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 § 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 13-17, and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107170953 A, of which a complete copy of the Chinese document with a machine translation is provided with this Office Action.
Regarding independent claim 1, as well as claims 19 and 20, CN ‘953 discloses a preparation method of a solid-state battery to form a battery array comprising a plurality of solid-state batteries (see abstract; pages 1-3 of translation under the heading “Description”; and Examples 1-3), in which the method comprises the following steps:
preparing an element layer by powder sintering 3D printing of an electrode material mixture (see the first four paragraphs on page 1 of translation), wherein the element layer is one of a positive electrode element layer, a negative electrode element layer, or a solid-state electrolyte element layer – specifically a positive electrode element layer (see the paragraph bridging pages 2 and 3 of translation, beginning with “positive electrode…”); and
repeatedly printing the element layer for a plurality of times to a preset thickness (of which repeatedly applying 3D printed layers upon one another would be an inherent step in a process of 3D printing), in order to form a positive electrode (see the paragraph bridging pages 2 and 3 of translation, beginning with “positive electrode…”).
Although CN ‘953 fails to explicitly teach annealing and cooling of each element layer after printing, such a step would be conventional in any metal powder formation method (see the 3rd paragraph on page 1 of translation) when each element layer is at an undesirably elevated temperature by conducting annealing and cooling, in order to make a final 3D printed product in the highest possible strongest state according to overlapping manufacturing of a solid product in the form of a battery film electrode, thus obtaining accurately controlled shape and excellent electrochemical performance of the battery electrode (see the 3rd, 4th, and 5th paragraphs on page 1 of translation). With regard to the claim 20 method of preparing a battery array comprising a plurality of solid-state batteries prepared by the method of preparing the solid-state battery of independent claim 1, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Although CN ‘953 fails to explicitly teach a thickness of the positive electrode element layer to be 1-100 microns, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to manufacture the positive electrode element layer via 3D printing to be of any desired thickness (with respect to the size, shape, and design of the solid-state battery), since it would be merely a design choice based on the step of repeatedly printing the element layer for a plurality of times to a preset thickness (in referring to independent claim 1 above). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, although CN ‘953 discloses/suggests the steps of independent claim 1 pertaining to manufacturing the positive electrode element layer via 3D printing of a material mixture and repeatedly printing to be of any desired thickness, CN ‘953 fails to teach that the electrode is a negative electrode (inclusive of a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode material layer), and additionally including the step of cooling and annealing. However, since CN ‘953 discloses making a positive electrode by a 3D printing process, including repeatedly applying 3D printed layers upon one another as an inherent step in a process of 3D printing to form a positive electrode (see the paragraph bridging pages 2 and 3 of translation, beginning with “positive electrode…”), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to manufacture the negative electrode via the same preparation method as applied to independent claim 1 above by using the process of CN ‘953, since CN ‘953 had already taught the process of making any type of electrode, including the distinctly recited positive electrode (see the paragraph bridging pages 2 and 3 of translation, beginning with “positive electrode…”). Furthermore, although CN ‘953 fails to explicitly teach annealing and cooling of each element layer after printing, such a step would be conventional in any metal powder formation method (see the 3rd paragraph on page 1 of translation) when each element layer is at an undesirably elevated temperature by conducting annealing and cooling, in order to make a final 3D printed product in the highest possible strongest state according to overlapping manufacturing of a solid product in the form of a battery film electrode, thus obtaining accurately controlled shape and excellent electrochemical performance of the battery electrode (see the 3rd, 4th, and 5th paragraphs on page 1 of translation).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, although CN ‘953 discloses/suggests the steps of independent claim 1 and claim 3 above, CN ‘953 discloses preparing an electrode, but fails to teach wherein the material of a negative electrode current collector includes copper powders to be repeatedly printed in a plurality of layers to produce at a preset thickness. However, since CN ‘953 discloses 3D printing and using different materials, including lithium-based powders that also include one or more of nickel, cobalt, manganese, iron, and/or titanium (see the 4th full paragraph under the heading “summary of the invention” on page 1 of translation), one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that any one or more metal powders among a group of transition metals (including copper powder, as claimed) as a metal powder material substituted for nickel, cobalt, manganese, iron, and/or titanium produced at a desired thickness would have been an obvious design choice in combination with lithium powder and one or more of the transition metal powders of CN ‘953 (see the 4th full paragraph under the heading “summary of the invention” on page 1 of translation), for the purpose of obtaining an electrode of desired material composition. With regard to the types of materials that are suitable for use, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 6, although CN ‘953 discloses/suggests the steps of independent claim 1 above, as well as that an electrode printing material is a solid-state material comprising oxides (see the 4th full paragraph under the heading “summary of the invention” on page 1 of translation), as an example in the form of lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide, CN ‘953 does not disclose manufacture of a solid-state electrolyte element layer, including that the oxide is of a NASICON or garnet structure. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to manufacture the electrolyte element layer via the same preparation method as applied to independent claim 1 above by using the process of CN ‘953, since CN ‘953 had already taught the process of making any type of electrode, including the distinctly recited positive electrode (see the paragraph bridging pages 2 and 3 of translation, beginning with “positive electrode…”). With regard to the types of (oxide) materials that are suitable for use, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Although CN ‘953 fails to teach a particle size of the solid-state electrolyte material to be 0.01-30 microns, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to manufacture the positive electrode element layer via 3D printing to be of any desired thickness (with respect to the size, shape, and design of the solid-state battery) while using any desired particle size (or range of particle sizes) of the solid-state electrolyte material, since it would be merely a design choice based on the step of repeatedly printing the element layer for a plurality of times to a preset thickness (in referring to independent claim 1 above). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claim 14, although CN ‘953 discloses/suggests the steps of independent claim 1 and claim 13, including disclosing/suggesting that the electrode is a negative electrode (inclusive of a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode material layer), CN ‘953 fails to teach a step of printing a surrounding shell with cooling channels for one or both of the negative electrode current collector and/or the negative electrode material layer. However, since CN ‘953 discloses the process of 3D printing of an electrode, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further include printing of a shell along with a current collector and/or a material layer of the electrode, including with cooling channels, in order to manufacture a unitary component of the solid-state battery, thus further enhancing a final 3D printed product in the highest possible strongest state according to overlapping manufacturing of a solid product in the form of a battery film electrode, thus obtaining accurately controlled shape and excellent electrochemical performance of the battery electrode (see the 3rd, 4th, and 5th paragraphs on page 1 of translation).
Regarding claims 15-17, although CN ‘953 discloses/suggests the steps of independent claim 1 pertaining to manufacturing the positive electrode element layer via 3D printing of a material mixture and repeatedly printing to be of any desired thickness, as well as disclosing/suggesting powder materials of copper (of applicants’ claims 4 and 5) or aluminum (to form aluminum oxide of applicants’ claims 10 and 11), CN ‘953 fails to explicitly teach that the electrode is a negative electrode (inclusive of a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode material layer) and its preparation step, as well as preparation of a solid-state electrolyte, of which positive and negative electrode layers and the solid-state electrolyte are all made by the preparation method in (sequential) process steps, as claimed. However, since CN ‘953 discloses making a positive electrode by a 3D printing process, including repeatedly applying 3D printed layers upon one another as an inherent step in a process of 3D printing to form a positive electrode (see the paragraph bridging pages 2 and 3 of translation, beginning with “positive electrode…”), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to manufacture the negative electrode (inclusive of a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode material layer) and a solid-state electrolyte via the same preparation method as applied to independent claim 1 above (including sequentially) by using the process of CN ‘953, since CN ‘953 had already taught the process of making any type of electrode, including the distinctly recited positive electrode (see the paragraph bridging pages 2 and 3 of translation, beginning with “positive electrode…”). Furthermore, although CN ‘953 fails to explicitly teach annealing and cooling of each element layer after printing, such a step would be conventional in any metal powder formation method (see the 3rd paragraph on page 1 of translation) when each element layer is at an undesirably elevated temperature by conducting annealing and cooling, in order to make a final 3D printed product in the highest possible strongest state according to overlapping manufacturing of a solid product in the form of a battery film electrode, thus obtaining accurately controlled shape and excellent electrochemical performance of the battery electrode (see the 3rd, 4th, and 5th paragraphs on page 1 of translation). In addition, since CN ‘953 discloses a 3D printing process and using different materials in the manufacturing process of electrode material layers, any substituted metal material powder to be used in the 3D printing process, such as aluminum or copper (to be produced at a desired thickness in a preset number of layers) would be merely a design choice based on the step of repeatedly printing the element layer for a plurality of times to a preset thickness (in referring to independent claim 1 above). With regard to the types of materials that are suitable for use, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding new claims 21 and 24, although CN ‘953 discloses/suggests the steps of the combination of claims 1, 3, and 5 above, CN ‘953 does not explicitly disclose that the copper powder forms a porous (foam) structure during sintering printing, and the lithium powder is filled into the porous structure after melting. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have determined that the lithium metal powder to be filled into the porous (foam) structure of the copper powder after melting would be inherent and/or obvious since melting of one material (lithium) into a porous (foam) structure of copper would necessarily occur when mixing in a melting process.
Regarding new claim 22, although CN ‘953 discloses/suggests the steps of the combination of claims 1, 3, and 5 above, CN ‘953 fails to teach that the lithium powder is at a mass percentage of less than or equal to 20%. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to manufacture the negative electrode element layer via 3D printing to be of any desired mixture, since it would be merely a design choice based on the step of repeatedly printing the element layer. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding new claim 23, CN ‘953 discloses/suggests the steps of the combination of claims 1, 3, and 5 above, and further discloses that the negative electrode current collector is a three-dimensional mesh structure.
Regarding new claim 25, although CN ‘953 discloses/suggests the steps of the combination of claims 1, 3, and 5 above, including that the negative electrode is composed of copper foam and lithium metal filled in voids of the copper foam (in referring to claims 21 and 24 above), CN ‘953 fails to explicitly teach that the negative electrode does not comprise an independent current collector layer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify a 3D printing method applied to the combination of claims 1, 3, and 5, in order to print a specific product as desired, whether in independent or combined format of the current collector layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 12, and 26 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to teach or suggest a preparation method of a solid-state battery that includes all process steps of independent claim 1, and further including the following steps:
a. preparing a positive electrode current collector element layer by powder sintering 3D printing of aluminum powders; and repeatedly printing the positive electrode current collector element layer for a plurality of times to a preset thickness to form the positive electrode current collector, wherein the preparation method further comprises printing an aluminum oxide layer between the positive electrode current collector and the positive electrode material layer, with a thickness of the aluminum oxide layer being less than or equal to 5 microns (of dependent claim 9, from which claim 12 depends); and
b. forming a porous structure by surface-melting a solid-state electrolyte material of large particle size and printing the melted material on the negative electrode current collector, and melting the lithium powder to form liquid lithium metal to fill the pores (of new dependent claim 26 that depends from the combination of claims 1, 3, and 5).
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges the applicants’ amendment received by the USPTO on September 4, 2026. The amendments overcome the prior objections to the abstract, specification, and claims, as well as the prior 35 USC 112(b) rejection. Claims 9, 12, and 26 are newly indicated as allowable subject matter (see above sections 5 and 6). The applicants have cancelled claims 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 18, while adding new claims 21-26. Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 12-17, and 19-26 remain under consideration in the application.
Applicants' arguments filed September 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the applicants’ remarks/arguments on pages 18-23 of the amendment, the applicants first argue (at the bottom of page 18 of the REMARKS/ARGUMENTS section) that CN ‘953 fails to teach or suggest the “annealing and cooling” of each layer being formed. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As an explanation that in conducting conventional 3D printing, especially for metal products, annealing/cooling step(s) is/are essential for the material to achieve its optimal efficiency. In order to print one layer on top of another with full structural integrity of the component, annealing each layer would allow for each printed layer to obtain proper tensile strength.
With regard to the applicants’ table on page 20 of the REMARKS/ARGUMENTS section, while the examiner appreciates the applicants’ table to show the examiner’s characterization versus that of the claimed invention, the teachings of CN ‘953 still read on the claimed invention since the comparison in the table is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. In this instance, there are no active process steps in the claimed invention addressing the annealing/cooling steps with a distinct temperature to indicate one or more difference(s) from the examiner’s characterization. Therefore, the claims remain rejected based on the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In addressing the applicants’ argument in the last full paragraph on page 20 of the REMARKS/ARGUMENTS section, it is noted that independent claim 1 was amended to include the limitations of (cancelled) claim 2, with the applicants arguing that CN ‘953 fails to teach the claimed thickness of “1-100 microns”. Although CN ‘953 fails to explicitly teach a thickness of the positive electrode element layer to be 1-100 microns, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to manufacture the positive electrode element layer via 3D printing to be of any desired thickness (with respect to the size, shape, and design of the solid-state battery), since it would be merely a design choice based on the step of repeatedly printing the element layer for a plurality of times to a preset thickness (in referring to independent claim 1 above). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
On page 21 of the REMARKS/ARGUMENTS section, the applicants argue that CN ‘953 fails to teach “copper powder printing” (as applied to applicants’ claims 3-5). However, since CN ‘953 discloses 3D printing and using different materials, including lithium-based powders that also include one or more of nickel, cobalt, manganese, iron, and/or titanium (see the 4th full paragraph under the heading “summary of the invention” on page 1 of translation), one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that any one or more metal powders among a group of transition metals (including copper powder, as claimed) as a metal powder material substituted for nickel, cobalt, manganese, iron, and/or titanium produced at a desired thickness would have been an obvious design choice in combination with lithium powder and one or more of the transition metal powders of CN ‘953 (see the 4th full paragraph under the heading “summary of the invention” on page 1 of translation), for the purpose of obtaining an electrode of desired material composition. With regard to the types of materials that are suitable for use, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In view of the above 35 USC 103 rejections and for these additional reasons, claims 1, 3-6, 13-17, and 19-25 remain rejected.
Conclusion
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 KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 October 1, 2026
