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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has complied with all of the conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 01/29/2024 and 01/30/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on 01/29/2024 were reviewed and are acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 01/29/2024 was reviewed and is acceptable.
Claim Interpretation
The Instant Claims and Specification reference the term “cathode” (see e.g. claims 1 and 5 “the cathode layer includes silicon grains”, and see specifically [0004] “Silicon (Si) grains have been studied as cathode active materials…”).
The Examiner submits that Applicants have inadvertently misnomered the term “cathode”, and reasonably appear to have intended to refer to the term “anode”, as evidenced by Applicant’s prior Application No. 17/532704 (see Otaki et al. US 2022/0190329 A1, cited in the Instant IDS dated 01/30/2026, and which discloses that “Si has been known as an anode active material with large theoretical capacity” [0019], and “wherein the anode layer contains an anode active material including a silicon clathrate II type crystal phase” [0006]).
The Examiner notes that while the terms “cathode” and “anode” might be used alternatively during charging or discharging, i.e. a positive electrode is a “cathode” during discharging, but might be considered an “anode” during charging, such ‘switching’ of the terms is not conventional, as evidenced by the prior art (see e.g. Chan et al. US 2012/0021283 A1, which discloses that “The present invention relates to negative electrodes or anodes comprising cage structures such as silicon clathrate particles” [0001], and “The cathode is generally one of three materials: a layered oxide (such as lithium cobalt oxide), a polyanion (such as lithium iron phosphate), or a spinel (such as magnesium oxide)” [0003]; see also the anode and cathode half reactions disclosed at [0004]).
Accordingly, for purposes of this Office Action, it will be reasonably interpreted that any prior art disclosure of an appropriate anode material, or anode, will read on the recited “cathode” material, or cathode, because Applicant has not specifically disclosed the intention of redefining the common term “cathode” as a negative electrode.
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(s) 1-5 is/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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “cathode” in claims 1 and 5 is used by the claims to mean “a cathode”, or commonly referred to as a positive electrode, while the accepted meaning is “an anode”, or commonly referred to as a negative electrode. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “in the discharge state, the silicon grains of 0% to 30%” in lines 1-2. It is unclear what 0% to 30% refers to beyond “silicon grains”. For purposes of this Office Action, it will be assumed that this limitation is a minor typographical error, and the limitation was intended to recite “in the discharge state, the silicon grains are in a state of charge of 0% to 30%”, consistent with independent claim 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura et al. (US 2010/0075209 A1; hereinafter “Kimura”) in view of Goto et al. (US 2002/0094481 A1; hereinafter “Goto”) and Chan et al. (US 2012/0021283 A1; hereinafter “Chan”).
Regarding claims 1-5, Kimura discloses a battery system (Title) comprising a control device (control unit, [0023]), wherein:
the control device is configured to perform a first control and a second control (as noted below);
the first control includes placing an all-solid-state battery ([0020]) in a discharge state (as shown in Fig 6, times T2 and T4 are discharged states as indicated by voltage line L2);
the first control further includes performing at least one of constant voltage discharge and constant voltage charging of the all-solid-state battery is the discharge state (as shown in Fig 6 around times T2 and T4);
the second control includes pressurizing the all-solid-state battery in the discharge state (as shown in Fig 6, times T2 and T4 correspond with the low pressure points as indicated by load line L1; see also [0080] which describes the load sensor 615 measuring the loads N2 and N4 at times T2 and T4);
the all-solid-state battery includes an anode layer (positive side layer 500; see Claim Interpretation discussion above), a solid electrolyte layer (430), and a cathode layer (negative side layer 530; see Claim Interpretation discussion above), in this order ([0050]); and
the cathode layer includes a sulfide solid electrolyte (sulfide glass, [0057]).
Kimura discloses placing the all-solid-state battery into a discharge state (as noted above), and discloses that the initial state (T=0) corresponds to a state where the battery is completely discharged ([0076]), but does not explicitly disclose that such a state is an over-discharge state. Kimura further discloses that the cathode (negative electrode) active material is graphite ([0062]), and thus does not disclose silicon grains, specifically a clathrate II crystalline phase, nor that in the overdischarge state, the silicon grains are in a state of charge of 0% to 30%..
Goto teaches a solid electrolyte cell (Title). Goto teaches that, in solid electrolyte cells, in the case where an anode potential reaches a cathode discharge potential due to overdischarge, the anode current collector may be corroded leading to detachment of the anode active material from the current collector ([0008-0009]). Goto teaches that protection circuits are provided to prevent such overdischarge, but such protection circuits should be removed in order to increase the charging volume of the active material and reduce weight and cost of the cell ([0011]). Accordingly, Goto teaches a cathode active material, e.g. lithium iron phosphate, which has a discharge potential lower than the elution potential of the metal material of the anode current collector, thereby preventing corrosion of the current collector during overdischarge up to the cell voltage of 0 V ([0015]).
Kimura and Goto are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely all-solid-state batteries.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the cathode active material of Goto as the positive electrode active material of Kimura with the reasonable expectation that doing so would prevent corrosion of the negative electrode current collector, and allow the battery to be overdischarged to a cell voltage of 0 V, as suggested by Goto. The skilled artisan would further find it obvious that the times T0, T2, and T4 of Kimura reasonably appear to correspond with such an overdischarge state because T0 is explicitly disclosed as being “completely discharged” (as noted above), i.e. equal to 0 V.
Chan teaches silicon clathrate anodes for solid electrolyte lithium ion batteries (Title; [0030]). Chan teaches carbon or graphite is one of the most popular materials for an anode ([0003]), but that silicon is an attractive material due to its theoretical storage capacity being more than 10 times that of graphite ([0016]). Chan teaches that silicon however, has relatively large changes in volume (>300%), which may lead to displacement from the electrode or breaking up of the material ([0016-0017]). Accordingly, Chan teaches a silicon clathrate, specifically a type II clathrate ([0020]), which provides a low volume expansion of 0.1% to 12% ([0021]).
Chan is analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely all-solid-state batteries.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize silicon clathrate, e.g. silicon type II clathrate, as the negative electrode active material of modified Kimura with the reasonable expectation that such a material would provide for a higher theoretical storage capacity, as compared to graphite, and would provide a low volume expansion, as compared to generic silicon, as suggested by Chan.
Accordingly, the skilled artisan would find it obvious that modified Kimura discloses that the cathode layer includes silicon grains that include a clathrate II crystalline phase (Chan: as noted above), and that in the overdischarge state, the silicon grains are in a state of charge of 0% to 30% (Goto: O V, as noted above, which corresponds with SOC of 0%, and which falls within the recited range).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M ERWIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6am-3pm PDT.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 07/30/2026
Prosecution Insights