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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 09/17/2025, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 11 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.
Claim 11 recites, “ The fully solid battery as claimed in claim 1, wherein the buffer layer is on two opposite sides of the base substrate.” However claim 1 provides “a buffer layer,” which is singular; therefore it is unclear how the buffer layer of claim 1 as applied to claim 11 possesses a plurality of buffer layers.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yawata et al. (US2020/0373565A1), in view of Shimizu et al. (WO2014136813A1).
As to claim 1, Yawata discloses a fully solid battery (Abstract), comprising:
a positive electrode plate (12);
a solid electrolyte layer (13) disposed on one side of the positive electrode plate (figure 3);
a negative electrode plate (14) disposed on one side of the solid electrolyte layer (figure 3); and
a buffer film (11) disposed on one side of the negative electrode plate,
the buffer film including a base substrate (15b-pressing plate) and a buffer layer (11b) on at least one surface of the base substrate (figure 3),
Yawata discloses the buffer layer comprising silicon rubber, cellulose fiber, paper, a polyolefin resin, a polyurethane resin, an acrylic resin, a polyimide resin, and wood [0075].
Yawata does not explicitly teach these materials are in particulate form or the use of a binder in the buffer layer.
Shimizu discloses a battery [0059-61] and teaches coating film composition (equivalent to buffer layer) [106-107]
Shimizu teaches the coating layer/buffer layer comprises a binder, solvent, and viscoelastic particles [0119-0120]. The viscoelastic particles, include polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, celluloid, polytetrafluoroethylene, urethane resin, polyimide, silicone, and acrylic resin [0177-0186]. Thus Shimizu teaches the same resins used in Yawata as particles.
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to replace the resin of Yawata with the particle form of Shimizu because Shimizu discloses that these materials are known equivalents that can be used in a coating/buffer layer for elastic properties.
Furthermore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include the binder into the layer of Yawata to ensure that the particles are bound in the layer. Shimizu discloses a binder used to thermally fuse the particles together to create the coating film [1231-1234], and it would have been obvious to apply the binder of Shimizu to fuse the components together to provide the coating/buffer layer.
Regarding the limitation wherein a thickness of the base substrate is 1-10 um. It is noted the size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
As to claim 2, modified Yawata discloses by evaporating the solvent, the components excluding the solvent of the battery electrode or separator coating film composition are in close contact with the battery electrode or the separator, and when the binder is hot melt particles, the components of the present invention are thermally fused. A coating film is formed. [Shimizu, 1231-1234]), where “fused” components or particles would meet the limitation “the buffer layer forms a packing structure in which the first particulate and the second particulate are in contact with each other.”
As to claim 3, modified Yawata discloses a positive electrode active material layer 4, and a positive electrode current collector 5 in this order. [0046] meeting the limitation of “the positive active plate has a positive active material thereon.” With regard to the limitation “the first particulate and the second particulate each have a particle diameter that is equal to or smaller than a particle diameter of the positive active material formed,” it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Also see MPEP 2144.
As to claim 4, modified Yawata discloses a first material for resilience (polyurethane or silicon rubber) and a second material (polyolefin or acrylic resin) for stress relief but does not disclose the first material as polystyrene or silicone. Shimizu further discloses polystyrene as a known equivalent to the polyurethane (polystyrene [Shimizu, 0177-0186]) in the coating layer. Therefore it would be obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use polystyrene as coating material in Yawata’s buffer layer because the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.) and at the time of the invention polystyrene was known to be used as a coating material.
As to claim 5, modified Yawata discloses the positive electrode plate, the solid electrolyte layer, and the negative electrode plate form a unit cell that acts for charging and discharging on one side of the positive electrode plate as a mono-cell. (Yawata fig. 3 [0046]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The application of a base substrate as a pressure plate with a flexible and potentially compressible material such as polyethylene fabric or a polypropylene fabric is not taught or contemplated by either Yawata or Shimizu in alone or in combination, and would not be obvious with regard to pressure plate materials.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, pages 7-8, the thickness of the base substrate of Yawata discloses a very broad range as compared to the amended range as now disclosed by the instant application. As noted above the size of an article is not a matter of invention See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Particularly when the size of the article has no evidentiary demonstration of effecting the operation of the battery.
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 BART A HORNSBY whose telephone number is (313)446-6637. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew T Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
BART HORNSBY
Examiner
Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights