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 .
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.
Specification
The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe (US 2002/0012625).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe discloses a flat-shaped all-solid battery, comprising:
a battery container constituted by an outer can (17) and a sealing can (top lid, as pictured in Fig. 9); and
a stack which a positive electrode (layer 12), a solid electrolyte layer (layer 15), and a negative electrode (13) are stacked to form,
wherein the stack is housed in the battery container (as depicted in Fig. 9), and
a conductive porous member (current collector 14, in Fig. 9) constituted by a molded body of graphite and having flexibility is disposed between the stack and an inner bottom surface of the outer can (see Fig. 9 where the current collector is between the stack and the inner bottom surface of the outer can, and see paragraph 88 which discloses that the current collector is a flexible graphite sheet).
Watanabe teaches a flexible graphite sheet as a current collector and teaches that this flexible graphite sheet is produced by baking an aromatic polyimide film of thickness less than 300 microns at a temperature of 2500C (see paragraph 91). Such a process will produce an expanded graphite (see discussion in the Arguments section below for reasoning why this occurs).
Furthermore, Watanabe does not utilize the terms “compressibility and restorability” to describe the physical properties of the claimed molded body of expandable graphite. The Office notes, however, that such a feature is assumed to be present in Watanabe teaches the same material (expandable/expanded graphite). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe further discloses the conductive porous member is disposed respectively between the stack and the inner bottom surface of the sealing can, and between the stack and the inner bottom surface of the outer can (see Fig. 9 which illustrates flexible carbon current collectors (14) on both sides of the stack).
Regarding claim 3, Watanabe further discloses an electrode (11) proximate to the sealing can is constituted by a molded body of an electrode material mixture containing an active material (see paragraph 25 which discloses the presence of an active material in both the positive and negative electrodes).
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe the molded body of the electrode material mixture contains no binder (see paragraphs 184-188 which discloses the manufacture steps of the positive electrode that contains no binder).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Watanabe further discloses the conductive porous member has a thickness of 0.03 to 0.5 mm (see paragraph 227 which discloses an embodiment where the current collector is 150 microns thick) and a density of 0.5 to 1.7g/cm3 (see paragraph 227 which discloses a density of 1 g/cc).
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iriyama (US 6,803,150) in view of Zhamu (US 2009/0057940) and Yanagihara (US 2012/0009474).
Regarding claim 1, Iriyama discloses a flat-shaped all-solid battery, comprising:
a battery container (Fig. 1) constituted by an outer can (2 or 1 and a sealing can (2 or 1); and
a stack (4, 5, 6, see Fig. 1) which a positive electrode (8) a solid electrolyte layer (5), and a negative electrode (3) are stacked to form,
wherein the stack is housed in the battery container (as depicted in Fig. 1), and
a conductive porous member acting as a current collector (see col. 7 lines 32-33 which discloses that the current collector can be a carbon sheet, in which the carbon sheet has a porous structure) that is disposed between the stack and an inner bottom surface of the outer can (as depicted in Fig. 1).
Iriyama teaches a coin type battery in which a current collector is located on the inner surfaces of an upper and lower housing of the coin cell and teaches that the current collector can be made from a number of materials, including a carbon sheet. However, Iriyama does not explicitly teach that the conductive porous member is constituted by a molded body of expandable graphite and having flexibility.
Zhamu also discloses a carbon sheet that is usable in a battery (see abstract).
Zhamu teaches the generation of a flexible carbon sheet that has high conductivity (greater than 100S/cm, paragraph 31) and is less anisotropic (paragraph 33) along with being easily molded into a current collector (paragraph 32). Zhamu teaches that this carbon sheet is flexible and is made with an expanded carbon (as mentioned in the abstract).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the molded carbon sheet of Zhamu in the battery cell of Iriyama in order to take advantage of its manufacturing ease, high conductivity and its minimal anisotropic nature.
Furthermore, Iriyama, as modified by Zhamu, does not utilize the terms “compressibility and restorability” to describe the physical properties of the claimed molded body of expandable graphite. The Office notes, however, that such a feature is assumed to be present in modified Iriyama teaches the same material (expandable/expanded graphite). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
In addition, Iriyama discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte, but does not disclose the claimed solid electrolyte.
Yanagihara also discloses a coin type cell (paragraph 156).
Yanagihara teaches the interchangeability of electrolyte types is well known in the art. See paragraph 156 which states that nonaqueous electrolyte can be interchanged with gel and solid electrolytes. As such, modifying the nonaqueous electrolyte of modified Iriyama with the solid electrolyte of Yanagihara amounts to nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield entirely predictable results and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US 2002/0012625) applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kato (US 2015/0333368).
Regarding claim 8, Watanabe teaches that the electrolyte maybe a gel, liquid or solid, but does not explicitly disclose the presence of a sulfide-based solid electrolyte.
Kato also discloses a battery (see abstract).
Kato discloses that a sulfide solid electrolyte is preferable to a liquid electrolyte (the kind disclosed in Watanabe) because solid electrolytes do not carry the same risk of leaking/flammability that comes with many liquid electrolytes. Furthermore, Kato discloses that sulfide based solid electrolytes are preferable as they provide considerable conductivity (paragraphs 7 and 65).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the sulfide solid electrolyte of Kato to the battery of Watanabe as such a modification would reduce the risk of electrolyte leakage while also providing effective conductivity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 3-4, Applicant argues that Watanabe does not teach a “molded body of expandable graphite and having flexibility” and states that one of ordinary skill would recognize the difference between the structure being claimed and the fired material disclosed by Watanabe. The Office respectfully disagrees with this argument. Applicant’s claims (and specification, for that matter) are fairly broad/generic when reciting the “expandable graphite”. The Office, absent a specific definition of the term in the disclosure, must give this term its broadest reasonable interpretation. As recited before, the process of Watanabe will indeed produce an expanded graphite due to the heat treatment described in paragraph 91. As a further example of what is understood to be "expanded graphite" in the art, Applicant is directed to US 9,984,794 which gives yet another example of expanded graphite being formed (col. 7 lines 12-19) by process temperatures similar to that of Watanabe. In addition, the term “molded” is met by Watanabe’s recitation of a force being applied to seal the graphite material into the coin cell in paragraph 138.
On page 5, Applicant argues:
“Zhamu teaches that expanded graphite is mixed with unexpanded graphite, and then they are pressurized. Zhamu fails to teach or suggest an expanded graphite molded body formed of expanded graphite alone.”
In this argument, Applicant appears to be arguing a feature which is not claimed. Applicant state sthat Zhamu does not teach “an expanded graphite molded body formed of expanded graphite alone”. The claims do not state that there is ONLY expanded graphite in the conductive porous member. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., only expanded graphite in the conductive porous member) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art, Watanabe, teaches a method of manufacturing a flat battery similar to that claimed. However, the prior art neither teaches nor suggests such a process which also includes the structural limitation of “a” and “t” being in the claimed relationship to each other prior to the outer can covering the assembly.
Relevant Prior Art
US 8,501,307 – Discloses a battery current collector that comprises a molded expanded graphite material in a battery (see abstract).
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 MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/MATTHEW J MERKLING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725