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 . If status of the application as subject to 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 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 7, and 9-19 are pending in the application. Claims 9-19 are withdrawn. Claims 1-5 & 7 were rejected in the office action mailed 1/16/2026. Applicant cancelled claims 4-5. Claims 1-3 & 7 are presently examined.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The 4/16/2026 amendment, in response to the 1/16/2026 office action, has been entered. Applicant's arguments and claim amendments, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant disputed the following issues 1 & 2:
ISSUE #1
The following claim limitation was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200176725A1 (Dai):
the reference electrode portion is positioned on a surface of the solid electrolyte portion where the surface is a same surface on which the cathode portion is positioned
Examiner argued that, with just two optional configurations (MPEP 2144.05.II.B), this claim limitation would have been obvious. Applicant failed to provide any response argument. The rejection is presumed correct at least due to Applicant’s failure to respond.
The above claim limitation was also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200176725A1 (Dai) in view of JP2007071721A machine translation (Osaka). Applicant argued against this combination because Osaka’s reference electrode is in solution.
This argument is not persuasive because Osaka was presented solely for teaching the reference electrode on the same side of the separator / diaphragm as the cathode (page 9, lines 2-3). Applying this single concept to Dai, modified by US20180233711A1 (Kato) for a solid electrolyte, would result in it being obvious for the reference electrode to be on the same surface of the solid electrolyte as the cathode.
ISSUE #2
Examiner asserted that US20200176725A1 (Dai) fails to teach the following claim 1 limitation, which is taught by US20120043301A1 (Arvin):
a minimum distance between the cathode portion and the reference electrode portion is 0.1 cm to 3 cm (Arvin paragraph 35 and figure 1B: 1 mm to 10 mm = 0.1 cm to 1 cm)
Specifically, Arvin states the following: “[0035] …In one embodiment, the radial gap G1 may be a dimension separating the cathode 5 from the reference electrode 20 ranging from 1 mm to 10 mm.” Applicant’s arguments don’t address this 1 mm to 10 mm range (1 mm to 10 mm = 0.1 cm to 1 cm), which falls within the claimed range (0.1 cm to 3 cm). The rejection is presumed correct at least due to lack of Applicant’s failure to respond to Arvin’s teaching of the 1 mm to 10 mm range.
Applicant argues about another range taught by Arvin (0.1-100 mm = 0.01-10 cm). The fact that Arvin also discusses other embodiments with other ranges does not overcome Arvin’s teaching of a range that falls within the claimed range.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor(s) regard as the invention.
Claim 1 states “the reference electrode portion”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim.
Claims 2-3 & 7 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200176725A1 (Dai) in view of US20180233711A1 (Kato), US20090087751A1 (Kondo), US20100010328A1 (Nguyen), JP2007071721A machine translation (Osaka), and US20120043301A1 (Arvin), together “modified Dai”.
With regard to claim 1, Dai teaches the following claim limitations:
A pouch-type …battery (paragraph 20 and figure 3C: battery pouch cell 40), the battery comprising:
a unit cell including an anode portion (paragraph 20 and figure 3C: anode 21), a cathode portion (paragraph 20 and figure 3C: cathode 24), and a …electrolyte portion (paragraph 18 and figure 3A: separator 25) having a sheet shape and located between the anode portion (21) and the cathode portion (24); and
an external member (paragraph 20 and figure 3C: pouch 30) including a space for accommodating the unit cell therein,
wherein the …electrolyte portion (25) includes:
an electrode accommodating portion (Figure A below) in which the anode portion (21) and the cathode portion (24) are accommodated (paragraph 20 and figure 3C: “Battery pouch cell 40 comprises a peripheral seal 41 formed along a peripheral seal path 41* which defines a common volume V* containing the anode 21, cathode 24, and the at least one reference electrode 26.”); and
an extension portion (Figure A below) having a predetermined area extending from a side surface of the electrode accommodating portion, wherein a reference electrode portion (paragraph 20 and figure 3C: reference electrode 26) is positioned on one surface of the extension portion
Figure A: Dai Annotated Figure 3C
PNG
media_image1.png
369
719
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dai, however, fails to teach that the pouch-type… battery is all-solid-state or that the electrolyte portion is solid.
Kato teaches an all-solid-state battery 15 with a solid electrolyte layer 3 between a positive electrode 4, 5 and a negative electrode 1, 2 (paragraph 55 and figure 1b). Kato’s battery is for superior battery performance without edge deformation (paragraphs 11-12).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Dai’s battery pouch cell to be all-solid-state battery with a solid electrolyte layer, as taught by Kato, for superior battery performance without edge deformation.
