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
Per Applicant amendments dated August 7, 2026, Claims 1, 6, and 7 are amended. Claims 17, 19, and 21 are canceled. Claims 23-25 are added. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-16, 18, 20, and 22-25 are pending and examined.
Status of Application
The rejections in the previous Office Action dated 2/9/26 have been modified as necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112b
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 23-25 require wherein the insulating layer has a piercing strength of 17.64 or less. There are no units provided, which makes the claim indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, the claims are each interpreted as wherein the insulating layer has a piercing strength of 17.64 N or less in light of claim 1. Correction is required.
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 1 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokuryo et al. [US20180076423A1], hereinafter Kokuryo, in view of Kitaura et al. [US20120216394A1, as previously provided], hereinafter Kitaura, in further view of Yamashita et al. [US7285334B1, as previously provided], hereinafter Yamashita.
Regarding Claim 1 and 23, Kokuryo teaches an exterior material for a battery [Kokuryo abstract and throughout, Figs. 1-9], the exterior material comprising:
a laminate including at least a base material layer, a barrier layer, and a heat-sealable resin layer in this order [Kokuryo 0041, where the barrier layer is aluminum foil]; and the heat-sealable resin layer has a thickness of 20 µm or more and 85 µm of less [Kokuryo 0100, Kokuryo discloses 10 μm or more and 120 μm or less, preferably 10 μm or more and 80 μm or less, more preferably 20 μm or more and 60 μm or less, all of which overlap and obviate the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.], and comprises polybutylene terephthalate [Kokuryo 0086].
The claim limitation “all-solid-state-battery” is a recitation of the intended type of battery for usage of the exterior material. Kokuryo does not teach an all-solid-state battery; however, usage of Kokuryo’s exterior material for an all-solid-state battery would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Kokuryo’s exterior material for an all-solid-state battery due to its properties of having high puncture strength, moldability, [Kokuryo abstract and throughout] and insulation quality [Kokuryo 0043, 0101, 0139, 0226], which would be beneficial independent of the selection of the whether the battery’s electrolyte is solid or a solution-based electrolyte.
Further, Kokuryo is silent to an insulating layer provided on the heat-sealable resin layer on a side opposite to a base material layer side, wherein: the insulating layer has a thickness of 5 µm or more and 100 µm or less, and comprises a polyester and the insulting layer having a piercing strength of 3 N or more and 18 N or less.
Kitaura discloses an insulating layer provided on the heat-sealable resin layer on a side opposite to the base material layer side [Kitaura 0035-0036, 0038, 0040, 0056, Fig. 3A, layer 10 (Kitaura discloses layer 10 is a heat-resistant resin layer inserted between the laminate structure of case 7 [outer resin layer/metal layer/ thermally-weldable resin layer as disclosed in 0035] and the electrode cell [positive electrode (current collector and active material), solid electrolyte, negative electrode (current collector and active material) as disclosed in 0056], and thus reads on “a side opposite to the base material layer side”, where the base material layer is the outer resin layer on the outside of the case 7 and insulating layer 10 is provided in the concave portion of the external material.. Further, Kitaura discloses the heat-resistant layer (insulating layer) is used to prevent the electrode cell from reaching a heating temperature during sealing that will cause deterioration of the electrode cell, specifically the solid electrolyte [Kitaura 0036]. Thus the layer is providing thermal insulation and reads on “insulating layer”.)],
wherein:
the insulating layer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of polyester [Kitaura 0038, Kitaura teaches polyester resins such as polybutylene terephthalate (melting point 224° C.), polyethylene terephthalate (melting point 256° C.) and polycyclohexanedimethylene terephthalate (melting point 290° C.)]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Kitaura’s insulating layer as claimed in Kokuryo’s exterior material to thermally insulate the electrode assembly to prevent the battery electrode assembly from reaching a heating temperature during sealing that will cause deterioration of the electrode cell, specifically protecting a solid electrolyte within the battery [Kitaura 0036], and to further support overall insulation quality [Kokuryo 0043, 0101, 0139, 0226] of Kokuryo’s exterior material for a battery.
Kitaura is silent to the thickness and the piercing strength of the polyester insulating layer. Yamashita discloses an insulating layer to stabilize the environmental suitability, such as heat resistance and cold resistance [Yamashita, Yamashita’s intermediate layer as taught in column 37, lines 3-26, column 90-93, column 97-99 and throughout] made of polyester, like polyethylene terephthalate copolymer and polybutylene terephthalate copolymer [Yamashita, column 37 lines 60-63 and throughout]. Though Yamashita’s insulating layer is located between the barrier layer and the heat-sealable layer [Yamashita, column 37, lines 3-26 and throughout], it provides a protective function against overheating of the battery inside the packaging. See MPEP 2144.04C, rearrangement of parts. The skilled artisan would look to a teaching such as Yamashita’s for a thickness for the insulating layer. Yamashita discloses the insulating layer should have a thickness of 10 µm to 100 µm [Yamashita, column 37, lines 3-26], which overlaps and obviates the instantly claimed thickness range of 5 um or more and 100 um or less. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, the skilled artisan would know that the thickness range of the insulating layer is a result-effective variable. If the layer is too thin, there will not be sufficient material to insulate the battery against heat. If it is too thick, the thickness of the battery increase and the use of space is inefficient. Determining the thickness necessary would be determined by routine optimization per MPEP 2144.05II. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Yamashita’s teachings about the thickness range of the insulating layer for the thickness of the insulating layer of Kokuryo’s exterior material as modified by Kitaura above since all teach laminated packaging materials for secondary batteries.
Yamashita further teaches the importance of good piercing strength [Yamashita column 102-column 103] but is silent to the piercing strength of the insulating layer. It would be understood by the skilled artisan that the piercing strength is a property of the material being pierced. Since modified Kokuryo as described above reads on the limitations of claim 1, it would be expected that Kitaura’s taught polyester resins such as polybutylene terephthalate (melting point 224° C.), polyethylene terephthalate (melting point 256° C.) and polycyclohexanedimethylene terephthalate (melting point 290° C.) with the thickness ranges taught by Yamashita would inherently have the claimed piercing strength range. See MPEP 2112 "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In other words, by combining Kitaura’s taught insulative materials in Kokuryo’s exterior material with the thickness of the insulating layer taught by Yamashita, it would be expected that the insulating material would have the claimed piercing strength range. Thus, the claim limitations of claim 1 (narrower piercing strength) would be met by the combination of Kokuryo with Kitaura and Yamashita (modified Kokuryo1). Hereinafter, this rejection is referenced as modified Kokuryo1.
Regarding Claim 23, for the same reasons, it would be expected that modified Kokuryo1 would meet the piercing strength requirements of the insulating layer has a piercing strength of 17.64 N (see 112b rejection above) or less.
For purpose of compact prosecution, an alternative rejection is provided over Kokuryo1 in view of Goto.
Claims 1 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokuryo et al. [US20180076423A1], hereinafter Kokuryo, in view of Kitaura et al. [US20120216394A1, as previously provided], hereinafter Kitaura, in further view of Yamashita et al. [US7285334B1, as previously provided], hereinafter Yamashita, and in further view of Goto, WO2017170333A1, machine translation relied upon provided.
Regarding Claim 1 and 23, Kokuryo teaches an exterior material for a battery [Kokuryo abstract and throughout, Figs. 1-9], the exterior material comprising:
a laminate including at least a base material layer, a barrier layer, and a heat-sealable resin layer in this order [Kokuryo 0041, where the barrier layer is aluminum foil]; and the heat-sealable resin layer has a thickness of 20 µm or more and 85 µm of less [Kokuryo 0100, Kokuryo discloses 10 μm or more and 120 μm or less, preferably 10 μm or more and 80 μm or less, more preferably 20 μm or more and 60 μm or less, all of which overlap and obviate the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.], and comprises polybutylene terephthalate [Kokuryo 0086].
The claim limitation “all-solid-state-battery” is a recitation of the intended type of battery for usage of the exterior material. Kokuryo does not teach an all-solid-state battery; however, usage of Kokuryo’s exterior material for an all-solid-state battery would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Kokuryo’s exterior material for an all-solid-state battery due to its properties of having high puncture strength, moldability, [Kokuryo abstract and throughout] and insulation quality [Kokuryo 0043, 0101, 0139, 0226], which would be beneficial independent of the selection of the whether the battery’s electrolyte is solid or a solution-based electrolyte.
Further, Kokuryo is silent to an insulating layer provided on the heat-sealable resin layer on a side opposite to a base material layer side, wherein: the insulating layer has a thickness of 5 µm or more and 100 µm or less, and comprises a polyester and the insulting layer having a piercing strength of 3 N or more and 18 N or less.
Kitaura discloses an insulating layer provided on the heat-sealable resin layer on a side opposite to the base material layer side [Kitaura 0035-0036, 0038, 0040, 0056, Fig. 3A, layer 10 (Kitaura discloses layer 10 is a heat-resistant resin layer inserted between the laminate structure of case 7 [outer resin layer/metal layer/ thermally-weldable resin layer as disclosed in 0035] and the electrode cell [positive electrode (current collector and active material), solid electrolyte, negative electrode (current collector and active material) as disclosed in 0056], and thus reads on “a side opposite to the base material layer side”, where the base material layer is the outer resin layer on the outside of the case 7 and insulating layer 10 is provided in the concave portion of the external material. Further, Kitaura discloses the heat-resistant layer (insulating layer) is used to prevent the electrode cell from reaching a heating temperature during sealing that will cause deterioration of the electrode cell, specifically the solid electrolyte [Kitaura 0036]. Thus the layer is providing thermal insulation and reads on “insulating layer”.)],
wherein:
the insulating layer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of polyester [Kitaura 0038, Kitaura teaches polyester resins such as polybutylene terephthalate (melting point 224° C.), polyethylene terephthalate (melting point 256° C.) and polycyclohexanedimethylene terephthalate (melting point 290° C.)]. Kitaura additionally teaches the insulating film is used in a solid electrolyte battery [Kitaura abstract and throughout]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Kitaura’s insulating layer as claimed in Kokuryo’s exterior material to thermally insulate the electrode assembly to prevent the battery electrode assembly from reaching a heating temperature during sealing that will cause deterioration of the electrode cell, specifically protecting a solid electrolyte within the battery [Kitaura 0036], and to further support overall insulation quality [Kokuryo 0043, 0101, 0139, 0226] of Kokuryo’s exterior material for a battery.
Kitaura is silent to the thickness and the piercing strength of the polyester insulating layer. Yamashita discloses an insulating layer to stabilize the environmental suitability, such as heat resistance and cold resistance [Yamashita, Yamashita’s intermediate layer as taught in column 37, lines 3-26, column 90-93, column 97-99 and throughout] made of polyester, like polyethylene terephthalate copolymer and polybutylene terephthalate copolymer [Yamashita, column 37 lines 60-63 and throughout]. Though Yamashita’s insulating layer is located between the barrier layer and the heat-sealable layer [Yamashita, column 37, lines 3-26 and throughout], it provides a protective function against overheating of the battery inside the packaging. See MPEP 2144.04C, rearrangement of parts. The skilled artisan would look to a teaching such as Yamashita’s for a thickness for the insulating layer. Yamashita discloses the insulating layer should have a thickness of 10 µm to 100 µm [Yamashita, column 37, lines 3-26], which overlaps and obviates the instantly claimed thickness range of 5 um or more and 100 um or less. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, the skilled artisan would know that the thickness range of the insulating layer is a result-effective variable. If the layer is too thin, there will not be sufficient material to insulate the battery against heat. If it is too thick, the thickness of the battery increase and the use of space is inefficient. Determining the thickness necessary could be determined by routine optimization per MPEP 2144.05II. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Yamashita’s teachings about the thickness range of the insulating layer for the thickness of the insulating layer of Kokuryo’s exterior material as modified by Kitaura above since all teach laminated packaging materials for secondary batteries. See MPEP 2143 (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Yamashita further teaches the importance of good piercing strength [Yamashita column 102-column 103] but is silent to the piercing strength of the insulating layer. It would be understood by the skilled artisan that the piercing strength is a property of the material being pierced. Since modified Kokuryo as described above reads on the limitations of claim 1, it would be expected that Kitaura’s taught polyester resins such as polybutylene terephthalate (melting point 224° C.), polyethylene terephthalate (melting point 256° C.) and polycyclohexanedimethylene terephthalate (melting point 290° C.) with the thickness ranges taught by Yamashita would inherently have the claimed piercing strength range. See MPEP 2112 "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In other words, by combining Kitaura’s taught insulative materials in Kokuryo’s exterior material with the thickness of the insulating layer taught by Yamashita, it would be expected that the insulating material would have the claimed piercing strength range. Thus, the claim limitations of claim 1 (narrower piercing strength) would be met by the combination of Kokuryo with Kitaura and Yamashita (modified Kokuryo1). Hereinafter, this rejection is referenced as modified Kokuryo1.
Regarding Claim 23, for the same reasons, it would be expected that modified Kokuryo1 would meet the piercing strength requirements of the insulating layer has a piercing strength of 17.64 N (see 112b rejection above) or less.
Alternatively, for purpose of compact prosecution, Goto teaches polyesters, such as polybutylene terephthalate copolymers [Goto pgs. 4-14 and throughout], have a puncture strength of 0.5N/µm or more [Goto abstract, pg. 5, and throughout] and 1.5 N/µm or less [Goto pg. 12]. Goto further teaches a thickness range of 3 µm to 100 µm [Goto pg. 14], which would result in a puncture strength of 1.5 N to 50 N for a strength of 0.5 N/µm, and in a preferable thickness range of 10 to 30 µm [Goto pg. 5], which would result in calculated puncture strength of 5 to 15 N or more for 0.5 N/µm, both of which overlap and obviate the claimed range of 3N to 18 N. On the upper end of preferable strength of 0.8 N/µm, the calculated respective ranges are 2.4 N to 80 N and more preferably 8 to 24 N, both of which overlap the claimed range. Thus, the preferable calculated piercing strength range taught by Goto is 5 N to 24 N (preferable range of thickness 10-30 µm and preferable range of strength 0.5 N/ µm to 0.8 N/ µm), which overlaps and obviates the claimed range of piercing strength for claims 1 and 23. Specifically for claim 23, Goto teaches the insulating layer has calculated piercing strengths that include values of 17.64 N (see 112b rejection) or less. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, Goto teaches the thickness range is directly related to the strength of the film, where if the thickness is too low the strength will be too low and if it is too high, processing is difficult [Goto pg. 14]. Thus, Goto’s teaching demonstrates that the thickness and the strength of the taught polyester films in a battery packaging material are result effective variables that are inter-related. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills before the effective filing date to apply Goto’s teaching to determine the workable combination of range of thickness and strength for the specific requirements of the battery as determined by its application in view of consideration that insulating film thickness affects both strength and processing as described above through routine optimization per MPEP 2144.05II. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.". It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date top combine Goto’s teaching of the piercing strength (same as puncture strength) of the types of polyesters taught as insulating films by Kitaura and Yamashita for a specified thickness range in modified Kokuryo’s battery since all teach packaging films for batteries [Kokuryo, Kitaura, Yamashita, and Goto throughout].This rejection will be hereinafter referenced as modified Kokuryo2.
End of alternative rejection of claim 1 and 23.
Claims 2-3, 5, 8, 12-16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Kokuryo1 or alternatively modified Kokuryo2 as provided for claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Kokuryo1 or alternatively modified Kokuryo2 discloses the external material according to claim 1 wherein the insulating layer has a melting point of 200 ° C or higher [Kitaura 0038, Kitaura teaches polyester resins such as polybutylene terephthalate (melting point 224° C.), polyethylene terephthalate (melting point 256° C.) and polycyclohexanedimethylene terephthalate (melting point 290° C.) as an insulating layer as described above. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select an insulating material with a melting point above 200 ° C for the predictable result of an insulating layer does not soften during sealing [Kitaura 0037].]. This rejection is obvious over Kitaura for the same reasons as the combination as provided in the rejections of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 3 and 8, modified Kokuryo1 or alternatively modified Kokuryo2 discloses the external material according to claim 1 (reference claim 3) and claim 2 (reference claim 8), comprising a corrosion-resistant film formed on a surface of the barrier layer [Kokuryo 0075-0082, Kokuryo discloses a corrosion resistant films 3a and 3b formed on the barrier layer 3 and the process for obtaining the corrosion resistance. Further, [Yamashita column 7, lines 47-61 (Yamashita discloses an embodiment with a corrosion-resistant film of a phosphate or a chromate applied to the aluminum foil barrier layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Yamashita’s embodiment in the exterior material of modified Kokuryo1 or alternatively modified Kokuryo2 for an expectation of success in preventing the dissolution and corrosion of the aluminum foil barrier layer [Yamashita column 7, lines 47-61]).].
Regarding Claim 5, 12, 13, 14 modified Kokuryo1 or alternatively modified Kokuryo2 discloses the external material according to claim 1 (reference claim 5), claim 2 (reference claim 12), claim 3 (reference claim 13) and claim 8 (reference claim 14), wherein the laminate has a concave portion having a shape protruding [Kokuryo 0003, 0167, Fig. 5; Kitaura Fig. 3A, protruding shape is the concave portion] from the heat-sealable resin layer side to the base material layer side, and the insulating layer is disposed in the concave portion [Kitaura Fig. 3A, as shown in modified Fig. 3A below]. This rejection is obvious over Kitaura for the same reasons as the combination as provided in the rejections of claim 1 above.
PNG
media_image1.png
342
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, modified Kokuryo1 or alternatively modified Kokuryo2 discloses the external material according to claim 1, comprising a corrosion-resistant film formed on a surface of the barrier layer, the corrosion-resistant film containing at least one of a phosphate, a chromate, a fluoride, a triazine thiol compound, and a rare earth oxide [Yamashita column 3, lines 20-28, Yamashita discloses phosphate, chromate, fluoride, and triazine ethiol. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Yamashita’s embodiment of a corrosion-resistant film on a surface of the barrier layer in the exterior material of modified Kokuryo1 or alternatively modified Kokuryo2 for an expectation of success in stabilizing adhesion and preventing dissolution and corrosion of the aluminum foil barrier layer [Yamashita column 7, lines 47-61].
Regarding Claim 16, modified Kokuryo1 or alternatively modified Kokuryo2 discloses the external material according to claim 1, wherein the polyester comprises polybutylene terephthalate [Kitaura 0038, Kitaura teaches polyester resins such as polybutylene terephthalate (melting point 224° C.).]; Further, Yamashita teaches the insulating materials polybutylene terephthalate [Yamashita’s intermediate layer as taught in column 37, lines 3-26, column 90-93, column 97-99 and throughout.]. This rejection is obvious for the same reasons as the combination as provided in the rejections of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 22, modified Kokuryo1 or alternatively modified Kokuryo2 discloses the external material according to claim 1, wherein the polyester comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of polyethylene terephthalate and polyethylene naphthalate [Kitaura 0038, Kitaura teaches polyester resins such as polyethylene terephthalate (melting point 256° C.)./ Kokuryo 0044, Kokuryo teaches polyethylene naphthalate as a polyester with insulating properties. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date that polyethylene naphthalate could be substituted for the polyesters in the insulating layer taught by Kitaura in modified Kokuryo’s external material for the predictable result of a material with sufficient insulating properties. See MPEP 2144.07. Further, Yamashita teaches the insulating materials polyethylene terephthalate resins and polyethylene naphthalate [Yamashita’s intermediate layer as taught in column 37, lines 3-26, column 90-93, column 97-99 and throughout]. This rejection is obvious for the same reasons as the combination as provided in the rejections of claim 1 above.
Claims 6, 18, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokuryo et al. [US20180076423A1], hereinafter Kokuryo, in view of Kitaura et al. [US20120216394A1, as previously provided], hereinafter Kitaura, in further view of Yamashita et al. [US7285334B1, as previously provided], hereinafter Yamashita.
Regarding Claim 6, 18, and 24, Kokuryo teaches an exterior material for a battery [Kokuryo abstract and throughout, Figs. 1-9], the exterior material comprising:
a laminate including at least a base material layer, a barrier layer, and a heat-sealable resin layer in this order [Kokuryo 0041, where the barrier layer is aluminum foil]; and the heat-sealable resin layer has a thickness of 20 µm or more and 85 µm of less [Kokuryo 0100, Kokuryo discloses 10 μm or more and 120 μm or less, preferably 10 μm or more and 80 μm or less, more preferably 20 μm or more and 60 μm or less, all of which overlap and obviate the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.], and comprises polybutylene terephthalate [Kokuryo 0086].
Kokuryo does not teach an “all-solid-state battery” with a battery element stored in the packaging , the battery element including at least a unit cell including a positive active material layer, a negative active material layer, and a solid electrolyte layer laminated between the positive active material layer and the negative active material layer ; however, usage of Kokuryo’s exterior material for an all-solid-state battery would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Kokuryo’s exterior material for an all-solid-state battery due to its properties of having high puncture strength, moldability, [Kokuryo abstract and throughout] and insulation quality [Kokuryo 0043, 0101, 0139, 0226], which would be beneficial independent of the selection of the whether the battery’s electrolyte is solid or a solution-based electrolyte.
Further, Kokuryo is silent to an insulating layer located so as to cover an entire surface of the positive active material layer of the all-solid-state battery in plan view of the all-solid-state battery wherein: the insulating layer has a thickness of 5 µm or more and 100 µm or less, and comprises a polyester and the insulting layer has a piercing strength of 3 N or more and 18 N or less.
Kitaura discloses an all-solid-state battery [Kitaura abstract] comprising:
a packaging formed from an exterior material, the exterior material comprising [Kitaura abstract, outer case]:
a laminate [Kitaura 0035] including at least a base material layer [Kitaura 0035, outer resin layer], a barrier layer [Kitaura 0035, barrier layer], and a heat-sealable resin layer in this order [Kitaura 0035, thermally weldable resin layer]; and
an insulating layer provided on the heat-sealable resin layer on a side opposite to the base material layer side [Kitaura 0035-0038, 0040, 0056, Fig. 3A, layer 10 (Kitaura discloses layer 10 is a heat-resistant resin layer inserted between the laminate structure of case 7 [outer resin layer/metal layer/ thermally-weldable resin layer as disclosed in 0035], which reads on the claimed configuration.)]; and
a battery element stored in the packaging [Kitaura abstract], the battery element including at least a unit cell including a positive active material layer, a negative active material layer, and a solid electrolyte layer laminated between the positive active material layer and the negative active material layer [Kitaura 0042],
wherein: the insulating layer is located so as to cover an entire surface of the positive active material layer of the all-solid-state battery in plan view of the all-solid-state battery [Kitaura 0029, 0040, Figs. 1, 2, 3A (Kitaura discloses the positive active material 1 as shown in Fig. 2, which is less than the width of the current collector plate 6. As shown in Fig. 3A, the insulating layer 10 covers the entirety of the bottom and top of the concave parts of the outer case 7. Once the electrode is installed in the case as shown in modified Fig. 1 above in Claim 1, the width of the insulating layer is larger than the width of the active material. Therefore, the insulating layer inherently covers the entire surface of the positive active material layer in the battery in plan view. Per MPEP 2112, there is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.)]wherein:
the insulating layer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of polyester [Kitaura 0038, Kitaura teaches polyester resins such as polybutylene terephthalate (melting point 224° C.), polyethylene terephthalate (melting point 256° C.) [Meets the limitations of claim 18.] and polycyclohexanedimethylene terephthalate (melting point 290° C.)]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Kokuryo’s exterior material for Kitaura solid-state battery including Kitaura’s unit cell with the addition of Kitaura’s insulating layer in the concave portion of Kokuryo’s exterior material as taught by Kitaura for the predictable result of an all-solid-state battery that is thermally insulated to prevent the battery electrode assembly from reaching a heating temperature during sealing that will cause deterioration of the unit cell, specifically protecting the solid electrolyte within the battery [Kitaura 0036], and to further support overall insulation quality [Kokuryo 0043, 0101, 0139, 0226] of an all-solid-state battery.
Kitaura is silent to the thickness and the piercing strength of the polyester insulating layer. Yamashita discloses an insulating layer to stabilize the environmental suitability, such as heat resistance and cold resistance [Yamashita, Yamashita’s intermediate layer as taught in column 37, lines 3-26, column 90-93, column 97-99 and throughout] made of polyester, like polyethylene terephthalate copolymer and polybutylene terephthalate copolymer [Yamashita, column 37 lines 60-63 and throughout]. Though Yamashita’s insulating layer is located between the barrier layer and the heat-sealable layer [Yamashita, column 37, lines 3-26 and throughout], it provides a protective function against overheating of the battery inside the packaging. See MPEP 2144.04C, rearrangement of parts. The skilled artisan would look to a teaching such as Yamashita’s for a thickness for the insulating layer. Yamashita discloses the insulating layer should have a thickness of 10 µm to 100 µm [Yamashita, column 37, lines 3-26], which overlaps and obviates the instantly claimed thickness range of 5 um or more and 100 um or less. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, the skilled artisan would know that the thickness range of the insulating layer is a result-effective variable. If the layer is too thin, there will not be sufficient material to insulate the battery against heat. If it is too thick, the thickness of the battery increase and the use of space is inefficient. Determining the thickness necessary could be determined by routine optimization per MPEP 2144.05II. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Yamashita’s teachings about the thickness range of the insulating layer for the thickness of the insulating layer of Kokuryo’s exterior material as modified by Kitaura above since all teach laminated packaging materials for secondary batteries. See MPEP 2143 (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Yamashita further teaches the importance of good piercing strength [Yamashita column 102-column 103] but is silent to the piercing strength of the insulating layer. It would be understood by the skilled artisan that the piercing strength is a property of the material being pierced. Since modified Kokuryo as described above reads on the limitations of claim 1, it would be expected that Kitaura’s taught polyester resins such as polybutylene terephthalate (melting point 224° C.), polyethylene terephthalate (melting point 256° C.) and polycyclohexanedimethylene terephthalate (melting point 290° C.) with the thickness ranges taught by Yamashita would inherently have the claimed piercing strength range. See MPEP 2112 "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In other words, by combining Kitaura’s taught insulative materials in Kokuryo’s exterior material with the thickness of the insulating layer taught by Yamashita, it would be expected that the insulating material would have the claimed piercing strength range of claims 6.
Thus, the claim limitations of claims 6 (narrower piercing strength) would be met by the combination of Kokuryo with Kitaura and Yamashita (modified Kokuryo1).
Hereinafter, this rejection is referenced as modified Kokuryo1.
Regarding Claim 24, for the same reasons, it would be expected that modified Kokuryo1 would meet the piercing strength requirements of the insulating layer has a piercing strength of 17.64 N (see 112b rejection above) or less.
For purpose of compact prosecution, an alternative rejection is provided over Kokuryo1 in view of Goto.
Alternative rejection of claim 6, 18, and 24:
Claim 6, 18, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokuryo et al. [US20180076423A1], hereinafter Kokuryo, in view of Kitaura et al. [US20120216394A1, as previously provided], hereinafter Kitaura, in further view of Yamashita et al. [US7285334B1, as previously provided], hereinafter Yamashita, and further in view of Goto, WO2017170333A1, machine translation relied upon provided.
Regarding Claim 6, 18, and 24, Kokuryo teaches an exterior material for a battery [Kokuryo abstract and throughout, Figs. 1-9], the exterior material comprising:
a laminate including at least a base material layer, a barrier layer, and a heat-sealable resin layer in this order [Kokuryo 0041, where the barrier layer is aluminum foil]; and the heat-sealable resin layer has a thickness of 20 µm or more and 85 µm of less [Kokuryo 0100, Kokuryo discloses 10 μm or more and 120 μm or less, preferably 10 μm or more and 80 μm or less, more preferably 20 μm or more and 60 μm or less, all of which overlap and obviate the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.], and comprises polybutylene terephthalate [Kokuryo 0086].
Kokuryo does not teach an “all-solid-state-battery” with a battery element stored in the packaging , the battery element including at least a unit cell including a positive active material layer, a negative active material layer, and a solid electrolyte layer laminated between the positive active material layer and the negative active material layer ; however, usage of Kokuryo’s exterior material for an all-solid-state battery would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Kokuryo’s exterior material for an all-solid-state battery due to its properties of having high puncture strength, moldability, [Kokuryo abstract and throughout] and insulation quality [Kokuryo 0043, 0101, 0139, 0226], which would be beneficial independent of the selection of the whether the battery’s electrolyte is solid or a solution-based electrolyte.
Further, Kokuryo is silent to an insulating layer located so as to cover an entire surface of the positive active material layer of the all-solid-state battery in plan view of the all-solid-state battery wherein: the insulating layer has a thickness of 5 µm or more and 100 µm or less, and comprises a polyester and the insulting layer has a piercing strength of 3 N or more and 18 N or less.
Kitaura discloses an all-solid-state battery [Kitaura abstract] comprising:
a packaging formed from an exterior material, the exterior material comprising [Kitaura abstract, outer case]:
a laminate [Kitaura 0035] including at least a base material layer [Kitaura 0035, outer resin layer], a barrier layer [Kitaura 0035, barrier layer], and a heat-sealable resin layer in this order [Kitaura 0035, thermally weldable resin layer]; and
an insulating layer provided on the heat-sealable resin layer on a side opposite to the base material layer side [Kitaura 0035-0038, 0040, 0056, Fig. 3A, layer 10 (Kitaura discloses layer 10 is a heat-resistant resin layer inserted between the laminate structure of case 7 [outer resin layer/metal layer/ thermally-weldable resin layer as disclosed in 0035], which reads on the claimed configuration.)]; and
a battery element stored in the packaging [Kitaura abstract], the battery element including at least a unit cell including a positive active material layer, a negative active material layer, and a solid electrolyte layer laminated between the positive active material layer and the negative active material layer [Kitaura 0042],
wherein: the insulating layer is located so as to cover an entire surface of the positive active material layer of the all-solid-state battery in plan view of the all-solid-state battery [Kitaura 0029, 0040, Figs. 1, 2, 3A (Kitaura discloses the positive active material 1 as shown in Fig. 2, which is less than the width of the current collector plate 6. As shown in Fig. 3A, the insulating layer 10 covers the entirety of the bottom and top of the concave parts of the outer case 7. Once the electrode is installed in the case as shown in modified Fig. 1 above in Claim 1, the width of the insulating layer is larger than the width of the active material. Therefore, the insulating layer inherently covers the entire surface of the positive active material layer in the battery in plan view. Per MPEP 2112, there is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.)]wherein:
the insulating layer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of polyester [Kitaura 0038, Kitaura teaches polyester resins such as polybutylene terephthalate (melting point 224° C.) [Meets the limitations of claim 18.], polyethylene terephthalate (melting point 256° C.) and polycyclohexanedimethylene terephthalate (melting point 290° C.)]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Kokuryo’s exterior material for Kitaura solid-state battery including Kitaura’s unit cell with the addition of Kitaura’s insulating layer in the concave portion of Kokuryo’s exterior material as taught by Kitaura for the predictable result of an all-solid-state battery that is thermally insulated to prevent the battery electrode assembly from reaching a heating temperature during sealing that will cause deterioration of the unit cell, specifically protecting the solid electrolyte within the battery [Kitaura 0036], and to further support overall insulation quality [Kokuryo 0043, 0101, 0139, 0226] of an all-solid-state battery.
Kitaura is silent to the thickness and the piercing strength of the polyester insulating layer.
Yamashita discloses an insulating layer to stabilize the environmental suitability, such as heat resistance and cold resistance [Yamashita, Yamashita’s intermediate layer as taught in column 37, lines 3-26, column 90-93, column 97-99 and throughout] made of polyester, like polyethylene terephthalate copolymer and polybutylene terephthalate copolymer [Yamashita, column 37 lines 60-63 and throughout]. Though Yamashita’s insulating layer is located between the barrier layer and the heat-sealable layer [Yamashita, column 37, lines 3-26 and throughout], it provides a protective function against overheating of the battery inside the packaging. See MPEP 2144.04C, rearrangement of parts. The skilled artisan would look to a teaching such as Yamashita’s for a thickness for the insulating layer. Yamashita discloses the insulating layer should have a thickness of 10 µm to 100 µm [Yamashita, column 37, lines 3-26], which overlaps and obviates the instantly claimed thickness range of 5 um or more and 100 um or less. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, the skilled artisan would know that the thickness range of the insulating layer is a result-effective variable. If the layer is too thin, there will not be sufficient material to insulate the battery against heat. If it is too thick, the thickness of the battery increase and the use of space is inefficient. Determining the thickness necessary could be determined by routine optimization per MPEP 2144.05II. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Yamashita’s teachings about the thickness range of the insulating layer for the thickness of the insulating layer of Kokuryo’s exterior material as modified by Kitaura above since all teach laminated packaging materials for secondary batteries. See MPEP 2143 (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Yamashita further teaches the importance of good piercing strength [Yamashita column 102-column 103] but is silent to the piercing strength of the insulating layer. It would be understood by the skilled artisan that the piercing strength is a property of the material being pierced. Since modified Kokuryo as described above reads on the limitations of claim 1, it would be expected that Kitaura’s taught polyester resins such as polybutylene terephthalate (melting point 224° C.), polyethylene terephthalate (melting point 256° C.) and polycyclohexanedimethylene terephthalate (melting point 290° C.) with the thickness ranges taught by Yamashita would inherently have the claimed piercing strength range. See MPEP 2112 "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In other words, by combining Kitaura’s taught insulative materials in Kokuryo’s exterior material with the thickness of the insulating layer taught by Yamashita, it would be expected that the insulating material would have the claimed piercing strength range of claims 6.
Thus, the claim limitations of claims 6 (narrower piercing strength) would be met by the combination of Kokuryo with Kitaura and Yamashita (modified Kokuryo1).
Hereinafter, this rejection is referenced as modified Kokuryo1.
Regarding Claim 24, for the same reasons, it would be expected that modified Kokuryo1 would meet the piercing strength requirements of the insulating layer has a piercing strength of 17.64 N (see 112b rejection above) or less.
Alternatively, for purpose of compact prosecution, Goto teaches polyesters, such as polybutylene terephthalate copolymers [Goto pgs. 4-14 and throughout], have a puncture strength of 0.5N/µm or more [Goto abstract, pg. 5, and throughout] and 1.5 N/µm or less [Goto pg. 12]. Goto further teaches a thickness range of 3 µm to 100 µm [Goto pg. 14], which would result in a puncture strength of 1.5 N to 50 N for a strength of 0.5 N/µm, and in a preferable thickness range of 10 to 30 µm [Goto pg. 5], which would result in calculated puncture strength of 5 to 15 N or more for 0.5 N/µm, both of which overlap and obviate the claimed range of 3N to 18 N. On the upper end of preferable strength of 0.8 N/µm, the calculated respective ranges are 2.4 N to 80 N and more preferably 8 to 24 N, both of which overlap the claimed range. Thus, the preferable calculated piercing strength range taught by Goto is 5 N to 24 N (preferable range of thickness 10-30 µm and preferable range of strength 0.5 N/ µm to 0.8 N/ µm), which overlaps and obviates the claimed range of piercing strength of claims 6 and 24. Specifically for claim 24, Goto teaches the insulating layer has calculated piercing strengths that include values of 17.64 N (see 112b rejection) or less. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, Goto teaches the thickness range is directly related to the strength of the film, where if the thickness is too low the strength will be too low and if it is too high, processing is difficult [Goto pg. 14]. Thus, Goto’s teaching demonstrates that the thickness and the strength of the taught polyester films in a battery packaging material are result effective variables that are inter-related. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills before the effective filing date to apply Goto’s teaching to determine the workable combination of range of thickness and strength for the specific requirements of the battery as determined by its application in view of consideration that insulating film thickness affects both strength and processing as described above through routine optimization per MPEP 2144.05II. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.". It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date top combine Goto’s teaching of the piercing strength (same as puncture strength) of the types of polyesters taught as insulating films by Kitaura and Yamashita for a specified thickness range in modified Kokuryo’s battery since all teach packaging films for batteries [Kokuryo, Kitaura, Yamashita, and Goto throughout].This rejection will be hereinafter referenced as modified Kokuryo2.
End of alternative rejection of claim 6, 18, and 24.
Claims 7, 20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokuryo et al. [US20180076423A1], hereinafter Kokuryo, in view of Kitaura et al. [US20120216394A1, as previously provided], hereinafter Kitaura, in further view of Yamashita et al. [US7285334B1, as previously provided], hereinafter Yamashita.
Regarding Claim 7, 20, and 25, Kokuryo teaches an exterior material for a battery [Kokuryo abstract and throughout, Figs. 1-9], the exterior material comprising:
a laminate including at least a base material layer, a barrier layer, and a heat-sealable resin layer in this order [Kokuryo 0041, where the barrier layer is aluminum foil]; and the heat-sealable resin layer has a thickness of 20 µm or more and 85 µm of less [Kokuryo 0100, Kokuryo discloses 10 μm or more and 120 μm or less, preferably 10 μm or more and 80 μm or less, more preferably 20 μm or more and 60 μm or less, all of which overlap and obviate the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.], and comprises polybutylene terephthalate [Kokuryo 0086].
Kokuryo does not teach a method for producing an all-solid-state battery, the method comprising storing a battery element stored in a packaging made from an external material, the battery element including at least a unit cell including a positive active material layer, a negative active material layer, and a solid electrolyte layer laminated between the positive active material layer and the negative active material layer; however, usage of Kokuryo’s exterior material for the method of producing an all-solid-state battery as described would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Kokuryo’s exterior material for the claimed method for producing an all-solid-state battery due to its properties of having high puncture strength, moldability, [Kokuryo abstract and throughout] and insulation quality [Kokuryo 0043, 0101, 0139, 0226], which would be beneficial independent of the selection of the whether the battery’s electrolyte is solid or a solution-based electrolyte.
Further, Kokuryo is silent to an insulating layer located so as to cover an entire surface of the positive active material layer of the all-solid-state battery in plan view of the all-solid-state battery wherein: the insulating layer has a thickness of 5 µm or more and 100 µm or less, and comprises a polyester and the insulting layer has a piercing strength of 3 N or more and 18 N or less.
Kitaura discloses a method for producing an all-solid-state battery [Kitaura title], the method comprising;
storing a battery element in a packaging [Kitaura abstract] formed from an exterior material packaging [Kitaura 0035],
wherein:
the battery element comprises at least a unit cell including a positive active material layer, a negative active material layer, and a solid electrolyte layer laminated between the positive active material layer and the negative active material layer [Kitaura 0042],
the exterior material comprises:
a laminate [Kitaura 0035] including at least a base material layer [Kitaura 0035, outer resin layer], a barrier layer [Kitaura 0035, barrier layer], and a heat-sealable resin layer in this order [Kitaura 0035, thermally weldable resin layer]; and
an insulating layer provided on the heat-sealable resin layer on a side opposite to the base material layer side [Kitaura 0035-0038, 0040, 0056, Fig. 3A, layer 10 (Kitaura discloses layer 10 is a heat-resistant resin layer inserted between the laminate structure of case 7 [outer resin layer/metal layer/ thermally-weldable resin layer as disclosed in 0035], which reads on the claimed configuration.)],
the insulating layer of the exterior material is located so as to cover an entire surface of the positive active material layer of the all-solid- state battery in plan view of the all-solid-state battery [Kitaura 0029, 0040, Figs. 1, 2, 3A (Kitaura discloses the positive active material 1 as shown in Fig. 2, which is less than the width of the current collector plate 6. As shown in Fig. 3A, the insulating layer 10 covers the entirety of the bottom and top of the concave parts of the outer case 7. Once the electrode is installed in the case as shown in modified Fig. 1 above in Claim 1, the width of the insulating layer is larger than the width of the active material. Therefore, the insulating layer inherently covers the entire surface of the positive active material layer in the battery in plan view. Per MPEP 2112, there is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.)].,
the insulating layer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of polyester [Kitaura 0038, Kitaura teaches polyester resins such as polybutylene terephthalate (melting point 224° C.) [Meets the limitations of claim 20.], polyethylene terephthalate (melting point 256° C.) and polycyclohexanedimethylene terephthalate (melting point 290° C.)]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Kokuryo’s exterior material with Kitaura’s described method of producing a solid-state battery including the unit cell as described above with the addition of Kitaura’s insulating layer in the concave portion of Kokuryo’s exterior material as taught by Kitaura for the predictable result of method for making an all-solid-state battery that is thermally insulated to prevent the battery electrode assembly from reaching a heating temperature during sealing that will cause deterioration of the unit cell, specifically protecting the solid electrolyte within the battery [Kitaura 0036], and to further support overall insulation quality [Kokuryo 0043, 0101, 0139, 0226] of an all-solid-state battery.
Kitaura is silent to the thickness and the piercing strength of the polyester insulating layer. Yamashita discloses an insulating layer to stabilize the environmental suitability, such as heat resistance and cold resistance [Yamashita, Yamashita’s intermediate layer as taught in column 37, lines 3-26, column 90-93, column 97-99 and throughout] made of polyester, like polyethylene terephthalate copolymer and polybutylene terephthalate copolymer [Yamashita, column 37 lines 60-63 and throughout]. Though Yamashita’s insulating layer is located between the barrier layer and the heat-sealable layer [Yamashita, column 37, lines 3-26 and throughout], it provides a protective function against overheating of the battery inside the packaging. See MPEP 2144.04C, rearrangement of parts. The skilled artisan would look to a teaching such as Yamashita’s for a thickness for the insulating layer. Yamashita discloses the insulating layer should have a thickness of 10 µm to 100 µm [Yamashita, column 37, lines 3-26], which overlaps and obviates the instantly claimed thickness range of 5 um or more and 100 um or less. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, the skilled artisan would know that the thickness range of the insulating layer is a result-effective variable. If the layer is too thin, there will not be sufficient material to insulate the battery against heat. If it is too thick, the thickness of the battery increase and the use of space is inefficient. Determining the thickness necessary could be determined by routine optimization per MPEP 2144.05II. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Yamashita’s teachings about the thickness range of the insulating layer for the thickness of the insulating layer of Kokuryo’s exterior material as modified by Kitaura above since all teach laminated packaging materials for secondary batteries. See MPEP 2143 (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Yamashita further teaches the importance of good piercing strength [Yamashita column 102-column 103] but is silent to the piercing strength of the insulating layer. It would be understood by the skilled artisan that the piercing strength is a property of the material being pierced. Since modified Kokuryo as described above reads on the limitations of claim 1, it would be expected that Kitaura’s taught polyester resins such as polybutylene terephthalate (melting point 224° C.), polyethylene terephthalate (melting point 256° C.) and polycyclohexanedimethylene terephthalate (melting point 290° C.) with the thickness ranges taught by Yamashita would inherently have the claimed piercing strength range. See MPEP 2112 "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In other words, by combining Kitaura’s taught insulative materials in Kokuryo’s exterior material with the thickness of the insulating layer taught by Yamashita, it would be expected that the insulating material would have the claimed piercing strength range of claim 7. Hereinafter, this rejection is referenced as modified Kokuryo1.
Regarding Claim 25, for the same reasons, it would be expected that modified Kokuryo1 would meet the piercing strength requirements of the insulating layer has a piercing strength of 17.64 N (see 112b rejection above) or less.
For purpose of compact prosecution, alternative rejection of claim 7, 20, and 25:
Claim 7, 20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokuryo et al. [US20180076423A1], hereinafter Kokuryo, in view of Kitaura et al. [US20120216394A1, as previously provided], hereinafter Kitaura, in further view of Yamashita et al. [US7285334B1, as previously provided], hereinafter Yamashita, and further in view of Goto, WO2017170333A1, machine translation relied upon provided.
Regarding Claim 7, 20, and 25, Kokuryo teaches an exterior material for a battery [Kokuryo abstract and throughout, Figs. 1-9], the exterior material comprising:
a laminate including at least a base material layer, a barrier layer, and a heat-sealable resin layer in this order [Kokuryo 0041, where the barrier layer is aluminum foil]; and the heat-sealable resin layer has a thickness of 20 µm or more and 85 µm of less [Kokuryo 0100, Kokuryo discloses 10 μm or more and 120 μm or less, preferably 10 μm or more and 80 μm or less, more preferably 20 μm or more and 60 μm or less, all of which overlap and obviate the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.], and comprises polybutylene terephthalate [Kokuryo 0086].
Kokuryo does not teach a method for producing an all-solid-state battery, the method comprising storing a battery element stored in a packaging made from an external material, the battery element including at least a unit cell including a positive active material layer, a negative active material layer, and a solid electrolyte layer laminated between the positive active material layer and the negative active material layer; however, usage of Kokuryo’s exterior material for the method of producing an all-solid-state battery as described would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Kokuryo’s exterior material for the claimed method for producing an all-solid-state battery due to its properties of having high puncture strength, moldability, [Kokuryo abstract and throughout] and insulation quality [Kokuryo 0043, 0101, 0139, 0226], which would be beneficial independent of the selection of the whether the battery’s electrolyte is solid or a solution-based electrolyte.
Further, Kokuryo is silent to an insulating layer located so as to cover an entire surface of the positive active material layer of the all-solid-state battery in plan view of the all-solid-state battery wherein: the insulating layer has a thickness of 5 µm or more and 100 µm or less, and comprises a polyester and the insulting layer has a piercing strength of 3 N or more and 18 N or less.
Kitaura discloses a method for producing an all-solid-state battery [Kitaura title], the method comprising;
storing a battery element in a packaging [Kitaura abstract] formed from an exterior material packaging [Kitaura 0035],
wherein:
the battery element comprises at least a unit cell including a positive active material layer, a negative active material layer, and a solid electrolyte layer laminated between the positive active material layer and the negative active material layer [Kitaura 0042],
the exterior material comprises:
a laminate [Kitaura 0035] including at least a base material layer [Kitaura 0035, outer resin layer], a barrier layer [Kitaura 0035, barrier layer], and a heat-sealable resin layer in this order [Kitaura 0035, thermally weldable resin layer]; and
an insulating layer provided on the heat-sealable resin layer on a side opposite to the base material layer side [Kitaura 0035-0038, 0040, 0056, Fig. 3A, layer 10 (Kitaura discloses layer 10 is a heat-resistant resin layer inserted between the laminate structure of case 7 [outer resin layer/metal layer/ thermally-weldable resin layer as disclosed in 0035], which reads on the claimed configuration.)],
the insulating layer of the exterior material is located so as to cover an entire surface of the positive active material layer of the all-solid- state battery in plan view of the all-solid-state battery [Kitaura 0029, 0040, Figs. 1, 2, 3A (Kitaura discloses the positive active material 1 as shown in Fig. 2, which is less than the width of the current collector plate 6. As shown in Fig. 3A, the insulating layer 10 covers the entirety of the bottom and top of the concave parts of the outer case 7. Once the electrode is installed in the case as shown in modified Fig. 1 above in Claim 1, the width of the insulating layer is larger than the width of the active material. Therefore, the insulating layer inherently covers the entire surface of the positive active material layer in the battery in plan view. Per MPEP 2112, there is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.)].,
the insulating layer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of polyester [Kitaura 0038, Kitaura teaches polyester resins such as polybutylene terephthalate (melting point 224° C.) [Meets the limitations of claim 20.], polyethylene terephthalate (melting point 256° C.) and polycyclohexanedimethylene terephthalate (melting point 290° C.)]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Kokuryo’s exterior material with Kitaura’s described method of producing a solid-state battery including the unit cell as described above with the addition of Kitaura’s insulating layer in the concave portion of Kokuryo’s exterior material as taught by Kitaura for the predictable result of method for making an all-solid-state battery that is thermally insulated to prevent the battery electrode assembly from reaching a heating temperature during sealing that will cause deterioration of the unit cell, specifically protecting the solid electrolyte within the battery [Kitaura 0036], and to further support overall insulation quality [Kokuryo 0043, 0101, 0139, 0226] of an all-solid-state battery.
Kitaura is silent to the thickness and the piercing strength of the polyester insulating layer. Yamashita discloses an insulating layer to stabilize the environmental suitability, such as heat resistance and cold resistance [Yamashita, Yamashita’s intermediate layer as taught in column 37, lines 3-26, column 90-93, column 97-99 and throughout] made of polyester, like polyethylene terephthalate copolymer and polybutylene terephthalate copolymer [Yamashita, column 37 lines 60-63 and throughout]. Though Yamashita’s insulating layer is located between the barrier layer and the heat-sealable layer [Yamashita, column 37, lines 3-26 and throughout], it provides a protective function against overheating of the battery inside the packaging. See MPEP 2144.04C, rearrangement of parts. The skilled artisan would look to a teaching such as Yamashita’s for a thickness for the insulating layer. Yamashita discloses the insulating layer should have a thickness of 10 µm to 100 µm [Yamashita, column 37, lines 3-26], which overlaps and obviates the instantly claimed thickness range of 5 um or more and 100 um or less. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, the skilled artisan would know that the thickness range of the insulating layer is a result-effective variable. If the layer is too thin, there will not be sufficient material to insulate the battery against heat. If it is too thick, the thickness of the battery increase and the use of space is inefficient. Determining the thickness necessary could be determined by routine optimization per MPEP 2144.05II. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Yamashita’s teachings about the thickness range of the insulating layer for the thickness of the insulating layer of Kokuryo’s exterior material as modified by Kitaura above since all teach laminated packaging materials for secondary batteries. See MPEP 2143 (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Yamashita further teaches the importance of good piercing strength [Yamashita column 102-column 103] but is silent to the piercing strength of the insulating layer. It would be understood by the skilled artisan that the piercing strength is a property of the material being pierced. Since modified Kokuryo as described above reads on the limitations of claim 1, it would be expected that Kitaura’s taught polyester resins such as polybutylene terephthalate (melting point 224° C.), polyethylene terephthalate (melting point 256° C.) and polycyclohexanedimethylene terephthalate (melting point 290° C.) with the thickness ranges taught by Yamashita would inherently have the claimed piercing strength range. See MPEP 2112 "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In other words, by combining Kitaura’s taught insulative materials in Kokuryo’s exterior material with the thickness of the insulating layer taught by Yamashita, it would be expected that the insulating material would have the claimed piercing strength range of claim 7.
Thus, the limitations of claim 7 would be met by the combination of Kokuryo with Kitaura and Yamashita ( modified Kokuryo1).
Hereinafter, this rejection is referenced as modified Kokuryo1.
Regarding Claim 25, for the same reasons, it would be expected that modified Kokuryo1 would meet the piercing strength requirements of the insulating layer has a piercing strength of 17.64 N (see 112b rejection above) or less.
Alternatively, for purpose of compact prosecution, Goto teaches polyesters, such as polybutylene terephthalate copolymers [Goto pgs. 4-14 and throughout], have a puncture strength of 0.5N/µm or more [Goto abstract, pg. 5, and throughout] and 1.5 N/µm or less [Goto pg. 12]. Goto further teaches a thickness range of 3 µm to 100 µm [Goto pg. 14], which would result in a puncture strength of 1.5 N to 50 N for a strength of 0.5 N/µm, and in a preferable thickness range of 10 to 30 µm [Goto pg. 5], which would result in calculated puncture strength of 5 to 15 N or more for 0.5 N/µm, both of which overlap and obviate the claimed range of 3N to 18 N. On the upper end of preferable strength of 0.8 N/µm, the calculated respective ranges are 2.4 N to 80 N and more preferably 8 to 24 N, both of which overlap the claimed range. Thus, the preferable calculated piercing strength range taught by Goto is 5 N to 24 N (preferable range of thickness 10-30 µm and preferable range of strength 0.5 N/ µm to 0.8 N/ µm), which overlaps and obviates the claimed range of piercing strength which overlaps and obviates the claimed range of piercing strength for claims 7 and 25. Specifically for claim 25, Goto teaches the insulating layer has calculated piercing strengths that include values of 17.64 N (see 112b rejection) or less. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, Goto teaches the thickness range is directly related to the strength of the film, where if the thickness is too low the strength will be too low and if it is too high, processing is difficult [Goto pg. 14]. Thus, Goto’s teaching demonstrates that the thickness and the strength of the taught polyester films in a battery packaging material are result effective variables that are inter-related. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skills before the effective filing date to apply Goto’s teaching to determine the workable combination of range of thickness and strength for the specific requirements of the battery as determined by its application in view of consideration that insulating film thickness affects both strength and processing as described above through routine optimization per MPEP 2144.05II. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.". It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date top combine Goto’s teaching of the piercing strength (same as puncture strength) of the types of polyesters taught as insulating films by Kitaura and Yamashita for a specified thickness range in modified Kokuryo’s battery since all teach packaging films for batteries [Kokuryo, Kitaura, Yamashita, and Goto throughout]. This rejection will be hereinafter referenced as modified Kokuryo2.
End of alternative rejection of claim 7, 20, and 25.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokuryo1 or alternatively Kokuryo2, as provide in claims 3 and 8 above, in further view of Hiraki et al. [WO2017131155A1, as provided previously (machine translation relied upon previously provided)], hereinafter Hiraki2.
Regarding Claim 10 and 11, modified Kokuryo1 or alternatively modified Kokuryo2 to claim 3 (reference claim 10) and 8 (reference claim 11) wherein when the corrosion-resistant film is analyzed by time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry, a ratio of a peak intensity PPO3 derived from PO3- to a peak intensity PCrPO4 derived from CrPO4- (PP03/CrPO4) is preferably in a range of 6 or more and 120 or less, as provided in claims 3 and 8, Kokuryo and Yamashita discloses a corrosion-resistant film applied to the barrier layer for an exterior material for a battery (see above).
In claims 10 and 11, the limitation “wherein when the corrosion-resistant film is analyzed by time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry, a ratio of a peak intensity PPO3 derived from PO3- to a peak intensity PCrPO4 derived from CrPO4- (PP03/CrPO4) is preferably in a range of 6 or more and 120 or less” is a product-by-process limitation. Per MPEP 2113, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.
Hiraki2 discloses an exterior material for a battery where the barrier comprising a corrosion-resistant film formed on a surface of the barrier layer [Hiraki2 0041]. Hiraki2 discloses a process for the corrosion-resistant film includes a chromate treatment [Hiraki2 0041] with a chromium compound in an amount of 0.5 to 50 mg [Hiraki2 0061], a phosphate treatment [Hiraki2 0041] with a phosphorous compound in an amount of 0.5 to 50 mg [Hiraki2 0061], and an aminated phenol polymer in an amount of 1.0 to 200 mg [Hiraki2 0061]. Further, Hiraki2 discloses applying the solution for the treatment is applied to the barrier layer and heated from 70 to 200 ° C [Hiraki2 0063]. Prior to the conversion treatment, the barrier layer is degreased using a treatment such as an alkali immersion method, an electrolytic cleaning method, an acid cleaning method, or an electrolytic acid cleaning method [Hiraki2 0063]. The thickness of the film is preferably about 1 nm to 10 μm, more preferably about 1 to 100 nm, and even more preferably about 1 to 50 nm [Hiraki2 0062].
The process for making the corrosion-resistant layer is provided in the Instant Specification:
1) chromate treatment with a chromium compound in an amount of 0.5 to 50 mg [Instant 0116], a phosphate treatment with a phosphorous compound in an amount of 0.5 to 50 mg [Instant 0116], and an aminated phenol polymer in an amount of 1.0 to 200 mg [Instant 0116].
2) Applying the solution for the treatment is applied to the barrier layer and heated from 70 to 200 ° C [Instant 0118]
3) Prior to conversion treatment, the barrier layer undergoes a degreasing using a treatment such as an alkali immersion method, an electrolytic cleaning method, an acid cleaning method, or an electrolytic acid cleaning method [Instant 0118].
4) The thickness of the film is preferably about 1 nm to 20 μm, more preferably about 1 to 100 nm, and even more preferably about 1 to 50 nm [Instant 0117].
Hiraki2 discloses time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry may be used to analyze the composition of the film [Hiraki2 0059]. Hiraki2 does not explicitly disclose the ratio of the peak intensity of PO3/CrPO4; however, since Hiraki2 discloses the same process for making the corrosion-resistant film as the instant specification as evidenced above, the skilled artisan would expect that Hiraki2’s corrosion-resistant film would have the limitation “wherein when the corrosion-resistant film is analyzed by time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry, a ratio of a peak intensity PPO3 derived from PO3- to a peak intensity PCrPO4 derived from CrPO4- (PP03/CrPO4) is preferably in a range of 6 or more and 120 or less”. Per MPEP 2112, there is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. If Hiraki2’s corrosion-resistant film does not overlap the range of 6 or more and 120 of less, the skilled artisan would expect it would be merely close. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.
Further, the ratio of peak intensity (PP03/CrPO4) is a result effective variable, where the ratio of PO3 to the ratio of CrPO4 is used to evaluate the effectiveness of the chromate conversion for the corrosion resistant layer. The skilled artisan would be familiar with using chromate conversion to form a protected surface for metals in corrosive environments such as a lithium-ion secondary battery during charging and discharging and would determine the effectiveness of the chromate conversion through characterization of the composition of the layer, such as Hiraki2’s disclosed method of time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry [Hiraki2 0059]. Both too much peak intensity and too little peak intensity of chromium phosphate could indicate an ineffective conversion of the surface, and therefore there would be some range of the ratio of the peak intensity of PO3 to CrPO4 for which the corrosion-resistant layer would effectively protect the metal barrier layer from corrosion and provide a barrier layer surface with improved wettability with the base or heat-sealing layers with regard to adhesion [Hiraki2 0052]. Determining the range for the claimed ratio of peak intensity (PP03/CrPO4) would only require optimization through routine experimentation and would therefore be obvious with the disclosure of Hiraki2. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. (See MPEP 2144.05-II, B)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Hiraki2’s teachings to the exterior material of Kokuryo1 or alternatively Kokuryo2 to apply a corrosion-resistant film, as disclosed by Hiraki2, on the surface of the metal barrier layer to stabilize adhesion of the resin to the surface of the metal and to prevent dissolution or corrosion [Hiraki2 0041], all of which are necessary to provide proper packaging for the battery, and to use time-of-flight secondary mass ion spectrometry as disclosed by Hiraki2 [0059] to characterize the corrosion-resistant layer to determine a workable range for the ratio of peak intensities of PO3 and CrPO4 to demonstrate effective chromate conversion for an effective protective layer for the barrier layer to resist corrosion and to provide good adhesion with the base or heat-seal layers applied thereon [Hiraki2 0041, 0052, 0062]. See MPEP 2143 (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pg. 8-9, Applicant argues that the instant invention demonstrates unexpected results. 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., suppressing a short circuit between the barrier layer and the positive electrode under sustained high-temperature, high pressure constraint; molecular weight, stretching and orientation, crystallinity, film-forming conditions, or additives) are not recited in the rejected claim(s) referenced by the argument. 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). Further, Yamashita teaches the insulating layer prevents short circuiting [Yamashita’s intermediate layer as taught in column 37, lines 3-26, column 90-93, column 97-99 and throughout]. Further, with regard to Applicant’s arguments that the Declaration dated 11/21/2025 evidences unexpected results, the prior art of Kitaura teaches the claimed polyester of polyethylene terephthalate and polybutylene terephthalate as described above. Kokuryo teaches polyethylene naphthalate, polybutylene terephthalate, and polyethylene terephthalate [Kokuryo 009=86 and throughout] as a polyester with insulating properties. Yamashita teaches the insulating materials polyethylene terephthalate resins, polybutylene terephthalate, and polyethylene naphthalate [Yamashita’s intermediate layer as taught in column 37, lines 3-26, column 90-93, column 97-99 and throughout]. Goto teaches polybutylene terephthalate [Goto throughout], polyethylene naphthalate [Goto pgs. 4-8], and polyethylene terephthalate [Goto pgs. 4-8]. Claims 1, 6, and 7 merely require that the insulating material is a polyester with a specified thickness range. The prior art as described above teaches a polyester with the claimed thickness range. Thus, mechanical properties such as piercing strength would be inherent (See MPEP 2112) and expected. Further, the prior art teaches the same polyesters as claimed in claims 16, 18, 20, and 22 and the claimed thickness range as described above. Thus, mechanical properties such as piercing strength would be inherent (See MPEP 2112) and expected. Further, in view of the amended claims, the Examiner has provided the reference of Goto for purposes of compact prosecution. Goto teaches piercing strength depends on the thickness and both are inter-related result effective variables as described above. Further, Goto teaches the claimed piercing strength as described above. Thus, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the instant invention demonstrates unexpected results.
For these reasons, it would not be considered novel or nonobvious to choose the structure as taught by Kokuryo in view of Kitaura, an insulating layer thicknesses [Yamashita and Goto], and insulating materials [Kokuryo, Kitaura, Yamashita, and Goto] taught by the prior art and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on pg. 10 that Yamashita’s intermediate layer has a thickness range of 10 µm to 100 µm; and thus would produce yield strengths above the claimed upper limit; the Examiner respectfully finds this arguments unpersuasive since the Applicant is thusly arguing that the instantly claimed range of 5 µm to 100 µm (of claims 1, 6, and 7 and see PGPub 0077 which recites 5 µm to 500 µm) would also exceed the claimed piercing strength. Thus, Applicant’s arguments that the thickness range taught by Yamashita would produce yield strengths above the claimed upper limit are not commensurate with the instant application or claims 1, 6, and 7.
Applicant’s arguments on pg. 10 against the combination with Hiraki as provided in the Office Action dated 2/9/26 are considered moot since Hiraki is not relied upon for rejection of the amended claims. Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Kokuryo teaches 18N, the Examiner agrees that Kokuryo’s teaching is regarding the total laminate structure; however, such arguments are not commensurate with what is claimed nor has the Examiner relied upon Kokuryo’s teaching of piercing strength for the laminate.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on pg. 11 that the insulating layer is positioned on the battery element side of the heat-sealable resin layer and is located to cover the entire surface of the positive active material in plan view of the all-solid-state battery, Kitaura teaches this structure as described above. Regarding Applicant’s argument on pg. 11 that when the battery is subjected to high-temperature and high-pressure pressing from outside the exterior material and the insulating material suppresses the short circuiting between the barrier layer and the electrode, such arguments are not commensurate with what is claimed. Further, Yamashita directly teaches this is the purpose of the insulating layer [Yamashita column 37 and throughout]. Thus, even though such differences are not recited in the rejected claims, the advantages recited in the arguments are described in the prior art.
Thus, the evidence of obviousness over the prior art outweighs evidence of novelty and nonobviousness of the instant invention, including new claims 23-25, for the reasons provided above.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. T. LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1681. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, Thursday 9:00-5:00 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/M. T. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
