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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on11/05/2025 was received. Claims 1, 3 was amended, claim 4 were cancelled, and claims 9, 10 were newly added.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued on 08/06/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (US 20150147659 A1) in view of Fujii et al. (JP 2020188026 A) and Vane (US 5055242 A) on claims 1-6 are withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 1. The claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (US 20150147659 A1) in view of Fujii et al. (JP 2020188026 A) and Nandi et al. (US 20140377628 A1) on claims 1-2 are withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 1.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (US 20150147659 A1) in view of Katagiri et al. (US 20230170523 A1), Nandi et al. (US 20140377628 A1), and Kawano et al. (a A1).
Regarding to claim 1: Kato discloses a hybrid electric vehicle comprising an all-solid-state battery (10) including a cathode layer (4), an anode layer (2), and an electrolyte layer (3) arranged between the cathode layer (4) and the anode layer (2) (abstract, par. 2, par. 31, figure 1), wherein:
the electrolyte layer (3) including a first solid electrolyte layer (3a), and a second solid electrolyte layer (3b) (abstract, par. 31, figure 1).
Kato fails to explicitly disclose the first solid electrolyte layer contains a first nonwoven fabric, and a first solid electrolyte arranged inside the first nonwoven fabric; the second solid electrolyte layer contains a second nonwoven fabric, and a second solid electrolyte arranged inside the second nonwoven fabric; and an average particle size (D50) of the first solid electrolyte is smaller than a thickness of the first nonwoven fabric, and an average particle size (D50) of the second solid electrolyte is smaller than a thickness of the second nonwoven fabric. However, Katagiri et al. disclose a nonwoven fabric as a solid electrolyte-carrying sheet (abstract). The nonwoven fabric contains an inorganic fiber and carries solid electrolyte particles (par. 28). A thickness of the nonwoven fabric is preferably in a range from 12 to 60 μm (par. 43). A particle diameter of the solid electrolyte particle is preferably in a range from 1 to 20 μm (par. 51). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the nonwoven fabric, the thickness of the nonwoven fabric, and the diameter of the solid electrolyte particles of Katagiri et al. in the first solid electrolyte layer (3a) and the second solid electrolyte layer (3b) of Kato because Katagiri et al. teach that the nonwoven fabric as the solid electrolyte-carrying sheet can achieve a good balance among thickness reduction, powder falling property of the solid electrolyte particles, and electrical conductivity (par. 16).
Kato and Katagiri et al. fail to explicitly disclose that in a plan view along a thickness direction, an angle formed by a first fabric direction in the first nonwoven fabric and a second fabric direction in the second nonwoven fabric is 45° or more and 90° or less. However, Nandi et al. disclose battery separators including reinforcing fibers (abstract). The battery separator (500'') having a plurality of bi-directionally arranged fiber strands (504 and 514) (equivalent to the first and the second nonwoven fabric) (par. 63, figure 5C). The first and the second fiber strands (504 and 514) are uni-directionally arranged fiber strands, respectively (par. 58). The second fiber strands (514) are roughly perpendicular to the first fiber strands (504) (equivalent to 90° between the first fabric direction and the second fabric direction) (par. 63, figure 5C). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the orientation angle of 90° between the first and the second fiber strands of Nandi et al. as the orientation angle of the first solid electrolyte layer (3a) and the second solid electrolyte layer (3b) of Kato which are already incorporated with the nonwoven fabrics of Katagiri et al. because Nandi et al. teach that the strength of battery separator (500'') may increase due to two directions of the plurality of fiber strands are provided (par. 63). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Kato, Katagiri et al., and Nandi et al. fail to explicitly disclose that in the first nonwoven fabric, a tensile strength TS1 of the first fabric direction is larger than a tensile strength TS2 of a direction orthogonal to the first fabric direction, and in the second nonwoven fabric, a tensile strength TS3 of the second fabric direction is larger than a tensile strength TS4 of a direction orthogonal to the second fabric direction, a ratio of the TS1 with respect to the TS2, which is TS1/TS2, is 5 or more and 50 or less and a ratio of the TS3 with respect to the TS4, which is TS3/TS4, is 5 or more and 50 or less. However, Kawano et al. disclose a separator for electrochemical devices composed of a nonwoven fabric (abstract). The nonwoven fabric has tensile strength in machine direction (MD) higher than in cross machine direction (CD) in Examples 1-9 (table 2). The aspect ratio of tensile strength in the machine direction (MD) over the cross machine direction (CD) is preferably 1.2 to 5.3 (par. 78). The aspect ratio of tensile strength (MD/CD) is 5.4 in example 7 (table 2) (The machine direction is equivalent to the fabric direction and the cross machine direction is equivalent to the direction orthogonal to the fabric direction). It would have been obvious for one of tensile strength ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the aspect ratio range of tensile strength (MD/CD) of Kawano et al. in the nonwoven fabrics of Katagiri et al which are already incorporated in the first solid electrolyte layer (3a) and the second solid electrolyte layer (3b) of Kato because Kawano et al. teach that when the aspect ratio of tensile strength (MD/CD) of the nonwoven fabric is higher, the nonwoven fabric is not easily deformed or broken (par. 78). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding to claim 2: Kato in view of Katagiri et al. discloses the all-solid-state battery including two electrolyte layers with nonwoven fabrics as described above. Kato and Katagiri et al. fail to explicitly disclose that the angle is 80° or more and 90° or less. However, Nandi et al. disclose battery separators including reinforcing fibers (abstract). The battery separator (500'') having a plurality of bi-directionally arranged fiber strands (504 and 514) (equivalent to the first and the second nonwoven fabric) (par. 63, figure 5C). The first and the second fiber strands (504 and 514) are uni-directionally arranged fiber strands, respectively (par. 58). The second fiber strands (514) are roughly perpendicular to the first fiber strands 504 (equivalent to 90° between the first fabric direction and the second fabric direction) (par. 63, figure 5C). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the orientation angle of 90° between the first and the second fiber strands of Nandi et al. as the orientation angle of the first solid electrolyte layer (3a) and the second solid electrolyte layer (3b) of Kato which are already incorporated with nonwoven fabrics of Katagiri et al. because Nandi et al. teach that the strength of battery separator (500'') may increase due to two directions of the plurality of fiber strands are provided (par. 63). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding to claim 3: Kato in view of Katagiri et al. discloses the all-solid-state battery including two electrolyte layers with nonwoven fabrics as described above. Kato fail to explicitly disclose that each of a void rate in the first nonwoven fabric and a void rate in the second nonwoven fabric is 70% or more and 90% or less. However, Katagiri et al. disclose a nonwoven fabric as a solid electrolyte-carrying sheet (abstract). The nonwoven fabric has a porosity in a range from 70% to 95%, and more preferably from 80% to 95% (par. 43). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the nonwoven fabric with the porosity of Katagiri et al. in the first solid electrolyte layer (3a) and the second solid electrolyte layer (3b) of Kato because Katagiri et al. teach that the nonwoven fabric as the solid electrolyte-carrying sheet can achieve a good balance among thickness reduction, powder falling property of the solid electrolyte particles, and electrical conductivity (par. 16). In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding to claim 5: Kato discloses the all-solid-state battery (10) including two electrolyte layers as described above. Kato further discloses the first and the second solid electrolyte layers including sulfide solid electrolyte (equivalent to an inorganic solid electrolyte) (abstract, par. 32, 33).
Regarding to claim 6: Kato discloses the all-solid-state battery (10) including two electrolyte layers as described above. Kato further discloses the first and the second solid electrolyte layers including sulfide solid electrolyte (abstract, par. 32, 33).
Regarding to claim 9: Kato discloses the all-solid-state battery (10) including two electrolyte layers as described above. Kato disclose the thickness of the solid electrolyte layer including the first solid electrolyte layer and the second solid electrolyte layer can be 5 µm or more and 30 µm or less (par. 41). Kato fails to explicitly disclose the thickness of the first nonwoven fabric and the thickness of the second nonwoven fabric are each 10 µm or more and 50 µm or less. However, Katagiri et al. disclose a nonwoven fabric as a solid electrolyte-carrying sheet (abstract). The nonwoven fabric contains an inorganic fiber and carries solid electrolyte particles (par. 28). A thickness of the nonwoven fabric is preferably in a range from 12 to 60 μm (par. 43). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the nonwoven fabric with the thickness range of Katagiri et al. in the first solid electrolyte layer (3a) and the second solid electrolyte layer (3b) of Kato because Katagiri et al. teach that the nonwoven fabric as the solid electrolyte-carrying sheet can achieve a good balance among thickness reduction, powder falling property of the solid electrolyte particles, and electrical conductivity (par. 16). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding to claim 10: Kato discloses the all-solid-state battery (10) including two electrolyte layers as described above. Kato further discloses the first and the second solid electrolyte layers including sulfide solid electrolyte (abstract, par. 32, 33).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/05/2025 have been fully considered. Applicant primarily argues:
Kato, Fujii, Vane, and Nandi do not teach an average particle size (D50) of the solid electrolyte is smaller than a thickness of the nonwoven fabric.
Vane does not disclose nonwoven fabric.
Kato, Fujii, Vane, and Nandi do not teach a ratio of TS1/TS2 is 5 or more and 50 or less and a ratio of TS3/TS4 is 5 or more and 50 or less.
Unexpected effects are demonstrated by examples in the present sepcifiaciton.
In response:
Applicant’s arguments are moot because the newly cited Katagiri reference teaches the average particle size (D50) of the solid electrolyte is smaller than the thickness of the nonwoven fabric as described in paragraph 3 above.
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive as Vane use stitching method to fix two non-woven layers.
Applicant’s arguments are moot because the newly cited Kawano reference teaches the aspect ratio of tensile strength in the machine direction (MD) over the cross machine direction (CD) is 5.4 in example 7.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as the results presented in table 1 in the instant specification do not show the criticality of the claimed range of TS1/TS2 and TS3/TS4 and the criticality of D50 smaller than the thickness of the solid electrolyte. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." See MPEP 716.02 (d).
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 PIN JAN WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at (571) 272-1295. 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.
/PIN JAN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717