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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 07/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/15/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application, of claims 18-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-17 are being examined on the merits in this Office Action.
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) 1-10, 12-13 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakehata et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0149605) and further in view of Cui et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0183856).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 6, Kakehata teaches an anode (i.e., negative electrode) (100) for a solid-state secondary battery (paragraph [0085]), the anode comprising:
a three-dimensional porous current collector (102) comprising a plurality of pores (see fugue 2A below) (space in between protrusions 101b) (paragraph [0093]),
wherein pores of the plurality of the pores have size and a pitch (paragraph [0110]); and
a first anode active material layer (i.e., negative electrode active material layer) (102) disposed on a first side of the three-dimensional porous current collector (see figure 2A below) (paragraph [0085]-[0087]),
wherein the first anode active material layer (102) is disposed in at least a portion of the pores of the three-dimensional porous current collector (see figure 2A below) (paragraph [0085]).
PNG
media_image1.png
333
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kakehata does not teach the specifics of the current collector having a porosity of about 10 percent to about 99 percent, based on a total volume of the three-dimensional porous current collector and a ratio of the size to the pitch is about 0.1 to about 0.9.
Cui, directed to an electrode (paragraph [0002]), teaches a current collector substrate characterized by an opening size of 50nm to 500µm (paragraph [0050]) and a porosity of 10-90% (paragraph [0059]). Cui teaches the size minimize fluctuation of overall electrode thickness (paragraph [0050]) and the porosity allow more swelling of nanostructures during cycling (paragraph [0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the current collector of Kakehata to include an opening size of 50nm to 500µm and a porosity of 10-90% as taught by Cui, in order to minimize fluctuation of overall electrode thickness and allow more swelling of nanostructures during cycling. Kakehata taches a pitch (i.e., height) size of 1-100µm. (paragraph [0110] and Cui the size of 50nm to 500µm which overlaps the claimed ratio (Example: an opening size of 1µm/a pitch size of 2µm = 0.5 ratio).
It is noted that Kakehata, as modified by Cui differ in the exact same ratio as recited in the instant claim, however, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the ratio of Kakehata overlap the instant claimed ratio and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It has been held in the courts that 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).
As to the limitation “having a lithiophilic property”, such is not explicitly articulated in Kakehata however, Kakehata teaches the current collector formed of a metal such as copper, aluminum, stainless steel, titanium, iron (paragraph [0117]), therefore, since the material are the same as the ones claimed, a skill artisan would have expected the same properties including being lithiophilic.
Regarding claim 5, Kakehata teaches the pores having a circular or square shape (paragraph [0107]) (see figures 4A-4D) (Note: Kakehata teaches the protrusions with these shapes however, the pores (space in between protrusion) will conform to the same shape as the protrusions). Further, since Kakehata disclose an identical and/or substantially identical current collector as that claimed, the skilled artisan would expect that simply changing the pore size would not provide a current collector that performs differently than that disclosed in the prior art, such that changes in size/shape are merely a matter of obvious engineering design choice (see MPEP 2144.04), lacking any further distinction thereof.
Regarding claim 7, as indicated above, Kakehata teaches the current collector with identical materials as the one claimed therefore, one of ordinary skilled in the art would have expected the same properties including the ones claimed when analyzed by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. Since there is no clear distinction between the material of claims 6 and that of Kakehata, the current collector of Kakehata would necessarily include the claimed conditional limitations of the instant claim, as these limitations do not further limit the structure of the battery and are related to the properties of the material which the prior art is expected to have (see MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 8, Kakehata teaches the three-dimensional porous anode current collector comprises copper, aluminum, stainless steel, titanium, iron (paragraph [0117]).
Regarding claim 9, Kakehata teaches the current collector can be a foil (paragraph [0009]). Further, Cui teaches the substrate can be a foil or a mesh (paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 10, Kakehata teaches the first anode active material layer comprises: a carbonaceous anode active material (paragraph [0159]) and a first metal (paragraph [0175]).
Regarding claim 12, Kakehata teaches an interlayer (126) on a first side of the first anode active material layer opposite to a second side of the first anode active material on which the three-dimensional porous current collector is disposed, wherein the interlayer comprises a metal or a metal alloy, which is capable of forming an alloy or a compound with lithium (paragraph [0152]).
Regarding claim 13, Kakehata teaches that the alloy can be from stainless steel, gold, platinum, silver, zinc, iron, aluminum, copper, titanium, or nickel which encompasses the claimed formula for M3M4 (M3 can be Ni and M4 can be titanium) (paragraph [0152). As to the pH and solubility, since the material of Kakehata is identical to the one claimed, it would be reasonable to expect the same characteristics including the pH and solubility.
Regarding claim 15, Kakehata teaches a second anode active material layer between the three-dimensional porous current collector and the first anode active material layer (paragraph [0172]), wherein the second anode active material layer comprises a second metal material, and the second metal material is lithium, a second metal, a lithium alloy, or a combination thereof (paragraph [0172]).
Regarding claim 16, Kakehata teaches a solid-state secondary battery (paragraph [0006]) comprising: a cathode (i.e., positive electrode) (paragraph [0028]); the anode of claim 1 (i.e., negative electrode) (paragraph [0006]); and a solid electrolyte between the cathode and the anode (paragraph [0239]).
Regarding claim 17, Kakehata would necessarily include the claimed conditional limitations of the instant claim, as these limitations do not further limit the structure of the battery and are related to the properties or characteristics of the material which the prior art is expected to have (see MPEP 2112). In the specification, the thickness change is due to expansion after charging and discharging. Since the active materials of Kakehata are the same to the ones claimed, such would be expected to expand and contract in the same manner as claimed where a 25% thickness change would necessarily be observed.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakehata et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0149605) and Cui et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0183856), as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0296691).
Regarding claim 11, Kakehata teaches the anode as described above in claims 1 and 10 including a carbonaceous anode active material and the first metal such nickel, iron, gold, copper, or an alloy containing such a metal (paragraph [0175]).
Kakehata does not teach the carbon is amorphous carbon.
Kwon, directed to a battery (paragraph [0003]), teaches an anode active material having carbon material and a metalloid (same as Kakaheta) (paragraph [0116]). Kakehata teaches the amorphous carbon improves the cycle characteristics of the battery (paragraph [0116]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kakehata anode to include amorphous carbon, in order to improve the cycle characteristics of the battery, as taught by Kwon.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakehata et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0149605) and Cui et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0183856), as applied to claims 1 and 11-12 above, and further in view of Hersam et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210194003).
Regarding claim 14, Kakehata teaches the anode as described above in claims 1 and 10 including the interlayer.
Kakehata does not teach the interlayer comprising the alloys as recited in the instant claim.
Hersam, directed to nanosheet for battery anodes (paragraph [0003], [0008]), teaches GeSe as anodes have demonstrated to be of high performance and effective for lithium ion batteries (paragraph [0003], [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kakehata interlayer to include GeSe as taught by Hersam, and expect be effective to increase performance for the battery.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Suriyama et al. (U.S. Patent 7,407,727). Suriyama teaches a current collector with a porosity of 10-50% (i.e., occupancy of the dots of 50-90%) (claim 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN ROLDAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, TONG GUO can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights