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 .
Claim Status
This Office action is responsive to the IDS filed on 7/6/2026.
Claims 1 and 5 were amended by Examiner’s amendment.
Claims 4 and 7-13 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are currently pending.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 were previously indicated as allowable. The IDS filed on 7/6/2026 included JP 2021064579A JUNKO et al. which necessitated the reopening of prosecution and the is explained in detail in the rejections under 35 USC §102/103 below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by and obvious over JP 2021064579A JUNKO et al. provided in the IDS dated 7/6/2026.
Regarding claim 1. JUNKO [0007] discloses a pouch-type all-solid-state battery with a reference electrode inserted in the annotated figures depicted below, the battery comprising:
[0019] a unit cell comprising
a negative electrode portion (20),
a positive electrode portion (10), and
a solid electrolyte portion (40) interposed between the negative electrode portion (20) and the positive electrode portion (10) and having a sheet shape;
[0019] an exterior material provided with a space capable of accommodating the unit cell therein “for example, a pouch made of aluminum laminate film.”;
The annotated figures depicted below discloses a reference electrode tap called a third electrode (30) adjacent to the solid electrolyte portion (40), and formed inside the unit cell (100) enclosed by the exterior material; and
a reference electrode portion called an active material layer (33) positioned between the solid electrolyte portion (40) and the reference electrode tap (30), and formed inside the unit cell, the reference electrode portion being located at a center of a side surface of the solid electrolyte portion and
PNG
media_image1.png
271
327
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
187
251
media_image2.png
Greyscale
JUNKO [0026] discloses wherein the reference electrode portion has a thickness (A) of about 5 μm to 50 μm which is obvious over the instantly claimed range of 10 µm to 50 µm. Furthermore,
JUNKO [0026] discloses that “when the insulating layer 32 is formed by a dip-coating method, it is expected that the thickness of the insulating layer 32 will be reduced if the thickness of the insulating layer 32 is 10 μm or more” which anticipates the instantly claimed range of 10 µm to 50 µm and
JUNKO [0031] discloses the thickness (A) of the reference electrode portion (5 μm to 50 μm) and [0035] a thickness (B) of the solid electrolyte portion (500 μm to 900 μm) after pressurization satisfy the following Relation Formula 1:
[Relation Formula 1]
B/2 ≥ A.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the instantly claimed range of 10 µm to 50 µm which is both obvious and close enough to be anticipated by JUNKO.
Regarding claim 2. JUNKO discloses the pouch-type all-solid-state battery with the reference electrode inserted of claim 1, wherein the annotated figure depicted below discloses an area of the negative electrode portion is the same as or larger than an area of the positive electrode portion.
PNG
media_image3.png
273
332
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5. JUNKO [0035] discloses in the annotated figure depicted below the pouch-type all-solid-state battery with the reference electrode inserted of claim 1, wherein a shortest distance (C) between the positive electrode portion or the negative electrode portion and the reference electrode portion and a thickness (B) of the solid electrolyte portion (500 μm to 900 μm) after pressurization satisfy the following Relation Formula 2:
[Relation Formula 2] B/2 ≥ C ≥ 1µm
PNG
media_image4.png
273
430
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2021064579A JUNKO et al.
Regarding claim 6. JUNKO discloses the pouch-type all-solid-state battery with the reference electrode inserted of claim 1.
JUNKO does not disclose wherein a shortest distance (C) between the positive electrode portion or the negative electrode portion and the reference electrode portion is from about 10 µm to 120 µm.
It has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Also see MPEP 2144.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the range of sizes in the electrodes. The size proportions being well known in the art and within the purview of a person of ordinary skill.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2021064579A JUNKO et al. in view of US 20210408580 A1, YE et al.
Regarding claim 3. JUNKO discloses the pouch-type all-solid-state battery with a reference electrode inserted of claim 1.
JUNKO does not disclose wherein the solid electrolyte portion comprises
a first coating layer formed on an upper surface of the negative electrode portion; and
a second coating layer positioned between the first coating layer and the positive electrode portion, and one end of the reference electrode portion is positioned between the first coating layer and the second coating layer.
YE [title] discloses Solid State Batteries where
YE [0173] discloses a first coating layer formed on an upper surface of the negative electrode portion; and
YE [0171] discloses a second coating layer positioned between the first coating layer and the positive electrode portion, and one end of the reference electrode portion is positioned between the first coating layer and the second coating layer.
YE [0172] further discloses that “[p]rior studies have revealed that the most common lithium ion electrode materials… form unstable interfaces with most solid electrolytes, particularly the high performance ceramic sulfides. Successful implementation of ceramic sulfides in solid-state batteries may employ suitable coating materials that can mitigate these interfacial instabilities.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the coating layers disclosed by YE in the solid sate battery disclosed by JUNKO in order to mitigate interfacial instabilities.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 7/6/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 LAWRENCE LA RAIA III whose telephone number is (703)756-5441. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 6:00am-4:00pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571) 272-1330. 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.
/L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights