Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/450,037

ALL SOLID BATTERY

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Oct 05, 2021
Examiner
SRIPATHI, ANKITH REDDY
Art Unit
1728
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Samsung Electronics
OA Round
7 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
7-8
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
74 granted / 111 resolved
+1.7% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
67 currently pending
Career history
178
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
68.6%
+28.6% vs TC avg
§102
14.1%
-25.9% vs TC avg
§112
12.6%
-27.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 111 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 13th, 2026 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yawata (US20200373565) in view of Mannarino (US20200230295). Regarding Claim 1, Yawata discloses an all solid battery ([002]) comprising: A cell stack ([009]) comprising a negative electrode (negative electrode layer-14, Fig 2., [0053]), a solid electrolyte layer (solid electrolyte layer-13, Fig. 2, [0053]), and a positive electrode comprising a positive active material layer (positive electrode layer-12, Fig. 2, [0053]); A case to accommodate the cell stack (pressurizing plates-15a/15b form case to accommodate cell stack and buffer material layer, Fig. 3, [0056]); and A buffer material to pressurize the cell stack in the case (buffer layer-11, Fig. 2/3, [0056]). Yawata further discloses that the buffer material can be made from any material that satisfied the regulations of the present invention, and further discloses that the buffer layer can be made from silicon rubber, cellulose fiber, paper, a polyolefin resin, polyurethane resin, an acrylic resin, a polyimide resin, or wood ([0075]), The examiner notes that the claim language “wherein the buffer material is configured to shrink in volume at a temperature higher than a critical temperature”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, can mean that the buffer material shrinks in volume once it reaches a critical temperature, and furthermore the language “the critical temperature being higher than an operation temperature of the cell stack” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim can be interpreted to mean any temperature that is higher than the operation temperature of the cell stack. Yawata discloses that the buffer layer repeatedly expands and contracts due to charging and discharging ([0270]). The examiner notes that temperature of the buffer layer is dependent on the charging and discharging of the battery and that if the buffer layer is expanding and contracting due to charging, then there is an arbitrary temperature that once reached, the buffer layer automatically contracts. Yawata does not directly disclose wherein the buffer material is configured to shrink in volume at a temperature higher than a critical temperature, the critical temperature being about 50 C to about 80 C and being higher than an operation temperature of the cell stack. Mannarino discloses a high strength porous material that can have high tensile strength ([0150]). Mannarino further discloses that the Young’s modulus strength of the nanoporous or microporous materials range from 1 MPa to 200 MPa ([0246]). Mannarino further discloses wherein the polymer used to make the porous material can be polypropylene glycol ([0142]). Mannarino further teaches that the polypropylene glycol can be interchanged with polyurethane resin, an acrylic resin, a polyimide resins ([0142]), teaching that for the purpose of a high strength porous material with high tensile strength, these materials are interchangeable. Therefore, since polypropylene glycol, with a Young’s modulus strength of 1 MPa to 200 MPa, is a buffer material disclosed in the instant with a critical temperature of 50 C to 80 C, the modification of Yawata with the teachings of Mannarino, which would yield a buffer material made from polypropylene glycol, would yield a buffer material with a critical temperature of about 50 C to about 80 C. The examiner notes that although Mannarino is directed to a medical device, Mannarino provides teachings of providing a porous material with high tensile strength ([0150]), which can be interchanged with the same materials that are disclosed in Yawata. Therefore, since a buffer material with high tensile strength would provide a benefit to the battery cell stack of Yawata, and since the porous material has a Young’s Modulus of between 1 MPa to 200 MPa, which is encompassed by the preferred Young’s Modulus range of the buffer material of Yawata, that Mannarino provides teaching for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the buffer material Yawata to be made from poly(propylene glycol). