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 without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 9/9/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-7 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the resin" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this office action, “the resin constituting” will be interpreted as “a resin constituting”. Further, claims 2-7 are rejected since they depend from claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the resin" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this office action, “the resin constituting” will be interpreted as “a resin constituting” (since the heat-sealable resin layer of claim 7 is a different resin layer than that defined in claim 1).
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.
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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muraki (WO 2020/004412, citations from US 2021/0091435) in view of Seino et al. (US 2007/0248888).
Regarding claim 1, Muraki discloses in Figs 1-6, an adhesive film (ref 40) for a metal terminal (ref 30, [0051]) of an all-solid-state battery (ref 100, [0029]), which is to be interposed between a metal terminal (ref 30, [0051]) electrically connected to an electrode ([0051]) of a battery element (ref 10) and an all-solid-state battery packaging material (ref 20) for sealing the battery element (ref 10), wherein the all-solid-state battery (ref 100, [0029]) comprises a sulfide solid electrolyte material, the adhesive film (ref 40) for a metal terminal (ref 30, [0051]) comprises at least one resin layer ([0056]).
Further, the at least one resin layer disclosed by Muraki at [0056]-[0064] includes same chemical compositions at same thicknesses/sizes as set forth in the instant specification. As such, regarding the instant claim limitations “the resin constituting the resin layer has a hydrogen sulfide transmission amount of 1.0 x 10-9 cc-mm/cm2-sec-cmHg or less”, the resin disclosed by Muraki necessarily discloses these limitations. The courts have stated, “[p]roducts of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Further still, the courts have found where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Muraki does not explicitly disclose a sulfide solid electrolyte material.
Seino et al. discloses in Figs 1-5, an all-solid battery (Title, [0055]) including a sulfide solid electrolyte ([0055]). This configuration enhances overall battery performance ([0055]).
Seino et al. and Muraki are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, all-solid state batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the sulfide solid electrolyte material of Seino et al. into the electrolyte of Muraki to enhance overall battery performance.
Regarding claim 2, modified Muraki discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the resin layer has a melting point of 150°C or more and 350°C or less ([0056], [0060], [0062], [0072]-[0075]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Muraki discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the resin constituting the resin layer ([0056]) is a polyester ([0058]) or a fluororesin ([0058]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Muraki discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the polyester contains polybutylene terephthalate ([0058]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Muraki discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the adhesive film (ref 40) for a metal terminal (ref 30, [0051]) has a total thickness of 50 microns or more and 500 microns or less ([0070]-[0075]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Muraki discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the all-solid-state battery packaging material (ref 20) comprises a laminate (Fig 2) comprising at least a base material layer (ref 11), a barrier layer (ref 15), and a heat-sealable resin layer (refs 12b, 18) in this order from an outer side (Fig 2), and the heat-sealable resin layer (refs 12b, 18) has a melting point of 150°C or more and 350°C or less ([0033]-[0035]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Muraki discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the all-solid-state battery packaging material (ref 20) comprises a laminate (Fig 2) comprising at least a base material layer (ref 11), a barrier layer (ref 15), and a heat-sealable resin layer (refs 12b, 18) in this order from an outer side (Fig 2), and a resin ([0032]-[0048]) constituting the heat-sealable resin layer ([0032]-[0048]).
Further, the at least one resin layer disclosed by Muraki at [0032]-[0048] includes same chemical compositions at same thicknesses/sizes as set forth in the instant specification. As such, regarding the instant claim limitations “the resin constituting the heat-sealable resin layer has a hydrogen sulfide transmission amount of 1.0 x 10-9 cc-mm/cm2-sec-cmHg or less”, the resin disclosed by Muraki necessarily discloses these limitations. The courts have stated, “[p]roducts of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Further still, the courts have found where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Iwamoto (US 2017/0309975) discloses in Figs 1-21, a battery (Abstract) including a packaging material (ref 100) comprising a resin that absorbs hydrogen sulfide ([0065], ref 120).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725