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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill starting from Huang’s solid-state cell would have no reason to look to Masarapu’s liquid-cell winding/stacking architecture because the two reference solve unrelated problems using electrolyte systems with fundamentally different requirements. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It would be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that the stacking used in the liquid cells of Masarapu would also function to increase the performance of a solid state battery. Increasing performance of a battery by stacking additional layers together would certainly apply to solid state batteries in the same way as it applies to liquid cells. Thus, it is held that the KSR rationale cited in the previous Office Action is indeed applicable as one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the stacking architecture used in the liquid cells of Masarapu with the solid state cells of Huang for increasing the performance of a solid state battery.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2022/0045366; hereinafter “Huang”) in view of Masarapu et al. (US 9,780,358; hereinafter “Masarapu”) and Hoshiba et al. (JP 2013125707 with reliance upon the English-language machine translation; hereinafter “Hoshiba”).
In regard to claims 1-2 and 5, Huang discloses a solid-state multilayer lithium ion battery (lithium solid-state cell 100) comprising: a second electrode (“positive electrode active material (cathode) 120)”)/separator (positive electrode separator 130)/first electrode (combination of and negative electrode separator 140 and “negative electrode active material (anode) 150”)/first current collector (“negative electrode (current collector) 160”) stack, wherein the first electrode is an anode composite film comprises an active material (active material as discussed in [0034]), an electrolyte (electrolyte as discussed in [0044]) and a polymer binder (binders as discussed in [0043]) as recited in claim 2, the second electrode is a cathode composite film (binder, electrolyte and active material such as lithiated nickel-manganese-cobalt oxide or Li-Mn spinels; see [0027]-[0029]), and the separator is a composite electrolyte separator (“Positive electrode separator 130 may include one or more of a solid electrolyte material, binder, sulfur or sulfur containing material, and non-reactive oxides;” see [0036]), and a second current collector (“positive electrode (current collector) 110”) laminated to the second electrode. See Figure 1 and paragraphs [0023]-[0051]. In regard to claim 2, Huang discloses wherein the anode composite film comprises.
Huang is silent in regard to wherein the stack additionally comprises the additional elements of a first electrode/separator/second electrode additionally on the first current collector, a plurality of second current collectors, and conductive adhesive layers between the second electrodes and the adjacent second current collectors.
Masarapu discloses a battery design which comprises a second electrode (positive electrodes 196, 208)/separator (separators 198,210)/first electrode (negative electrodes 188,200,212)/first current collector (current collectors 226, 230, 234)/first electrode (negative electrodes 190,202,214)/separator (separators 192,204)/second electrode (positive electrode 194,206) stack wherein a plurality of second current collectors (current collectors 228,232) are disposed between the second electrodes. Masarapu discloses that the number of electrode layers within the electrode stack can be designed to meet performance and structural targets. See Figure 2d and col. 16, lines 14-52.
Hoshiba discloses a solid state battery wherein a conductive adhesive layer (adhesive layer 3) is placed between a positive electrode (positive electrode layer 4) and the adjacent positive current collector (positive electrode current collecting member 2) to bind the layers together. See Figure 1 and pages 2-3 of the translation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of cell elements being duplicated in a stack as disclosed by Masarapu to modify the cell element stack of Huang to arrive at the claimed arrangement for the purpose of increasing the performance of the battery. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.). It would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the above combined battery of Huang and Masarapu to have included the adhesive layer of Hoshiba between the second electrodes and the adjacent second current collectors for the purpose of binding the layers together absent any new or unexpected results.
It is further noted that the prior art is silent in regard to wherein the stacks are formed as a plurality of preformed cell elements. However, the limitations regarding the stacks being provided as preformed cell elements is considered a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
In regard to claim 3, Huang discloses wherein the cathode composite film comprises an active material (such as lithiated nickel-manganese-cobalt oxide or Li-Mn spinels; see [0027]-[0028]), an electrolyte (see [0029]) and a polymer binder (see [0029]).
In regard to claim 4, Huang discloses wherein the CES comprises an inorganic particulate ion conductor (“solid electrolyte material;” [0036]) and an organic polymer (the polymer binders discussed in [0038]).
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 TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM - 3:30 PM ET.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