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yawata in view of Mannarino to have wherein the buffer material is configured to shrink in volume at a temperature higher than a critical temperature, the critical temperature being about 50 C to about 80 C and being higher than an operation temperature of the cell stack. This modification would yield the expected result of a porous material with high tensile strength. Yawata does not directly disclose wherein the total thickness of the cell stack and the buffer material is lower than a thickness of the case at the temperature higher than the critical temperature. However, Yawata discloses that that the thickness of the buffer material can range from preferably 20 to 20000 um, and more preferably 100 to 5000um ([0077]), wherein the buffer layer thickness can be adjusted to achieve a desired pressure that can be more reliably transferred from the buffer layer to the laminate ([0077]), and that the thickness of the electrode layers can be 10 um to 500 um, more preferable 20 um to 400um and more preferably 20um to 200um ([0158]). Therefore since the thickness of the cell stack and buffer material total thickness is determined by the thickness of the buffer material and thickness of the electrodes, and Yawata teaches that these thickness can vary, absent a showing of criticality, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Yawata to have wherein the total thickness of the cell stack and buffer material is lower than a thickness of the case at the temperature higher than the critical temperature. Yawata does not directly disclose wherein the buffer material is substantially the same in length as the positive active material layer of each of the unit cells. However, Yawata discloses wherein the ratio of the area of the positive electrode area to the solid electrolyte area is preferably 1/1.01 ([0064]). Yawata further discloses that the buffer layer is uniformly pressed on the solid electrolyte and only needs to be an area that covers the solid electrolyte layer entirely so as to also cover the area where the positive electrode is not provided ([0073]). It is the examiner’s opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand this ratio, which provides a 1% difference in area between the positive electrode area and solid electrolyte area can be interpreted to mean substantially same. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that Yawata does not teach away from allowing the buffer layer to be adjusted into an area dimension that would meet the limitation of “substantially same”. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Yawata with the teachings of Koga to have wherein the buffer material is substantially the same in length as the positive active material layer of each of the unit cells. This modified structure would yield the expected results of high impact resistance. Regarding Claim 2-4, Yawata in view of Mannarino discloses the limitations as set forth above. Yawata discloses that the buffer material can be made from any material that satisfied the regulations of the present invention, and further discloses that the buffer layer can be made from silicon rubber, cellulose fiber, paper, a polyolefin resin, polyurethane resin, an acrylic resin, a polyimide resin, or wood ([0075]). Yawata further discloses that the buffer layer preferably has a Young’s modulus of 0.01 GPa or higher and lower than 2 GPa, and can have a single-layer structure or multi-layer structure ([0074]). Yawata does not directly disclose that the buffer material is a thermo-responsive porous polymer sheet, where the thermo-responsive polymer has a critical temperature of about 50 C to 80 C, or that the polymer is selected from poly(N-ethylmethacrylamide), poly(propylene glycol), poly(N-cyclopropylacrylamide) or a combination thereof. Mannarino discloses a high strength porous material that can have high tensile strength ([0150]). Mannarino further discloses that the Young’s modulus strength of the nanoporous or microporous materials range from 1 MPa to 200 MPa ([0246]). Mannarino further discloses wherein the polymer used to make the porous material can be polypropylene glycol ([0142]). The examiner notes that although Mannarino is directed to a medical device, Mannarino provides teachings of providing a porous material with high tensile strength ([0150]). Therefore, since a buffer material with high tensile strength would provide a benefit to the battery cell stack of Yawata, and since the porous material has a Young’s Modulus of between 1 MPa to 200 MPa, which is encompassed by the preferred Young’s Modulus range of the buffer material of Yawata, that Mannarino provides teaching for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the buffer material Yawata to be made from poly(propylene glycol). Therefore it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the buffer material of Yawata with the teachings of Mannarino to have the buffer material be a thermo-responsive porous polymer sheet, where the thermo-responsive polymer has a critical temperature of about 50 C to 80 C, where the polymer is poly(propylene glycol). Regarding Claim 5, Yawata in view of Mannarino discloses the limitations as set forth above. Yawata further discloses wherein the buffer material is between the cells stack and the case (Fig. 3, [0056]). Regarding Claim 6, Yawata in view of Mannarino discloses the limitations as set forth above. Yawata further discloses wherein the negative electrode comprises a negative current collector and a negative active material layer on one side or both sides of the negative current collector (negative electrode current collector on negative electrode layer, [0128], [0160]). Yawata further discloses wherein the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode current collector and a positive active material layer on one side or both sides of the positive electrode current collector (positive electrode current collector on positive electrode layer, [0128, [0160]]). Yawata further discloses wherein the solid electrolyte layer is between the negative active material layer and the positive active material layer (solid electrolyte layer-13 in between both active material layers-12/14, Fig. 2, [0056]), and that the buffer material is between an outermost current collector of the cell stack and an inside surface of the case (buffer layer-11a/11b between inside surface of case, case formed of pressurizing plates-15a/15b). Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yawata (US20200373565) in view of Mannarino (US20200230295) further in view of Ito (US20040185336) (Provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on May 20th, 2022). Regarding Claim 7, Yawata discloses an all-solid battery ([002]) comprising: A cell stack ([009]) comprising a negative electrode (negative electrode layer-14, Fig 2., [0053]), a solid electrolyte layer (solid electrolyte layer-13, Fig. 2, [0053]), and a positive electrode (positive electrode layer-12, Fig. 2, [0053]); A case to accommodate the cell stack (pressurizing plates-15a/15b form case to accommodate cell stack and buffer material layer, Fig. 3, [0056]); and A buffer material to pressurize the cell stack in the case (buffer layer-11, Fig. 2/3, [0056]). Yawata further discloses wherein the negative electrode comprises a negative current collector and a negative active material layer on one side of the negative current collector and not on an opposite side of the negative current collector (negative electrode current collector on negative electrode layer, [0128], [0160]). Yawata further discloses wherein the solid electrolyte layer is between the negative active material layer and the positive active material layer (solid electrolyte layer-13 in between both active material layers-12/14, Fig. 2, [0056]), and that the buffer material is between the opposites sides of two adjacent negative current collectors (see claim 7 112(b) rejection for interpretation of claim language, buffer layer-11a/11b on outside surface of both electrode sheets, Fig. 2, [0028], [0056]). Yawata further discloses that the buffer material can be made from any material that satisfied the regulations of the present invention, and further discloses that the buffer layer can be made from silicon rubber, cellulose fiber, paper, a polyolefin resin, polyurethane resin, an acrylic resin, a polyimide resin, or wood ([0075]), The examiner notes that the claim language “wherein the buffer material is configured to shrink in volume at a temperature higher than a critical temperature”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, can mean that the buffer material shrinks in volume once it reaches a critical temperature, and furthermore the language “the critical temperature being higher than an operation temperature of the cell stack” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim can be interpreted to mean any temperature that is higher than the operation temperature of the cell stack. Yawata discloses that the buffer layer repeatedly expands and contracts due to charging and discharging ([0270]). The examiner notes that temperature of the buffer layer is dependent on the charging and discharging of the battery and that if the buffer layer is expanding and contracting due to charging, then there is an arbitrary temperature that once reached, the buffer layer automatically contracts. Yawata does not directly disclose wherein the buffer material is configured to shrink in volume at a temperature higher than a critical temperature, the critical temperature being about 50 C to about 80 C and being higher than an operation temperature of the cell stack. Mannarino discloses a high strength porous material that can have high tensile strength ([0150]). Mannarino further discloses that the Young’s modulus strength of the nanoporous or microporous materials range from 1 MPa to 200 MPa ([0246]). Mannarino further discloses wherein the polymer used to make the porous material can be polypropylene glycol ([0142]). Mannarino further teaches that the polypropylene glycol can be interchanged with polyurethane resin, an acrylic resin, a polyimide resins ([0142]), teaching that for the purpose of a high strength porous material with high tensile strength, these materials are interchangeable. Therefore, since polypropylene glycol, with a Young’s modulus strength of 1 MPa to 200 MPa, is a buffer material disclosed in the instant with a critical temperature of 50 C to 80 C, the modification of Yawata with the teachings of Mannarino, which would yield a buffer material made from polypropylene glycol, would yield a buffer material with a critical temperature of about 50 C to about 80 C. The examiner notes that although Mannarino is directed to a medical device, Mannarino provides teachings of providing a porous material with high tensile strength ([0150]), which can be interchanged with the same materials that are disclosed in Yawata. Therefore, since a buffer material with high tensile strength would provide a benefit to the battery cell stack of Yawata, and since the porous material has a Young’s Modulus of between 1 MPa to 200 MPa, which is encompassed by the preferred Young’s Modulus range of the buffer material of Yawata, that Mannarino provides teaching for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the buffer material Yawata to be made from poly(propylene glycol). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yawata in view of Mannarino to have wherein the buffer material is configured to shrink in volume at a temperature higher than a critical temperature, the critical temperature being about 50 C to about 80 C and being higher than an operation temperature of the cell stack. This modification would yield the expected result of a porous material with high tensile strength. Yawata does not directly disclose wherein the total thickness of the cell stack and the buffer material is lower than a thickness of the case at the temperature higher than the critical temperature. However, Yawata discloses that that the thickness of the buffer material can range from preferably 20 to 20000 um, and more preferably 100 to 5000um ([0077]), wherein the buffer layer thickness can be adjusted to achieve a desired pressure that can be more reliably transferred from the buffer layer to the laminate ([0077]), and that the thickness of the electrode layers can be 10 um to 500 um, more preferable 20 um to 400um and more preferably 20um to 200um ([0158]). Therefore since the thickness of the cell stack and buffer material total thickness is determined by the thickness of the buffer material and thickness of the electrodes, and Yawata teaches that these thickness can vary, absent a showing of criticality, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Yawata to have wherein the total thickness of the cell stack and buffer material is lower than a thickness of the case at the temperature higher than the critical temperature. Yawata does not directly disclose wherein the buffer material is substantially the same in length as the positive active material layer of each of the unit cells. However, Yawata discloses wherein the ratio of the area of the positive electrode area to the solid electrolyte area is preferably 1/1.01 ([0064]). Yawata further discloses that the buffer layer is uniformly pressed on the solid electrolyte and only needs to be an area that covers the solid electrolyte layer entirely so as to also cover the area where the positive electrode is not provided ([0073]). It is the examiner’s opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand this ratio, which provides a 1% difference in area between the positive electrode area and solid electrolyte area can be interpreted to mean substantially same. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that Yawata does not teach away from allowing the buffer layer to be adjusted into an area dimension that would meet the limitation of “substantially same”. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Yawata with the teachings of Koga to have wherein the buffer material is substantially the same in length as the positive active material layer of each of the unit cells. This modified structure would yield the expected results of high impact resistance. Yawata discloses wherein the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode current collector and a positive active material layer on one side of the positive electrode current collector (positive electrode current collector on positive electrode layer, [0128, [0160]]), but does not discloses wherein the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode current collector and a positive active material layer on both sides of the positive electrode current collector. Ito discloses an all solid battery ([007]) that includes a cell stack (stacked plural power generating elements, [007]) comprising a negative electrode ([0039]), a solid electrolyte layer ([0029]), and a positive electrode ([0047]), a case to accommodate the cell stack (substrate 11a/11b and terminals 18a/18b acts as case structure, Fig. 1, [0029]) and a buffer material to pressurize the cell stack in the case (buffer layer-17a/17b, [0053]). Ito further discloses wherein the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode current collector and a positive active material layer on both sides of the positive electrode current collector (first electrode-15 acts as a positive electrode, with second current collector-16, where both sides of current collector have active material). Ito teaches that this structure allows for a cell that excels in alleviating film stress generated in a film production process to reduce a cell defective ratio, and also excels in charge/discharge cycle characteristics ([006]). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the positive electrode of Yawata with the teachings of Ito to have the positive electrode comprising a positive electrode current collector and a positive active material layer on both sides of the positive electrode current collector. This modification would yield the expected results of a cell that excels in alleviating film stress generated in a film production process to reduce a cell defective ratio, and also excels in charge/discharge cycle characteristics. Regarding Claim 8, Yawata in view of Mannarino further in view of Ito discloses the limitations as set forth above. Yawata discloses wherein the buffer material is further between an outermost negative current collector and an inside surface of the case (Fig. 1/2, buffer layer-11a/11b between inside surface of case, case formed of pressurizing plates-15a/15b). Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yawata (US20200373565) in view of Mannarino (US20200230295) further in view of Peet (US20170191255). Regarding Claim 12, Yawata in view of Mannarino discloses the limitations as set forth above. Yawata further discloses that the buffer material can be made from any material that satisfied the regulations of the present invention, and further discloses that the buffer layer can be made from silicon rubber, cellulose fiber, paper, a polyolefin resin, polyurethane resin, an acrylic resin, a polyimide resin, or wood ([0075]). The examiner notes that Mannarino discloses wherein the polymer used to make the porous material can be polypropylene glycol, poly(vinyl alcohol), poly(acrylic acid), polyethylene glycol, poly(vinyl pyrrolidone), poly(methacrylic sulfobetaine), poly(acrylic sulfobetaine), poly(methacrylic carboxybetaine), poly(acrylic carboxybetaine), povidone, polyacrylamide, poly(N-(2-hydroxypropyl)methacrylamide), polyoxazolines, polyphosphates, polyphosphazenes, polyvinyl acetate, polypropylene glycol, poly(N-isopropylacrylamide), poly(2-hydroxymethylmethacrylate) ([0142]). Yawata in view of Mannarino discloses a buffer material made of a thermo-responsive porous polymer sheet, where the thermo-responsive polymer has a critical temperature of about 50 C to 80 C, where the polymer is poly(propylene glycol). Yawata does not directly disclose that the buffer material is a thermo-responsive porous polymer sheet, where the polymer is selected from poly(N-ethylmethacrylamide), poly(N-cyclopropylacrylamide) or a combination thereof. Peet discloses a weather resilient barrier formed of thermoresponsive polymers ([0020-0021]). Peet further teaches that the thermoresponsive polymers can be poly(propylene glycol) or poly(N-ethylemethacrylamide) ([0028]), and further teaches that these polymers can be used in combination with polyolefin, polyurethane resin, acrylic polymers ([0031]), thus teaching that poly(N-ethylmethacrylamide and poly(propylene glycol) are interchangeable as thermoresponsive polymers. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the buffer layer of Yawata modified by Mannarino with the teachings of Peet to have wherein the polymer is selected from poly(N-ethylmethacrylamide), poly(N-cyclopropylacrylamide) or a combination thereof. Response to Arguments Applicant’s amendments, see Claims, filed September 15th, 2025, with respect to the 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejections of Claims 1- 8 has been withdrawn. Applicant's arguments filed April 25th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yawata in view of Mannarino and Yawata in view of Mannarino further in view of Ito for claims 1 and 7 respectively. The examiner notes the relevant disclosure from the Claim 1 and 7 rejections above have been reproduced below. Yawata does not directly disclose wherein the buffer material is substantially the same in length as the positive active material layer of each of the unit cells. However, Yawata discloses wherein the ratio of the area of the positive electrode area to the solid electrolyte area is preferably 1/1.01 ([0064]). Yawata further discloses that the buffer layer is uniformly pressed on the solid electrolyte and only needs to be an area that covers the solid electrolyte layer entirely so as to also cover the area where the positive electrode is not provided ([0073]). It is the examiner’s opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand this ratio, which provides a 1% difference in area between the positive electrode area and solid electrolyte area can be interpreted to mean substantially same. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that Yawata does not teach away from allowing the buffer layer to be adjusted into an area dimension that would meet the limitation of “substantially same”. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Yawata with the teachings of Koga to have wherein the buffer material is substantially the same in length as the positive active material layer of each of the unit cells. This modified structure would yield the expected results of high impact resistance. Applicant argues that the teachings the proposed medication of Yawata is against the teaching of Yawata. Applicant cites Yawata’s disclosure that teach that the positive electrode active material layer area is less than the negative electrode active material layer which is less than the solid electrolyte layer area, and where the buffer layer can be larger in area than the solid electrolyte area. The examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, and absent a specific definition from application, “substantially same” can include the exact same dimensions or dimensions that are relatively close to the exact same that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand them to be “substantially same”. However, Yawata discloses wherein the ratio of the area of the positive electrode area to the solid electrolyte area is preferably 1/1.01 ([0064]). Yawata further discloses that the buffer layer is uniformly pressed on the solid electrolyte and only needs to be an area that covers the solid electrolyte layer entirely so as to also cover the area where the positive electrode is not provided ([0073]). It is the examiner’s opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand this ratio, which provides a 1% difference in area between the positive electrode area and solid electrolyte area can be interpreted to mean substantially same. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that Yawata does not teach away from allowing the buffer layer to be adjusted into an area dimension that would meet the limitation of “substantially same”. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claim language. Applicant argues that Koga does not appear to teach that the buffer material layer having the same length as the positive electrode active material layer provides an electrode with high impact resistance. Applicant argues that there is a material and functional design of Yawata’s buffer maintaining pressure and Koga’s buffer expanding with heat is distinct from the instant inventions’ shrinking of the buffer with heat design. Koga has been removed from the rejection above. Furthermore, Yawata further discloses that the buffer material can be made from any material that satisfied the regulations of the present invention, and further discloses that the buffer layer can be made from silicon rubber, cellulose fiber, paper, a polyolefin resin, polyurethane resin, an acrylic resin, a polyimide resin, or wood ([0075]), however, Yawata does not directly disclose wherein the buffer material is configured to shrink in volume at a temperature higher than a critical temperature, the critical temperature being about 50 C to about 80 C and being higher than an operation temperature of the cell stack. Mannarino discloses a high strength porous material that can have high tensile strength ([0150]). Mannarino further discloses wherein the polymer used to make the porous material can be polypropylene glycol ([0142]). Mannarino further teaches that the polypropylene glycol can be interchanged with polyurethane resin, an acrylic resin, a polyimide resins ([0142]), teaching that for the purpose of a high strength porous material with high tensile strength, these materials are interchangeable. The examiner notes that although Mannarino is directed to a medical device, Mannarino provides teachings of providing a porous material with high tensile strength ([0150]), which can be interchanged with the same materials that are disclosed in Yawata. Therefore, since a buffer material with high tensile strength would provide a benefit to the battery cell stack of Yawata, and since the porous material has a Young’s Modulus of between 1 MPa to 200 MPa, which is encompassed by the preferred Young’s Modulus range of the buffer material of Yawata, that Mannarino provides teaching for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the buffer material Yawata to be made from poly(propylene glycol). Yawata in view of Mannarino provides teachings to utilize polypropylene glycol, with a Young’s modulus strength of 1 MPa to 200 MPa, is a buffer material disclosed in the instant with a critical temperature of 50 C to 80 C, the modification of Yawata with the teachings of Mannarino, which would yield a buffer material made from polypropylene glycol, would yield a buffer material with a critical temperature of about 50 C to about 80 C. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yawata in view of Mannarino to have wherein the buffer material is configured to shrink in volume at a temperature higher than a critical temperature, the critical temperature being about 50 C to about 80 C and being higher than an operation temperature of the cell stack. This modification would yield the expected result of a porous material with high tensile strength. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANKITH R SRIPATHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 am - 5:00pm. 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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. /ANKITH R SRIPATHI/Examiner, Art Unit 1728 /MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 05, 2021
Application Filed
Jul 24, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 02, 2023
Response Filed
Jan 22, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 28, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 01, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
May 01, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 06, 2024
Response Filed
Oct 30, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 06, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 25, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 06, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Sep 15, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 13, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 15, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12555780
NEGATIVE ELECTRODE AND SECONDARY BATTERY INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12523705
Battery Apparatus and Current Sensor Diagnosis Method
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12519101
CERIA-CARBON-SULFUR COMPOSITE, METHOD FOR PREPARING SAME, AND POSITIVE ELECTRODE AND LITHIUM-SULFUR BATTERY COMPRISING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12506139
Lithium-Doped Silicon-Based Oxide Negative Electrode Active Material, Method of Preparing the Same, and Negative Electrode and Secondary Battery Including the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Patent 12489161
SECONDARY BATTERY AND BATTERY MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

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

Prosecution Projections

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+26.2%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 111 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

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

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

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month