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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 08/12/2025 have been entered. Claims 1-14 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
The amendments and remarks filed are sufficient to cure the previous 35 USC 112 and 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections set forth in the Non-Final office action mailed on 05/20/2025.
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.
2. Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satou (Pub. No. US 20170263981 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Satou teaches a battery (100b, Fig. 2, [0030]) comprising: an electrode layer (61b, Fig. 2, [0045]); a counter-electrode layer (10b/30b within 50b, Fig. 2, [0045]) placed opposite to the electrode layer (61b, Fig. 2, [0045], see 30b and 10b on opposite side of layer 40b); and a solid electrolyte layer (40b, Fig. 2, [0044]) located between the electrode layer (61b, Fig. 2, [0045]) and the counter-electrode layer (10b/30b within 50b, Fig. 2, [0045], see solid electrolyte layer 40b placed between electrode and counter electrode layer), wherein the electrode layer (61b, Fig. 2, [0045]) includes a collector (10b, Fig. 2, [0045]), an electrode active material layer (21b, Fig. 2, [0052]) located between the collector (10b, Fig. 2, [0045]) and the solid electrolyte layer (40b, Fig. 2, [0044], see 21b between 10b and 40b), and an insulating layer (22b, Fig. 2, [0052]) located between the collector (10b, Fig. 2, [0045]) and the electrode active material layer (21b, Fig. 2, [0052]) at ends of the electrode layer (61b, Fig. 2, [0045], see insulating layer 22b placed at edges of electrode active material), the counter-electrode layer (10b/30b within 50b, Fig. 2, [0045]) includes a counter-electrode active material layer (31b, Fig. 2, [0074]) placed opposite to the electrode active material layer (21b, Fig. 2, [0052], see counter electrode layer on opposite side of solid electrolyte layer 40b), the electrode active material layer (21b, Fig. 2, [0052]) includes a region (center of 21b, see Fig. 2 where center area of 21b does not overlap the insulating layer) that does not overlap the insulating layer (22b, Fig. 2, [0052]) in a plan view (see Fig. 2, center of active layer 21b does not overlap insulating layer from top down), an outermost side surface (see outermost side surface, Fig. 2 below) of the insulating layer (22b, Fig. 2, [0052]) and an outermost side surface (see outermost side surface, Fig. 2 below) of the electrode active material layer (21b, Fig. 2, [0052]) in a cross-sectional view (see Fig. 2 below for line defining cross sectional view) are flush with each other (see side surfaces, when cut would be flush with each other on the outermost surface, Fig. 2 below), but fails to teach wherein the insulating layer surrounds an entire periphery of at least a portion of the electrode active material layer in the plan view in the embodiment of Fig. 2.
However, in the embodiment of Fig. 4B, Satou teaches wherein the insulating layer (22a’, Fig. 4B, see [0055]) surrounds an entire periphery (see Fig. 4B(c) where 22a’ surrounds the entire periphery of at least a portion (surrounds the entire periphery) of the electrode active material layer (21a, Fig. 4B, see [0055]) in the plan view (see Fig. 4B(c) shows a plan view).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the embodiment of Fig. 2 to substitute the insulating resin layer in Fig. 2 for the insulating resin layer over the entire periphery of the positive electrode active material portion as taught by the embodiment of Fig. 4B of Satou. Further, it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art. Further, Satou teaches that modifications can be made (see [0170] of Satou).
PNG
media_image1.png
380
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Satou teaches wherein the electrode layer (61b, Fig. 2, [0045]) is a positive-electrode layer (see [0045]), and the counter-electrode layer (10b/30b within 50b, Fig. 2, [0045]) is a negative-electrode layer (see [0045], 10b below 30b is a general current collector, however the layer 30b is a negative layer making the counter electrode layer negative).
Regarding claim 3, Satou teaches, wherein the insulating layer (22b, Fig. 2, [0052]) contains resin (see [0068]).
Regarding claim 4, Satou teaches wherein the insulating layer (22b, Fig. 2, [0052]) contains a metal oxide (silica glass, see [0065], silica glass contains silica dioxide which according to [0092] of the instant published application is a metal oxide).
Regarding claim 5, Satou fails to teach wherein the insulating layer is located in a region in which a length from an outer periphery of the electrode active material layer in plan view is shorter than or equal to 1 mm.
However, Satou teaches wherein the insulating layer (22b, Fig. 2, [0052]) is located in a region (region where 22a’ is located, see Fig. 4B, see modification of embodiment of Fig. 2 above) in which a length from an outer periphery (outer edge of active material adjacent to insulating layer in Fig. 4B(c), see modification of Fig. 2 above) of the electrode active material layer (21b, Fig. 2, [0052]) in the plan view (Fig. 4B(c) gives a plan view specifically of the electrode active material layer) is a result effective variable (see [0057] wherein the width of the insulating portion, therefore the region it is located is set by calculating backward from the amount of firing shrinkage).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Satou to such that the length of the insulating material from an outer periphery of the electrode active material layer in the plan view is shorter than 1 mm as discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, and the width of the insulating layer is a result effective variable of the amount of firing shrinkage to prevent short-circuits between positive and negative electrode layers (see [0057] of Satou). Further Satou teaches that modifications can be made (see [170] of Satou).
Regarding claim 7, Satou teaches wherein respective side surfaces of the solid electrolyte layer (40b, Fig. 2, [0044]), the collector (10b, Fig. 2, [0045]), the electrode active material layer (21b, Fig. 2, [0052]), the counter-electrode active material layer (31b, Fig. 2, [0074]), and the insulating layer (22b, Fig. 2, [0052]) are exposed (see Fig. 2, the side surface of all layers are exposed).
Regarding claim 8, Satou teaches wherein a side surface of the electrode layer (61b, Fig. 2, [0045], see Fig. 3 below with side surfaces labelled, Fig. 3 is a representation of Fig. 2 after firing see [0031], but for illustration purposes will be used to show side surfaces being flush), a side surface of the counter-electrode layer (10b/30b within 50b, Fig. 2, [0045], see Fig. 3 below), and a side surface of the solid electrolyte layer (40b, Fig. 2, [0044], see Fig. 3 below) are flush with one another (see side surfaces labelled in Fig. 3 below are flush).
PNG
media_image2.png
410
510
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Satou teaches wherein the electrode active material layer (21b, Fig. 2, [0052]) and the counter-electrode active material layer (31b, Fig. 2, [0074]) are identical in shape and position to each other in the plan view (see Fig. 2, from plan view both electrode and counter electrode active layer would be rectangular in shape and positioned directly on top of one another, therefore in the same position).
Regarding claim 11, Satou teaches wherein a side surface (side surface of battery along cross sectional line, see annotated Fig. 2 above) of the battery (100b, Fig. 2, [0030]) in the cross-sectional view (see Fig. 2 above for cross sectional view) includes linearly shaped ends (see Fig. 2 above, if the battery was cut across the cross section above, all edges of each layer would have linear shaped ends, therefore side surface of the battery are linearly shaped including in a cross section view).
Regarding claim 12, Satou teaches wherein a cross-section (cross section of battery, see Fig. 3 below, see Fig. 3 below with side surfaces labelled, Fig. 3 is a representation of Fig. 2 after firing see [0031], but for illustration purposes will be used to show a cross section of the battery) of the battery (100b, Fig. 2, [0030]) is rectangular (see cross section of battery in Fig. 3 below is rectangular in shape) or trapezoidal.
PNG
media_image3.png
416
510
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Satou teaches wherein a shape of a periphery of the insulating layer (22b, Fig. 2, [0052]) in the plan view is rectangular (see Fig. 4B(c) which shows a plan view of the insulating layer where the insulating layer is rectangular, see modification of embodiments above), with the insulating layer (22b, Fig. 2, [0052]) surrounding at least the portion of the electrode active material layer (21b, Fig. 2, [0052]) in the plan view (see Fig. 4B(c) where the insulating layer surrounds the entire electrode active material layer periphery, see modification of embodiments above).
Regarding claim 14, Satou teaches wherein the solid electrolyte layer (40b, Fig. 2, [0044]) contains a solid electrolyte (see [0092]) having lithium ion conductivity (see [0094]).
3. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satou (Pub. No. US 20170263981 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tomura et al. (Pub. No. US 20170207482 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Satou fails to teach wherein a thickness of the insulating layer in the cross-sectional view is smaller than or equal to 5 μm.
However, Tomura teaches wherein a thickness of the insulating layer (3ax, Fig. 10, see [0083], the examiner would like to note in Tomura, the insulating layer is labelled 3ax, however in [0083] it is referenced as Sax which is a typographical error and is the same as 3ax), in the cross-sectional view (Fig. 10 is a cross sectional view, see [0031]) is smaller than or equal to 5 µm (50 microns or less, see [0083]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Satou such that a thickness of the insulating layer in the cross-sectional view is smaller than or equal to 50 μm as taught by Tomura to inhibit performance degradation (see [0019] of Tomura) and a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I). Further it would be obvious to optimize the range to stay within the claimed range as thickness is a result effective variable of thickness of cathode active material (see [0083] of Tomura) to improve ease of manufacture (see [0083] of Tomura). Further Satou teaches that modifications can be made (see [170] of Satou).
4. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satou (Pub. No. US 20170263981 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sera et al. (Pub. No. US 20210075065 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Satou fails to teach wherein a side surface of the battery in the cross-sectional view is inclined in such a direction with respect to a stack direction that an area of the counter-electrode layer is larger than an area of the electrode layer in the plan view.
However, Sera teaches wherein a side surface (19E, see Fig. 5(a)) of the battery (18E, Fig. 5(a), see [0104]) in the cross-sectional view (see [0023], Fig. 5 is a cross-sectional view) is inclined in such a direction (direction of incline, Fig. 5(a)) with respect to a stack direction (direction of stack of components, Fig. 5(a)) that an area (area of 12E from a plan view or above 18E) of the counter-electrode layer (12E, Fig. 5(a), see [0104]) is larger than an area (area of 11E from plan view, or above 18E) of the electrode layer (11E, Fig. 5(a), see [0104]) in the plan view (view from above 18E, Fig. 5(a)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Satou such that a side surface of the battery is inclined with respect to the stack direction as taught by Sera so a complicated shape can be easily manufactured and manufacturing costs can be suppressed. Further Satou teaches that modifications can be made (see [170] of Satou).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims(s) 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references used in the prior art.
Conclusion
6. 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 DOUGLAS CALEB MARROQUIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00 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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/DOUGLAS C MARROQUIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723