference numerals (110/120) or (114/122) will be utilized throughout the rejection; however, all embodiments may be relied upon including their corresponding reference numerals (e.g., 510/505 or 530/535 for Fig. 5).
2 Intended use language within a preamble is evaluated for implicit/explicit structure recited which is considered that the “active layer” of the prior art must be suitable and capable of being operational in a battery to meet the claim.
3 If a given option is selected for one component (i.e., the conductive component), then it would not be relied upon to teach another component.
4 Effectively filed date is 12/6/2021.
Prosecution Insights