Claim 1 also recites:
the reference electrode portion is positioned on a surface of the solid electrolyte portion where the surface is a same surface on which the cathode portion is positioned
Modified Dai fails to explicitly teach this claim limitation. MPEP 2144.05(II)(B) provides the law for this issue:
“When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103.”
Here, there are two options — the reference electrode portion is positioned on cathode side the solid electrolyte or on anode side the solid electrolyte. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try both options.
Osaka provides additional guidance. Similar to teachings in the present specification (paragraph 3), Osaka describes use of a reference electrode for detection / measurement (page 6, line 44 through page 7, line 4). Osaka further teaches that the reference electrode can be on the same side as the cathode (page 9, lines 2-3).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Dai’s reference electrode and cathode to be on the same side, as taught by Osaka, as part of a system for detection / measurement.
Modified Dai fails to teach the following claim 1 limitation, which is taught by Arvin:
a minimum distance between the cathode portion and the reference electrode portion is 0.1 cm to 3 cm (paragraph 35 and figure 1B: 1 mm to 10 mm = 0.1 cm to 1 cm)
Similar to teachings in the present specification (paragraph 3), Arvin describes use of a reference electrode for measurement (abstract). Arvin further teaches a 1 mm to 10 mm gap G1 between the cathode 5 and the reference electrode 20 (paragraph 35 and figure 1B). The gap G1 in figure 1B appears to be a minimum distance.
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Dai’s reference electrode and cathode to have a 1 mm to 10 mm gap between the cathode and the reference electrode, as taught by Arvin, as part of a system for measurement.
Dai fails to teach the following claim 1 limitation:
the reference electrode portion is spaced from an edge portion of the extension portion by at least 0.1 cm
The reference electrode portion is an electrical instrument. It is common knowledge to space electrical instruments apart from any device that would interfere with their operation. It would therefore have been obvious to space Dai’s reference electrode apart from an edge of the extension portion, in order to avoid interference with operation of the reference electrode. It would therefore have been obvious to select a distance, such as 0.1 cm, based on available space and movement of the relative components, such that the two components don’t touch or interfere with each other.
Nguyen provides additional guidance. Nguyen teaches spacing a reference electrode 1.5 mm (0.15 cm) from a counter electrode (paragraph 51). Although Nguyen’s counter electrode is different from the claimed edge portion, Nguyen adds to the teaching of spacing the reference electrode from other components. It would also have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to space Dai’s reference electrode portion apart from the edge portion of the extension portion, based on the teachings of Nguyen.
Dai fails to teach the following claim 1 limitation:
a distance (B) between the anode portion and the reference electrode portion and a lithium-ion conductivity (a) of the solid electrolyte portion satisfy the following Relational Expression 1: 3000 cm2/S ≥ B/a [cm2/S] ≥ 2 cm2/S
Kondo is directed to a solid electrolyte with superior lithium-ion conductivity (abstract). Kondo teaches 4.3x10-3 S/cm lithium-ion conductivity (paragraph 85). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Dai’s solid electrolyte to have 4.3x10-3 S/cm lithium-ion conductivity, as taught by Kondo, for superior lithium-ion conductivity.
Nguyen teaches locating a reference electrode 1.5 mm (0.15 cm) from a counter electrode so that they are “close to each other, but not touching” (paragraph 51). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Dai’s reference electrode and anode to be spaced apart by 1.5 mm, based on the teachings of Nguyen, so that the reference electrode is close but not touching.
Combining the teachings of Kondo and Nguyen results in the following Relational Expression 1 value: B/a = 0.15 cm / 4.3x10-3 S/cm = 35 cm2/S.
With regard to claim 2, Dai fails to teach the following limitation, which is taught by Kato:
an area of the anode portion is equal to or greater than an area of the cathode portion
Kato’s positive electrode 4, 5 [claimed cathode portion] has a positive electrode current collector tab 5a, and Kato’s negative electrode 1, 2 [claimed anode portion] has a negative electrode current collector tab 1a (paragraph 55). The negative electrode (connected to 1a) has a larger area than the positive electrode (connected to 5a) (figures 2b and 2e).
Kato’s battery is for superior battery performance without edge deformation (paragraphs 11-12). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Dai’s anode to have an area equal to or greater than an area of the Dai’s cathode as part of a battery with superior battery performance without edge deformation.
With regard to claim 3, Dai teaches the following limitation:
an area of the electrode accommodating portion is equal to or greater than an area of the anode portion (paragraph 20 and Dai Annotated Figure 3C above)
With regard to claim 7, Dai fails to teach the following limitation, which is taught by Kondo and discussed in more detail under claim 1 above:
the solid electrolyte portion has a lithium-ion conductivity of 1X10-3 S/cm to 5 x 10-2 S/cm (paragraph 85: 4.3x10-3 S/cm)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684.
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.
/R.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights