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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed September 14th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-12 remain pending.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10, & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo et al. (JP 2009054484 A), in view of Yushin et al. (US 2017/0170515 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kondo teaches a battery (Par. 0001) comprising: a first electrode (negative electrode 4); a second electrode (positive electrode 3); and a solid electrolyte layer (electrolyte layer 5; Par. 0001, electrolyte is solid) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (Par. 0021), wherein the solid electrolyte layer contains a first solid electrolyte (solid electrolyte layer 51; Par. 0023), the first electrode includes: a substrate (negative electrode current collector 41) including a porous body (Par. 0020; “a negative electrode current collector made of a network material having a space portion”; Par. 0047, current collector 41 may be a mesh, which fits the claimed porous body, as described in Par. 0050 of the present application); and an active material layer disposed on a surface of the substrate (Par. 0016; the active material layer is deposited on the current collector), the active material layer contains Bi (Par. 0029; the negative active material layer can be made of Bi, Sn, or Sb; the current teaching is Bi), and the first solid electrolyte contains a halide solid electrolyte (Par. 0042; examples of solid electrolytes contain LiI, LiCl, and LiBr, which are halides. To be consistent with the present specification, any electrolyte containing a halogen will be considered a halide. However, on the contrary, another interpretation may be that the halide does not include sulfides). Kondo fails to teach the substrate including a porous material. Kondo rather teaches that the current collector may be formed of a conductive material, such as nickel (Par. 0025).
However, Yushin teaches a substrate (Par. 0086; current collector) including a porous material (Par. 0086; the current collector may be made of a porous foil, foam, or a mesh).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate taught by Kondo by forming the substrate from a porous material, as taught by Yushin. This would be done to reduce interfacial resistance and improve the mechanical integrity of the current collector, while improving wetting and minimizing charge-transfer resistance, as stated in Yushin (Par. 0090).
Regarding claim 2, modified Kondo teaches the battery according to claim 1, wherein the active material layer contains elemental Bi (Par. 0091; bismuth metal is used in the negative active material layer).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kondo teaches the battery according to claim 1, wherein the active material layer contains the Bi as a main component of an active material (Par. 0040; the negative active material, which may be Bi, is present in 50 weight% or more, thus being the main component).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kondo teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein the active material layer is free of an electrolyte (Par. 0009, active material and electrolyte are both solid; reactions between the two take place on the surface of the active material layer, rather than inside the active material layer).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kondo teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein the substrate contains at least one selected from the group consisting of Cu and Ni (Par. 0025; the negative electrode current collector may be composed of Cu or Ni).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kondo teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein the active material layer is a plating layer (Par. 0016; the negative electrode active material layer is deposited on the negative electrode current collector by a plating method).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kondo teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein the first solid electrolyte contains a sulfide solid electrolyte (Par. 0019, “sulfide-based lithium ion conductive solid electrolyte”; Par. 0042 provides examples of sulfide solid electrolytes, such as Li2S-SiS2).
Regarding claim 12, modified Kondo teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein the first electrode is a negative electrode (negative electrode 4) and the second electrode is a positive electrode (positive electrode 3).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo.
Regarding claim 4, Kondo fails to teach the active material layer containing substantially only the Bi as the active material.
However, Kondo teaches that Bi, selected from the group of Bi, Sn, or Sb, may be present in 70 weight% or more (Par. 0040). While the specification of the present application states that Bi is present in 99 mass% or more, Kondo teaches that the weight% of Bi is a variable which can be experimentally manipulated to achieve desired battery characteristics of improved conductivity and decreased resistance (Par. 0040). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo et al. (JP 2009054484 A), in view of Fujimoto et al. (WO 2019/230279 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kondo fails to teach the active material layer containing at least one of LiBi and Li3Bi.
However, Fujimoto teaches an active material layer (negative electrode active material 32) containing at least one of LiBi and Li3Bi (Page 6, Par. 11; LiBi and/or Li3Bi are generated during charging, and Par. 0064 of the present application states that these alloys are generated during charging).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the active material layer taught by Kondo by incorporating LiBi or Li3Bi, as taught by Fujimoto. One of ordinary skill would have determined that one of the two alloys is generated during charging of the lithium battery, as stated in Fujimoto (Page 6, Par. 11).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo, in view of Li et al. ("Progress and perspectives on halide lithium conductors for all-solid-state lithium batteries").
Regarding claim 9, Kondo fails to teach a halide solid electrolyte which is substantially free of sulfur.
However, Li teaches a halide solid electrolyte which is free of sulfur (Section 2, Par. 1; LiaMXb halide SSE examples don’t contain sulfur).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solid electrolyte taught by Kondo by providing a halide that does not contain sulfur, as taught by Li. This would be done in order to prevent the risks of forming toxic H2S and significantly decreased ionic conductivity in humid environments due to sulfur’s absence of tolerance to humidity, as stated in Li (Section 4.2, Par. 2).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo, in view of Yang et al. (US 2021/0043936 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Kondo fails to teach a second solid electrolyte in the first electrode which is in contact with the active material layer.
However, Yang teaches a first electrode (“electrode layer structure”; Par. 0008-0010), which includes a first solid electrolyte (Par. 0009-0010; a second mixed solid electrolyte is included outside of the electrode) and a second solid electrolyte (Par. 0009-0010; the electrode layer structure contains a first mixed electrolyte) in contact with an active material layer (Par. 0009-0010, 0025; the electrolyte inside the electrode is in contact with an active material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first electrode taught by Kondo by incorporating a second solid electrolyte which is in contact with the active material, as taught by Yang. This would be done in order to obtain a high charge transfer due to a larger contact surface with the active material, as stated in Yang (Par. 0034).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that Kondo fails to teach a substrate including a porous body of a porous material, as Kondo does not teach the current collector mesh being formed of a porous material. However, as stated above, Yushin teaches a current collector which is formed of porous nickel, and the combination of Kondo and Yushin meets the limitation of a substrate including a porous body of a porous material.
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 CAMERON M BAIRD whose telephone number is (571)272-9742. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/CAMERON M BAIRD/ Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights