Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/390,180

SOLID-STATE BATTERY AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jul 30, 2021
Examiner
KOROVINA, ANNA
Art Unit
1729
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Murata Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
OA Round
4 (Final)
29%
Grant Probability
At Risk
5-6
OA Rounds
4y 4m
To Grant
54%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 29% of cases
29%
Career Allow Rate
101 granted / 345 resolved
-35.7% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+24.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 4m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
390
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
52.7%
+12.7% vs TC avg
§102
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
§112
22.9%
-17.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 345 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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to Amendment Applicant amended claim 1 and added new claim 21; previously, claim 3 was cancelled and claims 13-17 were withdrawn. Thus, claims 1-2, 4-12 and 18-21 are pending and considered in the present Office action. Applicant has amended claim 1; the 103 rejections of the claims are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration a new ground of rejection is necessitated by amendment. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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. 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. Claim(s) 1-2, 4-12, and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita et al. (US 2015/0255827), Iwamoto et al. (US 2003/0232248), Kubota et al. (US 2014/0370365), and Liang et al. (US 2011/0076550), hereinafter Matsushita, Iwamoto, Kubota and Liang. Regarding Claims 1 and 21, Matsushita suggests a solid-state battery comprising a plurality of single cell bodies (Fig.3B), wherein each of the single cell bodies includes: a substrate (10) and a cell element provided on the substrate, wherein the substrate includes a resin material comprising polyamide or polyethylene terephthalate ([0057]), the cell element including a positive electrode layer, a negative electrode layer and a solid electrolyte layer interposed therebetween (12, 14 and 13, Fig. 2B), and an adhesive layer (15), wherein the adhesive layer is provided between the plurality of single cell bodies (Fig. 1B), and the adhesive layer is configured to cover the cell element (see Fig. 1B). Matsushita teaches a positive and negative terminal (i.e., 21b1, 21b2) on opposing sides of each cell body, see e,g, Fig. 2b., Matsushita does not suggest a positive electrode external electrode and a negative electrode external electrode on opposing end surfaces of a laminated body of the pluarlity of single cell bodies such that the adhesive layer contacts at least one side surface of each of the positive electrode external electrode and the negative electrode external electrode. However, Iwamoto shows a laminated body (see Fig. 4) comprising a plurality of single cell bodies comprising a cell element (6, 7, 8, 9, 10, Fig. 4) on a substrate (1, 2 , 3), wherein each cell element includes a positive electrode layer (6, 7), a negative electrode layer (9, 10) and a solid electrolyte layer (8) interposed therebetween, and an adhesive layer (11,12) provided between the plurality of single cell bodies and configured to cover the cell element (6-10); on opposing end surfaces of the laminated body in which the plurality of unit cells are laminated, a positive electrode external electrode (13) and a negative electrode external electrode (14) are provided, and the adhesive layer (11, 12) is in contact with at least one side surface of each of the positive electrode external electrode and the negative electrode external electrode (see e.g., Fig. 4). Iwamoto suggests contact between the external electrodes (13, 14) and the laminated stack (via resin 11, 12) provides protection and insulation of the laminated stack such that high capacity and voltage are expected, [0058-0062]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art on opposing end surfaces of the laminated body in which a plurality of unit cells are laminated, a positive electrode external electrode and a negative electrode external electrode are provided, such that the adhesive layer is in contact with at least one side surface of each of the positive electrode external electrode and the negative electrode external electrode in view of the protection and insulation such a structure offers, as suggested by Iwamoto. Matsushita does not suggest an elastic modulus of the adhesive layer is lower than an elastic modulus of each of the substrate, the positive electrode layer, the solid electrolyte layer, and the negative electrode layer. However, Kubota suggests the rigidity of the adhesive layer (e.g., 44) between cells of the stack is lower than the rigidity of the substrate (e.g., 42, layer upon which the cells are stacked) which is sufficient for absorbing cell volume during charge/discharge, thereby preventing the battery stack from being broken and ensuring high reliability, see e.g., [0054-0059]. Further, Liang presents a stack of multiple batteries (e.g., 20 a,b; Fig. 8) connected through a thermoplastic polymer layer (e.g., 60 (80); note also that cap 26 is also filled with polymer 60, [0043]). The polymer layer has a low elastic modulus to allow the underlying components (e.g., anode 42, electrodes 40, electrolyte 38) of the battery 20, which have higher elastic moduli, to expand during charging and contract during discharging without undesirable mechanical stress, and provide higher capacity and good flexibility, see e.g., [0043-0049, 0059, 0074]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the elastic modulus of the adhesive layer is lower than an elastic modulus of each of the substrate, the positive electrode layer, the solid electrolyte layer, and the negative electrode layer, as suggested by Kubota and Liang, to allow the adhesive to absorb the volume change due to charging/discharging of the battery without undesirable mechanical stress, thereby preventing the battery stack from being broken and ensuring high reliability, and to provide high capacity and good flexibility, as suggested by Kubota and Liang. Regarding Claim 2, Matsushita suggests the adhesive layer (15) is in contact with both an upper face of the cell element and a side face of the cell element, best seen in Fig. 1B and 2B. Regarding Claim 4, Matsushita suggests the adhesive layer (15) is a resin but does not disclose whether the resin is a thermoplastic resin. However, Kuboto suggests the resin between the cells is a thermoplastic resin (i.e., polyolefin, [0054-0055]) which enables the low rigidity sufficient for absorbing the volume change of the cells 10 during charging/discharging. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the adhesive layer between the cells of Matsushita is a thermoplastic resin from the standpoint of low rigidity to enable sufficient volume change capability during cell charging/discharging, as suggested by Kubota. Regarding Claim 5, the modification of Matsushita with Iwamoto suggests a width dimension of the adhesive layer (15) is larger than a width dimension of each of the positive electrode layer (15), the negative electrode layer (14), and the solid electrolyte layer (13) in a sectional view (see e.g., Fig. 2B of Matsushita and Fig. 4 of Iwamoto). Regarding Claim 6, Matsushita suggests a thickness dimension of the adhesive layer (15) is not constant in sectional view (see Fig. 2B, where thickness is greater at the ends of the electrodes). Regarding Claim 7, Matsushita suggests the positive electrode layer has a two-layer structure including a positive electrode current collector layer (11) and a positive electrode active layer (12), and the negative electrode layer is a single layer (14). Regarding Claim 8, Matsushita suggests the positive electrode current collector layer (11), the positive electrode active layer (12), the solid electrolyte layer (13), and the negative electrode layer (14) are stacked on the substrate (10) in this order. Regarding Claim 9, Matsushita was modified with Iwamoto as set forth in the rejection of claim 1. The combination suggests the positive electrode external electrode (13) is connected to the positive electrode layer (6) of each of the plurality of single cell bodies, and the negative electrode external electrode (14) is connected to the negative electrode layer (10) of each of the plurality of single cell bodies. See Fig. 4 of Iwamoto. PNG media_image1.png 997 960 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 10, Matsushita was modified with Iwamoto as set forth in the rejection of claims 1 and 9; the resulting modification is exemplified in exemplified by annotated Fig. 4 of Iwamoto where an outer end face of the positive electrode layer (6) is in contact with an inner face of the positive electrode external electrode (13), see label “contact P” in annotate Fig. 4, and an outer end face of the negative electrode layer (10) is in contact with an inner face of the negative electrode external electrode (14), see label “contact N” in annotated Fig. 4. Regarding Claim 11, Matsushita was modified with Iwamoto as set forth in the rejection of claims 1 and 9-10; Iwamoto suggests a region surrounded by the positive electrode external electrode, the cell element, and the negative electrode external electrode is filled with the adhesive layer (11, 12), see e.g., Fig. 4. Regarding Claim 12, Matsushita was modified with Iwamoto as set forth in the rejection of claims 1 and 9-10; Iwamoto suggests a region surrounded by the positive electrode external electrode, the cell element, and the negative electrode external electrode is wholly filled with the adhesive layer (11, 12), see Fig. 4. Regarding Claim 18, Masushita was modified by Kubota and Liang to suggest the adhesive layer has a modulus of elasticity lower than that of the electrodes, electrolyte and substrate from the standpoint of being able to absorb the volume expansion of the cell, see rejection of claim 1; in view of the foregoing, the adhesive layer in the modification is configured to deform during formation of the solid electrolyte battery in view of its elasticity. Regarding Claim 19, Matsushita was modified with Iwamoto as set forth in the rejection of claim 1; Iwamoto suggests at least one of the positive electrode external electrode and the negative electrode external electrode (13, 14) further includes at least one side face which is at least partially exposed. See “exposed side faces” in annotated Fig. 4. Regarding Claim 20, Matsushita was modified with Iwamoto as set forth in the rejection of claim 1; Iwamoto suggests at least one of the positive electrode external electrode and the negative electrode external electrode further includes at least two side faces which are at least partially exposed (see “exposed side faces” in annotated Fig. 4). 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 ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 5712721481. 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. /ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729 /ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 30, 2021
Application Filed
May 30, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 20, 2024
Response Filed
Oct 22, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 21, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 23, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 12, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 03, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583799
PARTITION MEMBER AND ASSEMBLED BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580181
COMPOSITE BATTERY ELECTRODE STRUCTURES COMPRISING HIGH-CAPACITY MATERIALS AND POLYMERS AND METHODS OF FORMING THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580225
SOLID-STATE BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12559430
DOPED TITANIUM NIOBATE AND BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12542271
Lithium Secondary Battery
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
29%
Grant Probability
54%
With Interview (+24.3%)
4y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 345 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month