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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 2/27/26. Claims 1, 4, and 15 are amended. Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are rejected finally for the reasons provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 1-2 and 5-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, are withdrawn in light of the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1, and claims 2-20 which depend from claim 1, is directed to “an area” of an electrode being less than “an area” of [the other] electrode. However, the examiner notes that the recitation of “an area” in the claim is arbitrary with respect to the total area of the respective layer. In other words, the particular structure of each of the layer as well as its corresponding dimension to include its area is not restrictive to the entire surface of the layer, and may encompass a particular, arbitrarily selected, section thereof. Further, none of the dependent claims contain any additional limitations to clearly define the “an area” limitations of claim 1. Therefore, the examiner finds that the skilled artisan can select “an area” of any size and location within the total area of either electrode and arrive at the claimed limitations. Applicant is reminded that limitations are not to be imported from the specification into the claims per MPEP 2111.01 II
Similarly, the same interpretation can apply to the limitations to “a thickness.”
Claim 1, and claims 3-9 which depend from claim 1, is directed to “wherein, when the electrode assembly is pressed, an electrode … faces a pressing portion.” Claims 1-2 and 4-9 are product, not process claims, and the limitations to the process, i.e. the location of a pressing portion, are not given patentable weight because the examiner is unable to find any further limitations or structure that is implied by the location of the pressing portion. MPEP 2113
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US 2022/0399532) in view of Yamada et al. (US 2016/0248120).
Regarding claim 1, Feng teaches an all-solid-state battery comprising:
an electrode assembly which is pressed, or bonded by a powder pressing process ([0032]), and comprises a positive electrode (2), a negative electrode (1), and a solid electrolyte layer (3, 4) between (Figure 1, [0092]); and
wherein a thickness of the positive electrode, i.e. 150 µm ([0098]), is greater than a thickness of the negative electrode, i.e. 120 µm ([0096]);
and wherein an area of the negative electrode (1b) is smaller than an area of the positive electrode (2) in order to prevent dendrites of the negative electrode from puncturing the electrolyte (Figure 1, [0021]-[0022]).
With further regard to claim 1 and with regard to claim 8, Feng is silent on a case.
Yamada teaches an all solid state battery (24) sealed in a pouch-shaped case, or exterior body (14) (Figure 2, [0069]). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to provide a case, or exterior body, for the battery of Feng such as suggested by Yamada in order to seal the battery. It has been held that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is within the ordinary level of skill in the art. MPEP 2143 I C
With further regard to claim 1 and with regard to claim 2, as is discussed above, the process limitations of the claims are not given patentable weight since Feng teaches a pressed assembly.
As for claim 3, Feng teaches that the negative electrode has an area (1b) that is less than an area of the positive electrode (2) (Figure 1, [0021]-[0022]).
Regarding claim 5, it is seen in Figure 1 that the area of the solid electrolyte is equal to the area of the positive electrode ([0021]-[0022]).
As for claims 6-8, Feng teaches that the thickness of the solid electrolyte and negative electrode are result effective for balancing safety and performance ([0023]-[0024]). Therefore, the examiner finds that it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to find optimum thickness values for the components of the battery. MPEP 2144.05 II
Regarding claims 10, 12-13, 14-15, and 17-20 Yamada teaches pressing the electrode assembly in a direction from the positive electrode (which has an area that can be arbitrarily selected that is smaller than an arbitrary area of the negative electrode, see claim interpretation above) after the battery is sealed in a case in a vacuum atmosphere (Figure 2, [0064]).
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng in view of Yamada as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Miyatake et al. (US 2020/0194828).
The teachings of Feng and Yamada as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Feng in view of Yamada teaches the battery of claim 3 and the method of claim 16 (see claims 14-15 and 17-20) but is silent on the relative strength of the positive electrode.
Miyatake teaches an all-solid-state battery wherein the positive electrode has a higher strength than the negative electrode such that the pressing of the battery causes the negative electrode to compress in order to suppress lithium ions from moving to a region of the current collector where the electrode is not provided (Figure 4, [0015]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide the positive electrode of Feng in view of Yamada with a higher strength than the negative electrode such as suggested by Miyatake in order to suppress lithium ions from moving to a region of the current collector where the electrode is not provided.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2022/0045366).
Huang teaches an all solid state battery (100) including
an electrode assembly formed by pressing ([0051]), comprising a positive electrode (120), negative electrode (140), and electrolyte, or separator (130, 140); in a case, or housing (Figure 1, [0051]);
wherein a thickness of the positive electrode, i.e. 50µm, is larger than a thickness of the negative electrode, i.e. 40µm ([0033], [0035]);
and wherein the positive electrode has an area that can be arbitrarily selected that is smaller than an arbitrary area of the negative electrode, see claim interpretation above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant argues that Feng does not teach “a configuration where the negative electrode as a whole has a smaller area than the positive electrode” (third full paragraph of p. 8 of the Remarks). However, as is stated in the Claim Interpretation from Non-Final Rejection of 11/28/25, also provided above, the claims are not interpreted as requiring “a configuration where the negative electrode as a whole has a smaller area than the positive electrode.” The examiner finds that the interpretation described in the Remarks is not found in the claimed as filed. 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).
Claim 1 requires: an area of the negative electrode that directly faces a pressing portion is less than an area of the positive electrode that does not directly face the pressing portion (emphasis added by the examiner). Claim 1 does not even mention an electrode “as a whole.” Further, it is not clear from the limitation whether the areas need to face the pressing portion or whether it is merely that the electrode faces a pressing portion. It is also noted that the limitations to the pressing portion are not given patentable weight for the reasons discussed in the Claim Interpretation section.
The examiner maintains that Feng teaches that an area of the negative electrode is less than an area of the positive electrode.
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 ALIX ECHELMEYER EGGERDING whose telephone number is (571)272-1101. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 4:30pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/ALIX E EGGERDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights