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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 27th 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed January 27th 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-18 remain pending in the application. Claims 19-20 were added by the Applicant. The argument with respect to the rejection of amended Claim 1 over Jin et al. WO 2020/040533 A1 in view of the new limitations have been fully considered and are persuasive, therefore the rejections have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments. However, the arguments with respect to amended Claim 2 over Jin et al. are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained. Additionally, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gardner et al. US 2020/0395584 A1. New rejections follow.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 & 3-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the end portion of the solid electrolyte membrane" in Line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous mention of an end portion of the solid electrolyte membrane in Claim 1, therefore the claim is indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3-19, as they depend from Claim 1, are indefinite for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 11-13, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gardner et al. US 2020/0395584 A1. Further evidence is provided by HighStar “Solid Electrolyte: The Game-Changing Technology Behind Safer Batteries”.
Regarding Claim 1, Gardner discloses an electrochemical stack/cell comprising a solid electrolyte membrane (solid-state electrolyte), a positive electrode, and a negative electrode [0009, 0412], that is used in a solid state battery [0002, 0014]. Gardner discloses that the solid electrolyte membrane has a first surface and a second surface, as illustrated in Annotated Figure 3 below. Gardner discloses a negative electrode (Figure 3 Item 305) disposed on the first surface of the solid electrolyte membrane, see Annotated Figure 3, and further discloses that the electrochemical stack further comprises a negative current collector [0025, 0413]. Gardner discloses a positive electrode (Figure 3 Item 302) on the second surface of the solid electrolyte membrane, see Annotated Figure 3, and further discloses that the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode current collector (Figure 3 Item 304) [0009, 0412] and a positive electrode active material layer containing positive electrode active material [0056, 0412]. Gardner discloses that the first and second surfaces of the solid electrolyte membrane is larger in area compared to the negative electrode and the positive electrode based on the stacked surface [0428], as illustrated in Annotated Figure 3. Gardner further discloses a solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member (“seal” Figure 3 Item 303) formed on part of the exposed surface of the second surface of the solid electrolyte membrane and in contact with the positive electrode lateral surface [0412], as shown in Annotated Figure 3.
PNG
media_image1.png
385
1031
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
Gardner discloses that the solid electrolyte membrane comprises a sulfide electrolyte or an oxide electrolyte [0195]. As further evidenced by HighStar, oxide and sulfide electrolytes are ionic conductive and electrically insulating [Page 1 Lines 2-3, Page 3 Lines 3-10].
Gardner further discloses, as shown in Figure 3, that the end portion of the solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member coincides with the end portion of the solid electrolyte membrane:
PNG
media_image2.png
314
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
Regarding Claim 2, similarly to Claim 1, Gardner discloses an electrochemical stack/cell comprising a solid electrolyte membrane (solid-state electrolyte), a positive electrode, and a negative electrode [0009, 0412], that is used in a battery [0014]. Gardner discloses that the solid electrolyte membrane has a first surface and a second surface, as illustrated in Annotated Figure 3 below. Gardner discloses a negative electrode (Figure 3 Item 305) disposed on the first surface of the solid electrolyte membrane, see Annotated Figure 3, and further discloses that the electrochemical stack further comprises a negative current collector [0025, 0413]. Gardner discloses a positive electrode (Figure 3 Item 302) on the second surface of the solid electrolyte membrane, see Annotated Figure 3, and further discloses that the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode current collector (Figure 3 Item 304) [0009, 0412] and a positive electrode active material layer containing positive electrode active material [0056, 0412]. Gardner discloses that the first and second surfaces of the solid electrolyte membrane is larger in area compared to the negative electrode and the positive electrode based on the stacked surface, as illustrated in Annotated Figure 3. Gardner further discloses a solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member (“seal” Figure 3 Item 303) formed on part of the exposed surface of the second surface of the solid electrolyte membrane and in contact with the positive electrode lateral surface [0412], as shown in Annotated Figure 3.
PNG
media_image1.png
385
1031
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
Gardner discloses that the solid electrolyte membrane comprises a sulfide electrolyte or an oxide electrolyte [0195]. As further evidenced by HighStar, oxide and sulfide electrolytes are ionic conductive and electrically insulating [Page 1 Lines 2-3, Page 3 Lines 3-10].
Gardner further discloses, as shown in Figure 3, that the solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member has the same height as the positive electrode that is formed on the same surface of the solid electrolyte membrane [0419, 0422]:
PNG
media_image3.png
280
731
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
Regarding Claim 3, Gardner discloses that the solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member can have a rectangular, square, or circular shape depending on the type of battery [0031], and further describes the solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member as having one of “a square frame” or “a rectangular frame” [0193], thus Gardner discloses that the solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member has a “frame-like” shape. Gardner discloses that the solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member had an edge portion with a predetermined width and an opening surrounded with the edge portion, as shown in Annotated Figure 3 below:
PNG
media_image4.png
270
649
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
Regarding Claim 4, Gardner discloses, as shown in Annotated Figure 3 below, that the positive electrode has a smaller area than the negative electrode and is disposed inside the area of the negative electrode based on the stacked surface (as shown by L305 being larger than L302):
PNG
media_image5.png
464
798
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
As mentioned above with regards to Claim 1, Gardner discloses that the solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member is formed on the exposed surface of the second surface of the solid electrolyte membrane on which the positive electrode is disposed, and the positive electrode and the solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member are in direct contact with each other [0412], further shown above in Annotated Figure 3 with regards to Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11, Gardner discloses an electrochemical cell, more specifically a lithium ion secondary battery [0002].
Regarding Claim 12, Gardner discloses that the positive electrode active material comprises “NMC” [0056], later disclosed as LiNixMnyCozO2 [0070], thus Gardner discloses that the positive electrode active material is a lithium manganese composite oxide, a lithium cobalt oxide, a lithium nickel oxide, or a mixture thereof.
Regarding Claim 13, Gardner discloses that the solid electrolyte membrane comprises a sulfide or an oxide solid electrolyte [0195].
Regarding Claim 15, Gardner discloses that the solid electrolyte membrane comprises a sulfide electrolyte [0195], which Gardner discloses can be one of Li2S-P2S5, Li2S-P2S5-SiS2, or Li2S-P2S5-SnS2 [0074]. Gardner also discloses that the sulfide electrolyte can be one of a lithium silicon sulfide or LTS, as well as LXPS or LXPSO [0257]. Gardner discloses that “LXPS” is LiaMPbSc, where M is Si, Ge, Sn, and/or Al, and where 2≤a≤8, 0.5≤b≤2.5, 4≤c≤12 [0101] which reads on the claimed formula Li2S-P2S5-SiS2 when M is Si, a = 2, b = 2, and c = 8 as well as the claimed formula Li2S-P2S5-SnS when M is Sn, a = 2, b = 2, and c = 7.
Regarding Claim 16, Gardner discloses that the solid electrolyte membrane comprises a LISICON, a NASICON, a LIPON, LLTO, LAGP, LATP, and a perovskite, or a mixture thereof [0195].
Regarding Claim 17, Gardner discloses that the solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member comprises a polymer of propylene (polypropylene), ethylene (polyethylene), or 1-butene (polybutene) [0509].
Regarding Claim 18, Gardner discloses that the solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member comprises polyetherether ketone (PEEK) [0509].
Regarding Claim 19, Gardner discloses, as shown in Figure 3, that the solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member has the same height as the positive electrode that is formed on the same surface of the solid electrolyte membrane [0419, 0422]:
PNG
media_image3.png
280
731
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
Regarding Claim 20, Gardner discloses that the solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member can have a rectangular, square, or circular shape depending on the type of battery [0031], and further describes the solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member as having one of “a square frame” or “a rectangular frame” [0193], thus Gardner discloses that the solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member has a “frame-like” shape. Gardner discloses that the solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member had an edge portion with a predetermined width and an opening surrounded with the edge portion, as shown in Annotated Figure 3 below:
PNG
media_image4.png
270
649
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner as applied to Claim 4 above, and further in view of Shimamura et al. US 2012/0005882 A1.
Regarding Claim 5, Gardner is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 4, however Gardner is silent as to the solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member additionally being formed on the exposed surface of the solid electrolyte membrane on which the negative electrode is disposed, wherein the negative electrode and the solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member are in direct contact with each other.
Shimamura discloses a laminated battery having a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte layer disposed between the two electrodes [0002, 0010]. Shimamura discloses that there is a sealing member disposed on the outer perimeter of both negative and positive electrodes [0035, 0044], further shown in Annotated Figure 7 below:
PNG
media_image6.png
496
844
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 7
Thus Shimamura discloses a seal member disposed on both sides of the electrolyte layer, thus a seal member on the surface of the electrolyte layer wherein the positive electrode is disposed and in contact with the positive electrode, similar to that of Gardner, as well as a seal member on the surface of the electrolyte layer wherein the negative electrode is disposed and in contact with the negative electrode.
Shimamura discloses that arranging a seal member such as this on both sides can help to prevent electrode peeling and deterioration of battery performance that can be caused by gas generation within the battery cell [0044].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the configuration of Gardner’s laminated battery to have a sealing member on both sides of the electrolyte, as suggested by Shimamura, for the benefit of preventing electrode peeling and deterioration of battery performance that can be caused by gas generation within the battery cell. Thus, modified Gardner discloses that the battery further comprises a solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member (seal member) additionally being formed on the exposed surface of the solid electrolyte membrane on which the negative electrode is disposed, wherein the negative electrode and the solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member are in direct contact with each other.
Claims 6 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner as applied to Claims 1 & 13 above, and further in view of Jin et al. WO 2020/040533 A1.
Regarding Claim 6, Gardner discloses that the solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member comprises a polymer material [0509].
However, Gardner is silent as to the solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member having a higher mechanical strength than the solid electrolyte membrane.
Jin discloses an electrode assembly and a solid state secondary battery [Page 4 Lines 13-16], comprising a solid electrolyte membrane (solid electrolyte layer Figure 3a Item 20 [Page 4 Lines 23-28]) with a first surface and a second surface (see Jin Annotated Figure 3a below), a negative electrode on the first surface (Figure 3a Item 40), and a positive electrode on the second surface (Figure 3a Item 10) [Page 4 Lines 23-28], having a similar configuration to that of Gardner.
PNG
media_image7.png
210
763
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Jin Annotated Figure 3a
Jin further discloses a solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member (protective member Figure 3a Item 30) [Page 4 Line 27, Page 5 Lines 51-52] formed on at least part of the exposed surface of the first surface of the solid electrolyte membrane, as shown in Jin Annotated Figure 3a below, similar to Gardner.
PNG
media_image8.png
252
889
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Jin Annotated Figure 3a
Jin discloses that the solid electrolyte membrane (solid electrolyte layer) comprises a polymer-based solid electrolyte material [Page 7 Lines 2-3], as mentioned with regards to Claim 13, and more specifically discloses that the polymer-based solid electrolyte material can be one of a polyether polymer, a polycarbonate polymer, an acrylate polymer, a polysiloxane polymer, a phosphazene-based polymers, polyethylene derivatives, polyethylene oxides, polyethylene glycols, alkylene oxide derivatives, polyester sulfides, polyvinyl alcohols, polyvinylidene fluorides, and ionic dissociating groups, or a mixture of the above [Page 7 Lines 4-9].
Jin discloses that the solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member (protective layer) is higher in mechanical strength than the solid electrolyte membrane (solid electrolyte layer) [Page 3 Lines 1-2].
Jin discloses that having these materials prevents damage to the solid electrolyte layer [Page 3 Lines 7-8].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to replace the solid electrolyte of Gardner with the solid electrolyte of Jin, thereby resulting in a solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member having a higher mechanical strength than the solid electrolyte, as suggested by Jin, to provide a battery with prevented damage of the solid electrolyte membrane layer.
Regarding Claim 14, Gardner is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 13. As modified above with the modification of Jin, modified Gardner discloses that the solid electrolyte membrane comprising a polymeric solid electrolyte [Jin Page 7 Lines 2-3]. Modified Gardner further discloses that the polymeric solid electrolyte is one of a polyether polymer, a polycarbonate polymer, an acrylate polymer, a polysiloxane polymer, a phosphazene-based polymers, polyethylene derivatives, polyethylene oxides, polyethylene glycols, alkylene oxide derivatives, polyester sulfides, polyvinyl alcohols, polyvinylidene fluorides, and ionic dissociating groups, or a mixture of the above [Jin Page 7 Lines 4-9].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Izumi et al. US 2019/0067766 A1.
Regarding Claim 7, Gardner discloses that the solid electrolyte membrane comprises a polymer material, more specifically polyethylene [0509], however Gardner fails to specifically disclose that the polymer material has a porous structure with a plurality of pores wherein at least some of the pores are open.
Izumi discloses a layered battery structure comprising an anode [0014], a solid electrolyte [0019], and separators [0014]. Izumi discloses that the separators are made of a polymer material with a porous structure that has a plurality of pores (porous polyethylene) [0053], which is a similar material (polyethylene) to that of Gardner. Izumi discloses that a battery of this separator configuration prevents the dispersion of metal powder (lithium from the anode) and further prevents the metal powder from reaching the solid electrolyte [0067], thus the separator functions as a protective layer for the solid electrolyte. Izumi further discloses that the porosity of the separator is 40%-90% with large pore sizes (20nm-500nm) [0054], and that metal ions and liquid pass through [0053], which indicates an open pore structure, thus Izumi discloses that at least some of the pores are open.
Izumi discloses that a battery of this separator configuration prevents the dispersion of metal powder from reaching the solid electrolyte which can cause deterioration of the electrolyte and breaking of the cell [0067].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate porous polyethylene as suggested by Izumi as the solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member of Gardner to protect the electrolyte from deterioration and prevent the cell from breaking.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. US 2018/0309163 A1 (herein referred to as Kim ‘163).
Regarding Claim 8, Gardner discloses preparing a member for an electrolyte membrane comprising a release sheet (seal) in contact with a solid electrolyte membrane (solid-state electrolyte) [0011-0012], as shown by the layers in Figure 3 wherein the release sheet (seal Item 303) is layered in contact with the solid electrolyte membrane (solid-state electrolyte Item 301). Gardner discloses that the release sheet (seal) has a frame shape [0193] with an edge portion and a removed portion (middle section shown in Figure 3 where positive electrode Item 302 is disposed), as mentioned above with regards to Claim 3, wherein the edge portion has a predetermined width (“L303” [0417]), thus the removed portion is a predetermined portion. Gardner discloses that the positive electrode is embedded in the removed portion (middle section shown in Figure 3 where positive electrode Item 302 is disposed) [0412]. Thus, Gardner discloses a release sheet (seal) with a predetermined portion that is removed (middle section) and a remaining part (edge portion) that functions as the solid electrolyte membrane protective member, as mentioned previously with regards to claim 1. This is further illustrated in Annotated Figure 3 below:
PNG
media_image9.png
488
792
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
Gardner fails to specifically disclose a method for removing the predetermined portion from the release sheet such that part of the solid electrolyte membrane is exposed.
Kim ‘163 discloses a solid state battery with a first current collector, a second current collector, and a solid electrolyte layer [0061]. Kim ‘163 discloses that there is additionally an insulation film in contact with the solid electrolyte [0124], also shown in Figure 14 wherein the insulation film 670 is in contact with the electrolyte 540. Kim ‘163 discloses that the insulation film is made of polyethylene [0125] similar to that of Gardner’s release sheet (seal), and has a similar structure to that of Gardner, comprising a substantially frame-like structure, shown in Figure 15 comprising a “throughhole” (Item 671). Kim ‘163 discloses that the throughholes are formed in the insulation film to expose the electrolyte layer and to enable contact between the active material and the electrolyte layer [0125]. Additionally, Kim ‘163 discloses embedding the electrode (active material) in the removed portion of the insulation film (insulation film formed to surround the active material [0124], (also shown in Figures 14 & 15 as active material 530 embedded within the throughholes 671 of insulation film 670). Thus, Kim ‘163 discloses a method of removing a portion of the release sheet (insulation film) by forming throughholes, and embedding the electrodes in the removed portion.
In the absence of a preferred method disclosed in Gardner, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to analogous prior art for a suggestion of a method of manufacturing a similar structure, and would recognize the electrolyte membrane and method of making as disclosed by Kim ‘163 as one of analogous nature, and it would have therefore been obvious to use the method of Kim ‘163 to manufacture the structure of Gardner to prepare an electrolyte membrane reading on the claimed method. Additionally, Kim ’163 discloses a battery stack of this structure is easily manufactured, and prevents short-circuiting quality problems [0131]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the method of Kim ‘163 to manufacture the structure of Gardner to prepare an electrolyte membrane comprising a release sheet layered on a solid electrolyte membrane, removing a predetermined portion of the release sheet (i.e. forming throughholes as disclosed by Kim ‘163) to expose the solid electrolyte membrane, and embedding electrodes in the removed part of the release sheet (embedding active material in the protective layers of Gardner as shown in Kim ‘163 Figures 14 & 15 mentioned above) to produce a battery stack that is easily manufactured and prevents short circuits.
Regarding Claim 9, Kim ‘163 discloses that spray adhesive is used to maintain the position of the insulation film attached to the active material and the electrolyte layer [0126], thus the peel force between the electrolyte and the remaining portion of the insulation film which comprises the spray adhesive would be higher than that of between the electrolyte and the removed portion (formed throughholes). Thus, modified Gardner discloses the limitations of Claim 9.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner and Kim ‘163 as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Wang et al. “Effect of surface hydrophilic modification on the wettability, surface charge property and separation performance of PTFE membrane”.
Regarding Claim 10, Gardner and Kim ‘163 are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 9, however both fail to disclose a hydrophilic surface treatment on the remaining part of the release sheet.
Wang discloses a surface modified PTFE membrane [Abstract] wherein the surface modification involved treating the surface to make it more hydrophilic [Abstract]. Wang specifically discloses using a hydrophilic agent to modify the surface of the PTFE and change the hydrophilic properties [Page 2 Left Column Lines 13-15].
Wang discloses that hydrophilic surface treating PTFE increases the wettability and antifouling properties of the PTFE membrane [Abstract].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the hydrophilic surface treatment as suggested by Wang in the modified protective layer of modified Gardner to achieve a protective layer with increased wettability and antifouling of the protective layer membrane.
Claim 2 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. WO 2020/040533 A1.
Regarding Claim 2, Jin discloses an electrode assembly and a solid state secondary battery [Page 4 Lines 13-16], comprising a solid electrolyte membrane (solid electrolyte layer Figure 3a Item 20 [Page 4 Lines 23-28]) with a first surface and a second surface (see Jin Annotated Figure 3a below), a negative electrode on the first surface (Figure 3a Item 40), and a positive electrode on the second surface (Figure 3a Item 10) [Page 4 Lines 23-28].
PNG
media_image7.png
210
763
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Jin Annotated Figure 3a
Jin discloses that the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode current collector [Page 5 Lines 1-2], and that the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode active material layer [Page 4 Lines 40-41], wherein the positive electrode active material layer further comprises a positive electrode active material [Page 4 Line 41]. As shown in Figure 3a, Jin discloses that the solid electrolyte membrane first and second surfaces are both larger in area than the positive electrode and the negative electrode (see above).
Jin further discloses a solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member (protective member Figure 3a Item 30) [Page 4 Line 27, Page 5 Lines 51-52] formed on at least part of the exposed surface of the first surface of the solid electrolyte membrane, as shown in Jin Annotated Figure 3a below. Jin discloses in the figures that the solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member is formed between the negative electrode and the solid electrolyte membrane, i.e. the first surface, however Jin also discloses in the disclosure that the solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member can also be formed between the positive electrode and the solid electrolyte membrane, i.e. the second surface [Page 5 Lines 51-52].
PNG
media_image8.png
252
889
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Jin Annotated Figure 3a
Jin further discloses in one embodiment (Figure 6) that the solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member can be configured to cover the sides of the electrode (in this case, the positive electrode) [Page 7 Lines 25-29] however Jin also mentions it can be bent towards the negative electrode [Page 7 Lines 36-39], thus Jin discloses that the solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member is in contact with the lateral surfaces of the positive or negative electrode.
PNG
media_image10.png
181
717
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Jin Annotated Figure 6
Jin discloses that bending the solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member in this way, so as to contact the lateral surfaces of the positive or negative electrodes, prevents electrical interference and is advantageous in terms of cost savings [Page 7 Lines 35-36].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to bend the solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member as suggested with Jin’s disclosure so as to create contact between the solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member and the lateral surfaces of the electrodes to prevent electrical interference and save cost.
Jin discloses that the solid electrolyte membrane (solid electrolyte layer) electrically insulates the two electrodes and serves as an ion conductive layer [Page 6 Lines 54-56], thus Jin discloses that the solid electrolyte membrane comprises an ion conductive and electrically insulating material.
Jin discloses that the solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member (protective layer) has a thickness that is 1/10 to ½ the thickness of the solid electrolyte membrane [Page 2 Lines 38-39], and further that the solid electrolyte membrane has a thickness of 10-100µm [Page 6 Lines 57-59]. Thus, Jin discloses that the solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member can have a thickness of 1-50µm (1/10 of 1µm and ½ of 100µm). Jin discloses that the negative electrode has a thickness 1-20µm [Page 5 Lines 6-8]. Thus, Jin discloses that the thickness ranges of the solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member and the thickness ranges of the negative electrode have substantially overlapping ranges, and therefore could be the same height.
Regarding Claim 20, Jin discloses that the solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member (protective layer) has a frame-like shape, as shown in Figure 5, with an edge portion having a predetermined width and an opening surrounded by the edge portion [Page 2 Lines 23-25].
PNG
media_image11.png
511
678
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Jin Annotated Figure 5
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 2 are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Jin does not disclose any relationship between the thickness of the protective layer and the electrodes. Examiner points out that, as stated in the rejection above, Jin discloses that the protective layer has a thickness that is 1/10 to ½ the thickness of the solid electrolyte membrane [Page 2 Lines 38-39], and further that the solid electrolyte membrane has a thickness of 10-100µm [Page 6 Lines 57-59]. Thus, Jin discloses that the solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member can have a thickness of 1-50µm (1/10 of 1µm and ½ of 100µm). Jin discloses that the negative electrode has a thickness 1-20µm [Page 5 Lines 6-8]. Thus, Jin discloses that the thickness ranges of the solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member and the thickness ranges of the negative electrode have substantially overlapping ranges, and therefore could be the same height. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant additionally argues that Jin does not read on the limitation “wherein the solid electrolyte membrane-protecting member is in contact with the positive electrode or negative electrode lateral surfaces thereof” and further argues that there is no motivation to bend the protective layer of Jin to achieve this configuration. Examiner points out, as stated above in the rejection as well as stated previously in the Advisory Action filed January 8th 2026, that the bent structure can be such that the bent sides of the protecting member can be in the direction of either the positive electrode or the negative electrode, and in the case wherein the protecting member is bent in the direction of the negative electrode, the protecting member would be in contact with the lateral surfaces of the negative electrode (reading on the limitations of Claim 2) and would not cause any structural issues when being adopted into the configuration wherein the electrolyte layer area is larger than the electrodes’ areas. Thus, Jin does disclose the features of newly amended Claim 2. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA E GOULD whose telephone number is (571)270-1088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/A.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 20 March 2026