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 .
Summary
This is the response to the Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on 09/02/2026.
Claims 1-14 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kogetsu et al. (US 2007/0031733).
Addressing claims 1 and 6, Kogetsu discloses a battery (secondary battery, [0012], fig. 1), comprising:
a positive electrode 11 [0012];
a negative electrode 12 [0012]; and
an electrolyte layer 13 between the positive electrode and the negative electrode ([0012], fig. 1), wherein
the negative electrode includes a negative electrode current collector 12a [0041] and a negative electrode active material layer 12b [0041] located between the negative electrode current collector 12a and the electrolyte layer 13 (fig. 1),
the negative electrode active material layer comprises a plurality of columnar bodies 21 (fig. 2),
the columnar bodies comprise silicon [0062] and a filler comprising non-alloyed elemental nickel ([0063], metal element M that is nickel), and
the filler is embedded in the columnar bodies (Kogetsu implicitly discloses that the element nickel is embedded in the columnar bodies because paragraph [0063] discloses the metal element M is included in the silicon material).
Addressing claims 2 and 5, Kogetsu implicitly discloses the columnar bodies comprise a matrix surrounding the filler and the matrix comprises the silicon because the majority of the active material is silicon which forms the claimed silicon matrix surrounding the filler.
Addressing claim 3, Kogetsu does not disclose electrolyte is included in the negative electrode active material layer, which satisfies the limitation of current claim.
Addressing claim 4, fig. 2 shows the claimed configuration.
Addressing claim 10, paragraph [0070] discloses solid electrolyte with lithium ion conductivity.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kogetsu et al. (US 2007/0031733) in view of Tani et al. (WO2012117991 with provided machine English translation).
Addressing claim 7, Kogetsu is silent regarding the filler has a particulate shape.
Tani discloses a negative electrode material comprises columnar bodies of silicon (fig. 1 shows protrusions that correspond to the claimed columnar bodies; the active material is made of silicon as described in page 3 of the translation document; the active material includes Ni as described in pages 3-4 of the translation document). The nickel filler has a particulate shape as shown in fig. 1.
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the active material of Kogetsu with the known nickel filler that has particulate shape as disclosed by Tani in order to obtain the predictable result of suppressing volume expansion and contraction of silicon during discharge (Tani, pages 3-4 of the translation document).
Addressing claim 8, Kogetsu discloses the negative electrode current collector is made of copper; therefore, Kogetsu is silent regarding the claimed nickel material.
Tani discloses the current collector for a negative electrode is made of copper or nickel (page 8, paragraph 5).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the battery of Kogetsu by substituting the known copper current collector material with the known nickel current collector material disclosed by Tani in order to obtain the predictable result of conducting electrical current from the negative electrode (Rationale B, KSR decision, MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kogetsu et al. (US 2007/0031733) in view of Lyman (US 5,567,544).
Addressing claim 9, Kogetsu is silent regarding the negative electrode current collector comprises a substrate and a coating layer covering the substrate and comprising nickel.
Lyman discloses a battery comprising a negative electrode current collector that comprises a substrate 92 and a coating layer 94 made of nickel (col. 11 ln 42-48).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the negative electrode current collector of Kogetsu with the known structure of a substrate with a coating layer made of nickel disclosed by Lyman in order to obtain the predictable result of forming a negative electrode current collector for a secondary battery (Rationale B, KSR decision, MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kogetsu et al. (US 2007/0031733) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2018/0241082).
Addressing claim 11, Kogetsu is silent regarding the solid electrolyte is sulfide solid electrolyte.
Suzuki discloses non-aqueous electrolyte for secondary battery that is made of solid electrolyte [0004]. The solid electrolyte is sulfide solid electrolyte [0130].
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the nonaqueous electrolyte of Kogetsu with the known sulfide solid electrolyte disclosed by Suzuki in order to obtain the predictable result of forming nonaqueous electrolyte for a secondary battery with reduced reductive decomposition that improves battery performance (Rationale B, KSR decision, MPEP 2143; Suzuki, [0004]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 12, the prior art does not disclose or make obvious the limitation of current claim. Iriyama et al. (US 2011/0244328) discloses the formation of columnar bodies comprising silicon by doping and dedoping Li, by charging and discharging the negative electrode, via electrochemical process in a battery structure [0063-0066]; however, the battery structure that includes the negative electrode is not a laminated body including the negative electrode current collector, the thin film, an electrolyte layer and the positive electrode as required by current claim. Tamura appears to teach charging and discharging the negative electrode structure in a battery structure to form the columnar bodies comprising silicon; however, the filler of Tamura is not the claimed non-alloyed elemental nickel as claimed. Kogetsu discloses forming the negative electrode comprising columnar bodies comprising silicon and non-alloyed element nickel; however, the formation of the columnar bodies is not from charging and discharging the laminated bodies in the claimed manner. The formation of the columnar bodies according to Kagetsu is done by vapor-deposition in order to obtain the required orientation of the columnar bodies. Claims 13-14 are allowed as dependents of claim 12.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BACH T DINH whose telephone number is (571)270-5118. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 EST.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571)-272-1307. 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.
/BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 09/18/2026
Prosecution Insights