DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s amendment filed 5 September 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, and 10 have been amended, claims 2 and 3 have been canceled, new claims 11 and 12 have been introduced, and claims 1 and 4-12 remain pending.
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 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.
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 and 4-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (WO 2019/195553 A1), in view of SUN et al. (US 2019/0074500; hereinafter “Sun”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a laminated body (see Figs. 1, 2, 5, 6), comprising:
a solid electrolyte layer (see p. 22-25; see Fig. 2 – labeled SSE); and
a layer (IL layer, see Fig. 2) containing a heat-resistant resin (polymer film of anode interface layer) and an ion-conductive material (liquid electrolyte that is coated or soaked or impregnated into the polymer film, see p. 27),
the solid electrolyte layer (see Fig. 2 – SSE layer) and the layer containing the heat-resistant resin and the ion-conductive material (see Fig. 2 – IL layer) being adjacent to each other,
the ion-conductive material is at least one selected from the group consisting of an ionic liquid (liquid electrolyte, see p. 27) and a mixture of an ionic liquid and a lithium salt.
Zhang teaches wherein the heat-resistant resin is a polyamide (see p. 27), but is silent to the polyamide having a glass-transition temperature of not less than 300° C.
Sun teaches aromatic polyamide polymers (such as PPTA, PMIA, PBA, PSA), has high heat resistance and its glass transition temperature is higher than 300°C. Sun teaches that a high temperature-resistance can improve the safety of the lithium-ion power battery (see [0005]).
In view of Sun’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the body of Zhang to include a polyamide having a glass-transition temperature of not less than 300° C, as taught by Sun, because it has a high temperature-resistance that can improve the safety of the lithium-ion battery.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Zhang and Sun teaches wherein a solid electrolyte contained in the solid electrolyte layer is an inorganic solid electrolyte (Zhang: see p. 22).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Zhang and Sun teaches wherein the inorganic solid electrolyte is an oxide-based solid electrolyte or a sulfide-based solid electrolyte (Zhang: see p. 22).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Zhang and Sun teaches an all-solid-state secondary battery, comprising:
a positive electrode (Zhang: cathode current collector, see Fig. 2);
a laminated body recited in claim1 (see rejection for claim 1 above); and
a negative electrode (Zhang: anode current collector, see Fig. 2),
the layer containing the heat-resistant resin and the ion-conductive material (Zhang: IL layer, see Fig. 2) being disposed between the negative electrode (Zhang: anode current collector, see Fig. 2) and the solid electrolyte layer (Zhang: SSE layer, see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang teaches a short circuit prevention film, comprising:
a heat-resistant resin (polymer film of anode interface layer); and an ion-conductive material (liquid electrolyte that is coated or soaked or impregnated into the polymer film, see p. 27),
the ion-conductive material being at least one selected from the group consisting of an ionic liquid (liquid electrolyte, see p. 27) and a mixture of an ionic liquid and a lithium salt.
Zhang teaches wherein the heat-resistant resin is a polyamide (see p. 27), but is silent to the polyamide having a glass-transition temperature of not less than 300° C.
Sun teaches aromatic polyamide polymers (such as PPTA, PMIA, PBA, PSA), has high heat resistance and its glass transition temperature is higher than 300°C. Sun teaches that a high temperature-resistance can improve the safety of the lithium-ion power battery (see [0005]).
In view of Sun’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the body of Zhang to include a polyamide having a glass-transition temperature of not less than 300° C, as taught by Sun, because it has a high temperature-resistance that can improve the safety of the lithium-ion battery.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Zhang and Sun teaches a method for producing an all-solid-state secondary battery recited in claim 6,
said method comprising the step of:
disposing, between the solid electrolyte layer (Zhang: SSE layer, see Fig. 2) and the negative electrode (Zhang: anode current collector, see Fig. 2), the layer containing the heat-resistant resin and the ion-conductive material (Zhang: IL layer, see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Zhang and Sun teaches a method for preventing a short circuit in an all-solid-state secondary battery,
said method comprising the step of:
disposing, between a positive electrode (Zhang: cathode current collector, see Fig. 2) and a negative electrode (Zhang: anode current collector, see Fig. 2), a laminated body recited in claim 1 (combination of IL and SSE layers, see Fig. 2 of Zhang; see rejection for claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Zhang and Sun teaches a method for preventing a short circuit in an all-solid-state secondary battery,
said method comprising the step of:
disposing, between a positive electrode (Zhang: cathode current collector, see Fig. 2) and a negative electrode (Zhang: anode current collector, see Fig. 2), a short circuit prevention film recited in claim 7 (see rejection for claim 7 above).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Zhang and Sun teaches wherein the layer consists of the heat-resistant resin and the ion-conductive material (Zhang: see p. 27 – the anode interface layer is a polymer film as described herein with a liquid electrolyte).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Zhang and Sun teaches the film consisting of the heat-resistant resin and the ion-conductive material (Zhang: see p. 27 – the anode interface layer is a polymer film as described herein with a liquid electrolyte).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 4-6, Applicant argues, with respect to claims 1 and 7, that the prior art fails to teach a polyamide having a glass-transition temperature of not less than 300° C and the ion-conductive material is at least one selected from the group consisting of an ionic liquid and a mixture of an ionic liquid and a lithium salt as required by amended claim 1.
The Examiner finds these arguments moot as amended claim 1 is now being rejected by Zhang in view of Sun. Their combination teaches both the required ionic liquid (Zhang: liquid electrolyte, see p. 27) and a polyamide (Zhang: see p. 26-27, and Sun: see [0005]) having a glass-transition temperature of not less than 300° C (Sun: see [0005]).
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 STEVEN HA whose telephone number is (571)270-5934. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458 . 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.
/S.S.H/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 8 December 2025
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735