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 .
Interview summary
Applicant's interview summary, dated 07/10/2026, has been fully considered. The examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Applicant misunderstands the position of the Examiner. The Examiner did not concur that the proposed amendments would overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection.
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 07/10/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that that species I and II would not impose a serious burden, since they require the same features of the “solid-state battery” of species I. This is not found persuasive because species I has a different embodiment from species II, as show in figures 2 and 3 of instant application.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Status of Claims
Applicant's amendment and arguments, dated 07/10/2026, have been fully considered. Claims 1, 10 and 20 are currently amended; claims 2-9, 11-12 and 14-17 stand as originally or previously presented; and claims 13 and 18-19 are currently withdrawn. The Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment. Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous objections to the claims and drawings have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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, 3-8 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skorobogatiy et al. (WO 2019109171 A1; hereinafter " Skorobogatiy"), in view of Zhou et al. (“Progress in flexible lithium batteries and future prospects,” Energy Environ. Sci., 2014, 7, 1307; hereinafter “Zhou”).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Skorobogatiy discloses a solid-state battery (a lithium-ion battery; [009]) comprising:
A cathode [009], an anode [009], and a solid-state electrolyte layer disposed between the cathode and the anode (the anode and the cathode are each coated with an electrolyte comprising polyethylene oxide and a lithium salt; and wherein the anode and the cathode are woven together to form the flexible wire; [0009]), wherein the cathode, the anode, and the solid-state electrolyte layer are comprised of flexible materials (the conductive wires [0018, 0030], the coating [0020], binder [0021, 0033] and conductive additive [0023, 0035] of the anode and cathode can be of any sufficiently flexible materials known in the art, as well as, the electrolyte [0040]) to form a thread (flexible wire; [009]; See Figure 1); the thread is washable (the outer covering is at least one heat or UV curable resin; [0050]; the coating is performed by dipping the LIB into a monomer and then curing it; [0066]). Skorobogatiy further discloses that an application is in wearable technology and textiles, and/or or compact power source units. Indeed, certain embodiments of the invention could be woven into fabric by a standard loom; [0070]. Accordingly, a skilled artisan would find it obvious that the coating is thus washable because it is used in textiles, which are reasonably washable.
PNG
media_image1.png
194
527
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Skorobogatiy fails to disclose that the solid-state battery comprises metal oxide intercalated nanoparticles grown directly onto carbon nanotubes.
Zhou teaches, directed to cathode materials for LIBS, a cathode using a CNT substrate incorporating NaxV2O5 (Page 1313, Section 2.2.1.2.).
Skorobogatiy and Zhou are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely lithium batteries.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the solid-state battery to be comprised of metal oxide intercalated (XaYb)Oc nanoparticles in carbon nanotubes (CNTs). Doing so would result in avoiding the use of binders and increasing the cathode specific capacity (Page 1313, Section 2.2.1.2), as recognized by Zhou.
With respect to “nanoparticles directly grown into CNTs”, in accordance with MPEP 2113, the
method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself.
Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. "The patentability of a product, i.e.----, does not depend on its method of
production, i.e.----." In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985). Because patentability of
product claims is based on the product’s structure, and Skorobogatiy in view of Zhou discloses the claimed structure, the process limitations are not afforded patentable weight since such limitations do not appear to provide the claimed product with patentably distinct structure.
Regarding claim 3, Skorobogatiy discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above.
However, Skorobogatiy fails to disclose that the cathode is comprised of mixed metal oxide intercalated (XaYb)Oc nanoparticles grown directly onto carbon nanotubes (CNTs).
Zhou teaches, directed to cathode materials for LIBS, a cathode using a CNT substrate incorporating NaxV2O5 (Page 1313, Section 2.2.1.2.).
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the cathode to be comprised of mixed metal oxide intercalated (XaYb)Oc nanoparticles grown directly onto carbon nanotubes (CNTs). Doing so would result in avoiding the use of binders and increasing the cathode specific capacity (Page 1313, Section 2.2.1.2), as recognized by Zhou.
Regarding claim 4, Skorobogatiy discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above.
Skorobogatiy further discloses a cathode coated with an electrolyte [0010] comprising polyethylene oxide and a lithium salt [0014].
However, Skorobogatiy fails to disclose that the cathode is comprised of metal oxide nanoparticles.
Zhou teaches, directed to cathode materials for LIBS, contain high capacity NaxV2O5, V2O5 and commercially used LiMn2O4, LiCoO2 (Page 1314, Section 2.2.1.2).
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the cathode to be comprised of metal oxide nanoparticles bound together by a solid mixed ionic-electronic conductive (MIEC) electrolyte. Doing so would result in increasing battery capacity (Page 1314, Section 2.2.1.2), as recognized by Zhou.
Regarding claim 5, Skorobogatiy discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above.
Skorobogatiy further discloses that the solid-state electrolyte layer is comprised of an ionic conductor used in a solid mixed ionic-electronic conductive (MIEC) electrolyte without CNTs (The electrolyte comprises polyethylene oxide (PEO) and a lithium salt; [0040]).
Regarding claim 6, Skorobogatiy discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above.
However, Skorobogatiy fails to disclose that the solid-state battery is rechargeable.
Zhou teaches a rechargeable flexible lithium-ion battery (page 1315, par. 3).
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the battery to be rechargeable. Doing so would result in satisfying the requirements of applications such as interactive packaging and radio frequency sensing (page 1315, par. 3), as recognized by Zhou.
Regarding claim 7, Skorobogatiy discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above.
Skorobogatiy further discloses that the LIB can be used in composite structures (devices; [0070]) such as medical devices or cell phones [0070].
Therefore, it would be obvious that the battery of prior art could support wireless charging, as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a cell phone for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Regarding claim 16, Skorobogatiy discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above.
Skorobogatiy further discloses that certain embodiments of the invention could be woven into fabric by a standard loom [0070].
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the fabric to form an integrated battery within the fabric. Doing so would result in incorporation into fabrics and textiles, including wearable technology [0070], as recognized by Skorobogatiy.
Regarding claim 17, Skorobogatiy discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above.
Skorobogatiy further discloses that the LIB can be used in composite structures (devices; [0070]) such as medical devices or cell phones [0070].
Therefore, it would be obvious that the battery of prior art could be self-powered, as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a cell phone for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Claims 2, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skorobogatiy et al. (WO 2019109171 A1; hereinafter " Skorobogatiy"), in view of Zhou et al. (“Progress in flexible lithium batteries and future prospects,” Energy Environ. Sci., 2014, 7, 1307; hereinafter “Zhou”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Golodnitsky et al. (WO 2021106001 A1; hereinafter “Golodnitsky”).
Regarding claim 2, Skorobogatiy discloses the solid-state battery of claim 1, wherein the anode is comprised of a conductive wire material [0019] embedded in a solid mixed ionic-electronic conductive (MIEC) electrolyte (the anode and the cathode are each coated with an electrolyte comprising polyethylene oxide and a lithium salt; [0014]).
However, Skorobogatiy fails to disclose that the anode is made of a graphitic carbon.
Golodnitsky teaches, directed to a battery, a graphite mesh current collector for anode (Page 1, lines 26-27).
Skorobogatiy and Golodnitsky are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely batteries.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the anode to be comprised of graphitic carbon embedded in a solid mixed ionic-electronic conductive (MIEC) electrolyte. Doing so would result provide sufficient electron conductivity for efficient use in an electrode (Page 23, lines 19-21), as recognized by Golodnitsky.
Regarding claim 11, Skorobogatiy discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above.
However, Skorobogatiy fails to disclose that the cathode and the anode are disposed in concentric layers in one cylinder containing the anode and the cathode, the anode and the cathode separated by the solid-state electrolyte layer.
Golodnitsky teaches, directed to a battery, an inner electrode 20 (anode or cathode) that incorporates current collector 10, and is enwrapped by a solid electrolyte 30 and outer electrode 40 (Page 47, lines 12-16, see figure 9A).
PNG
media_image2.png
310
385
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify cathode and the anode to be disposed in concentric layers in one cylinder containing the anode and the cathode, and separated by the solid-state electrolyte layer. Doing so would result in high power capability of the battery. (Page 47, line 20), as recognized by Golodnitsky.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skorobogatiy et al. (WO 2019109171 A1; hereinafter " Skorobogatiy"), in view of Zhou et al. (“Progress in flexible lithium batteries and future prospects,” Energy Environ. Sci., 2014, 7, 1307; hereinafter “Zhou”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Upadhyaya et al. (US 20170117573 A1; hereinafter “Upadhyaya”).
Regarding claim 9, Skorobogatiy discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above.
However, Skorobogatiy fails to disclose that the thread has a diameter in a range of 0.4 millimeters (mm) to 5.0 mm.
Upadhyaya teaches an individual battery that may have a diameter greater than 50 micrometers (0.5 mm) [0080], and therefore overlaps the diameter in a range of 0.4 millimeters (mm) to 5.0 mm.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges (greater than 0.5 mm significantly overlaps 0.4 mm to 5.0 mm) because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skorobogatiy et al. (WO 2019109171 A1; hereinafter " Skorobogatiy"), in view of Zhou et al. (“Progress in flexible lithium batteries and future prospects,” Energy Environ. Sci., 2014, 7, 1307; hereinafter “Zhou”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Colachis et al. (“Soft mixed ionic–electronic conductive electrodes for noninvasive stimulation”. J Appl Polym Sci. 2020;137; hereinafter “Colachis”).
Regarding claim 10, Skorobogatiy discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above.
However, Skorobogatiy fails to disclose that the solid-state electrolyte layer is constructed using lithium based hyaluronic acidic (HA) and nitrile butane rubber (NBR).
Colachis teaches, directed to a soft MIEC, that it is prepared by curing of a film cast from a dispersion of SWNTs, HA, and NBR (Page 9).
Skorobogatiy and Colachis are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely electrodes.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the electrolyte layer to be constructed using lithium based hyaluronic acidic (HA) and nitrile butane rubber (NBR). Doing so would result in yielding high electrical conductivity and retention of elasticity (Page 9), as recognized by Colachis.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skorobogatiy et al. (WO 2019109171 A1; hereinafter " Skorobogatiy"), in view of Zhou et al. (“Progress in flexible lithium batteries and future prospects,” Energy Environ. Sci., 2014, 7, 1307; hereinafter “Zhou”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (US 20120015239 A1; hereinafter “Kwon”).
Regarding claim 12, Skorobogatiy discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above.
However, Skorobogatiy fails to disclose that the cathode and the anode are each disposed in individual cylinders encased in a larger cylindrical solid-state electrolyte material.
Kwon teaches, directed to cable-type secondary battery, at least one anode 10 and 11 extending longitudinally and having a horizontal cross section of a predetermined shape, a first electrolyte layer 31 surrounding the anode and serving as an ion channel, at least one cathode 20 and 21 extending longitudinally and having a horizontal cross section of a predetermined shape, a second electrolyte layer 32 serving as an ion channel commonly surrounding the anode and the cathode, and a protection coating 40 surrounding the second electrolyte layer 32. The anode and the cathode are arranged in parallel. The cable-type secondary battery may further comprise an electrolyte layer on the cathode 20 and 21 [0024], see Figure 1. The electrolyte layers are formed from a solid electrolyte [0028] and the anode or the cathode may have a cross section of a circular shape [0027].
PNG
media_image3.png
295
243
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Skorobogatiy and Kwon are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely secondary batteries.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cathode and the anode to be disposed in an individual cylinders encased in a larger cylindrical solid-state electrolyte material. Doing so would result in a secondary battery of a new linear structure that is easily adaptable in shape and has excellent stability and performance [0009], as recognized by Kwon.
Claim 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skorobogatiy et al. (WO 2019109171 A1; hereinafter " Skorobogatiy"), in view of Zhou et al. (“Progress in flexible lithium batteries and future prospects,” Energy Environ. Sci., 2014, 7, 1307; hereinafter “Zhou”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahashi et al. (JP 2020009771 A; hereinafter “Takahashi”, see attached machine translation for reference).
Regarding claim 14, Skorobogatiy discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above.
Skorobogatiy further discloses an outer layer (covering; [0050]) for protection [0050].
However, Skorobogatiy fails to disclose that the outer layer is selected from the group consisting of a flexible enamel, a ceramic enamel, nylon, and polyester.
Takahashi teaches, directed the outer casing of a battery, an insulating synthetic resin film such as a polyamide resin or polyester resin that is provided on the metal thin film as the outer surface of the outer casing [0130].
Skorobogatiy and Takahashi are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely secondary batteries.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the outer layer to be selected from the group consisting of a flexible enamel, a ceramic enamel, nylon, and polyester. Doing so would result in blocking the permeation of electrolytes and gases, ensuring insulation, and also providing resistance to electrolytes [0130], as recognized by Takahashi.
Regarding claim 15, Skorobogatiy discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above.
With respect to the limitation wherein the outer layer is suitable for sewing, knitting, weaving, and finishing operations, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed article is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed article from a prior art article satisfying the claimed structural limitations (see MPEP 2114(II)). Therefore, while the intended use language of the claim has been considered, it is noted that the prior art modified thread is capable of performing the functions as claimed because, as Skorobogatiy further discloses, an application is in wearable technology and textiles, and/or compact power source units. Indeed, certain embodiments of the invention could be woven into fabric by a standard loom; [0070], which allows for the prior art to perform the functions as claimed.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skorobogatiy et al. (WO 2019109171 A1; hereinafter " Skorobogatiy"), and further in view of Golodnitsky et al. (WO 2021106001 A1; hereinafter “Golodnitsky”).
Regarding claim 20, Skorobogatiy discloses a solid-state battery (a lithium-ion battery; [009]) comprising:
A cathode [009], an anode [009], and a solid-state electrolyte layer disposed between the cathode and the anode (the anode and the cathode are each coated with an electrolyte comprising polyethylene oxide and a lithium salt; and wherein the anode and the cathode are woven together to form the flexible wire [009]), wherein the cathode, the anode, and the solid-state electrolyte layer are comprised of flexible materials (the conductive wires [0018, 0030], the coating [0020], binder [0021, 0033] and conductive additive [0023, 0035] of the anode and cathode can be of any sufficiently flexible materials known in the art, as well as, the electrolyte [0040]) to form a thread (flexible wire; [009]; See Figure 1); the thread is washable (the outer covering is at least one heat or UV curable resin; [0050]; the coating is performed by dipping the LIB into a monomer and then curing it; [0066]). Skorobogatiy further discloses that an application is in wearable technology and textiles, and/or or compact power source units. Indeed, certain embodiments of the invention could be woven into fabric by a standard loom; [0070]. Accordingly, a skilled artisan would find it obvious that the coating is thus washable because it is used in textiles, which are reasonably washable.
However, Skorobogatiy fails to disclose that the cathode and the anode are disposed in concentric layers in one cylinder containing the anode and the cathode, the anode and the cathode separated by the solid-state electrolyte layer.
Golodnitsky teaches, directed to a battery, an inner electrode 20 (anode or cathode) that incorporates current collector 10, and is enwrapped by a solid electrolyte 30 and outer electrode 40 (Page 47, lines 12-16, see figure 9A).
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify cathode and the anode are disposed in concentric layers in one cylinder containing the anode and the cathode, the anode and the cathode separated by the solid-state electrolyte layer. Doing so would result in high power capability of the battery. (Page 47, line 20), as recognized by Golodnitsky.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (see Remarks dated 07/10/2026, page 10) that the amendment to claims 1 and 20, the feature of the thread is washable, and the solid-state battery comprises metal oxide intercalated nanoparticles grown directly onto carbon nanotubes (CNTs), overcomes the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Applicant further argues that Skorobogatiy does not teach the limitation of the thread is washable. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Applicant misunderstands the position of the Examiner. The Examiner maintains that even though polyethylene oxide may dissolve in water, as stated by Applicant during interview, the outer covering of the thread is not polyethylene oxide, but rather a UV curable resin, that is later cured (Skorobogatiy, [0066]). Accordingly, the thread is intended to be in wearable technology and textiles (Skorobogatiy; [0070]), and a skilled artisan would find it obvious to that the coating is thus washable because it is used in textiles, which are reasonably washable. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding rejections of claims 2-12, and 14-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103, applicant argues that Skorobogatiy fails to teach or suggest all of the features recited in independent claim 1, and that Golodnitsky, Zhou, Nunez Lopez, Uphadyaya, Colachis, Kwon, and Takahashi do not remedy the alleged deficiencies. The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons set forth above. Accordingly, Applicant's arguments are unpersuasive, and the Examiner asserts that the rejections of dependent claims 2-12, and 14-17 are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kwon et al. (US 9236629 B2) teaches a cable-type secondary battery with free shape adaptation.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JESSICA N LIZARAZU whose telephone number is (571)272-9697. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-6:00pm.
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 5712703879. 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.
/J.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
