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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/28/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
2. Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 02/11/2026 have been entered. Claims 1 and 4-10 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Claims 2-3 have been cancelled.
The amendments and remarks filed are sufficient to cure the previous 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections set forth in the Non-Final office action mailed on 11/12/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 nonobviousness.
4. Claim(s) 1, 4-5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osawa et al. (Pub. No. JP 2002110239 A) in view of Otohata (Pub. No. US 20190245249 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Osawa teaches an electrode assembly (electrode assembly, Fig. 2 below) comprising: an electrode structure (1, Fig. 1, see [0017], see [0018] where 1 is stacked together in Fig. 2) including a positive electrode (4, Fig. 1, see [0017]), a negative electrode (7, Fig. 1, see [0017]), and a solid electrolyte layer (8, Fig. 1 below, see [0017]) between the positive electrode (4, Fig. 1, see [0017]) and the negative electrode (7, Fig. 1, see [0017] and Fig. 1 below where 8 is between 4 and 7); and polymer layers (9 on top and bottom, Fig. 2 below, see [0018]) at both ends of the electrode assembly (electrode assembly, Fig. 2 below, see 9 on both ends of the electrode assembly), wherein a thickness (3 mm, see [0047]) of each of the polymer layers (9 on top and bottom, Fig. 2 above, see [0018]) and Y (6, see Fig. 1 above where each unit cell 1 has a positive electrode, see Fig. 2 above where there are 6 unit cells 1, therefore 6 positive electrodes 4) represents a number of positive electrodes (4, Fig. 1, see [0017]) in the electrode assembly (electrode assembly, Fig. 2 above) but fails to teach wherein a yield strength of each of the polymer layers is 5 MPa or more and 20 MPa or less, and the thickness satisfies Equation 1 below: Thickness (μm)≥2.5(μm.Math.cm.sup.2/mAh.Math.number)×X(mAh/cm.sup.2)×Y(number) [Equation 1] wherein X represents a capacity per unit area of the positive electrode.
PNG
media_image1.png
326
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
443
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Osawa teaches wherein each of the polymer layers is formed of rubber (SBR, see [0019] where the each 9 is SBR).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Osawa to such that each of the elastic layers 9 are formed of SBR as Osawa teaches it is known in the art to do so.
Therefore Osawa teaches wherein a yield strength of each of the polymer layers (9 on top and bottom, Fig. 2 below, see [0018]) is 5 MPa or more and 20 MPa or less (12-20 MPa, as evidenced by *Matmake, the Yield Tensile Strength of SBR is 12-20 MPa, and further the ultimate tensile strength is 21 MPa, therefore the yield strength would be at maximum less than 21 MPa).
Osawa fails to teach wherein the thickness satisfies Equation 1 below:
Thickness (μm)≥2.5(μm.Math.cm.sup.2/mAh.Math.number)×X(mAh/cm.sup.2)×Y(number) [Equation 1] wherein X represents a capacity per unit area of the positive electrode.
However, Otohata teaches wherein X (3 to 15 mAh/cm.sup.2, see [0094]) represents a capacity per unit area of the positive electrode (cathode, see [0094]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Osawa such that the capacity per unit area of the positive electrode 4 is 3 to 15 mAh/cm.sup.2 as taught by Otohata for safety (see [0094]), and favorably suppress short circuit (see [0016]).
Therefore, Osawa in view of Otohata teaches wherein the thickness (3 mm, see [0047]) satisfies Equation 1 below:
Thickness (μm) (3 mm or 3000 μm, see [0047]) ≥ 2.5(μm.Math.cm.sup.2/mAh.Math.number)×X(mAh/cm.sup.2) (3 to 15 mAh/cm.sup.2, see [0094] of Otohata, see modification above) ×Y(number) (6, see Fig. 1 above where each unit cell 1 has a positive electrode, see Fig. 2 above where there are 6 unit cells 1, therefore 6 positive electrodes 4) [Equation 1] (3000 >= 45 to 225).
*Additional Evidence provided by Matmake 2024, wherein the table provided shows the inherent properties of SBR where the inherent known yield tensile strength of SBR is 12-20 MPa. The Examiner would like to note although Matmake is from after the effective filing date of the present invention, it is being used only to show an inherent property of SBR, and further the references provided by Matmake are from 2018 and earlier.
Regarding claim 4, Osawa in view of Otohata teaches wherein each of the polymer layer (9 on top and bottom, Fig. 2 below, see [0018]) is formed of rubber (SBR, see [0019], see modification above) or silicone resin.
Regarding claim 5, Osawa in view of Otohata teaches wherein the solid electrolyte layer (8, Fig. 1 above, see [0017]) comprises a sulfide-based solid electrolyte, an oxide-based solid electrolyte, a polymer-based solid electrolyte (polymer constituting polymer electrolyte layer, see [0022]), or two or more thereof.
Regarding claim 8, Osawa in view of Otohata teaches wherein the electrode assembly (electrode assembly, Fig. 2 below) comprises a structure (structure inside electrode assembly not including 9 on each end, Fig. 2 above) in which 1 to 100 (6 stacks, see Fig. 2 above where there are 6 of 1 stacked together) of the electrode structures (1, Fig. 1, see [0017], see [0018] where 1 is stacked together in Fig. 2) are stacked (see [0018] where 1 is stacked together in Fig. 2, there are 6 stacked together).
5. Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osawa et al. (Pub. No. JP 2002110239 A) in view of Otohata (Pub. No. US 20190245249 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (Pub. No. US 20240055650 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Osawa in view of Otohata fails to teach wherein the solid electrolyte layer comprises a sulfide-based solid electrolyte having an argyrodite structure.
However, Wang teaches wherein the solid electrolyte layer (sulfide composite electrolyte, see [0008]) comprises a sulfide-based solid electrolyte (inorganic sulfide lithium argyrodite, see [0008] where this is used as the sulfide SE) having an argyrodite structure (see [0008] where the material is argyrodite).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Osawa in view of Otohata such that the solid electrolyte layer 8 is formed using a inorganic sulfide lithium argyrodite as taught by Wang to exhibit stability, flexibility, and desirable electrochemical performance (see [0007] of Wang).
Regarding claim 7, Osawa in view of Otohata fails to teach wherein the solid electrolyte layer comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of Li.sub.2S—P.sub.2S.sub.5, Li.sub.6PS.sub.5Cl, Li.sub.10GeP.sub.2S.sub.12, Li.sub.3PS.sub.4, and Li.sub.7P.sub.3S.sub.11.
However, Wang teaches wherein the solid electrolyte layer (sulfide composite electrolyte, see [0008]) comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of Li.sub.2S—P.sub.2S.sub.5, Li.sub.6PS.sub.5Cl (see Example 2, and [0050] where the sulfide composite electrolyte comprises Li.SUB.6.PS.SUB.5.Cl), Li.sub.10GeP.sub.2S.sub.12, Li.sub.3PS.sub.4, and Li.sub.7P.sub.3S.sub.11.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Osawa in view of Otohata to such that the solid electrolyte layer 8 is formed using Li.sub.6PS.sub.5Cl as taught by Wang to exhibit stability, flexibility, and desirable electrochemical performance (see [0007] of Wang).
6. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osawa et al. (Pub. No. JP 2002110239 A) in view of Otohata (Pub. No. US 20190245249 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakayama et al. (Pub. No. US 20220263122 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Osawa in view of Otohata teaches wherein the positive electrode (4, Fig. 1, see [0017]) comprises a positive electrode active material (positive electrode active material, see [0021]), an electrically conductive material (acetylene black, see [0044]), but fails to teach a sulfide-based solid electrolyte, and a binder.
However, Nakayama teaches a positive electrode (positive electrode layer, see [0074], see the positive electrode composite material in [0066]) comprising a sulfide-based solid electrolyte (sulfide solid electrolyte, see [0066]), and a binder (see [0067] where the composite comprises a binder).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Osawa in view of Otohata such that the positive electrode 4 is formed using a sulfide-based solid electrolyte and a binder as taught by Nakayama to obtain a sulfide solid electrolyte having small particle size and low specific surface area (see [0008] of Nakayama).
7. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osawa et al. (Pub. No. JP 2002110239 A) in view of Otohata (Pub. No. US 20190245249 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawai et al. (Pub. No. US 20190348647 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Osawa in view of Otohata teaches a secondary battery (all-solid-state polymer battery, see Fig. 2, see [0018]) comprising the electrode assembly (electrode assembly, Fig. 2 above) according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach wherein the secondary battery is a pouch-type secondary battery.
However, Kawai teaches wherein secondary battery (secondary battery, see [0083]) is a pouch-type secondary battery (flexible pouch, see [0083]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Osawa in view of Otohata such that the all-solid-state polymer battery is formed using a flexible pouch as taught by Kawai to improve energy density (see [0083] of Kawai).
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed 02/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicants’ argument that Mochizuki fails to disclose wherein a yield strength of the polymer layer is 5 MPa or more and 20 MPa or less. This argument is moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination or interpretation of references previously applied.
Regarding applicants’ argument that neither Osawa nor Otohata teaches or suggests the claimed relationship between polymer layer thickness and electrode parameters as recited in Equation 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as first, the Examiner did not rely on Osawa or Otohata individually, but rather the combination of references; and second the claim limitations required the thickness satisfied Equation 1, and there was proper motivation to combine to teachings of Osawa and Otohata, wherein the combination satisfied Equation 1.
Regarding applicants’ argument that there is no motivation provided in Osawa or Otohata to relate polymer layer thickness to electrode capacity and the number of electrodes. This argument is moot as the claims did not specifically require the prior art to specifically teach a reason to relate polymer layer thickness to electrode capacity and number of electrodes but rather required the thickness to satisfy equation 1 and the thickness taught by Osawa in view of Otohata does satisfy Equation 1.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant's argument that the combination of both yield strength limitation and thickness limitation satisfying Equation 1 provides the unexpected and superior results of remarkably improving lifetime properties, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Regarding applicants’ arguments that Osawa in combination with Wang, Nakayama, and/or Kawai fails to disclose the identified features of claim 1. This argument is moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination or interpretation of references previously applied.
Conclusion
9. 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 DOUGLAS CALEB MARROQUIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00 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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/DOUGLAS C MARROQUIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights