DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the April 17th, 2026 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”). The
text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior
Office 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
In response to the amendments received on April 17th, 2026:
Claims 1-13 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 7, 8, and 13 are amended.
Claim 1 is amended to specify that the first electrode layer and the second electrode have a first polarity, the first portion is exposed on a cut face of the first electrode, and that the solid state battery includes electrode elements being laminated with the first electrode and having a second polarity opposite to the first polarity; and the electrode elements are not in the cut face of the first electrode.
Claim 7 is amended to describe:
the third electrode layer and the fourth electrode have a second polarity, and
the first portion is exposed on one cut face of the laminate and the third electrode layer, and
the second portion is exposed on the other cut face opposite to the one cut face of the laminate, and
the third electrode layer and the fourth electrode layer as the electrode elements are not in the one cut face of the laminate, and
the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer are not in the other cut face of the laminate.
Claim 8 is amended to describe:
a first electrode layer having a first polarity,
a side end face defined as one terminal face,
in the side end face view, each of the side end faces of a part of the first region, a part of the second region and a part of the first buried layer is in the side end face of the first electrode,
the solid-state battery includes an electrode element being laminated with the first electrode and having a second polarity opposite to the first polarity; and the electrode element is not in the side end face of the first electrode.
Claim 13 is amended to describe:
a second electrode layer as the electrode element having the second polarity
the side end face of the first electrode as the one terminal face exposed on one end face of the laminate,
the side end face of the second electrode as the other terminal face exposed on the other end face opposite to the one end face,
in the other end face view, each of the side end faces of a part of the third region, a part of the fourth region and a part of the second buried layer is in the other end face of the laminate,
the first electrode layer is not in the other end face of the laminate.
Support for each and every amended limitation is not found in the originally filed disclosure (see rejection under 112(a) and 112(b) below).
Status of Claims
Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as described below:
Claims 1-4 and 8-10 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasa (U.S. Pat. No. 9954217 B2) in view of Harada et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2006261008 A).
Claim 5 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasa (U.S. Pat. No. 9954217 B2) in view of Harada et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2006261008 A) as applied to Claim 1 above, as further evidenced by Utsuno et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190221884 A1).
Claim 6 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasa (U.S. Pat. No. 9954217 B2) in view of Harada et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2006261008 A) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Okamoto et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2013182842 A).
Claim 7 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasa (U.S. Pat. No. 9954217 B2) in view of Harada et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2006261008 A).
Claim 11 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasa (U.S. Pat. No. 9954217 B2) in view of Harada et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2006261008 A) as applied to Claim 8 above, as further evidenced by Utsuno et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190221884 A1).
Claim 12 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasa (U.S. Pat. No. 9954217 B2) in view of Harada et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2006261008 A), and further in view of Okamoto et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2013182842 A).
Claim 13 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasa (U.S. Pat. No. 9954217 B2) in view of Harada et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2006261008 A) as further evidenced by Kawaji et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2015151144 A1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the “Remarks” on April 17th, 2026 have been fully considered and are deemed unpersuasive as further described below:
Applicant presents arguments with respect to Claims 1, 7, 8, and 13 in which are based on the claims as amended. Applicant must ensure that any amendment to the claims is supported by the specification and cannot be considered new matter; support for any and every newly added limitation is not clearly found in the disclosure (see 112(a) and 112(b) rejection below). The limitations are ambiguous and the scope cannot be fully understood without support from the disclosure. Further, applicant argues that Ogasa nor Harada teach or suggest the newly added limitations (see pgs. 9-11 of the “Remarks”); however, citations and clear explanations are not found to support said statements. Ogasa is relied upon to teach first electrode layers having a first polarity in which is laminated with an electrode element (second polarity electrode layers) (see rejection below); please note that the “first electrode layers” of Ogasa have a first polarity and comprise layers deemed equivalent to the first electrode layer and second electrode layer of the claimed invention; while the “second electrode layers” of Ogasa have a second polarity and comprise layers equivalent to the third electrode layer and the fourth electrode layer of the claimed invention (para. 20, 36, 38; Fig. 1B). Therefore, applicant’s arguments lack support and convincing evidence; and are deemed unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
349
615
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 11A of the Present Invention )]Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 describes “cutting the first electrode including the first buried layer surrounding the first portion so that the first electrode layer, the second electrode layer, the first portion and the first buried layer are exposed on a cut face of the first electrode” (amended language underlined). In the response, the applicant does not provide citations from the originally filed disclosure to show antecedent basis for the amended claim language nor evidence that no new matter has been added. Please refer to annotated Figure 11A of applicant’s disclosure in which is partially enlarged for clarity. Fig. 11A shows the first electrode layer, the second electrode layer, and the first buried layer exposed on a cut face of the first electrode; the first portion (where the first electrode layer and second electrode layer contact each other, [0009]) is not exposed on a cut face of the first electrode. The remaining figures and specification also do not show a configuration in which the first electrode layer, the second electrode layer, the first buried layer, and the first portion are exposed on a cut face of the first electrode as amended; it is further unclear how said configuration is possible based on applicant’s disclosure. Therefore, said limitations are deemed new matter.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 recites “cutting the laminate so that the first electrode layer, the second electrode layer, the first portion and the first buried layer are exposed on one cut face of the laminate and the third electrode layer, and the fourth electrode layer, the second portion and the second buried layer are exposed on the other cut face opposite to the one cut face of the laminate” (amended limitations are underlined). Annotated Fig. 11A shows the first electrode layer, the second electrode layer, and the first buried layer exposed on a cut face of the first electrode; the first portion (where the first electrode layer and second electrode layer contact each other, [0009]) is not exposed on a cut face of the first electrode. Fig. 11A shows that the third electrode layer, fourth electrode layer, and the second portion (where the third electrode layer and fourth electrode contact each other) are exposed on the other cut face opposite to the one cut face of the laminate; the second buried layer is not exposed on the other cut face. The remaining figures and specification also do not show a configuration in which the third electrode layer, the fourth electrode layer, the second portion, and the second buried layer are exposed on a cut face of the first electrode as amended. Therefore, said limitations are deemed new matter.
Regarding Claim 8, the amended claim language recites “the first electrode has a side end face as one terminal face that is a plane; in the side end face view, each of the side end faces of a part of the first region, a part of the second region and a part of the first buried layer is in the side end face of the first electrode; and each of the side end faces of a part of the first region, a part of the second region and a part of the first buried layer is located within the plane of the side end face of the first electrode.” Similar to the previous rejection of Claim 8, the applicant does not provide citations from the originally filed disclosure to show proper antecedent basis for the amended claim language nor evidence that new matter has not been added.
Similarly, Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 recites “in the other end face view, each of the side end faces of the part of the first region, the part of the second region and the part of the first buried layer is in the one end face of the laminate; each of the side end faces of the part of the first region, the part of the second region and the part of the first buried layer is located within the first plane of the one end face of the laminate”; “in the other end face view, each of the side end faces of a part of the third region, a part of the fourth region and a part of the second buried layer is in the other end face of the laminate; and each of the side end faces of the part of the third region, the part of the fourth region and the part of the second buried layer is located within the second plane of the other end face of the laminate.” Similar to the previous rejection of Claim 13, the applicant does not provide citations from the originally filed disclosure to show antecedent basis for the amended claim language nor evidence that no new matter has been added.
Further, applicant has not sufficiently overcome the previous rejection of Claims 8-13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b); on page 7 of the “Remarks,” applicant appears to address said rejections by reciting that “no new matter has been added” providing amendments to Claims 8 and 13 for clarification; however, there is no explanation of how said amendments overcome the previous rejections. Applicant should provide a detailed explanation including citations within the originally filed disclosure to show the lack of new matter; if no support can be provided, applicant should remove the limitations in which comprise new matter and rather use language supported by the specification and figures.
As the first region lies between the second regions with the first buried layer laying outside the second region, it is unclear how both the first region, second region, and first buried layer may be present on a side end face of the first electrode. Similarly, as the third region lies between the fourth region with the second buried layer laying outside the fourth region, it is unclear how both the third region, fourth region, and second buried layer may be present on a side end face of the second electrode. For example, in the laminate cutting step shown in Fig. 11A of applicant’s disclosure, the first image shows a first buried layer and second region within a side end surface defining a first plane; and a third region within a second end surface defining a second plane (the first region and fourth region are not shown).
Claims 2-6 and 9-12 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 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.
"A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970)" (see MPEP 2173.03).
“The specification should ideally serve as a glossary to the claim terms so that the examiner and the public can clearly ascertain the meaning of the claim terms. Correspondence between the specification and claims is required by 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), which provides that claim terms must find clear support or antecedent basis in the specification so that the meaning of the terms may be ascertainable by reference to the specification” (see MPEP 2173.03).
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 describes “cutting the first electrode including the first buried layer surrounding the first portion so that the first electrode layer, the second electrode layer, the first portion and the first buried layer are exposed on a cut face of the first electrode” (amended language underline). In the response, the applicant does not provide citations from the originally filed disclosure to show antecedent basis for the amended claim language nor evidence that no new matter has been added. Please refer to annotated Figure 11A of applicant’s disclosure in which is partially enlarged for clarity. Fig. 11A shows the first electrode layer, the second electrode layer, and the first buried layer exposed on a cut face of the first electrode; the first portion (where the first electrode layer and second electrode layer contact each other, [0009]) is not exposed on a cut face of the first electrode. The remaining figures and specification also do not show a configuration in which the first electrode layer, the second electrode layer, the first buried layer, and the first portion are exposed on a cut face of the first electrode as amended; it is further unclear how said configuration is possible based on applicant’s disclosure.
Further, Claim 1 recites “the solid-state battery includes electrode elements being laminated with the first electrode and having a second polarity opposite to the first polarity; and the electrode elements are not in the cut face of the first electrode.” The term “electrode elements” is not defined in the specification; therefore, the scope of said term is wholly unclear. Refer to MPEP 608.01(o):
“The meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import; and in mechanical cases, it should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies. A term used in the claims may be given a special meaning in the description. See MPEP § 2111.01 and § 2173.05(a).”
“Usually the terminology of the claims present on the filing date of the application follows the nomenclature of the specification, but sometimes in amending the claims or in adding new claims, new terms are introduced that do not appear in the specification. The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.”
“While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims” … “provided no new matter is introduced.”
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 recites “cutting the laminate so that the first electrode layer, the second electrode layer, the first portion and the first buried layer are exposed on one cut face of the laminate and the third electrode layer, and the fourth electrode layer, the second portion and the second buried layer are exposed on the other cut face opposite to the one cut face of the laminate” (amended limitations are underlined). Annotated Fig. 11A shows the first electrode layer, the second electrode layer, and the first buried layer exposed on a cut face of the first electrode; the first portion (where the first electrode layer and second electrode layer contact each other, [0009]) is not exposed on a cut face of the first electrode. Fig. 11A shows that the third electrode layer, fourth electrode layer, and the second portion (where the third electrode layer and fourth electrode contact each other) are exposed on the other cut face opposite to the one cut face of the laminate; the second buried layer is not exposed on the other cut face. The remaining figures and specification also do not show a configuration in which the third electrode layer, the fourth electrode layer, the second portion, and the second buried layer are exposed on a cut face of the first electrode as amended.
Regarding Claim 8, the amended claim language recites “the first electrode has a side end face as one terminal face that is a plane; in the side end face view, each of the side end faces of a part of the first region, a part of the second region and a part of the first buried layer is in the side end face of the first electrode; and each of the side end faces of a part of the first region, a part of the second region and a part of the first buried layer is located within the plane of the side end face of the first electrode.” Similar to the previous rejection of Claim 8, the applicant does not provide citations from the originally filed disclosure to show proper antecedent basis for the amended claim language nor evidence that new matter has not been added; further, applicant has not sufficiently overcome the previous rejection of Claims 8-13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Similarly, Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 recites “in the other end face view, each of the side end faces of the part of the first region, the part of the second region and the part of the first buried layer is in the one end face of the laminate; each of the side end faces of the part of the first region, the part of the second region and the part of the first buried layer is located within the first plane of the one end face of the laminate”; “in the other end face view, each of the side end faces of a part of the third region, a part of the fourth region and a part of the second buried layer is in the other end face of the laminate; and each of the side end faces of the part of the third region, the part of the fourth region and the part of the second buried layer is located within the second plane of the other end face of the laminate.” Similar to the previous rejection of Claim 13, the applicant does not provide citations from the originally filed disclosure to show antecedent basis for the amended claim language nor evidence that no new matter has been added.
Further, applicant has not sufficiently overcome the previous rejection of Claims 8-13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b); on page 7 of the “Remarks,” applicant recites “no new matter has been added” and amendments to Claim 8 and 13 for clarification; however, there is no explanation of how said amendments overcome the previous rejections. Applicant should provide a detailed explanation including citations within the originally filed disclosure to show the lack of new matter; if no support can be provided, applicant should remove the limitations in which comprise new matter.
As the first region lies between the second regions with the first buried layer laying outside the second region, it is unclear how both the first region, second region, and first buried layer may be present on a side end face of the first electrode. Similarly, as the third region lies between the fourth region with the second buried layer laying outside the fourth region, it is unclear how both the third region, fourth region, and second buried layer may be present on a side end face of the second electrode. For example, in the laminate cutting step shown in Fig. 11A of applicant’s disclosure, the first image shows a first buried layer and second region within a side end surface defining a first plane; and a third region within a second end surface defining a second plane (the first region and fourth region are not shown).
Examiner further recommends removing the claim limitations in which lack antecedent basis in the disclosure. In the response, applicant can also include drawing annotations and specific citations from the originally filed disclosure to show clear support for the claim language in a manner that lacks ambiguity.
Claims 2-6 and 9-12 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Appropriate correction is required. Applicant must ensure consistency between the claim language and specification.
Cited Prior Art
Previously Cited Ogasa (U.S. Pat. No. 9954217 B2) (“Ogasa”)
Previously Cited Kawaji et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2015151144 A1) (“Kawaji et al.”)
Previously Cited Utsuno et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190221884 A1) (“Utsuno et al.”)
Previously Cited Okamoto et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2013182842 A) (“Okamoto et al.”)
Previously Cited Harada et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2006261008 A) (“Harada et al.”)
Previously Cited Kitamura et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200212497 A1) (“Kitamura et al.”)
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.
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 1B (Ogasa))]
PNG
media_image2.png
857
1304
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasa (U.S. Pat. No. 9954217 B2) in view of Harada et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2006261008 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Ogasa teaches a method of manufacturing a solid-state battery (para. 32-33). The method includes forming a first electrode comprising electrode layers 111a-113a in which a second electrode layer 112a faces a first electrode layer 111a (para. 20, 38; Fig. 1B); the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer have the same polarity ([0036]). The first electrode includes a first solid electrolyte layer 12 (buried layer) interposed between the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer, surrounding an area (first portion) where the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer are in contact with each other (para. 36, annotated Fig. 1B). Ogasa further teaches electrode elements being laminated with the first electrode layers 111 a to 113 a in which the electrode elements have a second polarity (second electrode layers 131 a to 133 a) ([0036]).
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 2 (Harada et al.))]
PNG
media_image3.png
422
444
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ogasa does not teach cutting the first electrode including the first buried layer surrounding the first portion so that the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer are exposed on a cut face of the first electrode, wherein the cut face of the first electrode is a plane parallel to a direction in which the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer face each other; and each of the cut faces of the first electrode layer, the second electrode layer and the first buried layer is located within the plane of the cut face of the first electrode.
Harada et al. teaches cutting a laminate so that a first electrode (positive electrode (1)) and second electrode (negative electrode (2)) are exposed on opposite cut faces of the laminate (para. 50) to connect to the electrode terminal (para. 40, Fig. 2). Further, a sandwiched or buried electrolyte layer (3) is exposed on opposite cut faces in a direction parallel to the cut face comprising the exposed electrode (para. 17-19, Fig. 2). Harada et al. teaches that the configuration provides a simplified manufacturing process and prevents lamination defects (Harada et al., para. 69). Further, the electrode cutting configuration allows for electrical connection between the electrode terminal and the plurality of current collectors (para. 14, 40). The first electrode and second electrode can be formed of multiple stacked layers in which a first electrode can comprise both a first electrode layer and second electrode
PNG
media_image4.png
587
947
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Theoretical Fig. 1B (Ogasa))]layer as taught by Ogasa above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of manufacturing a solid state battery of Ogasa to include cutting the first electrode (comprising a first electrode layer and second electrode layer as taught by Ogasa) so that the electrode layer is exposed on a cut face of the first electrode and the electrolyte is exposed on the opposite cut face in a parallel direction as taught by Harada et al. (in which the electrode elements are not in the cut face of the first electrode). When performing the described modification, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to cut the power generating element of Ogasa at the theoretical plane indicated in annotated Fig. 1B (see theoretical Fig. 1B above); in this case, the first electrode and second electrode would be alternately exposed on opposite cut faces with a solid electrolyte layer (corresponding to a first and second buried layer of Ogasa) exposed on opposite cut faces parallel to the exposed electrode as taught by Harada et al.
In this case, the first electrode and second electrode are provided on opposite cut faces to allow connection with a positive electrode terminal on one cut face and a negative electrode terminal on the opposite cut face as Harada et al. suggests. Exposure of both the negative electrode and positive electrode on the same cut face would initiate contact with an electrode terminal of opposite polarity in which can cause short circuiting and battery damage; therefore, said configuration would be avoided by a skilled artisan. Therefore, the theoretical cutting plane shown in Fig. 1B is deemed a reasonable configuration by a PHOSITA in view of the proposed modification.
Therefore, the combination of the teachings of the prior art suggest cutting the first electrode (comprising the first buried layer surrounding the first portion as taught by Ogasa above) so that the first electrode layer, the second electrode layer, and the first buried layer are exposed on a cut face of the first electrode (see theoretical Fig. 1B above); the cut face of the first electrode is a plane parallel to a direction in which the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer face each other; and each of the cut faces of the first electrode layer, the second electrode layer, and the first buried layer is located within the plane of the cut face of the first electrode (see annotated Fig. 1B).
Regarding Claim 2, Ogasa is modified by Harada et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Ogasa teaches the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer including the first portion and an outer portion extending from the first portion toward each outer edge portion in which is thinner at the outer portion than at the first portion (reference annotated Fig. 1B).
Regarding Claim 3, Ogasa is modified by Harada et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As shown in annotated Fig. 1B, a thickness of the first electrolyte layer (buried layer) increases as the first buried layer moves away from the first portion in an outward direction (toward outside) (Fig. 1B).
Regarding Claim 4, Ogasa is modified by Harada et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Ogasa teaches the first electrode layer 111a, the second electrode layer 112a, and the solid electrolyte layer (first buried layer) formed by screen-printing (printing method) (para. 93, 121).
Regarding Claim 8, as shown in annotated Fig. 1B, Ogasa teaches a solid-state battery comprising first electrode layers 111a-113a having a first polarity including a first region and a second region surrounding the first region and a first electrolyte layer 12 (first buried layer) disposed in the second region ([0036]). The first buried layer is represented by the indicated area and is not disposed in the first region and a part of on a side end face of the first electrode, and is rather disposed in a center portion of the first electrode (annotated Fig. 1B). Ogasa further teaches electrode elements being laminated with the first electrode layers 111 a to 113 a in which the electrode elements have a second polarity (second electrode layers 131 a to 133 a) ([0036]).
Ogasa does not teach that the first electrode has a side end face as one terminal face that is a plane; and each of the side end faces of a part of the first region, a part of the second region and a part of the first buried layer is located within the plane of the side end face of the first electrode.
Harada et al. teaches cutting a laminate so that a first electrode (positive electrode (1)) and second electrode (negative electrode (2)) are exposed on opposite cut faces of the laminate (para. 50) to connect to the electrode terminal (para. 40, Fig. 2). Further, a sandwiched or buried electrolyte layer (3) is exposed on opposite cut faces in a direction parallel to the cut face comprising the exposed electrode (para. 17-19, Fig. 2). Harada et al. teaches that the configuration provides a simplified manufacturing process and prevents lamination defects (Harada et al., para. 69). Further, the electrode cutting configuration allows for electrical connection between the electrode terminal and the plurality of current collectors (para. 14, 40). The first electrode and second electrode can be formed of multiple stacked layers in which a first electrode can comprise both a first electrode layer and second electrode layer as taught by Ogasa above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of manufacturing a solid state battery of Ogasa to include the first electrode (comprising a first electrode layer and second electrode layer as taught by Ogasa) comprising a side end face as one terminal face that is a plane (in which the electrode layer is exposed on a cut face of the first electrode) as taught by Harada et al. When performing the described modification, it would be obvious to a PHOSITA to cut the power generating element of Ogasa at the theoretical plane indicated in Theoretical Fig. 1B; in this case, the first electrode of Ogasa has a side end face that is a first plane in which a part of the second region and a part of the first buried layer is located within the plane of the side end face of the first electrode (see annotated Fig. 1B and Theoretical Fig. 1B of Ogasa above, as shown the second region falls within the theoretical first cutting plane; and the fourth region falls within the theoretical second cutting plane).
In this case, the first electrode and second electrode are provided on opposite cut faces to allow connection with a positive electrode terminal on one cut face and a negative electrode terminal on the opposite cut face as Harada et al. suggests (in which the electrode element is not in the side end face of the first electrode). Exposure of both the negative electrode and positive electrode on the same cut face would initiate contact with an electrode terminal of opposite polarity in which can cause short circuiting and battery damage; therefore, said configuration would be avoided by a skilled artisan. Therefore, the theoretical cutting plane shown in Fig. 1B is deemed a reasonable configuration by a PHOSITA in view of the proposed modification.
Regarding Claim 9, Ogasa is modified by Harada et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 8 above. As shown in annotated Fig. 1B, Ogasa teaches a second region including a portion of the electrode in which is equivalent to a recess that is indented or recessed toward the first region and the first electrolyte layer 12 (first buried layer) is provided in the recess of the second region (Fig. 1B). The recessed region and first buried layer are provided on both sides of the electrode in corresponding positions; only one is indicated to improve visibility of the annotations and clarity of the figures.
Regarding Claim 10, Ogasa is modified by Harada et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 8 above. As shown in annotated Fig. 1B, a thickness of the first electrolyte layer (buried layer) increases as the first buried layer moves away from the first portion in an outward direction (toward outside) (Fig. 1B).
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasa (U.S. Pat. No. 9954217 B2) in view of Harada et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2006261008 A) as applied to Claim 1 above, as further evidenced by Utsuno et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190221884 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Ogasa is modified by Harada et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Ogasa teaches the first electrode layer 111a and the second electrode layer 112a comprising electrode active materials in which the active materials of the first electrode layer can be considered a first active material, and the active material of the second electrode layer can be considered a second active material (para. 38). The electrical conductivities of the first electrode layer and second electrode layer are preferably 1 x 10-4 S/cm (para. 41); the active materials of the electrode layer can include conductive additives to increase the electron conductivity and obtain the desired electron conductivity (para. 85).
It is well known in electrode manufacturing for the solid electrolyte (material of the first buried layer of Ogasa) to have an electron conductivity not exceeding the electron conductivity of the electrode layer; electrode layers comprise active materials in which are typically good electronic conductors in which are designed to conduct electrons to efficiently transport electrons and exhibit high electron conductivity, while solid electrolytes are designed to be good ionic conductors and typically have lower electron conductivity. Further, solid electrolyte layers require low electrical conductivity to avoid short circuiting within the cell. As further evidence, Utsuno et al. teaches a solid electrolyte exhibiting high ionic conductivity of 6.9 x 10-3 S/cm and a low electron conductivity of less than 10¬6 S/cm (para. 156). Therefore, it would be an obvious technical design to include the first buried layer comprising a solid electrolyte material in which the electron conductivity is lower than the first electrode later and the second electrode layer to achieve sufficient electron conductivity and ionic conductivity.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasa (U.S. Pat. No. 9954217 B2) in view of Harada et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2006261008 A) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Okamoto et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2013182842 A).
Regarding Claims 6, Ogasa is modified by Harada et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. The ratio of an area of a first buried layer to an area of a principal surface of a first electrode is not a measurement commonly observed by one of ordinary skill in the art. However, the claimed ratio observed is based on the shape and structure of the electrode layer in which the side edges are inclined. It is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine an area of a buried layer in relationship to an area of an electrode surface. Therefore, a prior art reference teaching a similar structure between the electrolyte material and electrode as claimed in which an electrolyte layer (buried layer) is disposed on an inclined surface of an electrode layer, would be expected to exhibit a ratio of an area of the buried layer to an area of a principal surface of a first electrode similar to the claimed range as described below.
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 1(a) (Okamoto et al.))]
PNG
media_image5.png
154
885
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Ogasa does not specifically teach a ratio of an area of the first buried layer to an area of a principal surface of the first electrode in a range of 4.9% to 7.8%.
Okamoto et al. teaches an electrode layer 2 in which the side edge portion of the electrode is inclined similarly to the applicant’s disclosure and a solid electrolyte layer 3 is filled to surround the side edge portion (para. 19, Fig. 1 (a)). The inclined electrode layer aids in reducing the occurrence of a short circuit in an all-solid-state secondary battery by reducing the internal stress; and further reducing thickness and increasing capacity (para. 7-8, 15-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode layer of Ogasa to include a shape in which the edges are inclined at an angle and a solid electrolyte is filled to surround the side edge portion as taught by Okamoto et al. in which the portion circled in the annotated Fig. 1 (a) would be equivalent to a shape of the first buried layer. When performing the described modification, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect to observe an area of the first buried layer to an area of a principal surface of the first electrode similar to the claimed ratio based on the structural similarity between the claimed invention and the prior art; and by adjusting the proportion (see MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)) or by routine optimization (see MPEP § 2144.05, I) as described below. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to distribute internal stress and reduce short circuit frequency (Okamoto et al., para. 16).
Ogasa as modified by Okamoto et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not explicitly disclose a ratio of an area of the first buried layer to an area of a principal surface of the first electrode in a range of 4.9% to 7.8%. A change in size (proportion) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)). The battery efficiency and the short circuit frequency are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the area of the solid electrolyte in which includes the area forming the first buried layer (para. 57-58 of Okamoto et al.). Additionally, as an improvement in short circuit frequency and battery efficiency has a proportional relationship with the ratio of the solid electrolyte to the electrode surface (short circuit frequency and battery efficiency improves as the ratio of solid electrolyte to the electrode surface increases) (para. 57-58 of Okamoto et al.), the precise area of the first buried layer to the principal surface of the electrode would have been considered a known result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the precise area of the first buried layer to the principal surface of the electrode cannot be considered critical.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the precise area of the first buried layer to the principal surface of the electrode in the apparatus of Ogasa as modified by Okamoto et al. to obtain the desired balance between the battery efficiency and short circuit frequency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasa (U.S. Pat. No. 9954217 B2) in view of Harada et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2006261008 A).
Regarding Claim 7, Ogasa is modified by Ogasa is modified by Harada et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Ogasa teaches a second electrode 131a-133a in which electrode layer 132a can be considered a third electrode layer and electrode layer 133a can be considered a fourth electrode layer (para. 36, Fig. 1B). The fourth electrode layer 133a faces the third electrode layer 132a (Fig. 1B); the third electrode layer and the fourth electrode layer have the second polarity (referred to as “second” electrode layers, [0036]). As shown in the annotated Fig. 1B, the second electrode includes an electrolyte layer (second buried layer) interposed between the third electrode layer 132a and the fourth electrode layer 133a, surrounding a second portion where the third electrode layer and the fourth electrode layer are in contact (Fig. 1B). In a lamination step, the electrolyte layer is formed between the first electrode and second electrode (partially overlapping each other), forming a laminate of the first electrode, electrolyte layer, and the second electrode (para. 15, 71). The laminate is fired (subjected to a heated-press step at a temperature below melting point to prevent a phase change while providing a solid, denser electrolyte) (para. 106-107).
Ogasa does not teach cutting the laminate so that the first electrode layer, the second electrode layer, and the first buried layer are exposed on one cut face of the laminate and the third electrode layer, the fourth electrode layer, and the second buried layer are exposed on the other cut face of the laminate; and after the cutting of the laminate, firing the laminate, wherein:
the one cut face of the laminate is a first plane parallel to a direction in which the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer face each other;
each of the cut faces of the first electrode layer, the second electrode layer and the first buried layer is located within the first plane of the one cut face of the laminate;
the other cut face of the laminate is a second plane parallel to a direction in which the third electrode layer and the fourth electrode layer face each other;
and each of cut faces of the third electrode layer, the fourth electrode layer and the second buried layer is located within the second plane of the other cut face of the laminate.
Harada et al. teaches cutting a laminate so that a first electrode (positive electrode) and second electrode (negative electrode) are exposed on opposite cut faces of the laminate (para. 50) to connect to the electrode terminal (para. 40, Fig. 2). Further, a sandwiched or buried electrolyte layer (3) is exposed on opposite cut faces in a direction parallel to the cut face comprising the exposed electrode (para. 17-19, Fig. 2). After the cutting step, the laminate is fired (para. 49-50). Harada et al. teaches that the configuration provides a simplified manufacturing process and prevents lamination defects (Harada et al., para. 69). Further, the electrode cutting configuration allows for electrical connection between the electrode terminal and the plurality of current collectors (para. 14, 40). The first electrode and second electrode can be formed of multiple stacked layers in which a first electrode can comprise both a first electrode layer and second electrode layer as taught by Ogasa above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of manufacturing a solid state battery of Ogasa by Harada et al. to include cutting the laminate so that the first electrode (comprising a first electrode layer and second electrode layer as taught by Ogasa) are exposed on one cut face of the laminate and the second electrode (comprising a third electrode layer and the fourth electrode layer as taught by Ogasa) are exposed on the other cut face of the laminate; and after the cutting of the laminate, firing the laminate. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide a simplified manufacturing process and prevent lamination defects (Harada et al., para. 69).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of manufacturing a solid state battery of Ogasa to include cutting the first electrode (comprising a first electrode layer and second electrode layer as taught by Ogasa) and the second electrode (comprising a third electrode layer and the fourth electrode layer as taught by Ogasa) so that the electrode layer is exposed on a cut face of the first electrode and the electrolyte is exposed on the opposite cut face as taught by Harada et al. (in which the third electrode layer and the fourth electrode layer as the electrode elements are not in the one cut face of the laminate; and the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer are not in the other cut face of the laminate). When performing the described modification, it would be obvious to a PHOSITA to cut the power generating element of Ogasa at the theoretical plane indicated in annotated Fig. 1B; in this case, the first electrode and second electrode would be alternately exposed on opposite cut faces with a solid electrolyte layer (corresponding to a first and second buried layer of Ogasa) exposed on opposite cut faces parallel to the exposed electrode as taught by Harada et al.
In this case, the first electrode and second electrode are provided on opposite cut faces to allow connection with a positive electrode terminal on one cut face and a negative electrode terminal on the opposite cut face as Harada et al. suggests. Exposure of both the negative electrode and positive electrode on the same cut face would initiate contact with an electrode terminal of opposite polarity in which can cause short circuiting and battery damage; therefore, said configuration would be avoided by a skilled artisan. Therefore, the theoretical cutting plane shown in Fig. 1B is deemed a reasonable configuration by a PHOSITA in view of the proposed modification.
Therefore, as shown in annotated Fig. 1B and Theoretical Fig. 1B of Ogasa, the combination of the teachings of the prior art suggest cutting the laminated wherein;
the one cut face of the laminate is a first plane parallel to a direction in which the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer face each other;
each of the cut faces of the first electrode layer, the second electrode layer and the first buried layer is located within the first plane of the one cut face of the laminate;
the other cut face of the laminate is a second plane parallel to a direction in which the third electrode layer and the fourth electrode layer face each other; and
each of cut faces of the third electrode layer, the fourth electrode layer and the second buried layer is located within the second plane of the other cut face of the laminate.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasa (U.S. Pat. No. 9954217 B2) in view of Harada et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2006261008 A) as applied to Claim 8 above, as further evidenced by Utsuno et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190221884 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Ogasa is modified by Harada et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 8 above. Ogasa teaches the first electrode being a negative or positive electrode (para. 38) in which comprise at least one active material from the list provided (one of two or more kinds) (para. 83-84). The electrical conductivity of the first electrode is preferably 1 x 10-4 S/cm (para. 41). It is well known in electrode manufacturing for the solid electrolyte (material of the first buried layer of Ogasa) to have an electron conductivity not exceeding the electron conductivity of the electrode; the electrode comprises active materials in which are typically good electronic conductors designed to conduct electrons to efficiently transport electrons and exhibit high electron conductivity, while solid electrolytes are designed to be good ionic conductors and typically have lower electron conductivity. Further, solid electrolyte layers require low electrical conductivity to avoid short circuiting within the cell.
As further evidence, Utsuno et al. teaches a solid electrolyte exhibiting high ionic conductivity of 6.9 x 10-3 S/cm and a low electron conductivity of less than 10¬6 S/cm (para. 156). Therefore, it would be an obvious technical design to include the first buried layer comprising a solid electrolyte material in which the electron conductivity is lower than the active materials to achieve sufficient electron conductivity and ionic conductivity.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasa (U.S. Pat. No. 9954217 B2) in view of Harada et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2006261008 A), and further in view of Okamoto et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2013182842 A).
Regarding Claim 12, Ogasa is modified by Harada et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 8 above. Further, the ratio of an area of a first buried layer to an area of a principal surface of a first electrode is not a measurement commonly observed by one of ordinary skill in the art. However, the claimed ratio observed is based on the shape and structure of the electrode layer in which the edges are inclined. It is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine an area of a buried layer in relationship to an area of an electrode surface. Therefore, a prior art reference teaching a similar structure between the electrolyte material and electrode as claimed in which an electrolyte layer (buried layer) is disposed on an inclined surface of an electrode layer, would be expected to exhibit a ratio of an area of the buried layer to an area of a principal surface of a first electrode similar to the claimed range as described below.
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 1(a) (Okamoto et al.))]
PNG
media_image5.png
154
885
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Ogasa does not specifically teach a ratio of an area of the first buried layer to an area of a principal surface of the first electrode in a range of 4.9% to 7.8%.
Okamoto et al. teaches an electrode layer 2 in which the side edge portion of the electrode is inclined similarly to the applicant’s disclosure and a solid electrolyte layer 3 is filled to surround the side edge portion (para. 19, Fig. 1 (a)). The inclined electrode layer aids in reducing the occurrence of a short circuit in an all-solid-state secondary battery by reducing the internal stress; and further reducing thickness and increasing capacity (para. 7-8, 15-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode layer of Ogasa to include a shape in which the edges are inclined at an angle and a solid electrolyte is filled to surround the side edge portion as taught by Okamoto et al. in which the portion circled in the annotated Fig. 1 (a) would be equivalent to a shape of the first buried layer. When performing the described modification, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect to observe an area of the first buried layer to an area of a principal surface of the first electrode similar to the claimed ratio based on the structural similarity between the claimed invention and the prior art; and by adjusting the proportion (see MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)) or by routine optimization (see MPEP § 2144.05, I) as described below. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to distribute internal stress and reduce short circuit frequency (Okamoto et al., para. 16).
Ogasa as modified by Okamoto et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not explicitly disclose a ratio of an area of the first buried layer to an area of a principal surface of the first electrode in a range of 4.9% to 7.8%. A change in size (proportion) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)). The battery efficiency and the short circuit frequency are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the area of the solid electrolyte in which includes the area forming the first buried layer (para. 57-58 of Okamoto et al.). Additionally, an improvement in short circuit frequency and battery efficiency has a proportional relationship with the ratio of the solid electrolyte to the electrode surface (short circuit frequency and battery efficiency improves as the ratio of solid electrolyte to the electrode surface increases) (para. 57-58 of Okamoto et al.), the precise area of the first buried layer to the principal surface of the electrode would have been considered a known result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the precise area of the first buried layer to the principal surface of the electrode cannot be considered critical.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the precise area of the first buried layer to the principal surface of the electrode in the apparatus of Ogasa as modified by Okamoto et al. to obtain the desired balance between the battery efficiency and short circuit frequency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasa (U.S. Pat. No. 9954217 B2) in view of Harada et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2006261008 A) as further evidenced by Kawaji et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2015151144 A1).
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 1 (Kawaji et al.))]
PNG
media_image6.png
579
419
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, Ogasa is modified by Harada et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 8 above. Ogasa teaches that a second electrode as the electrode element having the second polarity 131a-133a in which can be either a positive or negative electrode (if the first electrode is positive electrode, then the negative electrode is the second electrode, vice versa) (para. 38), includes a third region and a fourth region provided outside the third region, a second buried layer disposed in the fourth region of the second electrode (Fig. 1B). The electrolyte layer 12 is disposed between the first electrode (111a-113a) and the second electrode (131a-133a). The electrode can be prepared in a stacked form in which the electrolyte layer is provided directly between the positive electrode and negative electrode as further evident by Kawaji et al. in which teaches a solid electrolyte later disposed between a positive electrode layer 40 (first electrode) and a negative electrode layer 60 (second electrode) (para. 14, Fig. 1).
Further, Ogasa teaches a laminate of the first electrode, first buried layer, the electrolyte layer, the second electrode, and the second buried layer (para. 15, 71, Fig. 1B). The first electrode and the second electrode partially overlap each other via the electrolyte layer.
Ogasa does not teach that a side end face of the first electrode as the one terminal face is exposed on one end face of the laminate and the part of the side end face of the second electrode as the other terminal face is exposed on the other end face of the laminate. Further, Ogasa does not teach that the one end face of the laminate is a first plane; and each of the side end faces of the part of the first region, the part of the second region and the part of the first buried layer is located within the first plane of the one end face of the laminate; the other end face of the laminate is a second plane; and each of side end faces of a part of the third region, a part of the fourth region and a part of the second buried layer is located within the second plane of the other end face of the laminate.
Harada et al. teaches cutting a laminate so that a side end face of the first electrode (positive electrode) and a side end face of the second electrode (negative electrode) are exposed on opposite end faces of the laminate (para. 50) for connection to the electrode terminal (para. 40, Fig. 2). Further, a sandwiched or buried electrolyte layer (3) is exposed on opposite cut faces in a direction parallel to the cut face comprising the exposed electrode (para. 17-19, Fig. 2). Harada et al. teaches that the configuration provides a simplified manufacturing process and prevents lamination defects (Harada et al., para. 69). Further, the electrode cutting configuration allows for electrical connection between the electrode terminal and the plurality of current collectors (para. 14, 40). The first electrode and second electrode can be formed of multiple stacked layers in which a first electrode can comprise both a first electrode layer and second electrode layer as taught by Ogasa above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of manufacturing a solid state battery of Ogasa by Harada et al. to include a part of the side end face of the first electrode (forming a first plane as the one terminal face) and a part of the side end face of the second electrode (forming a second plane as the other terminal face) exposed on opposite end faces of the laminate (para. 50) for connection to the electrode terminal (para. 40, Fig. 2) (in which the second electrode layer is not in the one end face of the laminate and the first electrode layer is not in the other end face of the laminate). When performing the described modification, it would be obvious to a PHOSITA to cut the power generating element of Ogasa at the theoretical plane indicated in annotated Fig. 1B. In this case, one end face of the laminate of Ogasa is a first plane in which the part of the second region and the part of the first buried layer is located within the first plane of the one end face of the first electrode; further, one end face of the laminate of Ogasa is a second plane in which the part of the fourth region and the part of the second buried layer is located within the first plane of the other end face of the laminate (see annotated Fig. 1B and theoretical Fig. 1B, as shown the second region falls within the theoretical first cutting plane; and the fourth region falls within the theoretical second cutting plane).
In this case, the first electrode and second electrode are provided on opposite cut faces to allow connection with a positive electrode terminal on one cut face and a negative electrode terminal on the opposite cut face as Harada et al. suggests. Exposure of both the negative electrode and positive electrode on the same cut face would initiate contact with an electrode terminal of opposite polarity in which can cause short circuiting and battery damage; therefore, said configuration would be avoided by a skilled artisan. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide a simplified manufacturing process and prevent lamination defects (Harada et al., para. 69).
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 CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ULA RUDDOCK can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights