DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the process of construction and the physical orientation of the electrodes of Dewa would require redesign of the device or battery of Tae, however the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Furthermore, a reference disclosure can anticipate a claim even if the reference does not describe "the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015), MPEP §2131.02.III. In this case, the reference electrodes of Dewa may be incorporated into the invention of Tae in whatever orientation and method of combination a person of skill in the art would envisage.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tae et. al. (KR101530812 as cited in IDS dated 10/10/2025, reference made to attached English translation as applied to claim), in view of Dewa et. al. (US20140327445A1).
Regarding claim 1 and 4, Tae discloses an all-solid-state battery comprising:
a cathode layer(¶[0025]);
an anode layer(¶[0030];
a solid electrolyte layer interposed between the cathode layer and the anode layer (Fig. 4, ref. 41 and 42), wherein the cathode layer, the anode layer and the solid electrolyte layer are stacked in a thickness direction, and a reference electrode(electric wire 51) inserted laterally into the solid electrolyte layer(Fig. 4)
but does not disclose at least two pairs of the reference electrodes symmetrically arranged with respect to a center point of the solid electrolyte layer.
Dewa, related to testing batteries, teaches multiple probes(i.e. reference electrodes) including two pair (Fig. 12) and more than two pair (Fig. 16. 21-1 through 21-T) which are symmetrically arranged and are useful in battery testing where each probe may be used individually as a reference probe to provide test data on all parts of the cell(¶[0054]) and improve spatial resolution of the data(¶[0081]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized using 4 or more reference electrodes in the battery of Tae would provide data on more parts of the battery layer and improve special resolution of the data.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used at least two pairs of the reference electrodes symmetrically arranged with respect to a center point of the solid electrolyte layer to improve data collection including special resolution.
Furthermore, the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 3, modified Tae discloses an all-solid-state battery according to claim 1, and Dewa further discloses the probes placed in a north, south, east, west configuration which would place them at right angles to each other within the battery of Tae(Fig. 12 of Dewa).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tae et. al. (KR101530812 as cited in IDS dated 10/10/2025, reference made to attached English translation as applied to claim), in view of Dewa et. al. (US20140327445A1) and further in view of Simon et. al. (Journal of The Electrochemical Society).
Regarding claim 2, modified Tae discloses an all-solid-state battery according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein each of the reference electrodes comprises (i) an electric wire comprising one or more selected from the group consisting of tungsten (W), aluminum (Al), nickel (Ni), and stainless steel (SUS), and a (ii) a coating comprising one or more selected from the group consisting of gold (Au), silver (Ag), and platinum (Pt).
Simon, related to wire reference electrodes, teaches a gold-plated tungsten reference electrode (abstract) where the tungsten core provides superior mechanical properties (A1367, left column, first paragraph).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized using the reference electrode of Simon within the battery of Tae would have provided excellent mechanical properties to the reference electrode.
Therefore it would have been obvious to have used the reference electrode of Simon in the battery of Tae to obtain improved mechanical properties.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tae et. al. (KR101530812 as cited in IDS dated 10/10/2025, reference made to attached English translation as applied to claim), in view of Dewa et. al. (US20140327445A1) and further in view of Zhang (US 9,461,496 B1).
Regarding claim 18, modified Tae discloses an all-solid-state battery according to claim 1, but does not disclose it within a vehicle.
Zhang, related to solid state batteries, teaches solid state batteries within vehicles to function as a power supply (col. 1, line 20).
One of ordinary skill would have realized adding the solid state battery of modified Tae to a vehicle as described by Zhang would have produced a vehicle with a power supply to create a functioning vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have a vehicle with the solid state batty of modified Tae to provide a power supply.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KAREN J. ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am-6 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.J.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1726 /RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726