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
Acknowledgment is made to applicant’s amendment of claims 1, 2, 11 and 12. Claims 1-16 are pending with claims 11-16 withdrawn
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) 1-6 and 8-10 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 claims 1-3, 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). 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.
While the particular size of the irregularities is not limited in Suzuki the irregularities as modified above are formed by utilizing sandpaper which is well-known in general to come in a variety of grit sizes based on grain size and density on the surface of the paper. The size of the grains on the sand paper directly result in corresponding irregularities on the surface of the part and are thus a result-effective variable. Barring a showing of unexpected results it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to utilize sandpaper to provide irregularities having a diameter from 10.3-21.8 micrometers and a distribution of 592-2525 points/mm2 through routine experimentation as Suzuki teaches that the irregularities serve a purpose for interlayer adhesion prompting one of ordinary skill to experiment with varied sandpaper to produce the irregularities and where the general conditions of a claim are met it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
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.
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(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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to applicant’s argument that Suzuki does not teach or describe the specific dimensions or distributions now claimed, this argument is not persuasive as while the particular size of the irregularities is not limited in Suzuki the irregularities as modified above are formed by utilizing sandpaper which is well-known in general to come in a variety of grit sizes based on grain size and density on the surface of the paper. The size of the grains on the sand paper directly result in corresponding irregularities on the surface of the part and are thus a result-effective variable. Barring a showing of unexpected results it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to utilize sandpaper to provide irregularities having a diameter from 10.3-21.8 micrometers and a distribution of 592-2525 points/mm2 through routine experimentation as Suzuki teaches that the irregularities serve a purpose for interlayer adhesion prompting one of ordinary skill to experiment with varied sandpaper to produce the irregularities and where the general conditions of a claim are met it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05.II.A. The purpose of the irregularities in the prior art and the instant application are the same.
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 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