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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-17, in the reply filed on May 29th, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 12 defines the volume of the claimed uptake rooms, but does not require the presence of a new element or a required property of an element previously recited. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2021/0399336 A1) with evidence provided by Liu (US 2021/0119219 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches an anode-solid electrolyte sub-assembly comprising an anode current collector (Fig. 3, 10), a solid electrolyte (Fig. 3, 20) with a first portion comprising uptake rooms (Kim’s recesses; [0055]) and a second portion without uptake rooms. Kim teaches a first coating part (the claimed insulating layer, Fig. 3, 23; [0066]) that is between the current collector and the second portion of the electrolyte. Kim also teaches a second coating part (Fig. 3, 25; [0055]) that functions as the interlayer.
PNG
media_image1.png
420
761
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim fails to teach a portion of the interlayer that is between the anode current collector and the first portion of the solid electrolyte. Liu is analogous art to Kim because both discuss batteries (Kim, [0002]; Liu, title). Liu teaches that a current collector with an increased conductivity will result in an improved performance of the electrochemical device in which the current collector is installed [0077]. Kim teaches that the interlayer, the second coating part, contains an electrically conductive material [0072]. Coating the current collector with this interlayer would increase the conductivity of the current collector and thus improve performance, as discussed by Liu. This coating would result in the interlayer being between the anode current collector and the first portion of the solid electrolyte. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to coat Kim’s current collector with the interlayer in order to improve the conductivity of the current collector.
Regarding claim 3, the uptake rooms, as depicted above, are recessed at an angle from one side of the solid electrolyte. Since holes can be construed to have almost any kind of shape, the uptake rooms as shown above have an empty space with a hole shape.
Regarding claims 4 and 9, since lithium is precipitated in the uptake rooms, the uptake rooms comprise lithium [0056].
Regarding claim 5, the uptake room contains the interlayer which may be comprised of gold or silver [0072].
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the interlayer may comprise carbon black or carbon nanotubes [0072].
Regarding claim 10, the interlayer may have a thickness between 0.1 nm – 10 µm [0073], overlapping with the claimed range of 0.5 µm (500 nm) – 10 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 11, the insulation layer may have a thickness between 0.1 nm – 1 µm [0069], overlapping with the claimed range of 0.001 µm (1 nm) – 10 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Kim does not explicitly teach that the thickness of the insulation layer must be equal or less than a thickness of the interlayer. However, it would be a matter of routine experimentation and optimization to determine a range where the thickness of the insulation layer is less than the interlayer and that said difference in thicknesses achieves a positive result. Furthermore, Kim’s thickness range of the insulation layer has a much lower upper limit than the thickness of the interlayer. This may lead one of ordinary skill in the art to the reasonable conclusion that using a thinner insulation layer may result in improved results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use an insulation layer that has a thickness that is less than or equal to a thickness of the interlayer.
Claim 12 does not contain language that further limits the subject matter of claim 1. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 suffices for a rejection of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, the insulation layer may comprise aluminum oxide, zirconium oxide, and/or a combination of the two [0067].
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Kim teaches a battery comprising a cathode [0013], the anode assembly of claim 1 [0013], and an oxide or sulfide solid electrolyte (as required by claim 16, [0085]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Liu and further in view of Sakamoto (US 2020/02589211). Kim teaches that the interlayer may include an electrically conductive material, including molybdenum or tungsten [0072]. Kim however, fails to teach whether or not those materials have the claimed ionic and electronic conductivities. Sakamoto is analogous art to Kim because both discuss batteries (Sakamoto, title; Kim, title). Sakamoto discloses a solid-state electrolyte that comprises a compound with the generic formula LiwAxM2Re3-yOz [0045] where M may be molybdenum or tungsten [0049]. The electrolyte further comprises a dopant that may be molybdenum, copper, tungsten, or a combination thereof [0053]. Sakamoto’s electrolyte is electronically conductive and contains the elements disclosed by Kim, and is therefore suitable to be used in Kim’s interlayer. See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use Sakamoto’s solid electrolyte in Kim’s interlayer because Sakamoto’s electronically conductive material is suitable for intended use.
Furthermore, this compound has an ionic conductivity greater than 10-5 S/cm and an electronic conductivity greater than 10-6 S/cm, overlapping with the claimed ranges of 10-8 S/cm and 4 x 10-9 S/cm, respectively. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Liu and further in view of Beck (US 2021/0344082 A1). Kim’s insulating layer is inside of the uptake room, but Kim fails to explicitly teach the presence of a lithium-metal alloy inside of the uptake room. Beck is analogous art to Kim because both discuss batteries (Beck, [0003]; Kim, title). Kim teaches that their insulating layer has a property of forming a seed of lithium having a low contact angle such that lithium precipitates in the uptake rooms (Kim, [0066]). Beck teaches a layer that decreases the contact angle of lithium when lithium contacts said layer (Beck, [0086]). Beck teaches many materials which may comprise their layer, including a lithium-zinc alloy (Beck, [0080]) and aluminum oxide (Beck, [0078]). Since Beck’s layer has the intended purpose of having a low contact angle for lithium and includes a compound mentioned by Kim, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Beck’s layer is suitable to be used in Kim’s disclosure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use a layer comprised of a lithium-zinc alloy and aluminum oxide (Beck’s layer) in Kim’s disclosure as the insulating layer. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Liu and further in view of Salot (US 2008/0044732 A1). Kim does not teach or discuss stresses at the electrode/electrolyte interface. Kim and Salot are analogous art because both discuss batteries (Kim, title; Salot, title). Salot teaches an anode configuration that is comprise of nanowires that result in a lot of space in the anode (abstract). All of this space allows for natural expansion during charging and discharging as well as lithium deposition [0025]. Furthermore, Salot teaches that the solid electrolyte layer that is adjacent to the anode does not experience any stress due to this empty space [0025], which is preferably larger than 80% of the anode [0026]. This lack of stress at that location corresponds with the claimed Von Mises stress of 0 at the interface between the anode and solid electrolyte. However, Salot also notes that the amount of empty space to achieve this effect is specific to each insertion material [0026]. Therefore, optimizing the amount of space in Kim’s anodes (by modifying the size and amount of uptake rooms) would result in an elimination of stress at the electrolyte/anode interface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to optimize the space of Kim’s uptake rooms in order to eliminate stress at the anode/electrolyte interface.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Liu and further in view of Badding (US 2019/0044186 A1). Kim fails to teach the specific usage of a solid electrolyte with the claimed composition. Badding is analogous art to Kim because both discuss batteries (Kim, title; Badding, title). Badding discloses a solid electrolyte comprising a lithium-ion inorganic conductive layer and an amorphous phase on the surface of that layer (abstract). Badding teaches that the inorganic conductive layer may be Li7La3Zr1.7W0.3O12 [0084], satisfying the claimed composition where x = 4 and a = 0.3. Badding continues to teach that this solid electrolyte is suitable to be used in a lithium battery [0006]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use Badding’s solid electrolyte in Kim’s battery because Badding’s electrolyte is suitable for Kim’s intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Celik (Three-dimensional stress analysis of solid oxide fuel cell anode micro structures) discusses Von Mises stress in anodes in fuel cells. Their work suggests that increased temperatures increase Von Mises stress and that porosity decreases Von Mises stress during operation (abstract).
Zeng (Thermal stress analysis of a planar anode-supported solid oxide fuel cell: Effects of anode porosity) also teaches that an increased porosity results in a decrease of Von Mises stress (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN K BLACKWELL-RUDASILL whose telephone number is (571)270-0563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/R.B.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights