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 .
Claim Status
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 3-5, 9 are cancelled.
Claims 12-14 were previously cancelled.
Claim 15 is new.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, 10-11, 15 are considered on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the instant application has specific differences from the cited references as follows:
Satoshi teaches inorganic fillers that undergo endothermic reaction at 200-250℃ while lithium carbonate begins decomposition at 700℃ or higher, having a fundamentally different mechanism of action.
In regards to argument a, in light of the amendment to claim 1, Ueda is now relied upon to teach the claimed conductive layer. Ueda teaches a conductive layer disposed on at least one surface of a positive electrode current collector, the conductive layer includes a conductive material, a binder, and gas generating compound ([0013]-[0014]; [0037]; [0039]), the conductive layer includes the gas generating compound, e.g. lithium carbonate, in an amount of about 0.1 wt% to about 50wt%, based on a total weight of the conductive layer, the conductive later includes the conductive material in an amount of about 10wt% to about 90wt%, based on a total weight of the conductive layer, and the conductive layer includes the binder in an amount of about 10 wt% to about 90wt%, based on a total weight of the conductive layer ([0044] binder 10-90%; [0048] 0.1-50wt% lithium carbonate; [0050]), and the endothermic material is lithium carbonate ([0022]-[0023]; [0046]). Ueda teaches that when a battery is overcharged, the lithium carbonate foams, which increases internal resistance and suppresses thermal runaway ([0120]; [0126]-[0128]). Ueda teaches suppressing heat generation associated with overcharging without reducing cathode capacity ([0012]). The PTC layer of Satoshi and the heat-suppressing layer of Ueda serve the same function, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the PTC layer taught by Satoshi with the heat-suppressing layer taught by Ueda.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 10-11, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoshi (JP2018116810A) in view of Ueda (JP 2015153720 A), cited on the IDS filed 4/24/2026, reference is made to the enclosed machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Satoshi teaches an all-solid-state rechargeable battery, comprising: a positive electrode layer; a negative electrode layer; and a solid electrolyte layer between the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer ([0008]; [0012]), wherein: the positive electrode layer includes a plate-shaped positive electrode current collector, and a positive electrode active material layer on the positive electrode current collector ([0012]; [0035] an aluminum foil piece is considered plate shaped), the positive electrode layer includes a conductive layer disposed on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector, the conductive layer includes a conductive material, a binder, and an endothermic material that absorbs heat by a decomposition reaction, the endothermic material including a non-oxide compound ([0012]; [0015] PTC layer is considered a conductive layer; [0035]; [0018]; [0024]). Satoshi teaches wherein the PTC layer is 0.1-50µm thick ([0020]). Satoshi teaches that a conductive layer with endothermic material increases the safety of an all-solid-state battery because the battery reaction, and uncontrolled heating, can be stopped after an internal short circuit ([0013]; [0014]). Satoshi teaches wherein the thickness of the positive electrode active material layer is preferably 1-100µm ([0029]). Satoshi teaches the need for suppressing a decrease in electrical resistance due to overheating ([0006]-[0008]).
Satoshi does not teach the conductive layer includes the endothermic material in an amount of about 24 wt% to about 65%, based on a total weight of the conductive layer, the conductive later includes the conductive material in an amount of about 25wt% to about 54wt% , based on a total weight of the conductive layer, and the conductive layer includes the binder in an amount of about 10 wt% to about 40wt%, based on a total weight of the conductive layer, a content of the endothermic material in the conductive layer is greater than or equal to about 1 part by weight and less than or equal to about 30 parts by weight, based on 100 parts by weight of the positive electrode active material layer, and the endothermic material is lithium carbonate.
However, Ueda teaches a battery comprising a positive electrode layer which includes a plate-shaped positive electrode current collector, and a positive electrode active material layer on the positive electrode current collector ([0013]; [0024]- [0026]; Fig. 1, reproduced below; [0032]-[0033]), the positive electrode layer includes a conductive laver disposed on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector, the conductive layer includes a conductive material, a binder, and an endothermic material that absorbs heat by a decomposition reaction, the endothermic material including a non-oxide compound ([0013]-[0014]; [0037]; [0039]), the conductive laver includes the endothermic material in an amount of about 0.1 wt% to about 50wt%, based on a total weight of the conductive layer, the conductive later includes the conductive material in an amount of about 10wt% to about 90wt%, based on a total weight of the conductive layer, and the conductive layer includes the binder in an amount of about 10 wt% to about 90wt%, based on a total weight of the conductive layer ([0044] binder 10-90%; [0048] 0.1-50wt% lithium carbonate; [0050]), and the endothermic material is lithium carbonate ([0022]-[0023]; [0046]). Uedo teaches that the thickness of the heat-suppressing layer can be appropriately set within, for example, a range of 1 to 5 µm so that it does not become a significant resistance to the movement of lithium ions ([0050]). Ueda teaches the thickness of the positive electrode current collector layer 34 can be appropriately set within, for example, a range of 10 to 30 µm ([0038]). Ueda teaches that when a battery is overcharged, the lithium carbonate foams, which increases internal resistance and suppresses thermal runaway ([0120]; [0126]-[0128]). Ueda teaches suppressing heat generation associated with overcharging without reducing cathode capacity ([0012]).
PTC layer of Satoshi and the heat-suppressing layer of Ueda serve the same function, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the PTC layer taught by Satoshi with the heat-suppressing layer taught by Ueda.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the PTC layer taught by Satoshi with the heat suppressing layer taught by Ueda with a reasonable expectation of successfully suppressing heat associated with overcharging of a battery and to achieve safety of a battery. Further, the range taught by Ueda overlaps with the instantly claimed ranges. A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, "[ A ] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP 2144.05.
Satoshi in view of Ueda does not explicitly teach a content of the endothermic material in the conductive layer is greater than or equal to about 1 part by weight and less than or equal to about 30 parts by weight, based on 100 parts by weight of the positive electrode active material layer.
However, Satoshi teaches a range of thicknesses of the positive electrode layer, 1-100µm, and a range of content of a positive active material within the positive electrode active material layer ([0025]; [0029]) while Ueda teaches a range of thickness of an intermediate layer and a range of amount of gas generating (endothermic) compound in the intermediate layer ([0050]; the instant specification describes a conductive layer of 0.5-10µm thickness [0069]). The intermediate layer taught by Ueda contains gas generating (endothermic) compound, conductive material, and binder at weight percentages that overlap with the respective claimed ranges. The weight of the positive electrode layer taught by Satoshi will vary based on, for example, the content of positive electrode active material and the thickness of the layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to set the thickness of each layer and the amount of endothermic material in the intermediate layer within the range taught by the prior art. One of ordinary skill in the art would further find it obvious to compare the amount of endothermic material in the conductive layer, which overlaps with the claimed range, to the weight of the positive electrode active material layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect a battery having the positive electrode layer of Satoshi, the intermediate layer of Ueda, and the respective ranges of weight contents and thickness to have a content of the endothermic material in the conductive layer based on 100 parts by weight of the positive electrode active material layer overlapping with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 2, modified Satoshi teaches the all-solid-state rechargeable battery of claim 1. Both Satoshi and Ueda teach wherein the conductive layer is disposed between the positive electrode active material layer and the positive electrode current collector, or the conductive laver is disposed on the opposite surface to the side of the positive electrode current collector where the positive electrode active material laver was formed (Satoshi [0012]; [0024]; [0035]; Ueda Fig. 1 and [0014]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Satoshi teaches the all-solid-state rechargeable battery of claim 1. Satoshi further teaches wherein the solid electrolyte layer includes a sulfide solid electrolyte ([0026]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Satoshi teaches the all-solid-state rechargeable battery of claim 1.
Modified Satoshi does not explicitly teach wherein the content of the endothermic material in the conductive layer is 15 parts by weight to 30 parts by weight, based on 100 parts by weight of the positive electrode active material layer.
However, Satoshi teaches a range of thicknesses of the positive electrode layer, 1-100µm, and a range of content of a positive active material within the positive electrode active material layer ([0025]; [0029]) while Ueda teaches a range of thickness of an intermediate layer and a range of amount of gas generating (endothermic) compound in the intermediate layer ([0050]; the instant specification describes a conductive layer of 0.5-10µm thickness [0069]). The intermediate layer taught by Ueda contains gas generating (endothermic) compound, conductive material, and binder at weight percentages that overlap with the respective claimed ranges. The weight of the positive electrode layer taught by Satoshi will vary based on, for example, the content of positive electrode active material and the thickness of the layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to set the thickness of each layer and the amount of endothermic material in the intermediate layer within the range taught by the prior art. One of ordinary skill in the art would further find it obvious to compare the amount of endothermic material in the conductive layer, which overlaps with the claimed range, to the weight of the positive electrode active material layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect a battery having the positive electrode layer of Satoshi, the intermediate layer of Ueda, and the respective ranges of weight contents and thickness to have a content of the endothermic material in the conductive layer based on 100 parts by weight of the positive electrode active material layer overlapping with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 11, modified Satoshi teaches the all-solid-state rechargeable battery of claim 1. Modified Satoshi further teaches wherein the endothermic material does not include an oxide coating (Ueda [0022]-[0023]; Satoshi [0018]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Satoshi teaches the all-solid-state rechargeable battery as claimed in claim 1. Modified Satoshi teaches the conductive laver includes the endothermic material in an amount of about 0.1 wt% to about 50wt%, based on a total weight of the conductive layer, the conductive later includes the conductive material in an amount of about 10wt% to about 90wt%, based on a total weight of the conductive layer, and the conductive layer includes the binder in an amount of about 10 wt% to about 90wt%, based on a total weight of the conductive layer ([0044] binder 10-90%; [0048] 0.1-50wt% lithium carbonate; [0050]), and the endothermic material is lithium carbonate ([0022]-[0023]; [0046]). The range taught by Ueda overlaps with the instantly claimed ranges. A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, "[ A ] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoshi (JP2018116810A) in view of Ueda (JP 2015153720 A), as applied above, in further view of Tsujita et al. (WO 2019065972 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Satoshi teaches the all-solid-state rechargeable battery of claim 1.
Modified Satoshi is silent as to the type of battery exterior.
However, Tsujita teaches a positive electrode ([0021]; [0024]) comprising a conductive substrate, an intermediate layer, and an active material layer, wherein the intermediate layer contains a conductive agent, a gas generating compound, and a binder ([0007]; [0008]; [0009]; [0017]; [0026]; gas generating compound is considered an endothermic material). Tsujita teaches that the gas-generating compound decomposes when heated ([0031]). Tsujita teaches where the all-solid-state battery comprises an exterior body accommodating the positive electrode layer, the negative electrode layer, and the solid electrolyte layer therein, the exterior body being a film type ([0084]; [0086] “electrode assembly was housed in a metal resin composite film as an exterior”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have housed the all-solid-state battery taught by modified Satoshi in a metal resin composite film as an exterior as taught by Tsujita.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have housed the all-solid-state battery taught by modified Satoshi in a metal resin composite film as an exterior as taught by Tsujita with a reasonable expectation of success because a metal resin composite film type exterior is known in the art as a battery exterior.
Regarding claim 8, modified Satoshi in view of Tsujita teaches the all-solid-state battery of claim 7. Modified Satoshi is silent in regards to a volume difference between a volume contained within the exterior body at 80 ºC and a volume contained within the exterior body at 25 ºC.
However, modified Satoshi teaches all aspects of the structure of the battery of claim 8. For example, an all-solid-state rechargeable battery ([0016]; [0024]) with a positive electrode layer including a non-oxide endothermic material that absorbs heat by a decomposition reaction (Satoshi [0008]; [0012]; [0015]; [0024]; Ueda [013]-[0014]; [0037]; [0039]), where the positive electrode layer includes a conductive layer between the positive electrode active material layer and the positive electrode current collector, and the conductive layer includes the endothermic material (Ueda [0013]-[0014]; [0037]; [0039]), in an amount overlapping with the range of about 24 wt% to about 65% (Ueda [0048]), based on a total weight of the conductive layer, the conductive later includes the conductive material in an amount overlapping with the range of about 25 wt% to about 54wt% ([0050]), based on a total weight of the conductive layer, and the conductive layer includes the binder in an amount overlapping with the range of about 10 wt% to about 40wt%, based on a total weight of the conductive layer (Ueda [0044]; [0048]; [0050]), and a laminate exterior body accommodates the positive electrode layer, the negative electrode layer, and the solid electrolyte layer therein (Tsujita [0084]; [0086]). Therefore, the all-solid-state battery taught by modified Satoshi in view of Tsujita would inherently possess the volume characteristics as claimed. Absent specific claimed features that maintain the difference between a volume contained within the exterior body at 80 ℃ and a volume contained within the exterior body at 25 ℃ within about 5% of the volume contained within the exterior body at 25 ℃, any differences between the instant application and the prior art are a result of something not claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-6:30.
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.
/F.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights