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
The amendment filed on 23 May 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 5 are currently amended and claims 2-4 are canceled.
The previous rejections under 35 USC 103 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
New rejections follow.
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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al., US 2004/0185336 A1 (hereinafter “Ito”) in view of Nakano, US 2021/0280869 A1 (hereinafter “Nakano”), Lee et al., US 2021/0194098 A1 (hereinafter “Lee”), and Yoshizawa et al, US 2022/0302504 A1 (hereinafter “Yoshizawa”). Ito and Lee qualify as prior art under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) with their respective publication dates of 23 September 2004 and 24 June 2021. Nakano and Yoshizawa qualify under 35 USC 102(a)(2) with effectively filed date of 29 November 2018 and 19 March 2021, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Ito discloses an all-solid-state secondary battery (i.e., all-solid-state thin film cell [¶ 0006] comprising:
an electrode structure comprising an electrode stack (i.e., electrodes 13/15) [¶ 0029] and solid electrolyte layer (i.e., solid electrolyte 14);
the electrode stack comprises a plurality of stacked electrode bodies (depicted in Fig. 1, ¶ 0061) including a first current collector layer (12) [¶ 0046], a first active material layer (13) [¶ 0039], a first solid electrolyte layer (14) [¶ 0043], a second active material layer (15) [¶ 0047], a second current collector layer (16) [¶ 0051], another second active material layer (15), a second solid electrolyte layer (see Fig. 1, which clearly depicts a second solid electrolyte material even though there is not a specific reference character for it), another first active material layer (13), and another first current collector (12) in the order mentioned (i.e. from top of Fig. 1, in sequence moving downward);
the first current collector layer (12) and second current collector layer (16) layer each comprises an extending part and a flat part (see Annotated Figure 1 below);
one of the first current collector layers is arranged on at least one end portion of the electrode stack in a stacking direction (see Fig. 1, which shows current collector 12 as the top and bottom plates of each individual electrode stack along the stacking direction in a profile view);
when the first current collector layer arranged on at least one end portion of the electrode stack in the stacking direction is referred to as an outermost first current collector (note that, as depicted in Fig. 1, 12 is arranged on the end portion of the electrode stack in the stacking direction and its denotation as “outermost” is not a structural limitation);
the outermost solid electrolyte layer is stacked so as to entirely cover the flat plate part of the outermost first current collector layer in the stacking direction view (see Fig. 1, wherein the solid electrolyte covers the full face of the current collector).
PNG
media_image1.png
795
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1: Ito Fig. 1 annotated by examiner with language from the instant claim.
In the embodiment of Figure 1 of Ito, the “first current collector layer” and “first active material layer”, and “another first active material layer” are not taught as being a cathode current collector layer or cathode active material layers, nor are the “second current collector layer”, “second active material layer” and “another second active material layer” taught as being an anode current collector or anode active material layers. Ito exemplified these as electrodes of the opposite polarities. [¶ 0039 and 0047]
However, in the embodiment of Figure 3, Ito shows that a cathode (23; ¶0072); rather than an anode can be provided as an outermost electrode in the stack.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the embodiment of Ito’s Figure 1 to provide a cathode at 13/12 and anode as 15/16, because selection of electrode sequence (i.e. cathode/anode or anode/cathode) would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of design choice, with either option providing a fully functional battery, as exemplified by Ito’s Figure 3 which provides such rearrangement. (See MPEP 2144(VI)(C)) This modification results in the claimed stacked order of layers recited in Claim 1.
Ito is also silent regarding the cathode active material layer and anode active material layers including different types of solid electrolyte materials, where the cathode active material layer includes an inorganic solid electrolyte while the anode active material layers include a polymer electrolyte, with the anode active material layer being a Si or Sn-based alloy, while the solid electrolyte includes polymer electrolyte.
Yoshizawa is cited as teaching a related solid-state stacked battery, which teaches that the positive electrode preferably includes a cathode active material layer that includes an active material [¶0052] and a solid electrolyte that is preferably an inorganic sulfide solid electrolyte [¶0053] due to its high lithium ion conductivity and structural moldability. Yoshizawa also teaches that the negative electrode includes an anode active material that can be silicon or tin alloys [¶0061] and a solid electrolyte that can be a polymer-based solid electrolyte [¶0062], and specifically suggests that the solid electrolyte in the negative electrode active material may be different from that in the positive electrode active material. [¶0063] Yoshizawa further teaches that the solid electrolyte layer provided between the electrodes can be a polymer-based solid electrolyte. [¶0067]
It would have been obvious to further modify Ito’s stacked battery by selecting a cathode active material/inorganic sulfide electrolyte mixture for the cathode active material layers, as taught by Yoshizawa, because Yoshizawa teaches the suitability of this material for the positive electrode, and that the sulfide electrolyte is preferable due to its high lithium ion conductivity. Similarly, it would have been obvious to further modify Ito’s battery by selecting an Si- or Sn alloy as the anode active material and a polymer solid electrolyte as the electrolyte to be mixed with the anode active material, as taught by Yoshizawa, since Yoshizawa teaches the suitability of this material for the negative electrode. Also, it would have been obvious to select a polymer electrolyte as the solid electrolyte, as taught by Yoshizawa, since Yoshizawa teaches its suitability as a solid electrolyte in a solid state battery. Each of these modifications merely amounts to the selection of a known, conventional material for a purpose for which it is known to be suitable in the prior art. One of skill in the art in each case would have known how to substitute such conventional materials, and the results of the substitution would have been entirely predictable, resulting in a functional battery. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Ito is silent regarding the area of the outermost solid electrolyte layer being greater than an area of the flat plate as well as its disposition on the side of the current collector opposite the active material. However, in the same field of endeavor, Nakano discloses a laminated secondary battery (i.e., solid battery 500) [¶ 0010] that includes a solid electrolyte (i.e., solid electrolyte 30) completely surrounding the stacked components of the battery (see Fig. 1) . Nakano and Ito are analogous art because both are drawn to all-solid-state secondary batteries with a stacked structure.
It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a second layer of solid electrolyte on the side of Ito’s current collectors opposite the active material layers such that
the outermost solid electrolyte layer is stacked on a surface of the outermost first current collector layer on an opposite side of the first active material layers
as depicted in Fig. 1 of Nakano and further add an extension of the solid electrolyte layer such that
an area of the outermost solid electrolyte layer is larger than an area of the flat plate part of the outermost first current collector layer in a stacking direction view
as further depicted in Fig. 1 of Nakano with the expectation to produce a battery stack encased on all with a solid electrolyte layer, leaving only the extending parts exposed. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do this as the additional solid electrolyte material helps to improve the charge/discharge balance of the electrode layer by reducing reaction inhomogeneity during charging/discharging as well as improving the rate characteristics by reducing precipitates on the electrode material surface [Nakano at ¶ 0015].
Ito further discloses:
when the flat plate part of the outermost first current collector layer and the first active material layer, which are held between the outermost solid electrolyte layer and the first solid electrolyte layer, are referred to as stack A in the electrode structure (note that, as discussed in the context of claim 1 above, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to dispose a solid electrolyte layer above the top first current collector in Ito Fig. 1—that is, on the side opposite the first active material layer—which encloses both the active material layer and the flat part of the current collector).
As was discussed above, Ito is silent regarding the area of the outermost solid electrolyte layer being greater than an area of the flat plate as well as its disposition on the side of the current collector opposite the active material. However, in the same field of endeavor, Nakano discloses a laminated secondary battery (i.e., solid battery 500) [¶ 0010] that includes a solid electrolyte (i.e., solid electrolyte 30) completely surrounding the stacked components of the battery (see Fig. 1) . Nakano and Ito are analogous art because both are drawn to all-solid-state secondary batteries with a stacked structure.
It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a second layer of solid electrolyte on the side of Ito’s current collectors opposite the active material layers such that
at least one of the area of the outermost solid electrolyte layer and an area of the first solid electrolyte layer is larger than that of the stack A in the stacking direction view (see Nakano at Fig. 1, which clearly shows that the area of the solid electrolyte layer is larger than stack A);
in the stacking direction view, at least one of the outermost solid electrolyte layer and the first solid electrolyte layer is stacked so as to entirely cover the stack A (see Nakano at Fig. 1, which clearly shows that the solid electrolyte completely covers stack A);
the stack A is stored in the outermost solid electrolyte layer and the first solid electrolyte layer uniting along outer edges of the outermost solid electrolyte layer and the first solid electrolyte layer so that the outermost solid electrolyte layer and the first solid electrolyte layer can cover side faces of the stack A other than a side face where the extending part of the first current collector layer is disposed (see Nakano at Fig. 1, which clearly shows that the side faces of stack A are covered); and
the extending part of the outermost first current collector layer extends from the side face of the united outermost solid electrolyte layer and first solid electrolyte layer in the stacking direction view (please note that this is required to maintain electrical contact with the current collectors and would have been so understood by the skilled artisan)
with the expectation to produce a battery stack encased on all with a solid electrolyte layer, leaving only the extending parts exposed. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do this as the additional solid electrolyte material helps to improve the charge/discharge balance of the electrode layer by reducing reaction inhomogeneity during charging/discharging as well as improving the rate characteristics by reducing precipitates on the electrode material surface [Nakano at ¶ 0015].
Ito further discloses:
when the second active material layers, and the flat plate part of the second current 25 collector layer, which are held between the first solid electrolyte layer and the second solid electrolyte layer, are referred to as a stack B in the electrode body (note that, as discussed in the context of claim 1 above, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to dispose a solid electrolyte layer above the top first current collector in Ito Fig. 1—that is, on the side opposite the first active material layer—which encloses both the active material layer and the flat part of the current collector).
As was discussed above, Ito is silent regarding the area of the outermost solid electrolyte layer being greater than an area of the flat plate as well as its disposition on the side of the current collector opposite the active material. However, in the same field of endeavor, Nakano discloses a laminated secondary battery (i.e., solid battery 500) [¶ 0010] that includes a solid electrolyte (i.e., solid electrolyte 30) completely surrounding the stacked components of the battery (see Fig. 1) . Nakano and Ito are analogous art because both are drawn to all-solid-state secondary batteries with a stacked structure. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a second layer of solid electrolyte on the side of Ito’s current collectors opposite the active material layers such that
at least one of the area of the outermost solid electrolyte layer and an area of the first solid electrolyte layer is larger than that of the stack B in the stacking direction view (see Nakano at Fig. 1, which clearly shows that the area of the solid electrolyte layer is larger than stack B);
in the stacking direction view, at least one of the outermost solid electrolyte layer and the first solid electrolyte layer is stacked so as to entirely cover the stack B (see Nakano at Fig. 1, which clearly shows that the solid electrolyte completely covers stack B);
the stack B is stored in the outermost solid electrolyte layer and the first solid electrolyte layer uniting along outer edges of the outermost solid electrolyte layer and the first solid electrolyte layer so that the outermost solid electrolyte layer and the first solid electrolyte layer can cover side faces of the stack B other than a side face where the extending part of the first current collector layer is disposed (see Nakano at Fig. 1, which clearly shows that the side faces of stack B are covered); and
the extending part of the outermost first current collector layer extends from the side face of the united outermost solid electrolyte layer and first solid electrolyte layer in the stacking direction view (please note that this is required to maintain electrical contact with the current collectors and would have been so understood by the skilled artisan)
with the expectation to produce a battery stack encased on all with a solid electrolyte layer, leaving only the extending parts exposed. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do this as the additional solid electrolyte material helps to improve the charge/discharge balance of the electrode layer by reducing reaction inhomogeneity during charging/discharging as well as improving the rate characteristics by reducing precipitates on the electrode material surface [Nakano at ¶ 0015].
The disclosure of Ito is drawn to an electrode stack and does not include an explicit teaching of a housing for the battery laminate disclosed therein. However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses a laminated battery (i.e., pouch-type battery cell 110) [¶ 0042] contained within a pouch (i.e., multi-layered pouch film) [¶ 0051] made of a resin layer, a metal layer, and a resin layer stacked in that order [Id.]. Lee and Ito are analogous art because both are drawn to laminated secondary batteries. The skilled artisan is reasonably expected to understand that most secondary battery devices in the art require some type of case or housing to protect the internals from damage and reaction with atmospheric air/moisture. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the filing date of the claimed invention, to supply the case of Lee to the battery internal stack of Ito as modified by Nakano with the expectation to produce a sealed battery. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to provide such a covering on the stack of Ito as modified by Nakano to protect it from damage and reaction with air/moisture, as outlined above.
Regarding claim 5, in the structure shown in Fig. 1, with each “first current collector 12” (i.e. cathode current collector within modified Ito described above) taught as being connected to first terminal 18a, and each “second current collector 16” (i.e. anode current collector within modified Ito) taught as being connected to terminal 18b [¶ 0030], the plural stacked electrode bodies having the current collectors connected in this fashion are connected in parallel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous rejections 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. Specifically, the deficiencies argued are addressed by the further modifications of Ito in view of Yoshizawa.
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 Jeffrey Barton, whose telephone number is (571) 272-1307. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30 AM – 6:00 PM.
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.
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.
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 20 August 2025