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 1, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 06/12/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 11-16 have been withdrawn.
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 1-10 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.
With regards to claims 1 and 2, the claim establishes in the preamble that the solid state battery includes “an” electrode layer composed of “a positive electrode layer and a negative electrode layer”. This appears to be incongruent with both the generally accepted meaning of “a layer” and applicant’s specification. A layer, as defined in Merriam Webster, is “one thickness, course, or fold laid or lying over or under another”. The singularity of layer is well understood and is synonymous with stratum or ply or lamina. The disclosure of applicant’s demonstrates a common arrangement in a solid state battery in which a positive electrode layer and a negative electrode layer are separated by a solid electrolyte layer. Each of these is a layer as they are each a thickness and represent a lamina in the overall laminate. What is not shown in Figure 1 is an electrode layer (single thickness) that is comprised of a negative electrode layer and a positive electrode layer. The positive and negative electrode layers are separated by a solid electrolyte layer which is well understood in the battery art. This introduces ambiguity into the claim. For the purposes of examination the claim will be interpreted as including an electrode layer composed of either a positive or a negative electrode layer. This is consistent with applicant’s specification as the second pressing step (demonstrated at Roll numbered 8 in Fig. 2) presses the positive electrode layer 30 and the roughened electrolyte layer 40 together to produce a new laminate. The other ambiguity introduced by applicant’s current claim language is that the electrode layer as currently claimed is two layers and thus it is unclear which layer is pressed when referencing “the electrode layer” later in the claims.
Claims 3-10 depend upon claim 1 and are therefore also rejected.
With regards to claim 2, the claim recites “a densification/irregularity-forming pressing step” rendering the claim indefinite. It is not clear if the “/” character is intended to differentiate between an option of either a densification step or an irregularity forming step. Alternatively the “/” may be presenting densification and irregularity as different effects of the same step or lastly as synonyms. For the purposes of examination the “/” will be interpreted as presenting an option between a densification or an irregularity forming step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Suzuki (WO 2020/067107, cited in IDS filed 12/19/24, translation provided for citation).
With regards to claims 1 and 2, Suzuki teaches a method of making a solid state battery (Abstract) the finish product of which includes a positive electrode current collector (5) and active material (4), a solid electrolyte layer (3) and a negative electrode current collector (1) and active material (2) (Fig. 1). Suzuki teaches the method comprises a first pressing step of pressing a layer including at least the solid electrolyte (22) as seen in Fig. 3 (¶ 0192), an irregularity forming step of forming irregularities on a surface of the solid electrolyte layer as seen in Fig. 4 (¶ 0195) and a second pressing step of pressing the solid electrolyte layer, the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer to produce a laminate (Fig. 5) (¶ 0200).
With regards to claim 10, as demonstrated in the annotated figure below, the solid electrolyte layer (22a) includes a first region above the dashed line and a second region below the dashed line in which the irregularities on the surface of the solid electrolyte layer are only in the first region.
PNG
media_image1.png
324
597
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3-6, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (WO 2020/067107, translation provided for citation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marchetti (US 5716664) and Oshima (DE 4011748 A1).
With regards to claim 3, Suzuki discusses the reason for introducing irregularities in the solid electrolyte and teaches that the particular shape of the uneven surface is not limited, but rather what is important is an uneven and non-flat surface to allow for good interlayer adhesion with the other active material is press bonded to the solid electrolyte (¶ 0198-0202). Suzuki teaches that the uneven surface is formed by removal of some solid electrolyte material from the layer (¶ 0196), but does not teach forming the irregularities or uneven surface using a press machine having projections on a contact portion that come into contact with the solid layer.
Marchetti teaches that an alternative method for roughening the surface of a layer in an electrochemical cell in order to provide improved bonding with another layer pressed into it is to roughen the surface by pressing with a sandpaper grit surface (Abstract, col 4 ln 24-34, col 4 ln 61-col 5 ln 9). This technique of using sandpaper to roughen a surface of material is not unique to fuel cells or batteries, but rather is a common continuous film roughening technique as discussed in Oshima (Fig 2, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use sandpaper pressing in the alternative to or in addition to the peeling method of Suzuki to provide for an uneven surface to improve bonding as both methods provide for a textured, roughened, uneven surface in a layer of material presenting a reasonable expectation of success, and doing so presents a simple substitution of one known prior art roughening method for another yielding predictable results.
With regards to claims 4-6 and 8, as seen in Oshima it was commonly known to utilize a sandpaper band mounted on a roll with an opposing roller through which the material is passed in order to roughen the surface with sandpaper (Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 9, the mere duplication of parts such as a repeated roughening step without more presents a case of prima facie obviousness in the absence of new or unexpected results. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to utilize multiple passes of rollers to control the degree of roughening of the surface or provide redundancy when the sandpaper needs to be replaced.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (WO 2020/067107, translation provided for citation) in view of Marchetti (US 5716664) and Oshima (DE 4011748 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Mashimo et al. (Pub No 2022/0293905).
With regards to claim 7, Suzuki as modified above teaches using a roll but does not specify that the roll is a zirconia roll.
In the same field of endeavor Mashimo teaches that it was known to make rolls for working on battery materials from zirconia (Abstract, ¶ 0064).
Barring a showing of unexpected results it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to utilize a zirconia roll as such is a known material for a roller presenting a reasonable expectation of success, and doing so presents a simple substitution for a metal roller in the art yielding predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GALEN H HAUTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM to 6 PM 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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights