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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 21, 2025has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Per Applicant amendments dated November 21, 2025, Claims 1, 6, and 7 are amended. Claims 16-22 are added. Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-22 are pending and examined.
Status of Application
The rejections in the previous Office Action have been modified as necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments. The Examiner has fully considered the Affidavit dated November 21, 2025 and the response is provided in the Response to Arguments below.
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.
Claims 1 and 17 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 17, 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 50 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 13 to stabilize the environmental suitability, such as heat resistance and cold resistance [Yamashita, column 37, lines 3-26] made of polyester, like polyethylene terephthalate and polybutylene terephthalate [Yamashita, column 37 lines 60-63 and throughout]. Though Yamashita’s insulating layer 13 is located between the barrier layer and the heat-sealable layer [Yamashita, column 37, lines 3-26], 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 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 would be met by the combination of Kokuryo with Kitaura and Yamashita.
Hereinafter, this rejection is referenced as modified Kokuryo1.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Kokuruyo1 teaches the claimed insulating layer piercing strength range of 3 N or more and 30 N or less for the same reasons.
Alternative rejection of claim 1and 17:
Claim 1 is 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 Hiraki et al. [WO2017175837A1, machine translation relied upon provided], hereinafter Hiraki.
Regarding Claim 1, 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 has a piercing strength of 3 N or more and 50 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 13 to stabilize the environmental suitability, such as heat resistance and cold resistance [Yamashita, column 37, lines 3-26] made of polyester, like polyethylene terephthalate and polybutylene terephthalate [Yamashita, column 37 lines 60-63 and throughout]. Though Yamashita’s insulating layer 13 is located between the barrier layer and the heat-sealable layer [Yamashita, column 37, lines 3-26], 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 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 claims 1 and 17 (narrower piercing strength) would be met by the combination of Kokuryo with Kitaura and Yamashita (modified Kokuryo1).
For purpose of compact prosecution, modified Kokuryo1 combined with Hiraki obviates the claimed range of piercing strength. Hiraki discloses polybutylene terephthalate for use as a packaging material with a thickness less than 20 µm has a puncture strength of 1.02 N per µm thickness of polybutylene terephthalate [Hiraki 0011]. Therefore, the skilled artisan would expect a polybutylene terephthalate layer with a thickness within the range of 10 µm (Yamashita minimum) to 20 µm (Hiraki maximum) would have a piercing strength in 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. Further, Hiraki examples 1-4 [Table 1] are for 15 µm polybutylene terephthalate and have a piercing strength of around 15.9 to 17 N [Hiraki Table 1] and 25 µm polybutylene terephthalate and has a piercing strength around 21.3 N, all of which anticipate the claimed range. Further, Hiraki discloses 12 µm thick polyethylene terephthalate, which with a piercing strength of around 13N [Hiraki Table 2]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Hiraki’s teachings about the piercing strength of polybutylene terephthalate and polyethylene terephthalate for modified Kokuryo for an insulating layer resistant to puncturing for an exterior material for a battery, which would be expected to improve the safety of the battery by providing both thermal and electrical insulation to prevent shorting [Kokuryo 0080 and throughout, Hiraki 0005, Kitaura 0036]. Hereinafter, this combination of Kokuryo1 with Hiraki is referenced as Kokuryo2.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Kokuruyo2 teaches the claimed insulating layer piercing strength range of 3 N or more and 30 N or less for the same reasons.
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].].
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].
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 the rejection of claim 15 over Kokyuro2, Hiraki [Hiraki 436-520] discloses phosphate, chromate, fluoride, triazine thiol, and a rare earth oxide (cerium). ] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Hiraki’s use of a corrosion-resistant film on a surface of the barrier layer in the exterior material modified Kokuryo2 for an expectation of success in stabilizing adhesion and preventing dissolution and corrosion of the aluminum foil barrier layer [Hiraki 403-405]). See MPEP 2143 (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
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.).]
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.]
Claims 6, 18 and 19 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 19, 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 50 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 13 to stabilize the environmental suitability, such as heat resistance and cold resistance [Yamashita, column 37, lines 3-26] made of polyester, like polyethylene terephthalate and polybutylene terephthalate [Yamashita, column 37 lines 60-63 and throughout]. Though Yamashita’s insulating layer 13 is located between the barrier layer and the heat-sealable layer [Yamashita, column 37, lines 3-26], 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 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 6, 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 6, 18, and claim 19 (with a narrow range of piercing strength) would be met by the combination of Kokuryo with Kitaura and Yamashita.
Hereinafter, this rejection is referenced as modified Kokuryo1.
Alternative rejection of claim 6, 18 and 19:
Claim 6, 18, and 19 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 Hiraki et al. [WO2017175837A1, machine translation relied upon provided], hereinafter Hiraki.
Regarding Claim 6, 18, and 19, 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 50 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 13 to stabilize the environmental suitability, such as heat resistance and cold resistance [Yamashita, column 37, lines 3-26] made of polyester, like polyethylene terephthalate and polybutylene terephthalate [Yamashita, column 37 lines 60-63 and throughout]. Though Yamashita’s insulating layer 13 is located between the barrier layer and the heat-sealable layer [Yamashita, column 37, lines 3-26], 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 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 6, 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 claims 6, 18, and 19 (narrower range of piercing strength) would be met by the combination of Kokuryo with Kitaura and Yamashita (modified Kokuryo1).
For purpose of compact prosecution, modified Kokuryo1 combined with Hiraki obviates the claimed range of piercing strength. Hiraki discloses polybutylene terephthalate for use as a packaging material with a thickness less than 20 µm has a puncture strength of 1.02 N per µm thickness of polybutylene terephthalate [Hiraki 0011]. Therefore, the skilled artisan would expect a polybutylene terephthalate layer with a thickness within the range of 10 µm (Yamashita minimum) to 20 µm (Hiraki maximum) would have a piercing strength in 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. Further, Hiraki examples 1-4 [Table 1] are for 15 µm polybutylene terephthalate and have a piercing strength of around 15.9 to 17 N [Hiraki Table 1] and 25 µm polybutylene terephthalate and has a piercing strength around 21.3 N, all of which anticipate the claimed range of claims 6 and 19 (narrower range). Further, Hiraki discloses 12 µm thick polyethylene terephthalate, which with a piercing strength of around 13N [Hiraki Table 2], which anticipates the claimed range of claims 6 and 19 (narrower range). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Hiraki’s teachings about the piercing strength of polybutylene terephthalate and polyethylene terephthalate for modified Kokuryo1 for an insulating layer resistant to puncturing for an exterior material for a battery, which would be expected to improve the safety of the battery by providing both thermal and electrical insulation to prevent shorting [Kokuryo 0080 and throughout, Hiraki 0005, Kitaura 0036]. Hereinafter, this combination is referenced as Kokuryo2.
Claims 7, 20, and 21 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 21, 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 50 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 13 to stabilize the environmental suitability, such as heat resistance and cold resistance [Yamashita, column 37, lines 3-26] made of polyester, like polyethylene terephthalate and polybutylene terephthalate [Yamashita, column 37 lines 60-63 and throughout]. Though Yamashita’s insulating layer 13 is located between the barrier layer and the heat-sealable layer [Yamashita, column 37, lines 3-26], 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 for a method as described 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 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 7, 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 claims 7, 20, and 21 (more narrow range of piercing strength) would be met by the combination of Kokuryo with Kitaura and Yamashita.
Hereinafter, this rejection is referenced as modified Kokuryo1.
Alternative rejection of claim 7, 20, and 21:
Claim 7, 20, and 21 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 Hiraki et al. [WO2017175837A1, machine translation relied upon provided], hereinafter Hiraki.
Regarding Claim 7, 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 50 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 13 to stabilize the environmental suitability, such as heat resistance and cold resistance [Yamashita, column 37, lines 3-26] made of polyester, like polyethylene terephthalate and polybutylene terephthalate [Yamashita, column 37 lines 60-63 and throughout]. Though Yamashita’s insulating layer 13 is located between the barrier layer and the heat-sealable layer [Yamashita, column 37, lines 3-26], 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 for a method as described 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 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 7, 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 7, 20, and 21 would be met by the combination of Kokuryo with Kitaura and Yamashita ( modified Kokuryo1).
For purpose of compact prosecution, modified Kokuryo1 combined with Hiraki obviates the claimed range of piercing strength. Hiraki discloses polybutylene terephthalate for use as a packaging material with a thickness less than 20 µm has a puncture strength of 1.02 N per µm thickness of polybutylene terephthalate [Hiraki 0011]. Therefore, the skilled artisan would expect a polybutylene terephthalate layer with a thickness within the range of 10 µm (Yamashita minimum) to 20 µm (Hiraki maximum) would have a piercing strength in 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. Further, Hiraki examples 1-4 [Table 1] are for 15 µm polybutylene terephthalate and have a piercing strength of around 15.9 to 17 N [Hiraki Table 1] and 25 µm polybutylene terephthalate and has a piercing strength around 21.3 N, all of which anticipate the claimed range of claims 7 and 21. Further, Hiraki discloses 12 µm thick polyethylene terephthalate, which with a piercing strength of around 13N [Hiraki Table 2], which anticipates the claimed range of claims 7 and 21. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Hiraki’s teachings about the piercing strength of polybutylene terephthalate and polyethylene terephthalate for modified Kokuryo1 for an insulating layer resistant to puncturing for an exterior material for a battery, which would be expected to improve the safety of the battery by providing both thermal and electrical insulation to prevent shorting [Kokuryo 0080 and throughout, Hiraki 0005, Kitaura 0036]. Hereinafter, this combination is referenced as Kokuryo2.
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
.In view of Applicant’s amendments,the previous obviousness rejections in the Office Action dated May 23, 2025 are withdrawn.
However, the prior art of Kokuryo in view of Kitaura and Yamashita or alternatively the prior art of Kokuryo in view of Kitaura, Yamashita, and Hiraki1, as provided above, was found to read on the claims 1-3, 5-8, 12-15, and new claims 16-22. Specifically, Kokuryo discloses the heat-sealable resin layer is polybutylene terephthalate and anticipates the claimed thickness. Further, Hiraki1 discloses the claimed piercing strength of polyesters polybutylene terephthalate and polyethylene terephthalate in the claimed thickness range for the insulating layer.
Further, the prior art of Kokuryo in view of Kitaura, Yamashita, and Hiraki2 or alternatively the prior art of Kokuryo in view of Kitaura, Yamashita, Hiraki1 and Hiraki2, as provided above, was found to read on the claims 10-11.
Regarding the Affidavit dated November 21, 2025, the Examiner has fully considered the affidavit however in view of Applicant’s amendments, which necessitated additional search and consideration, the new art cited above renders the affidavit moot.
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 Mon-Fri 8:30-5 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