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 .
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on 8/18/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Office has failed to support the assertion that the claims lack a special technical feature and that a search for all the claims would not impose a serious burden on the Office. This is not found persuasive because the issues that arise in examining method and product claims is diverse and the search for a product would require searches not required by the method and levy a burden on the Office.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Therefore, claims 1-17 remain in the application with claims 13-17 having been withdrawn from consideration as being directed toward a non-elected invention. Claims 1-12 remain active in the application for prosecution thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
Claims 1-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Johnson et al. (2014/0099556).
Johnson et al. (2014/0099556) teaches a solid-state battery separators and method of fabrication. Johnson et al. (2014/0099556) teaches forming the solid-state battery as illustrated in Figs 1 and 2, a collector foil (1020 is coated with a electrode mixture (108) and smoothed by a doctor blade (110) and then dried in an over (114) prior to being treated by heated rollers (116) then an electrolyte (118) is applied, doctor bladed (124), dried in an oven and then treated by heating rollers (128).
Regarding claim 1, the providing of the electrode and electrolyte are taught by electrode slurry (108) and electrolyte slurry (118) being applied to current foil. The reducing the roughness of the surface of the electrode is met by both the doctor blade (110) and/or the heated rollers (116) which would reduce roughness of the coating and the heating of the electrolyte material of from 100-300C would be met by the drying oven and/or the heated rollers (128) as the temperature is taught to be less than 500C.
Regarding claim 2, the providing the electrolyte and heated to be simultaneously would be met by the application of the electrolyte material and “providing” the electrolyte layer while drying and or treating by rollers (128).
Regarding claim 3, the electrode layer is heated by the heated rollers (116) and electrode layer would still be “heated” when electrolyte is applied thereto and hence meet the claimed limitation of heating.
Regarding claim 4, the heating of the electrolyte layer to less than glass transition layer would be met by the heated rollers (166) as they sufficiently melt and soften the electrolyte to cause it to flow into pores and gaps of the electrode [0039].
Regarding claim 5, the reducing the roughness of the electrode layer through heating would be met by the claimed drying over (114) and/or the heated rollers (116).
Regarding claims 6-8, Johnson et al. (2014/0099556) teaches heating the electrode material to about 500C which would inherently anneal the electrode as the temperatures are the same and hence one skilled in the art would expect the heating of 500C to be equivalent to an annealing step. The duration time is silent but would be expected to be within eh claimed 10-300 min. No vacuum or chamber is taught and hence the process would be expected to be produced in an air atmosphere.
Regarding claim 9, the “providing” the electrode would be met by depositing the material (108) and treating with the heated rollers (116) which would meet the sintering as it is at 500C.
Regarding claim 11, Johnson et al. (2014/0099556) teaches the electrolyte to be LIPON [0003],[0004],[0025],[0026].
Regarding claim 12, Johnson et al. (2014/0099556) teaches the electrode to include LiCoO2 [0034] as the term “comprising” only requires the materials to be present and not limited to the those claimed as Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide “comprises” LiCoO2.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (2014/0099556) in combination with Zhang et al. (2020/0028156).
Features detailed above concerning Johnson et al. (2014/0099556) are incorporated here.
Johnson et al. (2014/0099556) fails to teach the electrolyte material to be a ceramic material.
Zhang et al. (2020/0028156) teaches a dry process formation of solid-state lithium ion cell whereby forming the cell having a cathode, electrolyte and anode whereby the electrolyte includes a ceramic material (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Johnson et al. (2014/0099556) cell to substitute one electrolyte for another and utilize a ceramic material for the electrolyte as evidenced by Zhang et al. (2020/0028156) with the expectation of similar success.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6:30-5PM - Fri OFF.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715