DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-2 and 4-12 are pending in the application, with claims 8-12 currently withdrawn. New grounds of rejection have been added as a result of the amendment to the claims submitted 4/28/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 Cheshire et al. (US 5,001,023).
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 nor the resin material is a polyester inhibiting water vapor transmission therein.
Cheshire et al. discloses in Figs 1-6, a battery (Abstract) including a sulfide solid electrolyte (C1/L49-50) and an electrode structure including a wire lead (ref 21) which is enclosed by a sheath (ref 10) including a polyester resin which is impervious to water and air (C9/L63-68 – C10/L1-5). This configuration enhances the electrical performance and structural integrity of the battery (C9/L63-68 – C10/L1-5, C19/L17-23).
Cheshire et al. and Muraki are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, 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 and polyester water/air resistant resin material of Seino et al. into the electrolyte and on the terminal/lead of Muraki, respectively, to enhance overall battery electrical performance and structural integrity.
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:
Iwata (US 2019/0189978) discloses in Figs 1-4, a secondary battery (ref 100) including moisture barrier resin comprising a polyester film ([0026]) coving a terminal (ref 7).
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
Prosecution Insights