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 on 1/2/2026 was received. Claims 1, 10 were amended. Claim 5 was cancelled.
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 10/01/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) on claims 1,10 are withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 1 and dependent claim 10.
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.
Claim 10 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 claim(s) contains 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. Claim 10 was amended to specify the current density limitation of 0.01-6.5 A/cm2. However, the current density of 0.01-6.5 A/cm2 is not presented in the instant specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 6-7, 10 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sasayama et al. (US 6461757 B1). The rejections are restated below to address the amendment.
Regarding to claim 1: Sasayama et al. disclose a non-aqueous battery provided in a pouchy casing (abstract). The battery comprises:
an anode current collector (equivalent an anode current collector) (col. 20, lines 51-63);
a solid electrolyte (equivalent to a solid electrolyte layer) (col. 14, lines 40-53)
a cathode electrode active material (equivalent to a cathode layer) (col. 20, lines 51-63).
The solid electrolyte is interposed between the cathode active material and the anode current collector (col. 14, lines 40-42). Sasayama et al. further disclose a pouch dimension of the battery in Fig. 1-3. In Fig. 1 (c), the length of the pouch is 14 cm, the width of the pouch is 9 cm, and the peripheral edge of 10 mm is used for sealing (col. 26, lines 42, col. 27, lines 1-23, fig. 1 (c)). The central portion (the portion except sealing periphery) of the battery is used to place the electrochemical cell (col. 27, lines 1-23). As the electrochemical reacts in the central portion, the central portion is equivalent to the reaction portion (see fig. below). The area of the central portion is 84 cm2 (12x7) and the circumference is 38 cm ((12+7)x2). The value of
(
c
i
r
c
u
m
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
(
P
)
a
r
e
a
(
A
)
) is 0.45.
PNG
media_image1.png
662
1032
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding to claim 6: Sasayama et al. disclose the planer surface of pouch has a rectangular shape in Fig. 1-3.
Regarding to claim 7: Sasayama et al. disclose the planer surface of pouch has a rectangular shape in Fig. 1-3. In Fig. 1 (c), the length of the pouch is 14 cm and the width of the pouch is 9 cm. Thus, the battery area is 126 cm2 (14x9).
Regarding to claim 10: Sasayama et al. disclose the battery was subjected to charge/discharge cycle testing at a current density of 230 mA/cm2 (equivalent to 0.23 A/cm2) (col. 46, lines 54-57).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2-4, 8-9 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasayama et al. (US 6461757 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yun (US 20230187651 A1).
Regarding to claim 2: Sasayama et al. disclose a non-aqueous battery provided in a pouchy casing (abstract) as described in paragraph 5 above. Sasayama et al. fail to explicitly disclose a functional layer disposed between the anode current collector and the solid electrolyte layer, and the functional layer comprises a carbon material. However, Yun discloses a negative electrode for a lithium metal battery includes a metal current collector substrate, a lithium metal layer formed on at least one surface of the metal current collector substrate, and a protective layer formed on the lithium metal layer (abstract). The protective layer (equivalent to a functional layer) comprises a carbon-based material, a metallic compound capable of alloying with lithium or a mixture of two or more thereof. The carbon-based material may be, for example, carbon such as artificial graphite, natural graphite, graphitized carbon fiber, or amorphous carbon (par. 44-46). 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 lithium metal layer and the protective layer of Yun on the negative electrode sheet of Sasayama et al. because Yun teach that lithium metal as a negative electrode material can make a high energy density battery (par. 10) and the protective layer can resolve the problem of rapid deterioration of lifespan characteristics of lithium metal (par. 11).
Regarding to claim 3: Sasayama et al. disclose a non-aqueous battery provided in a pouchy casing (abstract) as described in paragraph 5 above. Sasayama et al. fail to explicitly disclose the functional layer further comprises a metal powder comprising one or more metal components selected from the group consisting of gold (Au), platinum (Pt), palladium (Pd), silicon (Si), silver (Ag), aluminum (Al), bismuth (Bi), tin (Sn), and zinc (Zn). However, Yun discloses a negative electrode for a lithium metal battery includes a metal current collector substrate, a lithium metal layer formed on at least one surface of the metal current collector substrate, and a protective layer formed on the lithium metal layer (abstract). The protective layer (equivalent to a functional layer) comprises a carbon-based material, a metallic compound capable of alloying with lithium or a mixture of two or more thereof. The metallic compound may be a compound including a metal forming an alloy with lithium, which may be a metal such as Al, Ge, Mg, Zn, Ag, Si, or Sn (par. 48). 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 lithium metal layer and the protective layer of Yun on the negative electrode sheet of Sasayama et al. because Yun teach that lithium metal as a negative electrode material can make a high energy density battery (par. 10) and the protective layer can resolve the problem of rapid deterioration of lifespan characteristics of lithium metal (par. 11).
Regarding to claim 4: Sasayama et al. disclose a non-aqueous battery provided in a pouchy casing (abstract) as described in paragraph 5 above. Sasayama et al. fail to explicitly disclose the all-solid-state battery further comprises an anode layer disposed between the anode current collector and the solid electrolyte layer, and the anode layer comprises lithium metal. However, Yun discloses a negative electrode for a lithium metal battery includes a metal current collector substrate, a lithium metal layer (equivalent to an anode layer) formed on at least one surface of the metal current collector substrate, and a protective layer formed on the lithium metal layer (abstract, par. 38). 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 lithium metal layer and the protective layer of Yun on the negative electrode sheet of Sasayama et al. because Yun teach that lithium metal as a negative electrode material can make a high energy density battery (par. 10) and the protective layer can resolve the problem of rapid deterioration of lifespan characteristics of lithium metal (par. 11).
Regarding to claim 8: Sasayama et al. disclose a non-aqueous battery provided in a pouchy casing (abstract) as described in paragraph 5 above. Sasayama et al. fail to explicitly disclose the functional layer has a thickness of about 30 µm or less. However, Yun discloses a negative electrode for a lithium metal battery includes a metal current collector substrate, a lithium metal layer formed on at least one surface of the metal current collector substrate, and a protective layer formed on the lithium metal layer (abstract). The protective layer (equivalent to a functional layer) has the thickness of 0.1 μm to 100 μm. 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 lithium metal layer and the protective layer of Yun on the negative electrode sheet of Sasayama et al. because Yun teach that lithium metal as a negative electrode material can make a high energy density battery (par. 10) and the protective layer can resolve the problem of rapid deterioration of lifespan characteristics of lithium metal (par. 11). 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding to claim 9: Sasayama et al. disclose a non-aqueous battery provided in a pouchy casing (abstract) as described in paragraph 5 above. Sasayama et al. fail to explicitly disclose the solid electrolyte layer has a thickness of about 50 m or less. However, Yun discloses a negative electrode for a lithium metal battery includes a metal current collector substrate, a lithium metal layer formed on at least one surface of the metal current collector substrate, and a protective layer formed on the lithium metal layer (abstract). In the battery, the solid electrolyte can be served as the separator and have the thickness of 5 to 300 μm (par. 76). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the lithium metal layer, the protective layer, and the solid electrolyte thickness of Yun on the non-aqueous battery of Sasayama et al. because Yun teach that the lithium metal battery developed by Yun can have high energy density (par. 10) and resolve the problem of rapid deterioration of lifespan characteristics of lithium metal (par. 11). 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claim 11 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasayama et al. (US 6461757 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (US 20180034121 A1).
Regarding to claim 11: Sasayama et al. disclose a non-aqueous battery provided in a pouchy casing (abstract) as described in paragraph 5 above. Sasayama et al. is silent on a vehicle comprising an all-solid-state battery. However, Kwon et al. disclose that a cartridge having a novel structure for guaranteeing stable operational performance of a secondary battery (abstract). Kwon et al. further disclose that pouch-type all-solid-state battery can be used in vehicles (par. 7-9). 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 non-aqueous battery, comprising the solid electrolyte, of Sasayama et al. in the vehicles of Kwon et al. because Kwon et al. teach that all-solid-state batteries can prevent problems such as electrolytic solution leakage, gas generation, and guarantee safety (par. 7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues:
Sasayama et al. disclose a pouch case to prevent short circuits between a metal thin film and an external terminal but fail to teach or suggest any recognition of the problem of lithium deposition (lithium dendrite growth) at the edge of the battery.
Sasayama et al. disclose the dimension and the sealing width of the pouch case but fail to teach or suggest a ratio between the circumference and the area of the battery.
In response:
The additional features which the instant applicant relies on (i.e., suppressing localized growth of lithium dendrites at the edge part of the battery) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In addition, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
The circumference-to-area ratio of the reaction portion can be calculated through the dimension disclosed by Sasayama et al. It is mere calculation. The fundamental dimension/structure of the battery remains the same regardless of what terms (circumference-to-area ratio or width/length) are used.
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 on 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